1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

I think he made horrible things that he considers tactical errors.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think he was a victim of circumstances, where not making tactical errors and "horrible" things would have been impossible.

Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

[_- Songlian -]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled [...]

Sweet music to my ears...  Eyes. Whatever.

Modifié par - Songlian -, 15 janvier 2010 - 05:52 .

[Gimmemocha]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think he was a victim of circumstances, where not making tactical errors and "horrible" things would have been impossible.
Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

Preach it.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think he was a victim of circumstances, where not making tactical errors and "horrible" things would have been impossible.
Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

Probably. But it would have been avoided, too, if Loghain had acted with honor instead of what he thought to be genius. In the best case there would be no problem (victory or convincing Cailan to retreat), in the worst case (defeat at Ostagar) he would have died a hero with his king and everyone would remember him as Ferelden´s greatest General, while the Warden´s do their job.

[Apophis2412]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think he was a victim of circumstances, where not making tactical errors and "horrible" things would have been impossible.
Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

Probably. But it would have been avoided, too, if Loghain had acted with honor instead of what he thought to be genius. In the best case there would be no problem (victory or convincing Cailan to retreat), in the worst case (defeat at Ostagar) he would have died a hero with his king and everyone would remember him as Ferelden´s greatest General, while the Warden´s do their job.

In the worst case we would have lost the entire army at Ostagar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think he was a victim of circumstances, where not making tactical errors and "horrible" things would have been impossible.
Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

Probably. But it would have been avoided, too, if Loghain had acted with honor instead of what he thought to be genius. In the best case there would be no problem (victory or convincing Cailan to retreat), in the worst case (defeat at Ostagar) he would have died a hero with his king and everyone would remember him as Ferelden´s greatest General, while the Warden´s do their job.

He doesn't care what people think of him. Defeat at ostagar, which RtO seems to indicate would have inevitably been a defeat, would have been disastrous for Ferelden.
Sure, Orlais would have probably defeated the Blight later, but Ferelden would have been devastated. His actions at Ostagar were sound and if everything went according to plan (like Uldred not messing up, the bannorn uniting under him...etc + had he known WHY the Grey Wardens are necessary), he might have stood a very large chance at winning. Of course there wouldn't be any game then, so he had to be very unlucky.
"Honor" is really rather useless if it brings only death.
 
But I have to go now. See you folks later.

[Tirigon]

Apophis2412 wrote...


In the worst case we would have lost the entire army at Ostagar.

Yes. This would mean I would not have been forced to kill them while fighting Loghain. Would have saved much trouble.

And at least they would have died as heroes. You know, after the Archdemon is dead, the deads from Ostagar get a nice, huge memorial, and it´s fine.

[Apophis2412]

Tirigon wrote...

Apophis2412 wrote...


In the worst case we would have lost the entire army at Ostagar.

Yes. This would mean I would not have been forced to kill them while fighting Loghain. Would have saved much trouble.

And at least they would have died as heroes. You know, after the Archdemon is dead, the deads from Ostagar get a nice, huge memorial, and it´s fine.

What?  Some of Loghain's soldiers fought with the GW in Denerim.

And why let the army at Ostagar die? Dead soldiers and a memorial are of no use to anyone in times of war.

Modifié par Apophis2412, 15 janvier 2010 - 06:06 .

[SuperMaoriFulla]

Loghain understands necessity and sacrifice, but he's not the type to needlessly squander a tactical advantage or throw aside caution because honor or duty demands it. Loghain fights to win, etiquette and chivalry be damned.



That 'recklessness' of Cailan's is something he can thank his father Maric for. If it hadn't been for Loghain and/or Rowan dashing off to save him, Maric would have died because of the risks he takes.



No one individual, not even the King, should put himself above the needs of Ferelden. Loghain wholeheartedly believes this, even when his actions after Ostagar look like he's doing anything but this.

[Tirigon]

I don´t understand however why Ferelden should be the most important thing. Ferelden is just a country, what does it matter who rules it? National boundaries are utterly useless.

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

but maric is dead. It's Cailan who rules ( or ruled i should say ) now. Maric was a true hero and leader. Cailan is a glory hungry idiot who feared for Fereldans safety but was more concerned with being a hero. If he had treated this seriously then Loghain might not have gone as far as he did. But saying that one would do better than the other is useless. S**t in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

[Apophis2412]

Tirigon wrote...

I don´t understand however why Ferelden should be the most important thing. Ferelden is just a country, what does it matter who rules it? National boundaries are utterly useless.

Ferelden = Ferelden people. National boundaries are often also cultural boundaries.


And in in a country ruled by a monarch said leader always heavily influences the country's culture.

Modifié par Apophis2412, 15 janvier 2010 - 06:36 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

robertthebard wrote...
It's funny that you would use your own behavior in a conversation to try and call somebody else down on theirs.
Source
Your position?  Killing Loghain is the only option you can take.  Anything else is wrong, unwise, stupid, not the way I played, so it can't be right, etc etc etc.  Surprisingly enough, this is your style in any thread where you feel like it.  Despite the fact that I feel Loghain is a right bastard, and is guilty of a lot of what this thread tries to clear him of, initially, I still don't pretend that my games are, or should be considered Canon.

ROFL. And this goes to show thatooyu don't even bother reading.

Unlike you I never did say that killing Loghain is the only concievable option. In fact, I have stated on numerous occasion that I would like to see MORE options to deal with it, cause I find both options given unsatisfying.
But of the two options give, is the killing him a more proudent one? yes.

Unlike you (and KoP), I never stated that Loghian HAD to do X.

You call me blind, and yet you are the ones who don't acknowledge other options or the choice.
Your'e telling me Loghain HAD to sell slaves? That he HAD to hangle Ostagar as he did? That he HAD to do everything he did?
That's laughable. There's only one thing any man MUST do..and that is to die. EVERYTHING else is a matter of choice. Loghain took the fast ways out, the easy ways out. He could have ended the Civil War immediately if he wanted to. But Loghian doens't trust anyone but Loghain.

[leeboi2]

this is a stupid post because we know that loghain was planning to kill Cailen before Ostagar...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
War is cruel, no matter how you take it there no way honest and good way you can wage war, in the end you are still killing thousands of people. Justifyable by the fact those people were against you? or did not have the same morals as you, or did evil things? I don't think so.

War is cruel, yes. Does that mean that you should make it even more cruel? No.
If you have no moral line, no decency, then what's the point of wagining a war?

People consider the Anvil of the Void evil, despite the fact it would save the lives of countless dwarves in the long run, People consider Bhelen evil, when in fact he is determined to save the lives of his people, and better the ones of the lower caste.

People consider Anora evil, because she is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure stability for her kindgom.

I think evil can only be classified on people who's only goal was to do harm or for their own selfish needs. Only Howe in the entire game has that kind of goal. Loghain did what was necesary to try and secure his kingdom, for the betterment of ALL his people ( so he sold elves from a Alienage, things would have been much more worse had the bannorn won ), is that evil? Doubtfull.

Killing a man in cold blood when he surrenders to you, for vengeance, to keep your idiotic friend by your side and other things, is what I would consider evil.

The goals dont' justify the means. Period.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Duncan Hills Coffee wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

but maric is dead. It's Cailan who rules ( or ruled i should say ) now. Maric was a true hero and leader. Cailan is a glory hungry idiot who feared for Fereldans safety but was more concerned with being a hero. If he had treated this seriously then Loghain might not have gone as far as he did. But saying that one would do better than the other is useless. S**t in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

This is another way of saying that had Cailan been like Maric, all of this would have been avoided.
So it's a critic of Cailan, rather than a wish for Maric to be necromancied.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The goals dont' justify the means. Period.

The ends justify the means. Period.
We can do this all day.

So instead of saying it in an arrogant, typically zealot, kind of way.
You could say: "I believe that the goals do not justify the means".
In which case, you will get the response that some of us do in fact believe the contrary.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 janvier 2010 - 08:10 .

[SuperMaoriFulla]

Tirigon wrote...

I don´t understand however why Ferelden should be the most important thing. Ferelden is just a country, what does it matter who rules it? National boundaries are utterly useless.

Ferelden may have its independence, but its rulers are accutely aware of how precarious the peace truly is.

Nationality does play a part in the gameplay in Dragon Age: Origins, but it is a far more crucial consideration to the background and history of Ferelden and it place amongst the other nations/kingdoms/empires of Thedas.

In terms of military power and political influence Ferlden ranks rather low. Ferelden and its people are generally considered to be a poor, uncivilized and backwards country by other rulers of Thedas.

If the Orlesian occupation taught the Ferelden's one thing, it's that the good of the Ferelden nation must come first. Ferelden would quickly become paralyzed and fall apart without a strong ruler to keep the fiefdoms held by Arls and Banns in line and not plotting/fighting against each other.

The Orlesians exploited the self-interest and self-preservation instinct of the Arls and Banns to fragment and divide opposition to the occupation. Maric (and Loghain) brought the Arls and Banns into line during the occupation by making it very clear that whoever was against them was a traitor to Ferelden and would be dealt with as such. Some well timed executions reinforced that Maric wasn't going to tolerate any opposition.

So yes, it does matter who rules Ferelden. A weak monarach may not be able to prevent outbreaks of conflict between the Arls and Banns, or at worst be unable unite the Arls and Banns against another foreign invasion.

Modifié par SuperMaoriFulla, 16 janvier 2010 - 04:28 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The goals dont' justify the means. Period.

The ends justify the means. Period.
We can do this all day.

So instead of saying it in an arrogant, typically zealot, kind of way.
You could say: "I believe that the goals do not justify the means".
In which case, you will get the response that some of us do in fact believe the contrary.

And all the greatest villans and tyrant in history belived the same as you did. Conincidence? Nope.
I do not belive this. I know this.

Like I said, Loghian could have handeled things differently. He could have stepped down from his regency - no civil war, no need for slaves. He could have simply disobeyed at Ostagar before the battle. A clear act of defiance that would force Cailans hand. He didn't. He could have asked for monetary aid from outside. He didn't.

Just cause you want to achieve something good, doens't mean that you're allowed to do whatever you want to achieve it. Not all paths that lead to a goal are euqal. If you deliberatly choose the more harmfull ones,  the more evil one, i you dont' make every effort to avoid those paths - you're evil. There's no "if" or "buts" about it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The goals dont' justify the means. Period.

The ends justify the means. Period.
We can do this all day.

So instead of saying it in an arrogant, typically zealot, kind of way.
You could say: "I believe that the goals do not justify the means".
In which case, you will get the response that some of us do in fact believe the contrary.

And all the greatest villans and tyrant in history belived the same as you did. Conincidence? Nope.
I do not belive this. I know this.

Like I said, Loghian could have handeled things differently. He could have stepped down from his regency - no civil war, no need for slaves. He could have simply disobeyed at Ostagar before the battle. A clear act of defiance that would force Cailans hand. He didn't. He could have asked for monetary aid from outside. He didn't.

Just cause you want to achieve something good, doens't mean that you're allowed to do whatever you want to achieve it. Not all paths that lead to a goal are euqal. If you deliberatly choose the more harmfull ones,  the more evil one, i you dont' make every effort to avoid those paths - you're evil. There's no "if" or "buts" about it.

And all the greatest minds thought the same way as well. You think I am a villain. Ok. I don't care.
What I see is that all zealots and fanatics think the same way as you. Coincidence? Nope.
There is nothing to "know". There is somethign to believe.

His aggressive claim for the regency is his biggest mistake and that I have not denied.
Loghain, as Mr Gaider said, was planning to fight at Ostagar, until the last minute. He try to defy the king and that didn't work before.
Monetary aid from outside? Who? Tevinter is too busy fighting the Qunari. Anderfels are too far away. Antiva is ruled by mafias, I don't see why they would give their money to Fereldan. Only alternative is Orlais, which Loghain was not going to do. Being economically dependant to a superpower is a deathtrap. Furthermore, loans as we today know them did not exist back then. If a nation was to give money to another, a service was to be given in return. What does Ferelden have to offer? Nothing except elves to Tevinter.

Loghain was not choosing the most harmful ones. He was choosing what seemed to be the most efficient.
Efficieny is not "evil". But I can't really argue, for there is nothing to argue about. It will always come back to how you dfine "good" and "evil", which is an ungoing debate that has been raging for thousands of years.
Of course your inevitable response would be "You are a sociopath". To which I will respond ahead of time and say, that I do not care what labels you choose to judge me with.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 janvier 2010 - 09:09 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And all the greatest minds thought the same way as well.

Which ones? Cause for the tyrant it's pretty evident they did from their actions. name those "greatest minds"

You think I am a villain. Ok. I don't care.

Nah. You haven't done anything YET.
I do think you're a sociopath tough. Your earlier talk about never having regreats even if you do end up harming people kinda cemented that.

What I see is that all zealots and fanatics think the same way as you. Coincidence? Nope.
There is nothing to "know". There is somethign to believe.

And what would be the "way I think"?
Actually, the zealots and fanatics think closer to your lines than mines.

He try to defy the king and that didn't work before.
Monetary aid from outside? Who? Tevinter is too busy fighting the Qunari. Anderfels are too far away. Antiva is ruled by mafias, I don't see why they would give their money to Fereldan. Only alternative is Orlais, which Loghain was not going to do. Being economically dependant to a superpower is a deathtrap. Furthermore, loans as we today know them did not exist back then. If a nation was to give money to another, a service was to be given in return. What does Ferelden have to offer? Nothing except elves to Tevinter.

Nope.
Speaking against a plan is not really defying. Loghain never really put his foot down. He could have forced Cailan to stop.
Monetary aid? Yes, he could have asked for it. You speak of the other kingdoms like you know them perfectly. You don't. No loans? Yes, there were loans even back then. Just like banks today, you had to promise something if you didn't pay back in time. And given that a Blight is coming, and it's in everyones interest to deafeat it, methinks you'd find the other nations willing to give a small loan. IT's no like Ferelden needs billions. IT's a small countr,y as you said yourself.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 janvier 2010 - 09:24 .

[Woman Warden 118]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think he was a victim of circumstances, where not making tactical errors and "horrible" things would have been impossible.
Truly, all of this would have been avoided if it was Maric who ruled and not Cailan.

wow. i never thought i would say this, Knight, but i agree with you on this point

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And all the greatest minds thought the same way as well.

Which ones? Cause for the tyrant it's pretty evident they did from their actions. name those "greatest minds".

Sargon of Akkad, Hammurabi, Tiglath Pileser I and III, Ramses, Nebuchadnezzar II, Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, David, Solomon, Caesar, Hannibal Barca, Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn Al Khattab, Muawiyah, Abd Al Malik, Abd Al Rahman I, II and III, Abu Jaafar Al Mansur, Almanzor, Haroun Al Rashid, Gengis Khan, Ieyasu Tokugawa, Cao Cao, Friederich the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Otto Von Bismarck,...etc etc.
All of them were willing to do things that you would deem "evil" in order to win.    
Either you have a very naive view on history, or you simply don't have one in the first place.

And of course Machiavelli, Ibn Khaldun, Thucydides and other political theorists.

You think I am a villain. Ok. I don't care.

Nah. You haven't done anything YET.
I do think you're a sociopath tough. Your earlier talk about never having regreats even if you do end up harming people kinda cemented that.

Laughable and irrelevent.

What I see is that all zealots and fanatics think the same way as you. Coincidence? Nope.
There is nothing to "know". There is somethign to believe.

And what would be the "way I think"?
Actually, the zealots and fanatics think closer to your lines than mines.

" I know I am good and I know you are evil. Period".
Sounds like a fanatic to me. I had to deal with alot of them in real life.

Nope.
Speaking against a plan is not really defying. Loghain never really put his foot down. He could have forced Cailan to stop.
Monetary aid? Yes, he could have asked for it. You speak of the other kingdoms like you know them perfectly. You don't. No loans? Yes, there were loans even back then. Just like banks today, you had to promise something if you didn't pay back in time. And given that a Blight is coming, and it's in everyones interest to deafeat it, methinks you'd find the other nations willing to give a small loan. IT's no like Ferelden needs billions. IT's a small countr,y as you said yourself.

He should have killed Cailan before the battle, that I would agree with you. But sadly Loghain still thought that Cailan had a mind backthen.

Banks? We are talking about a medieval setting and you talk about banks? Do you even know how they function? Do you even know the difference between a local domestic bank (that has the force of law behind it) and international banks?
There was no loans at that time. You would give money in exchange for something, usually lands, or forts. 
But countries rarely asked for loans. What they would do is ask for military support, in exzchange for tribute (paid mostly in money). The general way negotiation was done in a medieval context was providing a service in exchange for money and not vice versa. And since Ferelden lacked money, it couldnt ask for any service. What it could do is get money from Tevinter, by selling elves. 

There was really no nation that could afford to provide immediate help other than Orlais. And Loghain wouldn't negotiate with them at all. Orlais wasn't going to help for free. No one does, espeically not a super power.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 janvier 2010 - 09:49 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sargon of Akkad, Hammurabi, Tiglath Pileser I and III, Ramses, Nebuchadnezzar II, Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, David, Solomon, Caesar, Hannibal Barca, Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn Al Khattab, Muawiyah, Abd Al Malik, Abd Al Rahman I, II and III, Abu Jaafar Al Mansur, Almanzor, Haroun Al Rashid, Gengis Khan, Ieyasu Tokugawa, Cao Cao, Friederich the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Otto Von Bismarck,...etc etc.
All of them were willing to do things that you would deem "evil" in order to win.    
Either you have a very naive view on history, or you simply don't have one in the first place.

And of course Machiavelli, Ibn Khaldun, Thucydides and other political theorists.

HEhe...I dont' really know all of them, but I wouldn't call them "great".
And yes - great conquerors and tyrats were pretty much allways on the evil side.

" I know I am good and I know you are evil. Period".
Sounds like a fanatic to me. I had to deal with alot of them in real life.

I find that funny coming from a guy who would kill without regrets.

He should have killed Cailan before the battle, that I would agree with you. But sadly Loghain still thought that Cailan had a mind backthen.
Banks? We are talking about a medieval setting and you talk about banks? Do you even know how they function? Do you even know the difference between a local domestic bank (that has the force of law behind it) and international banks?
There was no loans at that time. You would give money in exchange for something, usually lands, or forts. 
But countries rarely asked for loans. What they would do is ask for military support, in exzchange for tribute (paid mostly in money). The general way negotiation was done in a medieval context was providing a service in exchange for money and not vice versa. And since Ferelden lacked money, it couldnt ask for any service. What it could do is get money from Tevinter, by selling elves. 

There was really no nation that could afford to provide immediate help other than Orlais. And Loghain wouldn't negotiate with them at all. Orlais wasn't going to help for free. No one does, espeically not a super power.

Now you're being redicolous. Kings and nations could handle money every damn way they pleased. There were no loans? Loans existed before Chirst was born.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 janvier 2010 - 10:00 .