120 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Bhryaen wrote...

@Riverdaleswhiteflash

On the slavery-is-a-nifty-solution question... a side issue... you've only now introduced Loghain excuse #3 for resorting to selling off Fereldens to slavery:

1. Cuz you Wardens were makin' trouble for me, so I had to fund the campaign against you.

Well, they were. (But I don't remember when Loghain uses this excuse.)

2. Cuz I needed to raise money for my fratricidal military ventures, what with the civil war I'd promulgated.

If we go by the "Ostagar-was-unwinnable" intepretation that the evidence strongly points to, the Civil War was only slightly Loghain's fault. If we go by Loghain being a premeditated regicide, Teagan still should have waited until problem number one was solved.

3. What? Them elfs were better off slaves than darkspawn dead.

Of course, the Denerim elves did survive the Blight and got to resume their shantytown daily life after all, but still...

It's a harder choice than you give it credit for, I think. Besides, I don't see the Alienage surviving the battle of Denerim without the Warden, who Loghain is pretty sure is trying to destroy Ferelden.

Excuse after excuse is put forward... Hard to see how Loghain was regretful of anything. I can just imagine the boardroom meeting...

"So... we need to raise funds. Ideas?"
"Bake sale?"
"No."
"Maybe make some concessions to banns, end the civil war, less costly that way, fewer dead."

"And what concessions would accomplish that?"

"The dwarves like our ale. Maybe we could..."

"... hope they get their act together soon?"

"How about selling off the alienage elves to Tevinter slavers? That should bring in... well, not exactly a fortune, but..."
"No, wait, that's brilliant!"
"Well, it's not like they'd go for 1000gp each..."
"So? Go on."
"OK, well, we'd also have to accept losses for housing the Tevinters and their thugs in maybe some elaborate scheme of faking a sickness going on, provide them cover for the operation, some losses from occupying the alienage..."
"Doable. Go on."
"And we'd be middle men, so we'd only be getting a cut of the action..."
"I'm sold. How about you, Loggy boy?"
"Sound the retreat!"
"We already did that. I mean on enslaving alienage elves. You in?"
"Oh... sure. But my heart is heavy on it, Howe."
"Works for me. I'll get right on it."

*head chops all 'round*

I wasn't under the impression the sickness was faked.

Don't interpret this as me supporting Loghain's decision. He was in a bad spot, whether or not he put himself there. But we don't know if there was any other way out.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 05 avril 2013 - 10:42 .

[Fuggyt]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Gameplay does not equal lore. It must reflect it to be applicable as an argument. It's lore that a single basic Hurlock is a match for a dozen normal people -- which is seen in Redcliffe, for instance, and other places. Our party is not "normal" by any sense of the word, by virtue of being the Warden's buddies on the road.


Actually, as far as I can see that's a gross overstatement of the lore.  The codices on genlocks and hurlocks are clear.  Genlocks are considerably the most numerous.  Hurlocks may be stronger, but they are also far fewer.  Moreover, "the shock troops of the darkspawn, a single berserking hurlock can often be a match for numerous opponents at once."  Note the provisions, "berserking," "can," "often," and "numerous."  And from this we can conclude that the average darkspawn at Ostagar was equal to ten (or a dozen, or whatever other inflated number is provided by the Department of the Poster's Left Buttock) of Loghain's heavily armed and armored, well trained, veteran troops led by Ferelden's greatest commander? 

No, I don't think we can take it as lore that the darkspawn individually are supermen.  They die just as readily as your average carta thug or random bandit, and the lore jibes neatly with the gameplay.  And that's irksome, because it's already clear, whether you acknowledge it or not, that your case for Loghain relies predominantly on your conclusions, opinions, perceptions, judgments, and speculations.  But when you have to use exaggerations and outright distortions, as in this instance, to make your point, maybe your point needs refinement.

The supremacy of lore over gameplay you cite is a smokescreen.  Lore is supposed to align with gameplay and vice versa.  Lore can't be so inconsistent with gameplay that it doesn't support the game, can it?  Why wouldn't the developers change the gameplay (or, easier still, revise the point of lore) to eliminate glaring inconsistencies?  Something like that ruins immersion and breaks willingly suspended disbelief when you find out the codex you just tripped over completely contradicts your last five hours of gameplay. 

And you know what's most ironic?  You admit that yourself, and all in one gloriously hypocritical and self-contradictory sentence.  Can you find it?  Look closely, it's in bold, where you yourself use a gameplay experience to support your interpretation of lore, right after you scolded somebody else for the same thing.

I call shenanigans.

Modifié par Fuggyt, 06 avril 2013 - 01:06 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Fuggyt wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Gameplay does not equal lore. It must reflect it to be applicable as an argument. It's lore that a single basic Hurlock is a match for a dozen normal people -- which is seen in Redcliffe, for instance, and other places. Our party is not "normal" by any sense of the word, by virtue of being the Warden's buddies on the road.

Actually, as far as I can see that's a gross overstatement of the lore.  The codices on genlocks and hurlocks are clear.  Genlocks are considerably the most numerous.  Hurlocks may be stronger, but they are also far fewer.  Moreover, "the shock troops of the darkspawn, a single berserking hurlock can often be a match for numerous opponents at once."  Note the provisions, "berserking," "can," "often," and "numerous."  And from this we can conclude that the average darkspawn at Ostagar was equal to ten (or a dozen, or whatever other inflated number is provided by the Department of the Poster's Left Buttock) of Loghain's heavily armed and armored, well trained, veteran troops led by Ferelden's greatest commander? 

No, I don't think we can take it as lore that the darkspawn individually are supermen.  They die just as readily as your average carta thug or random bandit, and the lore jibes neatly with the gameplay.  And that's irksome, because it's already clear, whether you acknowledge it or not, that your case for Loghain relies predominantly on your conclusions, opinions, perceptions, judgments, and speculations.  But when you have to use exaggerations and outright distortions, as in this instance, to make your point, maybe your point needs refinement.

The supremacy of lore over gameplay you cite is a smokescreen.  Lore is supposed to align with gameplay and vice versa.  Lore can't be so inconsistent with gameplay that it doesn't support the game, can it?  Why wouldn't the developers change the gameplay (or, easier still, revise the point of lore) to eliminate glaring inconsistencies?  Something like that ruins immersion and breaks willingly suspended disbelief when you find out the codex you just tripped over completely contradicts your last five hours of gameplay. 

And you know what's most ironic?  You admit that yourself, and all in one gloriously hypocritical and self-contradictory sentence.  Can you find it?  Look closely, it's in bold, where you yourself use a gameplay experience to support your interpretation of lore, right after you scolded somebody else for the same thing.

I call shenanigans.

He says that the lore does not support the stuff the Warden does, and that more accurate to the lore would be the stuff the NPCs do. I don't think that's hypocrisy.

Although now that I think about it, I am curious where he got the "dozen opponents at once" statistic. Was that from the books? (That said, this doesn't eliminate the problem where Loghain has no access to ogres and limited access to mages, or the problem where the plan Loghain is depending on falls apart due to the Tower being taken.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 avril 2013 - 01:28 .

[Bhryaen]

@TEWR
So you want me to disregard all my gameplay experience... which I'll never do. My gameplay experience is the only reason I, well, play the game. It's a critical dimension that I not only certainly won't brush aside but absurdly thrive on when I'm into DAO. If I were only a writer for the game and never actually played it, well, lore might be all I really cared about, and what others experience actually playing the game might seem to me to be secondary. But even if I were, I don't think I'd completely disregard the experiences that other people have actually playing the game. I mean... it's a game, not a book. The game isn't the lore... and if it were, well, I wouldn't be "playing" it. I'd just be reading it. And if I'm going to play it, those hours are going to count as what happened far better than some static event log.

The reason that Ostagar's winnability is something that someone would want to make a thread about isn't because they're writing some background lore for DAO (particularly since that lore is already in the game in the codex- about as canon as it gets) and just thought they'd query into the Ostagar battle. No, they ask because their character in the game has actual decisions to be made with actual consequences that they experience, all which might be affected by whether or not Ostagar was winnable (i.e., whether Loghain was simply 100% treachery or was responding poorly to overwhelming darkspawn opposition). They can even recruit Loghain at some point, hear his spiel, walk him through Ostagar- or meet up with Wynne again who was also at Ostagar- or, of course, Alistair. The actual experience is what drives the interest... for most. Not all... obviously...

But more importantly, lore isn't evidence. The Adventures of Volo make this obvious: he's known for getting facts wrong or spreading false and exaggerated rumors of the Forgotten Realms. Lore is storytelling, not evidence-gathering. (Cue Leliana: "I love stories!") Historiography belongs to the victors, not the facts. So even taking the game experience as one which includes notes and such for the character (player) to read, it's only like you picking up a book of lore on something that you're actually experiencing. People resent Wynne's lecturing you about your Wardenhood because she's not even a Warden: it's all based on lore for her while your character is getting the freaky dreams and increased appetite and has only a few decades left to live at best and is drawing actual shriek ambushes and may be the only one able to save Ferelden by absorbing a dragon. How fights happen in the game matters. It's from there that we can determine anything substantive about how a fight between Loghain's surprise flanking troops (plus Cailan, the Wardens, and remaining gate troops) and whatever darkspawn was on the field.

So lore about spawnies is all well and good, but if we're looking for evidence to determine the winnability of Ostagar, we need info, not lore. No, size isn't everything, but it's one very decisive factor. If Loghain's troops numbered ten times what we see in that cutscene, that's different than two times what we see. It makes a difference. And how many spawnies are left at the time Loggy runs away? If it's a tremendous horde ten times the amount of Loggy's troops, no difficulty at all in deciding: lost cause. But it's not shown and not placed before us as a stat- i.e., Loghain troops 15,465, Spawnies 12,539 (320 regular emissaries, 59 elites, 22 bosses, etc etc). Of course, we couldn't get such exact numbers even if we were "there," but we'd at least be able to crane our necks around where the cutscenes don't show, use scouts, walk about the full Loghain contingent, survey the full Spawnie red glow area. We don't even get that- only the areas deemed sensational for the cutscenes. We also don't know the terrain. It's dark. It's wooded. Where do the hills start and how steep the valley walls? What "secret weapons" do Loghain's troops have? What proportion of those ranks is higher level? Lots of info to gather. Not much means. In fact, not enough.

So I'd say gameplay should trounce lore in the same way that living experience can trounce written accounts. Of course, we're talking about fiction for both when it comes to a game, but still. I'm certainly not going to play as if all I'm experiencing is irrelevant. I mean, sure, we turn a blind eye to stuff like repositioning the party for a cutscene or killing Teagan or the Lothering bandit only for them to suddenly get up and start talking. But that's just a transition leap of imagination, not a blanket disregard for everything we experience.

Like the lore of "old gods." This is just lore also, even stated as such in the game. Various NPCs disbelieve it outright. Nowhere in the game is it delineated or demonstrated what the dragons are- and it's not called Old Gods Age. There is only the old tale of a Golden City... which we never see. Even Wynne concedes that it could just be allegory. What isn't lore is that Archy actually can talk. I'm taking your word for it, mind you, since I'll likely never have the... whatever... to play Chronicles, but taking this as fact then, apparently the player can experience for themselves in-game worded communication from Archy. So that's a fact I got wrong. And thus you can see how impressions alone are insufficient as evidence. We need facts. If one never plays Chronicles, Archy looks stupider than a puppy chasing its tail. Now I don't know what kind of communication, how diabolically genius the Archytalk is, but for sure it didn't do Archy much good against our Wardens. So there much doubt, not "no doubt", about its intellectual prowess.

And Archy's omniscience being a matter of using Wardens as scrying tools is also just lore... except it's only yours. That's not even part of the game's assertions. You just made that up. ;-) Sure, it's a neat story, but, well, there's no evidence of it, not in the codex and not in the game experience. We get dreams (dreams, mind you, not waking experience) of the dragon, but no advanced knowledge of its plans. Older Wardens claim they can sometimes understand it- whatever that means- and according to 6-month-Warden Alistair. But maybe the scrying is one-way, right? Or maybe it isn't happening at all. It's a relatively plausible speculation- valid even- particularly when we're talking about a gameworld narrative employing magic, but it doesn't relate to anything we actually experience in-game. If Archy knew what my Wardens were doing, it actually let them gather and unite forces to defeat its huge Spawnie upswell despite all the odds being in Archy's favor. It saw Riordan there, but it flew past seeing Riordan's plan to mount it. And, hey, maybe it wanted to die too, and that's why we beat it. All part of its plan... Genius! Or maybe it just waited for more chaos fodder to sprout before showing itself because in in-game reality it's not so tough against Lvl 20+ Warden parties of four, so it tries to bolster its minion forces. But it was still too stupid to defeat our Warden. That'd be a more plausible explanation than an elaborate plot of deceiving people about a Blight- particularly when the sheer number of darkspawn on the surface was already concerning folks and not exactly inconspicuous. But that's just storytelling too...

I swear I recall them saying that the mages, elves, and dwarves that get organized due to the Warden Treaty work we do weren't that numerous. No idea where you get the 1000s numbers from. What I recall anyway- and maybe I'm mistaken- was that each group sent all they could spare and all they could spare is what we see on that pinwheel in the upper right corner of the screen during the besieged Denerim areas. Redcliffe was wasted by the undead, the elves were wasted by lycanthropy, and the dwarves were wasted by civil strife. While the remnants of Loghain's forces and whatever others were recruited at Redcliffe (or wherever else) were to meet the horde, those very limited Treaty forces were supposedly dedicated entirely to assisting the Warden's path to Fort Drakon's rooftop. Right up to the end the elves tell you that they're still recovering from the werewolf curse and can only send so many. I don't know where those mages came from since the tower had no one but the handful at the bottom plus Godwin. (Maybe those that escaped the demons? Really- Greagoir let them out of the Tower then? To where? But why were they seen in the cutscene marching away from the Lake Calenhad docks...? Questions arise, not answers...) Regardless they're no huge throng either. The cutscene forces are about what's offered in the pinwheel. And golems? lol From Caridin's thaig maybe? Game lore doesn't favor that one either- unless we assume Branka commandeered it immediately (for those Wardens who side with her, that is) and knew how to use the Anvil. (I've never done that either, so I wouldn't know.) This is why I'd assert that the facility with which the civil-war-battered allied troops gained and held a foothold into Denerim gives all sorts of indication of winnability for non-civil-war-battered allied troops at Ostagar against far fewer forces and no dragonkin.

As to your hurlock berserker killing 10 villagers, well, that's not exactly saying much, though I'd agree immediately. But Loghain's troops weren't the Lothering mob with its regular clothes and inexperienced punching and knifing... though that Lothering mob does do quite the number on my tank, so maybe I shouldn't underestimate them...

[Monica21]

Hanz54321 wrote...
As an FYI - that does not work.  The vast majority of times when a woman actually injures her male attacker, it just makes him angry.  That's when a robbery becomes a rape and a rape becomes a murder.

It's a tough reality because NOT defending yourself does not guarantee your safety - thus you should defend yourself.  But be aware that if you cut his face with those keys or even manage to get one eye but not both, he will most likely kill you.

Edit:  your best option always is to run to a well lighted area where there are other people.  Also, don't yell "help" or "fire".  Yell something with a lot of cussing.  "****!"  This mother ****er is **** ing chasing me!"  It gets rubber neckers to look out their windows.

Thread Derailer Gives Terrible Advice is basically my response. Jesus.

[TEWR]

[quote]I call shenanigans.[/quote]

Objection!

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Although now that I think about it, I am curious where he got the "dozen opponents at once" statistic. Was that from the books? [/quote]

I thought I heard it somewhere before, but I can't say. Might've been in-game, or somewhere else.

Regardless, numerous opponents is what a berserking Hurlock is capable of taking on. Numerous means many, so it's not a stretch for me to use a dozen if the actual number was never given.

And considering every Hurlock we face uses berserk... well...

[quote]Fuggyt wrote...

or a dozen, or whatever other inflated number is provided by the Department of the Poster's Left Buttock

You admit that yourself, and all in one gloriously hypocritical and self-contradictory sentence.[/quote]

Ah, and we descend into pointless insult generation. How quaint.

As it stands, no, I'm not being hypocritical. Kindly use the word appropriately, if you will, for I'm using the experiences of non-Wardens and relating that to the threat they pose to all non-Wardens, because of what we're told in the codex.

The Warden and his group are, by virtue of being part of the Warden's cadre, not normal people. Two are Mages, one's a proven fighter against Darkspawn, another's a Warden, Dog arguably is a Warden as well given he got over the Taint, and Sten's a Qunari warrior who fought Thedas to a standstill and nearly put Thedas in a bankrupt state so they're extremely skilled.

The only two that come even close to being "normal" are Zevran and Leliana, but Zevran's a trained assassin who could use his skills against the Darkspawn and Leliana's a similarly trained rogue. Not to mention Leliana's whole "The Maker gave me visions" thing, which considering she DOES die if killed in the Urn's chamber and is resurrected (somehow) -- per Word of God -- then it's fair to say she's not normal either.

[quote]Bhryaen wrote...

So you want me to disregard all my gameplay experience... which I'll never do[/quote]

Not disregard it. Just don't apply what applies to the Warden to everyone else, which is why I say the gameplay we experience by playing the Warden is not equivalent to lore in the grand scheme of things.

That's why I don't ever use the "Abominations fight like mindless drunkards, which is evidence they're not truly a threat" argument. Gameplay must reflect the lore to be applicable in an argument in regards to a certain topic, which fighting Darkspawn does on two fronts:

1) We kill them easily, because we're Wardens/special Warden brigade members.
2) Non-Wardens and people not fighting with us cannot deal with such forces easily.

Wardens are by their very nature going to be able to fell Darkspawn with more ease then most. This is the lore we're given about the Wardens -- by Wardens, Thedosian scholars, and other people -- and it's reflected in-game by how easily Darkspawn are killed by us as we progress.

But that does not make it true for non-Wardens and regular footsoldiers, which is told to us in the Hurlock codex and is reflected in-game many times over (Redcliffe being the aforementioned example, but there are others).

[quote]As to your hurlock berserker killing 10 villagers[/quote]

10 soldiers, assuming ten is the number that was there fighting. Not all of Redcliffe's troops were killed off. 

[quote] Fuggyt wrote...

Lore is supposed to align with gameplay and vice versa[/quote]

Yes, that's exactly what I said when I said that "Gameplay that reflects the lore is a suitable argument" and then went on to say that the NPCs fighting off Darkspawn is truer to form then people talking about our Wardens fighting Darkspawn and then applying said Warden badassery as a wide-sweeping blanket for every non-Warden out there.

Fact: Hurlocks are a match for numerous opponents at any one time if they're berserking, and every Hurlock we see goes into a berserker's stance.

Fact: Wardens are skilled at killing Darkspawn, so killing them will be easier for them then for others. Wardens in the First Blight managed to take on 20 Darkspawn at any one time, though granted they also had griffins.

And let's not forget that the Dwarves, who have been facing the Darkspawn forever, consider them a threat -- labeling it their everyday to the surface's nightmare. And that's including outside of Blights.

[quote]This is just lore also, even stated as such in the game. Various NPCs disbelieve it outright. Nowhere in the game is it delineated or demonstrated what the dragons are- and it's not called Old Gods Age.[/quote]

Other then the codex on the Archdemon using the name "Urthemiel" around the time of the Deep Roads sighting, long before meeting the Architect -- who was the only person to ever even utter the name. And the Architect says "I found the Old God Urthemiel" (emphasis mine), so it does seem to be demonstrated actually.

[quote]And Archy's omniscience being a matter of using Wardens as scrying tools is also just lore... except it's only yours. That's not even part of the game's assertions. You just made that up. ;-)[/quote]

Not really. The Archdemon did see the Warden's group repeatedly, something Alistair notes, and even sent a group of assassins after the party.

I'd argue that the fact that the Archdemon's soul is drawn to tainted individuals -- Darkspawn or not -- also indicates a two-way connection. He seeks out tainted individuals when he dies. Morrigan's baby was the brightest beacon, but barring that Wardens are the brighter beacon.

[quote]Sure, it's a neat story, but, well, there's no evidence of it, not in the codex and not in the game experience. We get dreams (dreams, mind you, not waking experience) of the dragon, but no advanced knowledge of its plans.[/quote]

We wouldn't be able to understand its speech. That's only something veteran Wardens are capable of. Like, "I've been a Warden for 20 years" veteran status.

If it's going RAREARAREARARGHGHGHAARRGH -- well, really the Black Speech you hear in the DE Origin, Warden Joining, Reaver Joining, and when the Darkspawn march out of the forest, but I like the garbled rawring =P -- to a newbie Warden it's going to be just that.

To an experienced Warden, it'll be "I could go for some nachos right about now."



[quote]Older Wardens claim they can sometimes understand it- whatever that means- and according to 6-month-Warden Alistair.[/quote]

I'd argue that it means that because the Taint grows stronger as the years roll by, the understanding of the Archdemon becomes clearer as well. More Taint, more understanding, less ability to think clearly.

[quote]If Archy knew what my Wardens were doing, it actually let them gather and unite forces to defeat its huge Spawnie upswell despite all the odds being in Archy's favor.[/quote]

A fair point. But then again, we are defeating Darkspawn bands and Tainted creature bands throughout the countryside, sometimes in random encounters and sometimes in specific ones, so I could argue it told them to defeat the Warden because the Warden isn't anywhere near the main army. 

Even Alistair notes that it'll take time for the Warden to truly grow into his powers, before you leave Flemeth's hut. If Alistair's time as a Warden is any indication, six months is about how long it'd take at most -- which is, incidentally, half of the game's timeline of events.

And the main Darkspawn army does have all the other land to work on conquering in the process -- which you see it do as the game progresses in the map menu -- while the Warden is gallivanting across the countryside, in various areas, and is thus not in any singular location.

And those same lands have their own soldiers and people within them.

[quote]That'd be a more plausible explanation than an elaborate plot of deceiving people about a Blight- particularly when the sheer number of darkspawn on the surface was already concerning folks and not exactly inconspicuous. But that's just storytelling too...[/quote]

See here.

There are other links I'll post, but Opera's having trouble running them so gimme a sec...

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 07 avril 2013 - 04:47 .

[EdwinLi]

Sadly the out come would of been the same. If you get the Return to Ostagar DLC the NPC who gives you the quest will reveal that even if Loghain joined the fight they still would of lost due to the size of the Darkspawn army.

[saMoorai]

No. The horde was too large and Cailan was a fool.

[CDR David Shepard]

EdwinLi wrote...

Sadly the out come would of been the same. If you get the Return to Ostagar DLC the NPC who gives you the quest will reveal that even if Loghain joined the fight they still would of lost due to the size of the Darkspawn army.

Yeah...you clearly did not pay attention to that guy.

If you read through this thread...there are other arguments you can make to support your point.

Using that guy is easily the weakest argument you can make.

He deserted.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 11 avril 2013 - 01:39 .

[Nyxanna]

It's pretty fun that Loghain ran away when in the books he defended a small army against a large army with his plans.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Did the Orlesians have ogres? Or even hurlock emissaries? (They probably use mages, yes. But as many as the darkspawn seem to? I doubt it.)

For that matter, had his plan already failed when it won the battle in the books? If the answer to all these questions is yes, this is pretty good evidence that he's either a traitor or slipping. If the answer to most of these questions is yes, it's still something to ponder.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 11 avril 2013 - 11:59 .

[BlazingSpeed]

Nah, the Archdemon would have just sent more the next day...

[Nyxanna]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Did the Orlesians have ogres? Or even hurlock emissaries? (They probably use mages, yes. But as many as the darkspawn seem to? I doubt it.)

For that matter, had his plan already failed when it won the battle in the books? If the answer to all these questions is yes, this is pretty good evidence that he's either a traitor or slipping. If the answer to most of these questions is yes, it's still something to ponder.

Really? Loghain wasn't in the position to comment on the fight whatsoever. Yeah, he is good when fighting other humans but when it's about darkspawn the Grey Wardens should be the ones who decide how they want to fight so that puts him in no position to decide himself whether they would have won or not.
I find it a little bit unrealistic since I really don't think the Grey Wardens would be this careless. I think they should have known whether it was a blight or not and I'm pretty sure they would know when to run away or stay. I guess they just wanted to make it dramatic.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nyxanna wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Did the Orlesians have ogres? Or even hurlock emissaries? (They probably use mages, yes. But as many as the darkspawn seem to? I doubt it.)

For that matter, had his plan already failed when it won the battle in the books? If the answer to all these questions is yes, this is pretty good evidence that he's either a traitor or slipping. If the answer to most of these questions is yes, it's still something to ponder.

Really? Loghain wasn't in the position to comment on the fight whatsoever. Yeah, he is good when fighting other humans but when it's about darkspawn the Grey Wardens should be the ones who decide how they want to fight so that puts him in no position to decide himself whether they would have won or not.

Last comment, you were arguing that he knew his business. Stay consistent.

Besides which, there were no Grey Wardens next to Loghain commenting on the situation. Even if you believe the general who came up with the plan should have deferred to the Wardens, there were none to rejudge the battle plan based on the current situation.

I find it a little bit unrealistic since I really don't think the Grey Wardens would be this careless. I think they should have known whether it was a blight or not and I'm pretty sure they would know when to run away or stay. I guess they just wanted to make it dramatic.

They did know whether it was a Blight or not. As for knowing whether to run or stay, it was already a little late when the horde really showed off its strength.

[ParatrooperSean]

Of course the battle could have been won. We are talking about a hypothetical that takes place in fiction, so anything is possible.

I just recently started doing another play through because my game was loaded on my old computer and I want to import my games into Dragon age 3. There really are arguments that could be made either way. Prior to the battle there is a scene where Duncan tells the king, "The plan will work, sire." You can also argue that he is a seasoned veteran Warden and is able to sense Darkspawn, so he would be an authority on the situation. On the other hand, the guy who gives you the information about the key to the Royal chest in Return to Ostagar thought it was unwinnable even if Loghain didn't betray the king.

The writers don't get all make it clear what would have happened if Loghain didn't retreat, nor did they portray Loghain or King Cailan in a positive light. Loghain was an unscrupulous, egocentric, power-hungry douche. King Cailan was a naïve, immature glory hound.

[TEWR]

On the other hand, the guy who gives you the information about the key to the Royal chest in Return to Ostagar thought it was unwinnable even if Loghain didn't betray the king.

He doesn't just say he thinks it was unwinnable, he says that Cailan knew it was unwinnable. And this guy was Cailan's confidant.

Cailan was just acting confident in battle for morale's sake, but it was the wrong call. Rushing into a battle you know is hopeless is an asenine thing to do.

Loghain was an unscrupulous, egocentric, power-hungry douche

He was not power-hungry. He did not desire power, and in fact he freely relinquishes his power when he sees that someone who hasn't made all of the things that he personally views as his mistakes -- which doesn't mean they (all) necessarily were -- is capable of doing what he thought he was solely capable of: saving the nation.

And he's certainly not unscrupulous.

Egocentric, maybe.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 avril 2013 - 09:39 .

[CDR David Shepard]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

On the other hand, the guy who gives you the information about the key to the Royal chest in Return to Ostagar thought it was unwinnable even if Loghain didn't betray the king.

He doesn't just say he thinks it was unwinnable, he says that Cailan knew it was unwinnable. And this guy was Cailan's confidant.

Cailan was just acting confident in battle for morale's sake, but it was the wrong call. Rushing into a battle you know is hopeless is an asenine thing to do.

Loghain was an unscrupulous, egocentric, power-hungry douche

He was not power-hungry. He did not desire power, and in fact he freely relinquishes his power when he sees that someone who hasn't made all of the things that he personally views as his mistakes -- which doesn't mean they (all) necessarily were -- is capable of doing what he thought he was solely capable of: saving the nation.

And he's certainly not unscrupulous.

Egocentric, maybe.

EWR...you make a lot of good arguments to support your side in this thread...even though I do not agree with it.

However, please do not use Elric as an argument.

He deserted...and he admitted to having a guilty conscience.

He would say anything to make himself feel better for deserting Cailan.

Using him is most definitely the weakest argument to support your side.

[ParatrooperSean]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

On the other hand, the guy who gives you the information about the key to the Royal chest in Return to Ostagar thought it was unwinnable even if Loghain didn't betray the king.

He doesn't just say he thinks it was unwinnable, he says that Cailan knew it was unwinnable. And this guy was Cailan's confidant.

Cailan was just acting confident in battle for morale's sake, but it was the wrong call. Rushing into a battle you know is hopeless is an asenine thing to do.

Loghain was an unscrupulous, egocentric, power-hungry douche

He was not power-hungry. He did not desire power, and in fact he freely relinquishes his power when he sees that someone who hasn't made all of the things that he personally views as his mistakes -- which doesn't mean they (all) necessarily were -- is capable of doing what he thought he was solely capable of: saving the nation.

And he's certainly not unscrupulous.

Egocentric, maybe.

I could rebut your unwinnable arguments and then you would give your retorts, and so on. That's the point. Whatever their intentions the writers failed to clearly outline what would have happened if Logain didn't betray Cailan.

So let me get this straight. You're saying the slave trader who poisoned Arl Eamon is NOT unscrupulous? Also, what are you referring to with Loghain willingly giving up his power?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

ParatrooperSean wrote...


I could rebut your unwinnable arguments and then you would give your retorts, and so on. That's the point. Whatever their intentions the writers failed to clearly outline what would have happened if Logain didn't betray Cailan.

I agree there's some ambiguity, but I just don't see tactics working against the level of force the cutscenes seem to portray. It's much easier to come up with arguments for Ostagar being a failure than for it being a success.

So let me get this straight. You're saying the slave trader who poisoned Arl Eamon is NOT unscrupulous? Also, what are you referring to with Loghain willingly giving up his power?

He's referring to Loghain honorably surrendering and not resisting when you're about to take his head off, and not resisting the Joining if you do that despite slightly better oppurtunity.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 avril 2013 - 11:37 .

[TEWR]

ParatrooperSean wrote...


I could rebut your unwinnable arguments and then you would give your retorts, and so on. That's the point. Whatever their intentions the writers failed to clearly outline what would have happened if Logain didn't betray Cailan.

I suppose that depends on what one cites as "clearly outlining". Should it have been spelled out on-screen only, or on-screen and in codex entries offering even more insight into the nature of the battle?

Personally, both are valid and can clearly offer the ultimate result of the battle. And I say it was clearly shown. You just have to really look at what happens and act the part of Sherlock Holmes, taking Point A and Point B and connecting them to Point C.

For instance, we must examine the strength of the Darkspawn horde. It was not only larger then anyone had anticipated, but it was also comprised of hundreds upon hundreds of Darkspawn Mages, thousands upon thousands of Hurlocks that go Berserk and can take on numerous opponents at once, thousands upon thousands of Genlocks and one can assume Shrieks (though none are fought at Ostagar until RtO), and hundreds of Ogres that are living siege engines for the Darkspawn.

Ogres are capable of regeneration if not killed properly, throwing boulders into the troops, goring people on their horns, crushing the life out of soldiers easily, and so on.

That's only one facet of it. And that's not even taking into account the presence of Ghouls in the Darkspawn ranks, as one soldier remarks that he saw one of their own men in the horde.

So let me get this straight. You're saying the slave trader who poisoned Arl Eamon is NOT unscrupulous?

He poisoned Arl Eamon after Ostagar with the intention to render him comatose only, not to kill him. If Eamon was near the point of death, Berwick was to report such a thing to Denerim so the antidote could be sent.

Unfortunately, Berwick was reporting to a man in Howe's employ, and Howe IS an unscrupulous man. So even if Berwick had sent word of Eamon's worsening condition, Howe would have conveniently "forgotten" to inform Loghain and let Eamon die, so he could plot on how to best take Redcliffe for himself.

Howe is a man never satisfied by how much power he wields. He would sell Ferelden out to Orlais if he could net a few more sovereigns and more land. He took Highever, Denerim, and given the presence of Irminric and Sighard's son for certain reasons pertaining to their stories it can also be inferred that he wants the lands of the Banns related to the respective prisoners.

The slavery thing is something Loghain knows was wrong to do, but he was in a bind. The Bannorn had launched and dragged out a civil war that exhausted the treasury -- sped along by Howe's theft of funds from the treasury as well -- to the point of near bankruptcy, while his efforts to win the Circle over to his side were rendered moot thanks to Wynne's fat yap.

Had the Circle been on his side, he would've used the Lucrosians and Formari to churn out enchanted goods that he could then sell to raise coin for the treasury.

An unscrupulous person doesn't care about the acts he does. Loghain does care.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 avril 2013 - 08:23 .

[TEWR]

CDR David Shepard wrote..

EWR...you make a lot of good arguments to support your side in this thread...even though I do not agree with it.

However, please do not use Elric as an argument.

He deserted...and he admitted to having a guilty conscience.

He would say anything to make himself feel better for deserting Cailan.

Using him is most definitely the weakest argument to support your side.

I disagree. While he did desert, yes, so too did Wynne. So too did many people. And yet she comes to say that she was wrong about Loghain and Ostagar, eventually.

Provided the player does RtO before the dialogue where she does admit she was wrong about Loghain. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, the man was Cailan's confidant. That means Cailan confided close secrets to the man. So his word isn't inadmissible when you factor in how other people who did desert and did initially believe the battle could've been won eventually understand that Ostagar was a failure.

[Mike3207]

If you get your cunning pretty high(about 30) before you do the Tower of Ishal sequence), one of the options you get is telling Alistair that there is no reason for the darkspawn to attack it unless they already have the plan at Alistair. There are two responses to that.

1. There was no way Ostagar could have been won if the darkspawn generals knew the plan at Ostagar. They would have had a counter plan for if Loghain had charged, as well as making sure the signal was never sent. Looking at it with that vantage point, it's a miracle the Warden did light the signal.

2. I hate this one as a Loghain backer, but the darkspawn could have made a deal with Loghain before the battle started. They might have known his ambitions beforehand, and he might have thought he could beat them later. If they did have the plan, make a arrangement with the other side's general. I never would have thought of any of this if that option didn't come up.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Truly you are a master of that most misunderstood art.

Also A: There is no evidence given that the original campaign's darkspawn have the concept of a deal. B: The attack can alternatively be explained as the darkspawn discovering the door between the Tower and battlefield that (30 Cunning or no) the Warden has no reasonable way of knowing exists. Still, the fact that the darkspawn interefered with the signal by chance doesn't mean the battle was winnable: they nonetheless interefered with a signal that had to be lit at exactly the right time, and as previously mentioned had an easy way right past the defensive line that the plan depended on.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 novembre 2013 - 01:39 .