1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Ulicus]

Tirigon wrote...

@ all: Even if Loghain did NOT plan to betray Cailan, his course of action wasn´t right. He should have said: THIS BATTLE IS TOO MUCH RISK. WE RETREAT. PERIOD. He should not have allowed Caillan and the Wardens to be butchered.

You will remember who is King.

Loghain doesn't have the authority to step in and say "No, I won't allow it."

I'm not saying what he decided to was right, mind you.

[Tirigon]

Ulicus wrote...

You will remember who is King.

Loghain doesn't have the authority to step in and say "No, I won't allow it."

True. But then, he does not have the authority to abandon his king and retreat. This does not stop him from doing so.
It´s obvious he is more loyal to Ferelden than to Cailan, so why should he not openly revolt? Besides, i´m sure Duncan would have supported Loghain if he had forbidden to lead this battle.

[bas273]

Cailan reminds me of Alistair. And yes I do know Alistair's story.

If Loghain would have said: "This battle is too much risk, we retreat, period." I think Duncan would've agreed. Your main character could've added something to the discussion "I'm sorry but I think Loghain is right" and that would totally change the main storyline ^^.

Modifié par bas273, 11 janvier 2010 - 07:06 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Tirigon wrote...

Edit: And when he and Howe plan to kill Anora that´s it. (I hate Anora and wish you could kill her, but still...). I simply CAN´T see any morale or anything worth of respect in a man who is ready to kill his own daughter to gain an advantage in politics.

He is NOT willing to kill his daughter ( a discusion between him and Shale if you recruit him proves it ) in fact he is very opposed to the idea. The whole kidnaping thing was made by Howe.

Had he killed her, he would have become king.

As for the elves thing ( since it is the only thing you anti-Loghain people will soon hang on to ). As a General I would do the same exact thing to get money. To quote a rather famous person.

"War is the essence of violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." A good general does whatever the heck he needs to do to win, that is a fact. Napoleon didn't almost conquer Europe by being nice. he allowed his soldiers to rape women and loot the countrries he conquered. Caesar did the same, Hannibal did the same, Alexander did the same ( hell he even sold people for slaves just so he wouldn't RISK a revolt ).

And yet all those people I said are considered great men, despite their crimes ( which btw are far greater then Loghain and Howe would have even dreamed of ) .Is Loghain any different? Yes he lost, so what? Napoleon and Hannibal also lost, it doesn't mean nothing they sucked as generals.

If Loghain would have said: "This battle is too much risk, we retreat,
period." I think Duncan would've agreed. Your main character could've
added something to the discussion "I'm sorry but I think Loghain is
right" and that would totally change the main storyline ^^.

Duncan simply sat there and stood quiet while Loghain argued that it was too dangerous for Cailan on the front lines, so no. I doubt Duncan would have argued against Cailan.

Cailan was a VERY big fool. Maric at least knew what he was getting himself into when he did stupid stuff.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 11 janvier 2010 - 07:17 .

[eschilde]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

He is NOT willing to kill his daughter ( a discusion between him and Shale if you recruit him proves it ) in fact he is very opposed to the idea. The whole kidnaping thing was made by Howe.

Had he killed her, he would have become king.

As for the elves thing ( since it is the only thing you anti-Loghain people will soon hang on to ). As a General I would do the same exact thing to get money. To quote a rather famous person.

"War is the essence of violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." A good general does whatever the heck he needs to do to win, that is a fact. Napoleon didn't almost conquer Europe by being nice. he allowed his soldiers to rape women and loot the countrries he conquered. Caesar did the same, Hannibal did the same, Alexander did the same ( hell he even sold people for slaves just so he wouldn't RISK a revolt ).

And yet all those people I said are considered great men, despite their crimes ( which btw are far greater then Loghain and Howe would have even dreamed of ) .Is Loghain any different? Yes he lost, so what? Napoleon and Hannibal also lost, it doesn't mean nothing they sucked as generals.

QFT

@Trigon
If he felt the battle was unwinnable, he had every right to withdraw.

[Asylumer]

@David Gaider



If you don't mind answering another question.



You seem to imply that Loghain did poison Eamon beforehand, but also that he was with Cailan at Ostagar. I'm just wondering how that's possible given it's Jowan who does the poisoning, he was supposedly brought to Denerim for his execution, and said that Loghain himself appeared to offer him the deal. Was that a plot-hole created when the story changed regarding Jowan, or was Jowan always the one meant to poison Eamon? It seems rather impossible for Loghain to have met Jowan in Denerim while being at Ostagar for the battles.

[Ulicus]

Tirigon wrote...

True. But then, he does not have the authority to abandon his king and retreat. This does not stop him from doing so.

Whilst they both involve acting above his own authority, the two are two wildly different situations, don't you think?

We know that Loghain fought with Cailan over the upcoming battle and he'd have probably loved to have been able to say: "We don't fight this battle today. Period". The fact is that it that would make no difference. He can't overrule the King's decision because the King won't let him.

At the time he beacon's lit, Cailan isn't there.

Tirigon wrote...
It´s obvious he is more loyal to Ferelden than to Cailan, so why should he not openly revolt? Besides, i´m sure Duncan would have supported Loghain if he had forbidden to lead this battle.

When you arrive at Ostagar, Duncan makes it plain that he wants the King to wait for reinforcements from Orlais when you ask him about it. The King isn't really listening to Duncan's advice, either: and we see Loghain outright dismiss the Orlais option when the battle is being planned.

[bas273]

Duncan simply sat there and stood quiet while Loghain argued that it was too dangerous for Cailan on the front lines, so no. I doubt Duncan would have argued against Cailan.

Duncan wants to end the Blight and defeat the Darkspawn. If Loghain, you and Uldred would disagree with the King's plans, he has a choice:

- Side with Cailan because he's king

- Side with you because that's the best thing to do to defeat the Blight.

Duncan will understand that option 2 is the best option so I don't think he would remain silent.

[David Gaider]

Asylumer wrote...
If you don't mind answering another question.

You seem to imply that Loghain did poison Eamon beforehand, but also that he was with Cailan at Ostagar. I'm just wondering how that's possible given it's Jowan who does the poisoning, he was supposedly brought to Denerim for his execution, and said that Loghain himself appeared to offer him the deal. Was that a plot-hole created when the story changed regarding Jowan, or was Jowan always the one meant to poison Eamon? It seems rather impossible for Loghain to have met Jowan in Denerim while being at Ostagar for the battles.

Err... I'm not sure I understand? There is a "passage of time" involved between the end of the origin story and the beginning of the plot at Ostagar. Loghain and the King's army was not in Ostagar that entire time.

[steelfire_dragon]

in the defense of Loghain , Cailen was an idiot.



battle can only be assured when the field is yours....

Ostegar was death trap.

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

He is NOT willing to kill his daughter ( a discusion between him and Shale if you recruit him proves it ) in fact he is very opposed to the idea. The whole kidnaping thing was made by Howe.

Had he killed her, he would have become king.

At least he did not prevent it. Maybe he didn´t make up the plan, but he took part.

As for the elves thing ( since it is the only thing you anti-Loghain people will soon hang on to ). As a General I would do the same exact thing to get money. To quote a rather famous person.

"War is the essence of violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." A good general does whatever the heck he needs to do to win, that is a fact. Napoleon didn't almost conquer Europe by being nice. he allowed his soldiers to rape women and loot the countrries he conquered. Caesar did the same, Hannibal did the same, Alexander did the same ( hell he even sold people for slaves just so he wouldn't RISK a revolt ).

This argument is pointless. It just shows that most famous leader were tyrants. If you would do the exact same sh!t, then you are the exact same villain. Is this supposed to prove Loghain´s innocence? If so, it fails.

And yet all those people I said are considered great men, despite their crimes ( which btw are far greater then Loghain and Howe would have even dreamed of ) .Is Loghain any different? Yes he lost, so what? Napoleon and Hannibal also lost, it doesn't mean nothing they sucked as generals.

Who considers them to be great? I don´t, and most anarchists don´t, either.
Actually, I think Napoleon was an idiot who lost everything because of his insanity and his self-deceit when he believed he could fight everyone, Hannibal was a good general but in the end defeated, and he made some wrong decisions, too, Alexander was so insane he thought he was a God, and got murdered at the age of 32.

Duncan simply sat there and stood quiet while Loghain argued that it was too dangerous for Cailan on the front lines, so no. I doubt Duncan would have argued against Cailan.

Maybe he would, maybe not. Duncan was loyal to the King, probably too loyal, but he didn´t like the plan either.

Cailan was a VERY big fool. Maric at least knew what he was getting himself into when he did stupid stuff.

Yes he was. But that is not an excuse to betray him. And it´s not an excuse to let his soldiers die. A good General would have tried to save the poor fools that were led to death by Cailan, at least.

Besides, you totally ignored Loghain´s other crimes. I already stated that, even if his retreat would have been justified, his other crimes would still be unexcusable.

[Asylumer]

David Gaider wrote...

Err... I'm not sure I understand? There is a "passage of time" involved between the end of the origin story and the beginning of the plot at Ostagar. Loghain and the King's army was not in Ostagar that entire time.

Oh. So the player does not immediately head to Ostagar, and the King's army is not completely there yet?

During the Mage Origin dialgoue, specifically when the player asks "How many mages have joined the king's army?", Duncan says that only 7 mages were sent to Ostagar. The player can then ask why the King didn't come himself and Duncan says he must remain with the army.

I took that to mean that the King was at Ostagar with the army.

Modifié par Asylumer, 11 janvier 2010 - 07:37 .

[Tirigon]

Ulicus wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

True. But then, he does not have the authority to abandon his king and retreat. This does not stop him from doing so.

Whilst they both involve acting above his own authority, the two are two wildly different situations, don't you think?

We know that Loghain fought with Cailan over the upcoming battle and he'd have probably loved to have been able to say: "We don't fight this battle today. Period". The fact is that it that would make no difference. He can't overrule the King's decision because the King won't let him.

So, basically, you are saying that Loghain is not a traitor, but a terrible coward who rather let´s thousands die than to disagree with the king openly and risk punishment.

[Tirigon]

eschilde wrote..
@Trigon
If he felt the battle was unwinnable, he had every right to withdraw.

No.

He has not. He was supposed to attack and that´s what he should have done. Even if he thinks the battle is lost.

[eschilde]

At least he did not prevent it. Maybe he didn´t make up the plan, but he took part.

He didn't take part, that was Howe's idea, unless you can offer proof that Loghain was involved. Cauthrien didn't know she was in Howe's estate, which I feel is a fairly strong indicator that Loghain didn't, either.

Maybe he would, maybe not. Duncan was loyal to the King, probably too loyal, but he didn´t like the plan either.

Duncan was loyal to defeating the Blight. It was a major plus for him that Cailin was on his side, but that doesn't mean he was loyal to the king, just that their interests was aligned. In fact, in the HN origin if you talk to Howe about his opinion of Cailin, you'll get a small comment from Duncan that indicates he knows the king is only supporting the GWs because of his infatuation with glory.

Yes he was. But that is not an excuse to betray him. And it´s not an excuse to let his soldiers die. A good General would have tried to save the poor fools that were led to death by Cailan, at least.

There's evidence to support an argument that Loghain did not commit treachery by leaving the field at Ostagar. Yes, he left his king to die, but that was not Loghain's intent, nor was it his responsibility to launch a suicide mission to attempt to rescue Cailin.



Loghain's other crimes are not excused, but arguing whether he had treacherous intent in Ostagar can affect how people deal justice to him. If you don't agree, fine, but don't dismiss this conversation as irrelevant for others.

[StaticSilence]

My biggest beef with The Landsmeet is that there was no option for trial, for imprisonment.. for any legal justice at all. Just spare his life, or execution. I thought that was pretty weak. It was too black and white... to simplistic.... too bioshock.  (Bioware, come on, you are better than 2K.)

The slavery he admitted to.  That would be enough to at least lock him up.

Modifié par StaticSilence, 11 janvier 2010 - 07:45 .

[Tirigon]

A good general would have been able to launch the flank attack, drive the darkspawn back - at least for a while - and retreat WITH the soldiers there and Cailan.



Besides, I still think Loghain knew about the way the Darkspawn could invade the tower, if he did not even tell them how to. Hopefully, David can clarify this point.

[robertthebard]

Tirigon wrote...

A good general would have been able to launch the flank attack, drive the darkspawn back - at least for a while - and retreat WITH the soldiers there and Cailan.

Besides, I still think Loghain knew about the way the Darkspawn could invade the tower, if he did not even tell them how to. Hopefully, David can clarify this point.

In all fairness, we have no idea how late we were lighting the beacon.  There is every possibility that Cailin would have still died on the field, even had Loghain charged.  Regarding the darkspawn in the tower, he has already addressed that here.

[eschilde]

@StaticSilence

The Landsmeet was the trial, as far as I could tell.

Trial by combat was a common way of settling disputes in the middle ages in Germany as well as throughout Europe. These kinds of disputes could possibly be settled by the sovereign, but since who has sovereignty is precisely what you're fighting about, it leaves limited options on how to deal with Loghain. Not to mention, leaving Loghain in any position to strike back at you after the Landsmeet, even after losing, is very, very stupid on your part.

[Xandurpein]

Tirigon wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

True. But then, he does not have the authority to abandon his king and retreat. This does not stop him from doing so.

Whilst they both involve acting above his own authority, the two are two wildly different situations, don't you think?

We know that Loghain fought with Cailan over the upcoming battle and he'd have probably loved to have been able to say: "We don't fight this battle today. Period". The fact is that it that would make no difference. He can't overrule the King's decision because the King won't let him.

So, basically, you are saying that Loghain is not a traitor, but a terrible coward who rather let´s thousands die than to disagree with the king openly and risk punishment.

But he does argue it. He argues it with Cailen all the time. I take DG words to mean Loghain is torn. He tries up to the end to convince Cailen, but fails. He simply hasn't made up his mind what to do until he sees the beacon light.
The only King Loghain really aknowledged is Maric, and Maric made him swear to not put any man above Ferelden. For Loghain this means that Maric made him swear to put Ferelden above Cailen. So Loghain is, in his own mind at least, true to the only King he truly respected.

[Tirigon]

robertthebard wrote...
In all fairness, we have no idea how late we were lighting the beacon.  There is every possibility that Cailin would have still died on the field, even had Loghain charged.  Regarding the darkspawn in the tower, he has already addressed that here.

Thanks for the link. So I was wrong that he let them in, but he DID plan to prevent the beacon from being lit.

So it´s settled, he planned a treachery.

[eschilde]

@Tirigon

Read the next DG post.

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...

But he does argue it. He argues it with Cailen all the time. I take DG words to mean Loghain is torn. He tries up to the end to convince Cailen, but fails. He simply hasn't made up his mind what to do until he sees the beacon light.
The only King Loghain really aknowledged is Maric, and Maric made him swear to not put any man above Ferelden. For Loghain this means that Maric made him swear to put Ferelden above Cailen. So Loghain is, in his own mind at least, true to the only King he truly respected.

Yes, but it doesn´t matter. All I´m saying is that a proud and honorous general should have retreated BEFORE the battle to force Cailan to do the same. He should not have let him die. Not to mention the thousands of soldiers who died with Cailan.

Sure, he would have been punished, but if Loghain was really as selfless in his defense of Ferelden as you claim him to be he would have accepted that rather than to let so many die.

[StaticSilence]

eschilde wrote...

@StaticSilence
The Landsmeet was the trial, as far as I could tell.
Trial by combat was a common way of settling disputes in the middle ages in Germany as well as throughout Europe. These kinds of disputes could possibly be settled by the sovereign, but since who has sovereignty is precisely what you're fighting about, it leaves limited options on how to deal with Loghain. Not to mention, leaving Loghain in any position to strike back at you after the Landsmeet, even after losing, is very, very stupid on your part.

That is a valid point.   thanks.   In the end I did choose execution.  Ultimately because those elves were ferelden citizens too (maybe looked down upon, but they are citizen nonetheless)  Loghain betrayed them and sold them off to fund his war.  THAT is punishable by death.  The end certainly did not justify his means.

[Tirigon]

eschilde wrote...

@Tirigon
Read the next DG post.

For the F*cking last time: The fact that he decided to retreat only there does NOT make it less of a treachery. Besides, David says "He prepared for the possibility". So he DID consider to betray Cailan.


Off topic: How do you add links like this one?