1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

melkathi wrote...
You are justifying something because you would do it in an RTS?


This man has won the thread.

Then let me rephrase that. If I am ruling a country under war and I desperatly need money, I would sell the elves in a heartbeat. I would do so out of necessity, not out of hatred.  

Yes, and so did just about every other maniacal sociopathic dictator in history. Which is not helping Loghain's defense much here, as such a defense might gain approval from the old Reichstag, but this is Nuremburg, baby.

No, that's what all leaders did. But you somehow think that war can be fought in a "good way".
Don't resort to godwins, it's useless. There is a big difference between doing something for the war effort and doing something that serves no purpose.

No, they do not. War is an ugly business. However, selling elves into slavery was not only not necessary, as there are many other ways he could have gained the necessary funding, it ultimately hurt his cause even more. For starters, allowing a very corrupt, magically suspect foreign power into your land when your country is getting ready to unravel is a pretty stupid thing to do. Tevinter might not be the power it once was, but in ferelden's current state, it can be a big threat, especially as they seem to like blood magic alot there.

And as far as the war effort goes, just who the hell is Loghain fighting? Not the Blight, that's for sure. The only mention of fighting with Loghain post ostagar is his battles against his own people and the nobility. So basically, he already squandered his resources trying to put down rebellions, one after another, as well as his silly paranoid obsession with wiping out the Grey Wardens. Not a very smart idea, killing off the very armies and civillians who are more necessary to the war effort. If he was having such big problems with rebellions, then obviously, he didn't sell his whole war plan very well, did he?

Of course, since we're in a war crimes trial, and not a military failure tribune, the whole arguement of "anything to win the war" is not helping his case at all.

[Bullets McDeath]

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

But your arugment here is still predicated on the idea that anyone would have believed Howe's story, which given the lore, is highly questionable, at best. There's plenty of evidence that they were working together, as I've maintained throughout the debate... the strongest of which is, the game clearly shows they were working together, in order to seize power. Again, you'd really need evidence to suggest that they WEREN'T working together. There's absolutely no reason to assume they weren't, in this instance.

As for no reason to assume they weren't working together, sure, I agree with that, unless your character is looking for reasons to think Loghain is redeemable. That's fairly unlikely as it is, but it's a possible situation.

Your evidence that Loghain and Howe weren't working together is also based on assumptions that Howe would have certain assumptions about what would happen when he initiated the massacre. Yes, Howe is generally considered a snake by other nobles, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't work with him or believe his story if it was convenient for their personal motives. Consider the fact that the other nobles do nothing against him when Loghain comes to power. That's not only because he has Loghain's support, it's also because the other nobles don't have a lot of incentive to move against him, which would be the same if he managed to successfully convince Cailin that he was justified in killing the Couslands. 

Ok, this really is going in circles now.  I didn't make any assumptions Howe's assumptions. I was refuting your assumption about Howe's assumptions. That's alot of sumptions, I know. You keep resorting to conjecture though, which is not really of much use to either of us.  You're making alot of assumptions about people believing Howe but there's really not much to base that argument on. You say that people don't stand up to Howe because he's in bed with Loghain and that it would have been much the same if Cailan had believed him and he were simply the Teryn of Highever. Again, predicated on the assumption that Cailan would have believed Howe... a known sociopath... over one of his best friends and closest advisors. It's very thin.

[RangerSG]

outlaworacle wrote...

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

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.

If there's no one to give testimony of the conditions of the Cousland massacre (which there wouldn't be, if Duncan and HN were not there) as I said, Howe could say it was self-defense. If he had sufficient evidence it may be enough to stay Cailin's hand, not to mention that Loghain and Anora are major powers behind the throne and could also convince Cailin not to move if they saw either no reason to, or negative repercussions for doing so.

Theoretically, if you weren't playing an HN and Cailin had lived, it's feasible that he could have been persuaded not to do anything about the Couslands. Possibly a high-tiered coercion check, but if Anora doesn't have 4th tier coercion, I don't know who does  

Regardless of whether or not Loghain planned for Cailin's death at Ostagar, his successive actions were damning. For his provable crimes, death is certainly a reasonable and proper punishment. However, if we are arguing that Loghain should have a chance at redemption, whether or not he planned Ostagar with the intention of killing Cailin can have a huge impact on the decision. Logically thinking it through, there is no solid evidence to refute the fact that Loghain may have made his decision to leave the field on the spot, rather than premeditating it, unless you assume Howe and Loghain were working together, which I believe cannot be proven.

It would be great if you could ask Loghain or Howe about this straight up, but I'd like to think the devs left it out to make whether Loghain planned Ostagar with such an intention ambiguous. As I said, I have no view on whether or not Loghain and Howe were working together prior to Ostagar. I simply think there is reasonable doubt against it, which can certainly affect ones' decision in recruiting him.

But your arugment here is still predicated on the idea that anyone would have believed Howe's story, which given the lore, is highly questionable, at best. There's plenty of evidence that they were working together, as I've maintained throughout the debate... the strongest of which is, the game clearly shows they were working together, in order to seize power. Again, you'd really need evidence to suggest that they WEREN'T working together. There's absolutely no reason to assume they weren't, in this instance.

Agreed, the lore is pretty clear that Howe is all but universally despised. The fact he's acquired such titles in such a short time seems to indicate a regent who's throwing power behind the 'one' person whom he can trust, because that person has just as much to lose as he does if the truth comes out.

Loghain is perfectly willing to entertain Howe's use of assassins. So there's no reason to believe he wasn't willing to 'remove' pro-royalist nobles before a Landsmeet (which he knew would be coming). The two most logical choices for an alternative to Loghain at a Landsmeet are Bryce Cousland and Arl Eamon.

Eamon though, doesn't have the rank to pass on his personal popularity with his peers to Bann Teagan. So Loghain has little reason to see anyone but Eamon as a threat. The Couslands however, are the oldest and most powerful (remaining) noble family in the realm if Cailan dies. Bryce (or his heir) would be THE logical choice for a Landsmeet to arrive at, even over him. Unless he was able to remove or discredit the ENTIRE line.

So it seems quite logical to me that Howe is doing nothing that Loghain didn't approve (with plausible deniability, of course). I would also guess that the whole timeline thing could be dealt with by this suggestion:

Loghain 'did' hire Jowan, through his most despicable toady, Arl Howe.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Aseya wrote...
Duncan had problems convincing people darkspawn have not been previously wiped out.  They may not wish to believe there is another blight but they were not unable to see the numbers of darkspawn popping up shown before Ostagar big battle.

People also know grey wardens kill archdemons and therefore ending the blight.  When Duncan states they need to consider posibility of archdemon appearence Cailan says thats why greywardens are there for.

Putting these 2 facts together ( even without further knowledge behind the rest of it ) and to think of a possibility of true blight AND the consequences would be a priority over an Orleasian invasion conspiracy theory to which there is no proof.

Or to put it in another way: Greywardens returns to Ferelden  while at the same time darkspawn starts popping out of the grass in numbers not seen in last 400 years - hmmm could there be a blight OR could it be Orleasian are taking over?
And in regards to prioritising the consequences of  possible  theories - what would be worst for the nation: blight or orleasian invasion?

Yeah definately a rational and logical decision to be made  by a man of his importance in society

No, Duncan had no problem proving that the darkspawn are not extinct, as they showed up. Duncan has problems proving it's a blight. But he knows it's a blight, he just can't tell anyone why and how.

No, the people don't know that ONLY a Grey Warden can kill an Archdemon. They have been told this. But they don't know how and why this is the case. In fact, throughout the game I was wondering that myself, why are the Grey Wardens needed. It was only when Riordan explained everything that I understood.

Again, this is not proof of a Blight, as only the Dwarves know that darkspawn are on the surface during a blight. And Ferelden already defeated the darkspawn in three battles. Perhaps Loghain thought that the darkspawn can be delt with easily and that it was Orlais the real threat. Which would have been true if this wasn't a blight. But it is and nobody knew except the Grey wArdens.

[Asylumer]

Figures I'd have to find something to disprove myself. Under the Prelude conversations with Loghain, if the player is a Human Noble, the localization comment heavily implies that Loghain was with Howe in a plan to kill Cailan... which is directly contradicted by the later comment at the Landsmeet where Loghain genuinely believes he didn't betray Cailan.

... Somebody care to explain that to me? Now, I did get the feeling that the story took some drastic changes at some point, and the prelude was the first part of the game finished. In one of the old endings, Anora damns her father as hopelessly insane. So either Loghain's guilt was completely changed at one point, or the developers intentionally sowed contradicting messages so discovering the truth wouldn't be as simple as scouring the comments.

Modifié par Asylumer, 10 janvier 2010 - 09:23 .

[SarEnyaDor]

Loghain must always die.



No matter how you slice it, he betrayed Maric, and he betrayed Rowan, by not doing everything in his power to save Cailan, no matter what the cost.



I personally think he hated Cailan for being Maric's son more than he loved Cailan for being Rowan's.

[eschilde]

outlaworacle wrote...

eschilde wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

But your arugment here is still predicated on the idea that anyone would have believed Howe's story, which given the lore, is highly questionable, at best. There's plenty of evidence that they were working together, as I've maintained throughout the debate... the strongest of which is, the game clearly shows they were working together, in order to seize power. Again, you'd really need evidence to suggest that they WEREN'T working together. There's absolutely no reason to assume they weren't, in this instance.

As for no reason to assume they weren't working together, sure, I agree with that, unless your character is looking for reasons to think Loghain is redeemable. That's fairly unlikely as it is, but it's a possible situation.

Your evidence that Loghain and Howe weren't working together is also based on assumptions that Howe would have certain assumptions about what would happen when he initiated the massacre. Yes, Howe is generally considered a snake by other nobles, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't work with him or believe his story if it was convenient for their personal motives. Consider the fact that the other nobles do nothing against him when Loghain comes to power. That's not only because he has Loghain's support, it's also because the other nobles don't have a lot of incentive to move against him, which would be the same if he managed to successfully convince Cailin that he was justified in killing the Couslands. 

Ok, this really is going in circles now.  I didn't make any assumptions Howe's assumptions. I was refuting your assumption about Howe's assumptions. That's alot of sumptions, I know. You keep resorting to conjecture though, which is not really of much use to either of us.  You're making alot of assumptions about people believing Howe but there's really not much to base that argument on. You say that people don't stand up to Howe because he's in bed with Loghain and that it would have been much the same if Cailan had believed him and he were simply the Teryn of Highever. Again, predicated on the assumption that Cailan would have believed Howe... a known sociopath... over one of his best friends and closest advisors. It's very thin.

I'm actually just trying to prove that there's reasonable doubt. I was trying to say that Howe would have to have certain expectations and motives for taking the actions he did, which aren't necessarily known or provable. Does that simplify it?

It's _likely_ that Loghain and Howe could and were working together, but it's also _possible_ that they weren't. You can't prove it.

We can argue this all day and neither one of us will convince the other I don't really have anything more to say on the subject besides that statement.

[j_j_m]

eschilde wrote...


If there's no one to give testimony of the conditions of the Cousland massacre (which there wouldn't be, if Duncan and HN were not there) as I said, Howe could say it was self-defense. If he had sufficient evidence it may be enough to stay Cailin's hand, not to mention that Loghain and Anora are major powers behind the throne and could also convince Cailin not to move if they saw either no reason to, or negative repercussions for doing so.

Theoretically, if you weren't playing an HN and Cailin had lived, it's feasible that he could have been persuaded not to do anything about the Couslands. Possibly a high-tiered coercion check, but if Anora doesn't have 4th tier coercion, I don't know who does  

Regardless of whether or not Loghain planned for Cailin's death at Ostagar, his successive actions were damning. For his provable crimes, death is certainly a reasonable and proper punishment. However, if we are arguing that Loghain should have a chance at redemption, whether or not he planned Ostagar with the intention of killing Cailin can have a huge impact on the decision. Logically thinking it through, there is no solid evidence to refute the fact that Loghain may have made his decision to leave the field on the spot, rather than premeditating it, unless you assume Howe and Loghain were working together, which I believe cannot be proven.

It would be great if you could ask Loghain or Howe about this straight up, but I'd like to think the devs left it out to make whether Loghain planned Ostagar with such an intention ambiguous. As I said, I have no view on whether or not Loghain and Howe were working together prior to Ostagar. I simply think there is reasonable doubt against it, which can certainly affect ones' decision in recruiting him.

Look, here you have to reach to this hugely implausible and complicated theory full of assumptions and try to justify it by any means necessary, or you can go with the obvious. It isn't really that difficult to see the pattern here, because trust me, 99.9% of the players who played this game knew Howe was in it with Loghain. The truth must have flew past us all? Maybe Bioware should clarify it officially on their website for us all ignoramuses? They made the game too difficult for us to follow. Next time make it simpler and have Howe just plan it WITH Loghain.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

No, they do not. War is an ugly business. However, selling elves into slavery was not only not necessary, as there are many other ways he could have gained the necessary funding, it ultimately hurt his cause even more. For starters, allowing a very corrupt, magically suspect foreign power into your land when your country is getting ready to unravel is a pretty stupid thing to do. Tevinter might not be the power it once was, but in ferelden's current state, it can be a big threat, especially as they seem to like blood magic alot there.

And as far as the war effort goes, just who the hell is Loghain fighting? Not the Blight, that's for sure. The only mention of fighting with Loghain post ostagar is his battles against his own people and the nobility. So basically, he already squandered his resources trying to put down rebellions, one after another, as well as his silly paranoid obsession with wiping out the Grey Wardens. Not a very smart idea, killing off the very armies and civillians who are more necessary to the war effort. If he was having such big problems with rebellions, then obviously, he didn't sell his whole war plan very well, did he?

Of course, since we're in a war crimes trial, and not a military failure tribune, the whole arguement of "anything to win the war" is not helping his case at all.

Selling elves provided money needed to finance the war. Yes it is necessary, or at the very least, helpful. Killing people, in detriment to the war effort simply because you hate them while your nation is being invaded by two other powers is idiocy. The two examples are incomparable.
Loghain didn't let Tevinter military in, only slavers. So they were not a threat.

Loghain was fighting the nobility yes. The people who don't want a "commoner" on the throne. But he was also preparing to fight the darkspawn, as he tells us afterwards. How do you want him to fight the darkspawn if the stupid nobility is rebelling?
The civil war is everyone's fault and a testemony to how every single one is an idiot. Not only Loghain. But at least he had a plan in mind. What were the nobility thinking?

So you blame a man for putting down rebellions in a time of war? Duh, any nation would have done the same, during a war or not. So I don't see your point.

[eschilde]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Loghain must always die.

No matter how you slice it, he betrayed Maric, and he betrayed Rowan, by not doing everything in his power to save Cailan, no matter what the cost.

I personally think he hated Cailan for being Maric's son more than he loved Cailan for being Rowan's.

Are the books a good read? I'm actually considering ordering them since people keep referencing them here >.>

Loghain should die for a lot of reasons, not just that he betrayed a lot of people, but also because he made extremely bad judgment calls and steered Fereldan on a course of civil war. You make it sound like he hated Maric, which isn't really the impression I get from the game.. >.>

[Aseya]

Asylumer wrote...


... Somebody care to explain that to me? Now, I did get the feeling that the story took some drastic changes at some point ....

There are some weird incosistency when u play through various origins - doenst have to do anything with this thread but as a mage there is a converstaion with Wynne where you can say you miss life in mage tower and she says something in the lines its been almost a YEAR since you left.

[SarEnyaDor]

The books are good - and there is a fine line between love and hate, and sometimes one causes the other.



The epilogue will make you sad and mad, because of the way it goes from action to oh yeah so and so is dead now, buh-bye. LOL

[Tirigon]

KnightOfPhoenix wrote:

Then let me rephrase that. If I am ruling a country under war and I desperatly need money, I would sell the elves in a heartbeat. I would do so out of necessity, not out of hatred.

Skadi wrote:
Yes, and so did just about every other maniacal sociopathic dictator in history. Which is not helping Loghain's defense much here, as such a defense might gain approval from the old Reichstag, but this is Nuremburg, baby.

No, that's what all leaders did. But you somehow think that war can be fought in a "good way".
Don't resort to godwins, it's useless. There is a big difference between doing something for the war effort and doing something that serves no purpose.

Don´t resort to flaming about Godwin, he was a wise man.
There is NO big difference between crimes commited for nothing and crimes commited for a war. Because a war is something bad. Actually, I think committing crimes to lead a war makes them even worse, if it affects them at all.

And btw, a war CAN be fought in a good way. By NOT ignoring civil rights, NOT oppressing minorities, NOT harming innocents but simply sending a taskforce to wherever your enemy´s leaders hide and capturing them with as little damage to civilians as possible.

[eschilde]

j_j_m wrote...
Look, here you have to reach to this hugely implausible and complicated theory full of assumptions and try to justify it by any means necessary, or you can go with the obvious. It isn't really that difficult to see the pattern here, because trust me, 99.9% of the players who played this game knew Howe was in it with Loghain. The truth must have flew past us all? Maybe Bioware should clarify it officially on their website for us all ignoramuses? They made the game too difficult for us to follow. Next time make it simpler and have Howe just plan it WITH Loghain.

It's not implausible as far as I can tell. Full of assumptions, yes, but no more than theories which have opposing views. You don't "know" Howe was in it with Loghain prior to Ostagar, you just think he was, which doesn't necessarily make it true. Before the 1400s everyone knew the world was flat. That doesn't make it true. A good portion of pixels in the game think the Maker exists, but that doesn't mean it's true. 

Relax a little bit, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's perfectly fine for people to think differently about what happened, and to possibly justify those views. I'm not telling you to change your gameplay.

[Aseya]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Perhaps Loghain thought that the darkspawn can be delt with easily and that it was Orlais the real threat. Which would have been true if this wasn't a blight. But it is and nobody knew except the Grey wArdens.

We will just have to disagree on this point

[SarEnyaDor]

Lemme just say this - if Maric were around he'd have killed Loghain at the landsmeet for justice....

[eschilde]

Ahahaha, well, it's really really hard not to kill Loghain at the Landsmeet, so I wouldn't hold that against him.



If Maric were still alive I doubt anything in the game would have played out the way it did. I'm assuming Maric would have been smarter than Cailin about fighting on the front lines, at any rate.

[j_j_m]

eschilde wrote...


It's not implausible as far as I can tell. Full of assumptions, yes, but no more than theories which have opposing views. You don't "know" Howe was in it with Loghain prior to Ostagar, you just think he was, which doesn't necessarily make it true. Before the 1400s everyone knew the world was flat. That doesn't make it true. A good portion of pixels in the game think the Maker exists, but that doesn't mean it's true. 

Relax a little bit, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's perfectly fine for people to think differently about what happened, and to possibly justify those views. I'm not telling you to change your gameplay.

Nah, I just tried a different tactic, but I guess there is no swaying of you. I'm done with this.

[SarEnyaDor]

Get the books before we spoil them for you!!!



can't-say-anything-else.....

[eschilde]

j_j_m wrote...

eschilde wrote...


It's not implausible as far as I can tell. Full of assumptions, yes, but no more than theories which have opposing views. You don't "know" Howe was in it with Loghain prior to Ostagar, you just think he was, which doesn't necessarily make it true. Before the 1400s everyone knew the world was flat. That doesn't make it true. A good portion of pixels in the game think the Maker exists, but that doesn't mean it's true. 

Relax a little bit, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's perfectly fine for people to think differently about what happened, and to possibly justify those views. I'm not telling you to change your gameplay.

Nah, I just tried a different tactic, but I guess there is no swaying of you. I'm done with this.

Generally the "Everyone else thinks you're wrong" tactic isn't a good way of convincing someone of something

[Bullets McDeath]

I think Occam's Razor could be applied well here. No, it is not explicitly spelled out in giant neon letters, but if you think about it for 2.8 seconds, it's bloody obvious... you really have to be working under the assumption that Loghain was innocent to make any other argument, which is a pretty dumb place to start from since we know he's guilty as hell. Anyway I'm done arguing about this, I don't think even David Gaider coming into this thread would help, people would just argue with him too probably.

[novaseeker]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightOfPhoenix wrote:

Then let me rephrase that. If I am ruling a country under war and I desperatly need money, I would sell the elves in a heartbeat. I would do so out of necessity, not out of hatred.

Skadi wrote:
Yes, and so did just about every other maniacal sociopathic dictator in history. Which is not helping Loghain's defense much here, as such a defense might gain approval from the old Reichstag, but this is Nuremburg, baby.

No, that's what all leaders did. But you somehow think that war can be fought in a "good way".
Don't resort to godwins, it's useless. There is a big difference between doing something for the war effort and doing something that serves no purpose.

Don´t resort to flaming about Godwin, he was a wise man.
There is NO big difference between crimes commited for nothing and crimes commited for a war. Because a war is something bad. Actually, I think committing crimes to lead a war makes them even worse, if it affects them at all.

And btw, a war CAN be fought in a good way. By NOT ignoring civil rights, NOT oppressing minorities, NOT harming innocents but simply sending a taskforce to wherever your enemy´s leaders hide and capturing them with as little damage to civilians as possible.

Of course.  Loghain is captivated by his own nationalist sense of paranoia.  So was Hitler.  Loghain probably personally honestly believed he was doing the best thing for Ferelden, in light of his paranoia issues.  Hitler also believed he was doing the right thing for Germany and Europe, too, in light of his own way of viewing the world. 

Loghain may very well have believed he was doing what was best, but so did Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and so on.  If the standard of morality is "what he thought was best", then we don't have any moral standard at all.

Loghain made evil decisions, regardless of what he personally thought about them.  His personal views on them do not determine the morality of the actions he took.

[Ulicus]

It's a pity our human nobles can't confront Loghain about this in the game itself.

[Bullets McDeath]

Ulicus wrote...

It's a pity our human nobles can't confront Loghain about this in the game itself.

You can, but Loghain has the benefit of plausible deniablity. That heroic bastard!

[Tirigon]

@ Knight: Repeating that every Real World Nation would have done the same is pointless. It just shows that every Real World nation is ruled by people ready to commit crimes. And that´s something I knew already.