1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Bullets McDeath]

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

That's what I'm saying. It's completely irrelevant to this argument.

Er, okay. Why are we arguing about it then? :b

Um, cause you brought it up? You said it , I called it BS, you called it BS, here we are now talking about it some more... so I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


That's only one elf. The rest are weak and cowardly. They live like slaves for centuries and they can't do **** about it. They lost their culture, their language and their identity very easily. If that's not weakness I don't know what is.

It´s not weakness, it´s being outnumbered. Even the best can´t fight too many. It reminds me at another story where the elves were really badass and lost war with the humans simply because the humans recruited 20000 new soldiers while the elves got 50 new ones in the same time....

And there are not enough elves for them to be good cannon fodder. And there is enough to make a small fortune out of them, to buy better equipments for the troops. If I was playing an RTS and I had the option to sell a few idiots to gain better soldiers, I would do so in a heartbeat.

The difference between you playing a RTS and Loghain is that Loghain probably didn´t know he is selling pixels and not real people, you know.......

Besides, you wouldn´t do so in a good RTS like Rome - Total War. You would loose half your empire due to rebellions if you did. I have experience with that. In most of my campaigns I had to fight rebels in my own country. Once I ended up slaying about 100000 of my own civilians and soldiers for rebelling. I actually spent more time fighting my own people than the enemy because I demanded too much from them. That teaches you not to rule like a ****head all the time.

Because the Orlesians are so stupid they would allow themselves to be used that way.....
IF the Orlesians had planned to occupy Ferelden, they would have waited until Ferelden was at its weakest, then come to the "rescue". They wouldn't have fought if Ferelden wasn't providing any effort.

You assume Loghain was a good manipulator. So he should be able to use them like that.

You are coming up with alot of assumptions here. IT doesn't matter what soldiers feel, they do as they are told. To not consider this possibility and take action according to this, is being politically imprudent.

Yes it DOES matter what the soldiers feel. If they are forced to do things that go against their will too much they will eventually realize that they are stronger (and especially more) than the general and rebel.

[eschilde]

outlaworacle wrote...

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

That's what I'm saying. It's completely irrelevant to this argument.

Er, okay. Why are we arguing about it then? :b

Um, cause you brought it up? You said it , I called it BS, you called it BS, here we are now talking about it some more... so I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.

Sigh. My point was, in one sentence, you can't use the Cousland massacre to say that Howe and Loghain were working together prior to Ostagar. 

[Bullets McDeath]

outlaworacle wrote...

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

That's what I'm saying. It's completely irrelevant to this argument.

Er, okay. Why are we arguing about it then? :b

Um, cause you brought it up? You said it , I called it BS, you called it BS, here we are now talking about it some more... so I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.

My point is that Howe could easily have been acting alone, not
necessarily that he was, but that you cannot point at the Cousland
massacre as complete proof of Loghain and Howe working together prior
to Ostagar.

Yeaaaaaah. This is what I mean when I say half-logic. Loghain and Howe are in cahoots throughout the entire game. What makes the Cousland murder an exception? Aside from the fact that it's not written in giant neon letters on the back of the box "Howe murdered the Cousland's at Loghain's behest".

[Tirigon]

eschilde wrote...

Sigh. My point was, in one sentence, you can't use the Cousland massacre to say that Howe and Loghain were working together prior to Ostagar. 

Well you can. Howe needed Loghain, not Cailan, to rule if he wanted to get through with it.

[Bullets McDeath]

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

That's what I'm saying. It's completely irrelevant to this argument.

Er, okay. Why are we arguing about it then? :b

Um, cause you brought it up? You said it , I called it BS, you called it BS, here we are now talking about it some more... so I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.

Sigh. My point was, in one sentence, you can't use the Cousland massacre to say that Howe and Loghain were working together prior to Ostagar. 

Seriously THINK about it. They are in cahoots to seize power for the entire game, except this one part? Is that really what you think?

[Aseya]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


o what? Oh, they MIGHT be Orlaisians.... So I betray my King, just because not doing so MIGHT lead to Orlaisians gaining influence here....

Sounds damn mature imo... It just shows what an Idiot Loghain was.

That's politics. If you don't calculate and think of all the possible outcomes, then politics is not for you. His assumption was factually wrong, but logically correct.
He didn't betray Cailan. The idiot got himself killed.

you call THAT politics when at the same time he doesnt even consider a possibility of a true blight and hunts down the only people that could possibly end it - yeah right  how can you make that logically correct

[Tirigon]

Aseya wrote...

you call THAT politics when at the same time he doesnt even consider a possibility of a true blight and hunts down the only people that could possibly end it - yeah right  how can you make that logically correct

I bet KnightOfPhoenix knows Loghain is a ****** and argues against it simply to train his Coercion skill:police:

Am I right, Knight?

[eschilde]

Yeaaaaaah. This is what I mean when I say half-logic. Loghain and Howe are in cahoots throughout the entire game. What makes the Cousland murder an exception? Aside from the fact that it's not written in giant neon letters on the back of the box "Howe murdered the Cousland's at Loghain's behest".

Loghain didn't need to work with Howe prior to Ostagar to work with him after. Why does the Cousland massacre need to be an 'exception'? I am simply arguing that Loghain did not plan Ostagar to remove Cailin from the throne, only that after Cailin was dead he made a move to secure his position.



The Cousland massacre can easily be considered a move on Howe's part for personal gain. Certainly, it gives Loghain an advantage after Howe's death, but it's not irrefutable proof that they were working together (and it isn't proof that they weren't, either.). Saying anymore than that will end up with circular arguments.

[j_j_m]

eschilde wrote...


Howe intended to brand the Couslands as traitors to Fereldan. If he got rid of the Cousland line, the other nobles would have no reason to act against him, because there would be no heir to the line to contest his bid for Highever. The throne (Cailin and Anora) would also have no reason to pursue justice for the Couslands, because why would they? The Couslands are dead, better to have someone in control of the teyrnir than not. 

Also, the only evidence against Howe's doing this is the HN and Duncan. If the HN didn't live to tell Cailin about it, there would be no evidence. It could be very easy for Howe to say to Cailin (just as an example) "I confronted Bryce Cousland about being in league with the Orlesians, and he attacked me. In self defense I had to wipe out the entire castle." 

My point is that Howe could easily have been acting alone, not necessarily that he was, but that you cannot point at the Cousland massacre as complete proof of Loghain and Howe working together prior to Ostagar.

Yes but, we go back to where we started.

Here's what errant_knight said:

Additional evidence that Loghain planned his coup in advance comes from
Cailen when he says that he doesn't understand how Howe thought he
could get away with it. That answer is clear in retrospect. Howe knew
he could get away with it because he knew Cailen would be dead. It not
only implies that Loghain planned to seize power, but that making sure
the king was dead was a specific part of that plan. I suspect that if
Cailen had survived the battle somehow, he would have met with an
'accident.' It also implies that Howe knows Loghain won't object to his
actions.

Here you're assuming that they would believe anything that comes out of Howe's mouth. The king is in distrust of him, with quote. Arl Howe would have be to completely oblivious to the fact he is seen as dishonest. He would have to have lived his life not understanding social clues that he is not wanted , even though it's plastered all over the codex and lore. Yes, it's clearly stated what kind of reputation the man has.

My conclusion still stands: he would have to be an idiot to do it alone and think he would get away with it.

[Bullets McDeath]

No, it's just a remarkable coincidence (and extremely bad storytelling) if Howe did it on his own. Because no one would have believed him, he's universally reviled and Bryce was universally loved. The only way he could possibly realistically hope to get away with it is if he knew Cailan wouldn't be in a position to punish him. Which he did know. Because he was in cahoots with Loghain. Much like he is throughout the entire game.



Honestly, eschilde, you have to reach faaaaaaaaar and wiiiiiiiiiiiiide to make the assumption that they didn't work together when every thing in the game points to just that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
It´s not weakness, it´s being outnumbered. Even the best can´t fight too many. It reminds me at another story where the elves were really badass and lost war with the humans simply because the humans recruited 20000 new soldiers while the elves got 50 new ones in the same time....

It doesn't matter, they lost and are in a weak position. They can't be useful to anyone. And they don't have the numbers.
And losing a war is one thing. Losing one's culture, language and identity is a disgrace.

The difference between you playing a RTS and Loghain is that Loghain probably didn´t know he is selling pixels and not real people, you know.......

Besides, you wouldn´t do so in a good RTS like Rome - Total War. You would loose half your empire due to rebellions if you did. I have experience with that. In most of my campaigns I had to fight rebels in my own country. Once I ended up slaying about 100000 of my own civilians and soldiers for rebelling. I actually spent more time fighting my own people than the enemy because I demanded too much from them. That teaches you not to rule like a ****head all the time.

But he is selling elves that no one cares about. There can't be rebellions over this, except from the elves, who can be very easily crushed, which will provide a better justification to sell them all.
In fact, he is selling elves, the minority that no one cares about, so he could precilely avoid asking too much from the rest of the his people.

You assume Loghain was a good manipulator. So he should be able to use them like that.

I don't assume he was a good manipulator. And I certainly don't assume that the Orlesians are idiots. Orlais is a superpower in that context, they will not be played like fools by a backwards nation.

Yes it DOES matter what the soldiers feel. If they are forced to do things that go against their will too much they will eventually realize that they are stronger (and especially more) than the general and rebel.

It never did. Never will. Soldiers go to mutiny when they are not paid enough. Not when they are forced to do things they don't like. Scipio was crying that he was ordered to burn Carthage to the ground. He hated doing it. But he did nonetheless.
And so you want Loghain to say: "I trust that our Orlesian comrades will not obey orders to occupy us."?
That doesn't sound stupid to you?
His mother was raped by Orlesian soldiers, why should he think they give a damn?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Aseya wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


o what? Oh, they MIGHT be Orlaisians.... So I betray my King, just because not doing so MIGHT lead to Orlaisians gaining influence here....

Sounds damn mature imo... It just shows what an Idiot Loghain was.

That's politics. If you don't calculate and think of all the possible outcomes, then politics is not for you. His assumption was factually wrong, but logically correct.
He didn't betray Cailan. The idiot got himself killed.

you call THAT politics when at the same time he doesnt even consider a possibility of a true blight and hunts down the only people that could possibly end it - yeah right  how can you make that logically correct

There was 0 proof that there was a blight. He realises that it's a Blight later, but initially, there is no proof except for Grey warden "feelings".
And the fact that only Grey Wardens can defeat a Blight is for reasons no one knows. Nobody knows that a Grey Arden is tainted. Nobody knows why and how a Grey Warden is the only being that could kill an Archdemon.
It's been 400 years since the last blight. Loghain dismissed those stories as smiple legends and myths. It wasn't clear that the Grey Wardens are needed.

Had the Grey Wardens explained how and why they are needed, that would have been different. Of course, they can't afford to do that. So it's neither side's fault.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2010 - 08:05 .

[CraigxGibson]

Skipped the posts that weren't on the first page, so sorry if what I'm about to say has already been said/rebuttled. If I get time I'll read through and come back and edit.

I suppose the OP's argument is over whether or not Loghain intentionally betrays Cailan @ Ostagar, so I'll try to stick to that.

1. Was Arl Eamon poisoned before or after the battle?

There's no clear indication either way where on the timeline this falls. However, it's worth considering that Loghain doesn't necessarily need this done before the battle at Ostagar. As long as Eamon is put out of commision before he can start rabble rousing, then it's all gravy as far as Loghain's interests are concerned.

That being said, Arl Eamon was also absent from the meeting of nobles (Loghain and Anora on the speaking balcony) this would suggest that Eamon was poisoned/indisposed sometime very near the battle where Cailan dies. [Note: I'm fairly certain this was a meeting of nobles, since Bann Teagan was there.]

2. Loghain sided with Uldred

Can't really recall how this relates, so I'll keep silent.

3. Slavery

Not really related to whether or not Loghain betrayed Cailan & co. @ Ostagar, though I suppose it does show his character. Speculation: I guess it could support Loghain's going against the King if he were setting the slaving operation's foundations beforehand. However, I can't recall anything that would support this, so yes, using this point to support either side of the argument would be silly.

4. The Murder of the Couslands

If you're Human Noble & talk with Cailan about it, he'll assure you that once the darkspawn are dealt with he'll turn his attention to Highever to lay the smackdown on Howe. King also wonders why Howe would do this, since he must know the repercussions for his actions.

It could logically follow that Howe is only brazen enough to attack the Couslands because he knows there will be no reprisal (due to Loghain's plotting, in my view). I suppose this is never stated in the game, so it's really just speculation based on Howe's actions & conversations with various characters.

5. The Battle of Ostagar

I saw this as Loghain purposefully turning his back on Cailan, Grey Wardens, and troops, so I guess this is just differing interpretations based on a quick cutscene. I think the player's dialogue (and Ser what's her name's response in the cutscene @ battle) would suggest that Loghain is, at best, being extremely shady.

6. Loghain's Madness



This is it. This is the entire assumption that Loghain's guilt depends on.

I suppose his "madness" could contribute, but other evidence suggests there are many other things (see previous points) that point toward his guilt. Another thing to consider is that Loghain killing the Archdemon (and himself) is a way for him to get redemption for his previous jerk-itude.

7. Word of God

Not sure what point you're making here, and I don't want to just pick at a few things you say to be contrary. Maybe there'll further explanation in the pages I haven't read yet. If there is I'll come back to this.

8. My Conclusion

My conclusion would probably be that this is something that leaves room for the player's own interpretation (perhaps the ambiguity is purposeful) to allow more variety in playthroughs. Loghain, to me, is a massive jerk looking out for numero uno. The rest I decide as I play.

Modifié par CraigxGibson, 10 janvier 2010 - 08:06 .

[GMulryan]

I must have played a different version of the game than you did. 3/10 for effort. Nicely done for taking situations and events out of context, adding some embellishments and making your uh "case".

Off with his head. There should of been an option to kill that spider of a daughter.

[eschilde]

@outlaworacle
Using any evidence to really justify Loghain's motives requires some creative thinking. I should add at this point that, personally, the only thing I don't think Loghain did was plan Ostagar with the intention of getting Cailin killed. (Edit: that is not to say I don't think Loghain planned to have Cailin offed eventually.) I have no views on whether or not Howe and Loghain were working together, or Loghain's reasons for doing anything he does in the game. Attacking my arguments against that idea as "reaching far and wide" isn't really going to convince me otherwise, however.

Why is the possibility that Howe was working alone 'bad storytelling'? I don't think he and Loghain absolutely had to be in league to suddenly make Dragon Age great. DA is a great story at least partially because there is some ambiguity about the characters' motives. I feel that having some ambiguity on what Loghain premeditated and what he did not is a great part of his character, which is also why I personally think the devs shouldn't say too much one way or another about Loghain's conscience.

I'm getting the impression that no matter what I say, you'll think I am wrong, and that's fine, but I'm pretty sure I've at least supported my argument enough to create reasonable doubt

Modifié par eschilde, 10 janvier 2010 - 08:14 .

[AtreiyaN7]

On the issue of the "betrayals" that you question. You would have to read the prequel books, but yes, Flemeth makes a deal with Maric in The Stolen Throne, and they go to her hut for several hours. After that, Maric basically refuses to talk about it with Loghain except for the prophecy that Loghain will betray him, each time worse than the other. That prophecy certainly proved to be true.

1) Loghain and Rowan - not exactly something anyone planned on, and technically Maric got together with Katriel first, but their relationship could be viewed as a "betrayal" seeing as Rowan never stopped loving Loghain - ever (and L oghain always loved her despite marrying the woman who eventually gave birth to Anora).
2) Loghain eventually manipulates the situation such that Maric ends up killing the woman he loves (Katriel) because Loghain leaves out certain facts, and Rowan even realizes what he did with her information.
3) Ultimately, Loghain is responsible for the death of one of Maric's sons and tries to kill the other one.
4) One could view the civil war and almost tearing Ferelden apart as another betrayal of sorts.

While you might claim that the prophecy thing was vague, the fact that Maric decided to accompany the Wardens to stop the Blight (in The Calling) is because of one of Flemeth's prophecies during the time Maric spent with Flemeth (and apparently she was pretty darned clear about the future Blight).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 11 janvier 2010 - 06:37 .

[Bullets McDeath]

eschilde wrote...

@outlaworacle
Using any evidence to really justify Loghain's motives requires some creative thinking. I should add at this point that, personally, the only thing I don't think Loghain did was plan Ostagar with the intention of getting Cailin killed. (Edit: that is not to say I don't think Loghain planned to have Cailin offed eventually.) I have no views on whether or not Howe and Loghain were working together, or Loghain's reasons for doing anything he does in the game. Attacking my arguments against that idea as "reaching far and wide" isn't really going to convince me otherwise, however.

Why is the possibility that Howe was working alone 'bad storytelling'? I don't think he and Loghain absolutely had to be in league to suddenly make Dragon Age great. DA is a great story at least partially because there is some ambiguity about the characters' motives. I feel that having some ambiguity on what Loghain premeditated and what he did not is a great part of his character, which is also why I personally think the devs shouldn't say too much one way or another about Loghain's conscience.

I'm getting the impression that no matter what I say, you'll think I am wrong, and that's fine, but I'm pretty sure I've at least supported my argument enough to create reasonable doubt

As you once told me, read the codex. Everyone knows Howe is a murderous toad. There is absolutely no way he could have expected to get away with the Cousland murder, acting on his own. It is plain as day if you think about it, just not spelled out explicitly. You have to make assumptions that go against everything in the lore to say that Howe could have branded the Cousland's traitors. It is clear in the game that no one, least of all Cailan, would have bought that story.

Once again, it is clear they are in cahoots throughout the entire story and that Howe's greed dovetails into Loghain's larger plans, which is why they work together. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Cousland murder is any different.

And yes, no matter what you say, I will think you are wrong... until you say "Howe murdered the Couslands at Loghain's behest" anyway 

[Bullets McDeath]

doublepost

Modifié par outlaworacle, 10 janvier 2010 - 08:22 .

[Asylumer]

CraigxGibson wrote...

That being said, Arl Eamon was also absent from the meeting of nobles (Loghain and Anora on the speaking balcony) this would suggest that Eamon was poisoned/indisposed sometime very near the battle where Cailan dies. [Note: I'm fairly certain this was a meeting of nobles, since Bann Teagan was there.]

You are correct on that. The game's timescale isn't the easiest to follow, seemingly dancing over the place at whim, but we do know that Loghain was arguing with Cailan for days at Ostagar, and Loghain had a very limited timeframe in which he could hear of Jowan's capture, meet with Jowan in the Denerim prison, and make it back to Ostagar several days in advance of the PC.

It seems far more likely to me that the PC took a long time to get out of the deep wilds. It's likely that your party's progress was slow due to the Darkspawn we know wandered the area. Despite having the potion to hide Alistairs "scent", you'd still need to avoid being spotted. That can make a relatively small distance take a great deal longer than it should to traverse.

And on Arl Howe:

Duncan seems to think Howe could've told Cailan any story he wanted and got away with his crime. We can't fully trust Duncan's judgment, but I doubt Ferelden is familiar with investigating crime scenes. Would Howe have been flayed because nobody trusts him, or did he, like Bhelen, prepare beforehand? Many people don't trust Howe, yes, but he's also a well known friend of the Couslands. How can we say for certain that his plan was doomed to fail from the start?

[eschilde]

As you once told me, read the codex. Everyone knows Howe is a murderous toad. There is absolutely no way he could have expected to get away with the Cousland murder, acting on his own. It is plain as day if you think about it, just not spelled out explicitly. You have to make assumptions that go against everything in the lore to say that Howe could have branded the Cousland's traitors. It is clear in the game that no one, least of all Cailan, would have bought that story.

Cailin doesn't have to buy the story. He just has to act in the best interests of Fereldan, which may not include seeking justice for a dead family. After all, clearing the Couslands' name may have little, no, or negative value to him after they're already dead.

[Apophis2412]

Some points I'd like to make:

1. Loghain is not evil.  He did not do these things just for evil's sake or out of a lust for power. He generally did what he thought was right to protect Ferelden.  

 In this he reminds me of Mass Effect's 'villian' Saren.  Both did whatever it took  to save the world/universe. And is that not the trademark of a good person or even a hero? Selflesly doing what is good.

The only thing that you can really accuse Loghain of is being misguided.

2. On the slavery subject: Inter arma enim silent leges.

3.  A lot of people want to execute Loghain for his 'crimes'. They seem to want vengeance or justice. Why exactly? What ever he may have done is pretty irrelvant at the time of the Landsmeet. There is a Blight going on and every warrior is needed. Your obligation to stop the Blight supercedes such things as justice, morality and vengance.

Modifié par Apophis2412, 10 janvier 2010 - 08:25 .

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It doesn't matter, they lost and are in a weak position. They can't be useful to anyone. And they don't have the numbers.
And losing a war is one thing. Losing one's culture, language and identity is a disgrace.

That might well be true, yet it does not give others the right to sell you as slave. Besides, they didn´t LOOSE their culture. It was TAKEN AWAY by the humans who forbade the elvish language and religion.

But he is selling elves that no one cares about. There can't be rebellions over this, except from the elves, who can be very easily crushed, which will provide a better justification to sell them all.
In fact, he is selling elves, the minority that no one cares about, so he could precilely avoid asking too much from the rest of the his people.

The fact the Fereldens were racists does not change the fact that Loghain is cruel and criminal when selling them as slaves. Even Anora, and she is not a friend of elves as we know, is appalled by that. Besides, the reaction of the priestess in the city elf origin shows that there are people who don´t like the elves being suppressed.

It never did. Never will. Soldiers go to mutiny when they are not paid enough. Not when they are forced to do things they don't like. Scipio was crying that he was ordered to burn Carthage to the ground. He hated doing it. But he did nonetheless.

Scipio was a single man. And it´s a difference if you are ordered to destroy a city you are at war with since centuries and killing the guys at whose side you fought just days ago.

And so you want Loghain to say: "I trust that our Orlesian comrades will not obey orders to occupy us."?
That doesn't sound stupid to you?
His mother was raped by Orlesian soldiers, why should he think they give a damn?

I don´t say that. I think he will say: "If the Orlaisians plan to attack us it´s better to have them here fighting with us so some of them die while more of us survive than fighting alone and allowing them to invade with an army that is not yet fatigued by fighting."

[eschilde]

Apophis2412 wrote...

Some points I'd like to make:

1. Loghain is not evil.  He did not do these things just for evil's sake or out of a lust for power. He generally did what he thought was right to protect Ferelden.  

 In this he reminds me of Mass Effect's 'villian' Saren.  Both did whatever it took  to save the world/universe. And is that not the trademark of a good person or even a hero? Selflesly doing what is good.

The only thing that you can really accuse Loghain of is being misguided.

2. On the slavery subject: Inter arma enim silent leges.

3.  A lot of people want to execute Loghain for his 'crimes'. They seem to want vengeance or justice. Why exactly? What ever he may have done is pretty irrelvant at the time of the Landsmeet. There is a Blight going on and every warrior is needed. Your obligation to stop the Blight supercedes such things as justice, morality and vengance.

1) I agree, he isn't evil, but his judgment is very, very questionable.
2) Agreed.
3) A warrior who could cause Fereldan to be divided can cause problems that outweigh the value he adds. It's the same concept as Anora having Alistair executed when he doesn't back down from his claim on the throne. In that case, your obligation to stop the Blight requires that Loghain die.

[Bullets McDeath]

eschilde wrote...

As you once told me, read the codex. Everyone knows Howe is a murderous toad. There is absolutely no way he could have expected to get away with the Cousland murder, acting on his own. It is plain as day if you think about it, just not spelled out explicitly. You have to make assumptions that go against everything in the lore to say that Howe could have branded the Cousland's traitors. It is clear in the game that no one, least of all Cailan, would have bought that story.

Cailin doesn't have to buy the story. He just has to act in the best interests of Fereldan, which may not include seeking justice for a dead family. After all, clearing the Couslands' name may have little, no, or negative value to him after they're already dead.

Aside from the fact that they were close friends and among his most ardent supporters and counselours? Again, it's clear that Cailan would have sought justice for their deaths, had he himself not died due to Loghain's betrayal.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 10 janvier 2010 - 08:32 .