1429 réponses à ce sujet

[jsachun]

He poisoned Earl Eamon for Marrying an Orlaisian & Turned on Anora for having an Orlaisian Lady in waiting. He is mad & therfore not guilty of his crimes.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I kill him usually, pure and simple. From an RP perspective, he's a liability, has been sending minions after me, delaying and screwing up my efforts, and exhausted my patience by landsmeet. It is a matter of removing a great impediment to my ultimate goal: the Archdemon. Making him a grey Warden in all but one playthrough simply is not an option.



Besides, I keep his coniving daughter on the throne, which he should be thankful for.



From a metagaming point of view, it's quite complicated. And, yes, victos in medieval times DID have their enemies excuted, at least, the ones who posed a threat. They spared and forced submission to those who basically, on their own and broken, posed little menace. But popular enemies with the support of many and a heroic legend behind them? A major threat, one you stick in a tower and behead soon, lest they live to rise up again.



And someone who was a threat to a throne, a contender or usurper? Visit the tower of London sometime.

[Dragon Age1103]

Asylumer wrote...

Elanareon wrote...

For Jowan's case, Remember that you were saved by Flemmeth and was healing at her house. Do you think injuries heal overnight? Loghain was already returning to Denerim while the battle is still ongoing. You traveled the "Wilds" to Lothering avoiding Darkspawn. Even if you went to Redcliffe right then Loghain still have plenty of time "plotting".

The rest i didn't read because its obvious you were taking everything at face value. Considering Jowan's case.

All that was brought up later on in the thread. I personally used the fact that the PC's party had to make its way through the Darkspawn infested wilds as a reason for how Jowan could've poisoned Eamon after the battle yet still made it to Redcliffe and done his thing before the first cutscene where Bann Teagan speaks for Eamon at the Landsmeet. I guess it's also worth consideration that just because you see that scene on the way to Lothering it doesn't necessarily have to take place then.

My original post argued that Arl Eamon could not have been poisoned before the battle. If Eamon was poisoned beforehand it could be taken to mean Loghain had plotted to kill Cailan at Ostagar. However, David Gaider implies that Eamon was in fact poisoned before battle, though not with the intent to kill, and there was a long period between the Origin stories and you arriving at Ostagar.

Trying to put it together:

1.) Reports of Darkspawn amassing in the Kocari Wilds
2.) Troops are sent in advance to Ostagar, including the 7 mages.
3.) King and Loghain are still in Denerim with most of the army
4.) Origin Here
5.) Jowan Captured and Brought to Denerim
6.) Duncan takes the PC along for his errands. Maybe even visiting all Origin locations?
7.) Loghain meets Jowan in prison and orders the poisoning
8.) The Army at Denerim moves out to Ostagar, meeting the forces already there.
9.) Several battles take place. Cailan and Loghain argue.
10.) The PC arrives at Ostagar.

Does that make sense to everyone?

   Timeline & events make sense to me! Sorry I was such a pain in the ass by the way, I was having a crap day...took it out on the forums. Plus I might of had a stick up my butt the way I was lashing out. lol.
   Anyways I think you're doing a fantastic job of keeping this case going, building on it & really only polishing every aspect of your first statements. Obviously a few things have changed but for the better & you guys are working out a lot of the small details perfectly so far.

[Xandurpein]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I kill him usually, pure and simple. From an RP perspective, he's a liability, has been sending minions after me, delaying and screwing up my efforts, and exhausted my patience by landsmeet. It is a matter of removing a great impediment to my ultimate goal: the Archdemon. Making him a grey Warden in all but one playthrough simply is not an option.

Besides, I keep his coniving daughter on the throne, which he should be thankful for.

From a metagaming point of view, it's quite complicated. And, yes, victos in medieval times DID have their enemies excuted, at least, the ones who posed a threat. They spared and forced submission to those who basically, on their own and broken, posed little menace. But popular enemies with the support of many and a heroic legend behind them? A major threat, one you stick in a tower and behead soon, lest they live to rise up again.

And someone who was a threat to a throne, a contender or usurper? Visit the tower of London sometime.

It is kind of interesting that you can rationalize both killing and not killing Loghain either from a good/noble perspective or a rational/cold hearted perspective. It all depends on what you think.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein wrote...
It is kind of interesting that you can rationalize both killing and not killing Loghain either from a good/noble perspective or a rational/cold hearted perspective. It all depends on what you think.

We're human beings. We can rationalize ANYTHING.

Just because you can rationalize something, doesn't make your rationalization sound or right.

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
It is kind of interesting that you can rationalize both killing and not killing Loghain either from a good/noble perspective or a rational/cold hearted perspective. It all depends on what you think.

We're human beings. We can rationalize ANYTHING.

Just because you can rationalize something, doesn't make your rationalization sound or right.

Only you can be right. We know.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xandurpein wrote...


It is kind of interesting that you can rationalize both killing and not killing Loghain either from a good/noble perspective or a rational/cold hearted perspective. It all depends on what you think.

Yes, which is one of the interesting things about Loghain and his role in the game. No matter what your choice, there is an arguement for it from any moral perspective, because his role is quite comlicated.

[jsachun]

Is it his fault that Grey Warden's lack of effort or business sense did not prepare them for the Blight? No. Afterall the blight is Grey Warden's responsibility. And Duncan didn't even issue the right of conscription to the Teryn's men. So Why should he oblige in the blight? And as far as Logaihn was concerened the Orlaisian Warden was a spy & repeat nothing but a spy to his eye.

[Tirigon]

jsachun wrote...

He poisoned Earl Eamon for Marrying an Orlaisian & Turned on Anora for having an Orlaisian Lady in waiting. He is mad & therfore not guilty of his crimes.

You don´t have the option to send him in an asylum, though. Maybe they should have added this option, but they didn´t. So you have to kill him, or do you really want to unleash a madman and trust him the fate of Ferelden?

I don´t think he´s mad, however. But that´s a different matter.

[Tirigon]

jsachun wrote...

Is it his fault that Grey Warden's lack of effort or business sense did not prepare them for the Blight? No. Afterall the blight is Grey Warden's responsibility. And Duncan didn't even issue the right of conscription to the Teryn's men. So Why should he oblige in the blight? And as far as Logaihn was concerened the Orlaisian Warden was a spy & repeat nothing but a spy to his eye.

It does NOT AT ALL matter what Loghain thinks. It matters what is the truth.

[jsachun]

Tirigon wrote...

jsachun wrote...

Is it his fault that Grey Warden's lack of effort or business sense did not prepare them for the Blight? No. Afterall the blight is Grey Warden's responsibility. And Duncan didn't even issue the right of conscription to the Teryn's men. So Why should he oblige in the blight? And as far as Logaihn was concerened the Orlaisian Warden was a spy & repeat nothing but a spy to his eye.

It does NOT AT ALL matter what Loghain thinks. It matters what is the truth.

"You want the truth. You can't handle the truth". Loghain is INNOCENT!

Modifié par jsachun, 12 janvier 2010 - 02:13 .

[Tirigon]

jsachun wrote...

"You want the truth. You can't handle the truth". Logaihn is INNOCENT!

A stupid quotation of someone I don´t know and a even more stupid claim that is totally unproven and comes without arguments.

You will probably convince me in that way.

LOL

[jsachun]

Tirigon wrote...

jsachun wrote...

"You want the truth. You can't handle the truth". Logaihn is INNOCENT!

A stupid quotation of someone I don´t know and a even more stupid claim that is totally unproven and comes without arguments.

You will probably convince me in that way.

LOL

Few Good Men 1992. Demi Moore, Jack Nicholson, & Tom Cruise. Military Court Justice. Good Movie.

[robertthebard]

Asylumer wrote...

All that was brought up later on in the thread. I personally used the fact that the PC's party had to make its way through the Darkspawn infested wilds as a reason for how Jowan could've poisoned Eamon after the battle yet still made it to Redcliffe and done his thing before the first cutscene where Bann Teagan speaks for Eamon at the Landsmeet. I guess it's also worth consideration that just because you see that scene on the way to Lothering it doesn't necessarily have to take place then.

My original post argued that Arl Eamon could not have been poisoned before the battle. If Eamon was poisoned beforehand it could be taken to mean Loghain had plotted to kill Cailan at Ostagar. However, David Gaider implies that Eamon was in fact poisoned before battle, though not with the intent to kill, and there was a long period between the Origin stories and you arriving at Ostagar.

Trying to put it together:

1.) Reports of Darkspawn amassing in the Kocari Wilds
2.) Troops are sent in advance to Ostagar, including the 7 mages.
3.) King and Loghain are still in Denerim with most of the army
4.) Origin Here
5.) Jowan Captured and Brought to Denerim
6.) Duncan takes the PC along for his errands. Maybe even visiting all Origin locations?
7.) Loghain meets Jowan in prison and orders the poisoning
8.) The Army at Denerim moves out to Ostagar, meeting the forces already there.
9.) Several battles take place. Cailan and Loghain argue.
10.) The PC arrives at Ostagar.

Does that make sense to everyone?

This timeline seems the most likely.  It would be safe to assume that Duncan goes to Redcliffe before he finds the PC as well, which puts Eamon's situation in a light that fits in with what we have from DG concerning when Eamon was indeed poisoned.  DG's comments also mean that I have to reevaluate my initial position on the intent to kill Eamon.  A situation that was further complicated by Connor.

I would say that it's safe to assume that the Denerim cutscene you get on the way to Lothering actually happens in that time frame.  The PC is laid up for several days, which would give Loghain time to get to Denerim, and start the process of rebuilding the army, which is what this cutscene shows.

[Tinmachine]

I have always sympathised with Loghain, to a degree. From the medieval perspective, his greatest failure was that he wasn't strong enough to pull it through, i.e. to kill all opponents, defeat the external threat, and let his daughter found a new dynasty. From the game perspective, he could never have achieved his goal, as the external threat WAS a real Blight, contrary to his beliefs, making his success plain impossible. He was therefore bound to fail, and his efforts were only harmful to Ferelden. He should die simply because letting him live at that point is too much trouble, which every person in Ferelden with any grasp of politics at all would understand and condone (his own daughter certainly seems to have no problem with it, once you do it).



I would perhaps let him live if playing someone who does not at all care about Ferelden - a self-absorbed blood mage, a Dalish, or a Dwarf. Especially Dwarves could see the affair as a sort of "Legion-of-the-Dead-thingy" and let him tag along. They don't always kill people, they toss them in the Deep Roads.



On a side note, I love how the endgame text makes the scheming, homicidal Bhelen an awesome king. He is worse than Loghain in the sense that he betrayed his own family, yet not insane enough to let his kingdom be eaten by the Blight. Bhelen is the great egoistic empire builder history remembers. Loghain is the mistaken fool everyone forgets.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

jsachun wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

jsachun wrote...

"You want the truth. You can't handle the truth". Logaihn is INNOCENT!

A stupid quotation of someone I don´t know and a even more stupid claim that is totally unproven and comes without arguments.

You will probably convince me in that way.

LOL

Few Good Men 1992. Demi Moore, Jack Nicholson, & Tom Cruise. Military Court Justice. Good Movie.

"You can't handle the truth!"

Great quote and speech hehe

Definitly was reminded of this speech when I did my first playthrough and ballsed up my attempt to win the landsmeet by bringing up cailan and the wardens and Loghain tore my characters comments up asunder

[jsachun]

Tinmachine wrote...

I have always sympathised with Loghain, to a degree. From the medieval perspective, his greatest failure was that he wasn't strong enough to pull it through, i.e. to kill all opponents, defeat the external threat, and let his daughter found a new dynasty. From the game perspective, he could never have achieved his goal, as the external threat WAS a real Blight, contrary to his beliefs, making his success plain impossible. He was therefore bound to fail, and his efforts were only harmful to Ferelden. He should die simply because letting him live at that point is too much trouble, which every person in Ferelden with any grasp of politics at all would understand and condone (his own daughter certainly seems to have no problem with it, once you do it).

I would perhaps let him live if playing someone who does not at all care about Ferelden - a self-absorbed blood mage, a Dalish, or a Dwarf. Especially Dwarves could see the affair as a sort of "Legion-of-the-Dead-thingy" and let him tag along. They don't always kill people, they toss them in the Deep Roads.

On a side note, I love how the endgame text makes the scheming, homicidal Bhelen an awesome king. He is worse than Loghain in the sense that he betrayed his own family, yet not insane enough to let his kingdom be eaten by the Blight. Bhelen is the great egoistic empire builder history remembers. Loghain is the mistaken fool everyone forgets.

Really, It just like saying everyone deserves their faith. Afterall you get what you give. And which royalty do you know of in history that didn't have a past about them that history tries to forget.

Modifié par jsachun, 12 janvier 2010 - 02:36 .

[AndreaDraco]

Another question about the poisoning of Arl Eamon. David told us that Loghain had the antidote, hence not only the Sacred Ashes could cure him. But, why no one seems to be able to concoct another vial of antidote? What exactly is this poison? Did Jowan also used Blood Magic to empower the poison?

[Tinmachine]

jsachun wrote...

Really, It just like saying everyone deserves their faith. Afterall you get what you give. And which royalty do you know of in history that didn't have a past about them that history tries to forget.

I think you mean "deserve their fate"?

In which case, well, no. Some may not "deserve" their fate. Loghain may not "deserve" to die, his intentions were not too extreme, not more than Bhelen's. He was, however, wrong in his evaluation of the Blight. Him dying is the best solution to the mess. Bhelen being king is the best solution to the dwarven mess, although he would "deserve" to die for esentially mudering two of his siblings.

History does not try to forget anything about anyone. It's the people who do that. History will tell you that Napoleon was a little frivolous power-mad military and organisation mastermind who caused the death of hundreds of thousands. People would then go and worship him for being "great".

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Well they would have to find out what 'poison' it was and then there is the case of how long was there between Jowan poisoning him and Connor's demon unleashing hell

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Tinmachine wrote...

jsachun wrote...

Really, It just like saying everyone deserves their faith. Afterall you get what you give. And which royalty do you know of in history that didn't have a past about them that history tries to forget.

I think you mean "deserve their fate"?

In which case, well, no. Some may not "deserve" their fate. Loghain may not "deserve" to die, his intentions were not too extreme, not more than Bhelen's. He was, however, wrong in his evaluation of the Blight. Him dying is the best solution to the mess. Bhelen being king is the best solution to the dwarven mess, although he would "deserve" to die for esentially mudering two of his siblings.

History does not try to forget anything about anyone. It's the people who do that. History will tell you that Napoleon was a little frivolous power-mad military and organisation mastermind who caused the death of hundreds of thousands. People would then go and worship him for being "great".

One flaw in your logic, you are using hindsight to dictate actions.

Up until the Landsmeet the only person in that room that knows beyond all shadow of a doubt that Loghain's plan would have destroyed Ferelden had he been successful was Riordan.

Who was the person whom suggested Loghain be spared?

Riordan, I think that speaks volumes.

[Tinmachine]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

One flaw in your logic, you are using hindsight to dictate actions.

Up until the Landsmeet the only person in that room that knows beyond all shadow of a doubt that Loghain's plan would have destroyed Ferelden had he been successful was Riordan.

Who was the person whom suggested Loghain be spared?

Riordan, I think that speaks volumes.

I'm not saying everyone knows how a Blight gets stopped exactly (that only Riordan knows, as you point out), but most of those at the Landsmeet would know that whatever this Blight is, Loghain is not the man to stop it, but the man standing in the way of stopping it - if the PC plays its cards right, that much should be clear. Then it's best he dies.

As for Riordan's offer: he truly seemed to care only about the Blight, not about what was going on in Ferelden. If the PC cares about the country (and he/she may choose to do so), Loghain should die at that point. "Betray all you want, become a failure, be damned by a vote, you can always become a Grey Warden"? I wouldn't think one caring about Ferelden and/or the image of Grey Wardens in the country  would leave Loghain alive - but then again, it's an RPG. You can imagine PCs who would. Hardcore Grey Wardens would recruit him, anyway, without considering the possible political consequences.

[Costin_Razvan]

As Riordan puts it, if you betray the wardens you still will end up the same. Also Loghain as a companion shows no interest in starting another civil war, in fact he is a loyal soldier, who will follow your commands to the letter, even some which he disagrees completely.

The argument that letting Loghain live is bad for Fereldan is moot, considering also that epilogue text ( should you sacrifice yourself ) shows that he lived for a few more years and then died to due the taint. In those few years he worked hard as a recruiter.

Lastly, as I pointed out, you are a Grey Warden, the ONLY thing you should care about is gathering the strongest forces of the land ( Bhelen, Mages/Templar, Golems Werewolves/Elves with Zathrian ) to combat the Blight, for a true Grey Warden NOTHING else matters.

Duncan would have sparred Loghain, withought a thought, even more so that Riordan ( who btw was a very close friend of Duncan's, was tortured etc ) is the one who suggests Loghain be sparred.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 12 janvier 2010 - 03:34 .

[robertthebard]

Tinmachine wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

One flaw in your logic, you are using hindsight to dictate actions.

Up until the Landsmeet the only person in that room that knows beyond all shadow of a doubt that Loghain's plan would have destroyed Ferelden had he been successful was Riordan.

Who was the person whom suggested Loghain be spared?

Riordan, I think that speaks volumes.

I'm not saying everyone knows how a Blight gets stopped exactly (that only Riordan knows, as you point out), but most of those at the Landsmeet would know that whatever this Blight is, Loghain is not the man to stop it, but the man standing in the way of stopping it - if the PC plays its cards right, that much should be clear. Then it's best he dies.

Despite my position that Loghain is a right bastard, the best thing is that the PC takes over, whether Loghain dies or not.  Since making him a GW strips him of lands and titles, this is accomplished.  If he did try to stage a coup at that point, the nobles that were likely to back him while he was a Teyrn would only see him as a traitor after the Landsmeet has been completed.  Backing would be harder to get.

As for Riordan's offer: he truly seemed to care only about the Blight, not about what was going on in Ferelden. If the PC cares about the country (and he/she may choose to do so), Loghain should die at that point. "Betray all you want, become a failure, be damned by a vote, you can always become a Grey Warden"? I wouldn't think one caring about Ferelden and/or the image of Grey Wardens in the country  would leave Loghain alive - but then again, it's an RPG. You can imagine PCs who would. Hardcore Grey Wardens would recruit him, anyway, without considering the possible political consequences.

The Blight is his main concern, as it should be for any GW.  Despite how enmeshed in politics we are forced to become, GW's are supposed to remain politically neutral.  We have Sophia Dryden to thank for being kicked out of Ferelden for forgetting that point.  She became heavily enmeshed in politics, despite there being no Blight to stop.

[Tinmachine]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The argument that letting Loghain live is bad for Fereldan is moot, considering also that epilogue text ( should you sacrifice yourself ) shows that he lived for a few more years and then died to due the taint. In those few years he worked hard as a recruiter.

Interesting. I never saw that text when I let Loghain live and survive the archdemon in a Blood Mage playthrough. Not saying you cannot get it, somehow, just  that I never saw it. I did get the text about there being a revolt in Alistair's name, suggesting that the fact that I chose Loghain over Alistair was, in fact, harmful to Ferelden. Not that my PC would care at all.

I was saying that a certain PC could care about more than just stopping the Blight, not that it should. Political consequences of letting Loghain live could mean different things than Loghain raising a revolt - what about setting an example that attempting regicide is no big deal, since the Grey Wardens may recruit you, if you are a big enough failure. As I have said, my endgame text suggested that the decision was harmful to Ferelden, and I never even used Loghain in my party, suggesting that the gain of the Grey Wardens was negligible.

It's a good game. It allows you to, arrr, role-play many, many things, it seems.