1429 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Mezzil wrote...
I saw that DG called Loghain a traitor (as he's committed treason against the country) in that one thread where he says Anora is a ruling queen.  The "word of god" said it, so it must be true, right?

"Treason" ends up being a subjectifve word, unless he was referring to a law that may exist.
But the fact that an author thinks that, in spirit, a character is a traitor, doesn't mean that gamers have to agree that he is really a traitor. Same applies to "good", "evil" and terminologies that are reliant on how the gamers define them.

If Gaider indeed said such a thing, then by law Loghain committed treason, which is not something most people deny (disagreement is over the speifics). And I am not sure what the relevence is exactly, most of our companions happen to have broken the law Maker knows how many times, in addition to what the Warden can do. So not sure how legality is useful at that point. Indeed the whole point is the collapse of laws.

One can believe that Loghain is a traitor by law, but was true to Ferelden at the core. Or not. One can totally be legalistic and act from there. Even though conscription is perfectly legal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[Sarah1281]

I saw that post (don't have the link) and I really don't understand how that works. If Anora was the ruling queen then how did Loghain take the regency? How did she become the ruling queen? Was there a Landsmeet? I didn't see a Landsmeet and if that meeting Teagan called Loghain out at was sufficient to make Anora ruling queen then how is it treason as Loghain announced himself her regent at that same meeting. She can't just be declared the ruling queen because her husband died and they were too busy dealing with national crisis to find someone else to rule or even to officially appoint her such.

[IanPolaris]

[gah, double post]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[IanPolaris]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I saw that post (don't have the link) and I really don't understand how that works. If Anora was the ruling queen then how did Loghain take the regency? How did she become the ruling queen? Was there a Landsmeet? I didn't see a Landsmeet and if that meeting Teagan called Loghain out at was sufficient to make Anora ruling queen then how is it treason as Loghain announced himself her regent at that same meeting. She can't just be declared the ruling queen because her husband died and they were too busy dealing with national crisis to find someone else to rule or even to officially appoint her such.

Anora herself might have been convinced to give Loghain royal powers for the 'duration of the emergency' following Cailain's death especially given the need for absoute stability in the face of the disaster at Ostagar.  There have been times when heads of state have lend others their authority in times of emergency especially during war (if the person being given the authority was a military leader for example while the ruler was not).

I won't say it's common, but I don't believe it's completely unprecedented either.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I saw that post (don't have the link) and I really don't understand how that works. If Anora was the ruling queen then how did Loghain take the regency? How did she become the ruling queen? Was there a Landsmeet? I didn't see a Landsmeet and if that meeting Teagan called Loghain out at was sufficient to make Anora ruling queen then how is it treason as Loghain announced himself her regent at that same meeting. She can't just be declared the ruling queen because her husband died and they were too busy dealing with national crisis to find someone else to rule or even to officially appoint her such.

I personally think that Ferelden is too dysfunctional in practise that no side can really claim to be legal at that point.
Laws evidently don't matter anymore and it ends up being a confrontation between two sides, each having a legitimate claim on the Throne. (unless Anora turned on Loghain, then he doesn't and even then, he can still win).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[Ryzaki]

Mezzil wrote...


Here

Zing! 

[maxernst]

Mezzil wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mezzil wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Though I don't see it as revenge as much as a necessity. The man comitted treason and you're in a rush. You have no time to have a trial or public execution and it's best to make sure the job gets done and one of his supporters don't smuggle him out. (Or his daughter). Kill him quick and clean.

It doesn't have to be emotional.

As I do not agree that he committed treason (No more than Eamon who plotted against his queen) , that argument is moot to me. But you knew that already, right?:happy:

I saw that DG called Loghain a traitor (as he's committed treason against the country) in that one thread where he says Anora is a ruling queen.  The "word of god" said it, so it must be true, right?

Do you have a link to this? 

Here

That's just too funny!  It doesn't really matter to me, because an author's intent is only of academic interest, but it's truly hilarious for all these literary absolutists.  Loghain is a traitor.  WOG said so!

[KnightofPhoenix]

maxernst wrote...
That's just too funny!  It doesn't really matter to me, because an author's intent is only of academic interest, but it's truly hilarious for all these literary absolutists.  Loghain is a traitor.  WOG said so!

There is a difference between including the WoG into an argument, and just throwing it out without context or thinking.

As I said ToP, this doesn't change much if anything.

[Addai]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mezzil wrote...


Here

Zing! 

Not sure what y'all think you're proving here.  Obviously the Landsmeet is coming together to judge Loghain (and not Anora, which is DG's point here), and there is no way for Loghain to be absolved completely.  He either is made a Warden or is executed.  So obviously he's found guilty of crimes, call that treason or what have you.  A particular PC might not feel that way about him, but that's the finding of the Landsmeet.

So where's the zing?

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mezzil wrote...


Here

Zing! 

Not sure what y'all think you're proving here.  Obviously the Landsmeet is coming together to judge Loghain (and not Anora, which is DG's point here), and there is no way for Loghain to be absolved completely.  He either is made a Warden or is executed.  So obviously he's found guilty of crimes, call that treason or what have you.  A particular PC might not feel that way about him, but that's the finding of the Landsmeet.

So where's the zing?

That wasn't for you? 

I mean really. If you're not even going to bother to follow the conversations...

Honestly I'm not in the best of moods so I'm not sure if that was supposed to be flippant or what and I don't feel like debating WoG because it'll go nowhere but a circular debate.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[Addai]

Ryzaki wrote...
That wasn't for you? 

I mean really. If you're not even going to bother to follow the conversations...

Honestly I'm not in the best of moods so I'm not sure if that was supposed to be flippant or what and I don't feel like debating WoG because it'll go nowhere but a circular debate.

Heh, I did.  As KoP said up above, even if the Landsmeet always finds Loghain guilty of (legal) treason, an individual can view that differently.  Moving against Cailan is treason, but if you buy that Cailan was about to sell Ferelden out to Orlais, you can see it as a justifiable treason.  Just to give an example.

But you're right, it's not you so much as maxernst who apparently thinks this scores a rhetorical point.  I'm just not sure what it's supposed to be.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 décembre 2010 - 06:36 .

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...
Heh, I did.  As KoP said up above, even if the Landsmeet always finds Loghain guilty of (legal) treason, an individual can view that differently.  Moving against Cailan is treason, but if you buy that Cailan was about to sell Ferelden out to Orlais, you can see it as a justifiable treason.  Just to give an example.

But you're right, it's not you so much as maxernst who apparently thinks this scores a rhetorical point.  I'm just not sure what it's supposed to be.

The act itself is still treason justifible or no. That's what the "Zing" was about. If you're going to comment on something that had nothing to do with you, you might at least know what you're commenting on.

Edit: On that note I'm going to bed. I've been b****** at enough today.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[Addai]

*sigh* I see people saying that it is not treason to them. And DG saying that the Landsmeet is not there to judge Anora but Loghain. But somehow DG's post is supposed to be contravening those people. And I don't see it. Feel free to fill me in, or not, as you do seem to be in a tetchy mood.

[Ryzaki]

Yes one does seem to be tetchy when they get called presumptuous for the audacity! of not agreeing with someone's view. Who would have thought?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:04 .

[Addai]

Oookaaay, I think we're done here.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

Oookaaay, I think we're done here.

Really? Why? I thought I was being presumptous. Why not point out the errors of my ways since your views are so much better?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Zjarcal]

Munching on pop-corn while watching you guys argue is soooo much fun... 

Modifié par Zjarcal, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[CalJones]

This thread won't go away will it? We keep striking at it and it refuses to die decently.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...

Munching on pop-corn while watching you guys argue is soooo much fun... 

I used to think it was fun, but now it's a bit annoying.

[Zjarcal]

It's only annoying if you're involved in it... I always prefer to stay as an outsider on these things. I don't have the patience to keep banging my head on my desk over and over as an argument goes around in circles. And this one has been REALLY annoying.

But watching it from the outside? Fun.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:35 .

[Ryzaki]

True it is more fun on the outside. Though really I'm so sick and tired of the WoG thing. Especially when you think something else everyone seems to think I'm simple minded and presumptuous for thinking such. How dare you not share my opinion and other rot.

It's one thing to disagree it's another to be like...urgh just go kick rocks if you're going to say something like that.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:46 .

[CalJones]

The whole Ostagar thing is extremely vague anyway so you can interpret it as you wish.

I believe the original concept of the game - where Cailan was going to divorice Anora and marry Celene (who would appear in Denerim) had Loghain leaving him to die deliberately (hence the VO notes). The ambiguity there is whether you thought Cailan's actions were despicable, and Loghain was right to let him die, or whether he was a forward thinking young man and Loghain was wrong to betray him.

Once that plot was axed, Ostagar becomes a lot more murky - it's definitely true that the horde was a lot bigger than expected. It's also true that Loghain and Cailan were arguing and Loghain did not approve of his son-in-law inviting Orlesian wardens and chevaliers into Fereldan (which is an understandable reaction if know Loghain's history from the books). Whether you choose to believe Loghain left for the former reason or the latter is a matter of player interpretation.

Modifié par CalJones, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:52 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think the ever crucial distinction between in-game and out-game has been forgotten as usual.

In-game, every character is free to interpret things in whatever way they want and many interpretations have legitimate reasons behind them. But yes, sometimes interpretations can be wrong and while those vis a vis Loghain can't be proven to be wrong in-game unless one spares Loghain (and believes him), WoG disproves them out-game.

That however doesn't need to have any significance to an in-game experience. I was debating on Loghain's side long before Gaider made his comment and my in-game experience has not changed at all, nor do I feel obligated to change it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:54 .

[Ryzaki]

And I disagree. That said we're not going to come to an agreement so agree to disagree KoP? Hopefully without belittling the other's position and pissing them off?