1429 réponses à ce sujet

[AndreaRhaegar]

ReubenLiew wrote...

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

You can prove he is guilty quite easily. You win the duel, that is a Sign by the Maker that you are right.

The Sword is the Law

No!
I AM DA LAW!

Judge Dredd rules

[eschilde]

@Tirigon

Hm, actually true, but because Loghain is accused of committing treason against Anora, not Cailan.

[Xandurpein]

Let's just aknowledge that people will have different experiences of the game, based on their decisions and it will for most us be the first play that sticks in your mind. It tokk a long time for me to get a more unbiased view of Alistair, because I managed to see him at his worst in my first play. If my first play had been City elf, I'm sure Loghain would have died a lot more often in subsequent plays, because a city elf would identify with the alienage on a different level than the rest.

[ReubenLiew]

Xandurpein wrote...

Let's just aknowledge that people will have different experiences of the game, based on their decisions and it will for most us be the first play that sticks in your mind. It tokk a long time for me to get a more unbiased view of Alistair, because I managed to see him at his worst in my first play. If my first play had been City elf, I'm sure Loghain would have died a lot more often in subsequent plays, because a city elf would identify with the alienage on a different level than the rest.

I reject your playthrough and substitute it for my own!

[Tirigon]

eschilde wrote...

@Tirigon
Hm, actually true, but because Loghain is accused of committing treason against Anora, not Cailan.

Wow, you talk to me again. I´m shocked.


Btw, who feels like starting a thread to defend Loghain from being innocent of betraying Anora?

[Ariella]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Ariella,
My response on intent was meant in respose to Tirigon in that all murders are not the same. I have read the strategy guide from cover to cover and it is inaccurate in many places based on the in-game codex and lore. I know about the violation of an oath. It is used to this very day in the United States Military. It is a court marshalable offense to break your oath.
But I also know unless you have the power in numbers to back up the charge it is a moot point. Loghain has a very large army at his disposal crushing other arls and banns. You will note that bringing up the Battle of Ostgar or anything about treason at the Landsmeet is a losing proposition.

Actually, it only gives a small negative, though I've never seen a good explanation from a knowledgable source about that. I figure that it has more to do with not wanting to be reminded of what happened rather than any REAL believe in Loghain anymore.

Some of the codexes themselves are purposely innaccurate, about history and such because of perception, but that doesn't change the fact that they do a VERY good explanation of the judicial system in Fereldan, which is actually borne out in game (the deserter at Ostagar,

[melkathi]

eschilde wrote...

 Of course, that's based on innocent until proven guilty as well, which may not apply in Fereldan ^^

Looking at the history of Ferelden, it's customs, it's relationship to Orlais, our best bet to what their laws would be like, in their most progressive state, would be the early Magna Carta as created on the 15th of July 1215.
But we'd need someone who actually knows more than a name and date

[eschilde]

@Tirigon
Whatever you seem to think, I don't have a personal issue with you. I do think you're stubborn and don't read posts thoroughly, but that's hardly a crime against humanity. I don't feel the need to get into personal flaming on the board. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Apparently, you don't believe me on this count. Let's go through the Landsmeet, shall we?

There are several points you can bring up at the Landsmeet: Loghain ditching Cailan at Ostagar, the Blight, torturing nobles, selling Alienage slaves, and poisoning Eamon. Most people choose not to confront Loghain about Cailan at the Landsmeet because it costs them votes. Therefore, you likely have not accused Loghain of treason against Cailan.

However, Loghain confronts you about Anora. Anora then shows up. In this confrontation, you can accuse Loghain by picking the "What have I done? I've protected her from you!" option. I don't remember if the other options indicate that Loghain intended to commit a crime against her person. (If she doesn't support you, this is the only chance you have to _accuse_ Loghain of treason against Anora.) Then, Anora will either support you, or not. If she does, that brings further evidence of Loghain's treason against Anora.

In the end, your trial by combat only indicates the Maker's word on the counts you brought against him. If you never accused Loghain of committing treason against Cailan, he is not guilty of it through the results of your TBC. And I actually need to correct myself here: if you don't accuse Loghain of treason against Anora, and she doesn't side with you, he's not guilty of treason against her, either. Follow?

Modifié par eschilde, 11 janvier 2010 - 10:53 .

[GreatFuzzy1]

I'm sorry friend but your logic is that of an apologist and as any "historian" will tell you; it is easy to twist past events to suit your own version of events.



I do recommend that you replay the game and talk to the guard standing outside the Tower of Ishal right after the scene with the King & Duncan. He has some very interesting things to say.



You will note that much of what Logain does is to "excuse" his actions and make them logical...defensible.



Also, you do not take into account "time". While Duncan had time to recruit an extra Grey Warden, so Logain had to receive messages and take advantage of situations as they arose.



You are also assuming that each Origin Story occurs at the same time. Concurrently as they were. But it is a fact that, in the Noble Dwarven Origin Story you could have had a baby (if Male) between the Origin Story & returning to Orzamar...even if you hotfooted it back posthaste.



Personally, I believe Logain to be more Richard III than Othello.

[GreatFuzzy1]

@melkathi Actually...even earlier then that. Think of the Orlesians as Normans. You've pre-William the Conqueror England trying to reassert itself. The Anglos & Saxons were very democratically minded and did elect their kings.

[Xandurpein]

GreatFuzzy1 wrote...

I'm Personally, I believe Logain to be more Richard III than Othello.

Perhaps Richard III is not the wisest comparison if you want to clarify your position, as Richard III is one of the most hotly debated rulers of England. A lot of evidence suggests that he was not at all as bad as Shakespear would have us think, but just how much a villian, if indeed any, he was in reality is not something even the historians agree upon.

[melkathi]

GreatFuzzy1 wrote...

@melkathi Actually...even earlier then that. Think of the Orlesians as Normans. You've pre-William the Conqueror England trying to reassert itself. The Anglos & Saxons were very democratically minded and did elect their kings.

Ooh that was the first impression I had when I first bought the game.
I actually was pleasently surprised playing a human noble how nicely "poor" the nobles in Ferelden are. They are the closest I have seen in an RPG to what I read about in historical novels about that time.
Even the way fereldans wear their hair fits the saxon style.

[Realmzmaster]

Tirigon wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

No, in American Law it would be treated as murder because the death happen in the act of committing another crime. The intent is still there. The robber intended to commit a crime. If he/she was not in the act of committing the crime the death would not have occurred. The death is still ruled as murder.

Now I´m really confused... I clearly stated that the robber did NOT plan to kill his victim; He wanted to hide his identity and run off; only when this failed he killed his victim. So where is the intention of killing?

The robber did plan to rob the victim.(intent to rob). The mask fell off . The robber killed the victim to prevent identification. (intent to kill to prevent identification). The robber could have just walked away without killing the victim. The only difference here is the type of intent. The robber panicked and killed. No, he did not plan to kill the victim ahead of the time of the robbery. (premeditated). 
In the American courst system any death committed while in the process of committing another crime will be considered murder.
Example, the robber robs a man with a heart condition. The man has a heart attack because of the excitement from the robbery. The robber will be seen as contributing to the man's death. The robber will be charged with one of the degrees of murder.

[Archonsg]

ReubenLiew wrote...

High Treason is only treason if you lose

Which he did at the landsmeet.

The thing is, as I explained in another post, most people playing the game still think that the sale of elves into slavery is a "huge" thing but in truth it isn't. While we should abhor slavery, the Landsmeet is about nobles deciding which candidate has an agenda that would most benefit himself or herself and if support is given, what it would cost them. Anora’s “gift” as it were, is next to useless (one vote) while if you choose to remind people that;

a)    The darkspawn isn’t a problem that would just go away and has already destroyed land and property despite Loghain’s insistence that they aren’t a blight or a real threat

    Loghain either condones or encouraged Howe’s methods which include kidnapping, and torture of NOBLES. While exact wording isn’t said as such, I had hoped that the father of the noble you saved would say as much and put in a word about his son’s extensive injuries, which will at the very least alarm other nobles. In DA, as with most Nobles in Feudal medieval societies don’t really care that much of their serves, or the common man’s plight but you don’t just take a noble off the street and torture them.

c)    Defend Anora. While I personally think she is a lying witch, and has hedged her bets in her support for you, I too can play that game and tell her I’d support her to get her vote.

You would get enough votes to win by a landslide.

Back to Loghain. Whether or not I allow him to live really depends on the characters I play and how I choose to RP them. The more machiavelian of my characters would not kill him simply because they not only think of him as an asset and would rather use him then lose him, they would fully understand, though cluck their tongues at Loghain’s failed attempt at grabbing power for himself. While my more idealistic characters would outright kill him off.
My other characters that fall in between would decide based on how close they are to Alistair and how personal they take Loghain’s attempts to kill the PC and party. I make my choices when I am playing the game, the choice my PC would have made based on his or her feelings and knowledge AT THE TIME.

Though if you asked me what MY personal choice as the player is, I would indeed take Loghain’s head off. Both him and Anora just rubbed me the wrong way from the moment I met them both (I won’t go into detail here as I have posted my observations in other “I hate Anora” threads) and I really don’t think that anyone who has made repeated attempts at my life deserve to have another chance to try again.

I don't try to justify if Loghain is guity of treason or not. Simply put, I have my character ask, "Is he worth keeping around? Can I personally overlook his multiple attempts to have me killed?"

Modifié par Archonsg, 12 janvier 2010 - 12:47 .

[wwwwowwww]

Xandurpein wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

On the other hand, even if Loghain´s attack would NOT have saved the King, it would have been better to try, at least. The plan was clear: Loghain attacks when the Beacon is lit. He CLEARLY did not do what he was supposed to do. You can argue about his reasons not to attack, but it is a fact that he disobeyed the orders to attack when the Beacon is lit. I´m not familiar with military law, I have to admit, but I bet disobeying orders is a crime, right?

There are many exceptions to the general rule to follow military orders. No one is expected to follow orders that will result in suicide without hope of victory. It all comes down to if you can argue that the order was bad or not. And no - "I just followed the orders" is NOT always an excuse either.

Not exactly true, your not expected to follow orders that are deemed unlawful, which in our countries case we have courts to decide what is law and what is not. However, in the case of Fereldin, the King is the law, what he says is law, if he tells you to join the battle then there is no way it is unlawful.

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

Loghain was once a good man, but his fear of the Orlesians led him to betray the king and the son of his greatest friend. He ordered the death of some of the worlds greatest warriors (Wardens), he sold many innocents into slavery, ignored the death of the Couslands, had a hand in the near destruction of the circle, posioned a great Arl, and sided with mallificar. All these reasons are why i choose........... to conscript loghain into the gray wardens. he has no problem doing what he thinks is right, even if it is considered evil or wrong by most. his only problem was that he feared Orlesians instead of the blight.

Modifié par Duncan Hills Coffee, 12 janvier 2010 - 01:46 .

[RangerSG]

Duncan Hills Coffee wrote...

Loghain was once a good man, but his fear of the Orlesians led him to betray the king and the son of his greatest friend. He ordered the death of some of the worlds greatest warriors (Wardens), he sold many innocents into slavery, ignored the death of the Couslands, had a hand in the near destruction of the circle, posioned a great Arl, and sided with mallificar. All these reasons are why i choose........... to conscript loghain into the gray wardens. he has no problem doing what he thinks is right, even if it is considered evil or wrong by most. his only problem was that he feared Orlesians instead of the blight.

Because he couldn't admit it was a Blight.

And I think the battle plan was designed to get the Wardens killed. Not Cailan, his protest to not stay on the front lines was a real one. But Loghain saw the Wardens as being in bed with Orlais (not entirely without justification, as we see from the books and Duncan's own dialogues and the dialogues of others who talk about Orlais troops coming to aid). So to him, the "darkspawn raid" was an opportunity to rid Ferelden of the most ardent supporters of Orlais in the realm.

The poisoning is to keep Eamon from the battle, because then it's enough to ensure that there are few enough troops in the valley (where Eamon would surely have sent them) to ensure they are defeated quickly.

When Cailan insists on joining the Wardens, Loghain is aghast, and I think is willing to consider saving the King if it comes in time. But he also remembers Maric's promise (don't save one person over the kingdom). So when the beacon goes up, he's already decided the die is cast.  It's not a Blight (in his mind), so killing the Wardens is necessary to ensure Ferelden independance. Cailan's death is sad, but he was a boy trying to be King. Trying to be like his father. Seeking after glory instead of ruling. It's not the best thing for the nation, but it's better than accepting Orlais' chevaliers back into Ferelden.

But in a medeival soceity, it's still treason. You betray the King, you betray the Kingdom.

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

RangerSG wrote...

Duncan Hills Coffee wrote...

Loghain was once a good man, but his fear of the Orlesians led him to betray the king and the son of his greatest friend. He ordered the death of some of the worlds greatest warriors (Wardens), he sold many innocents into slavery, ignored the death of the Couslands, had a hand in the near destruction of the circle, posioned a great Arl, and sided with mallificar. All these reasons are why i choose........... to conscript loghain into the gray wardens. he has no problem doing what he thinks is right, even if it is considered evil or wrong by most. his only problem was that he feared Orlesians instead of the blight.

Because he couldn't admit it was a Blight.

And I think the battle plan was designed to get the Wardens killed. Not Cailan, his protest to not stay on the front lines was a real one. But Loghain saw the Wardens as being in bed with Orlais (not entirely without justification, as we see from the books and Duncan's own dialogues and the dialogues of others who talk about Orlais troops coming to aid). So to him, the "darkspawn raid" was an opportunity to rid Ferelden of the most ardent supporters of Orlais in the realm.

The poisoning is to keep Eamon from the battle, because then it's enough to ensure that there are few enough troops in the valley (where Eamon would surely have sent them) to ensure they are defeated quickly.

When Cailan insists on joining the Wardens, Loghain is aghast, and I think is willing to consider saving the King if it comes in time. But he also remembers Maric's promise (don't save one person over the kingdom). So when the beacon goes up, he's already decided the die is cast.  It's not a Blight (in his mind), so killing the Wardens is necessary to ensure Ferelden independance. Cailan's death is sad, but he was a boy trying to be King. Trying to be like his father. Seeking after glory instead of ruling. It's not the best thing for the nation, but it's better than accepting Orlais' chevaliers back into Ferelden.

But in a medeival soceity, it's still treason. You betray the King, you betray the Kingdom.

I completely agree

[Costin_Razvan]

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

[quote]Costin_Razvan wrote...

Loghain is NOT a mass murderer, at worst you can make him a traitor for leaving Cailan to die and enslaving the elves, but you are really going into extremes

Also joining the grey wardens means he either dies in 2-3 years ( if you go through the ritual ) or you sacrifice his soul to kill the archdemon. What I am picking is allowing him to realize that he made the wrong choices after Ostagar ( his choices before and at Ostagar I agree with )
[/quote]

I hold him responsible for the deaths in the civil war.

Anyways, please answer my question, how would you treat a mass murderer (no matter if Loghain is one or not)?

[/quote]

I would make him pay by sending him to a prison or something like recruitment in the grey wardens is. I would definetly not kill a person. In the end, no matter how you justify it, killing a person is the ultimate selfish act, especially if you do it for revenge.

[quote] But in a medeival soceity, it's still treason. You betray the King, you betray the Kingdom.
[quote]

And most kings didn't kill tratitros just like that, they made come back in the fold and at worst exiled them. A few killed high ranking traitors, but only  a few.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 12 janvier 2010 - 03:10 .

[GreatFuzzy1]

@Xandurpein I actually did mean in the Shakespearean sense vs historical. I understand that the Tudor propaganda machine did much to malign the reputation and that he was in fact a very progressive and just ruler. I recommend Terry Jones' Medieval Lives, specifically the episode on Kings.

Loghain justified what he did by telling himself that he did not wield the blade (or in this case the Ogre crushing fist) that killed the king. He did everything in his power to dissuade Cailan, he feels...thus in the end his actions were reasonable...despite evidence that he incited the mass murder of a powerful noble family, poisoned another powerful noble, allied himself with psychos, slavers, and assassins. He felt the ends justified the means...and the ends were about keeping Orlais out...not the Darkspawn, Archdemon, or civil war.

Modifié par GreatFuzzy1, 12 janvier 2010 - 03:10 .

[Elessara]

I always believed that Loghain's machinations went earlier than the betrayal at Ostagar. Especially if I play as a human noble. I just don't think that Howe would believe he'd get away with murdering the Couslands without some reassurance that he would be protected. Cailan would have been all for delivering justice to Howe. But if Howe and Loghain had already been working together then Loghain was already planning on getting the king killed and taking over.



I know Duncan says that if he and the PC hadn't escaped then Howe could have told any story he wanted but how do you explain a massacre of an entire castle? Bandits? Vorpal bunnies? And there would be rumors. His own troops probably wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Mr David Gaider already said that Loghain had nothing to do with the murder of the Couslands. He found out only later, and it was too late to do anythign about it. Loghain despised Howe, but he was his ally and his political "bed buddy".

[Zavrian]

As a BG veteran, I have no ethical qualms about using Sarevok in TOB. Wether I do or not depends on the exact character I'm RPing.

Same in DA:O. I have no ethical qualms about using Loghain after the Landsmeet. Wether I do or not depends on the exact character I'm RPing.

Loghain's reasons for doing what he did are secondary to my character's reasons for sparing him or killing him.

Modifié par Zavrian, 12 janvier 2010 - 03:39 .

[Elessara]

Ahh, I hadn't seen that post Knight. Thanks!



That may not change how my character view it though .. hmm.

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

double post. my bad

Modifié par Duncan Hills Coffee, 12 janvier 2010 - 04:03 .