160 réponses à ce sujet

[Solica]

Althernai wrote...

Here is what David Gaider actually said on the subject:

The darkspawn forces were getting stronger with each engagement.
Loghain knew that, and knew that it wasn't going to keep being so easy.
I would say that he knew what might happen the minute Cailan made his
strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day. In my mind,
Loghain still wasn't certain that
he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley
could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Whether his
belief that this couldn't happen was the truth or just his twisted
perception of it is something you can decide for yourself. Certainly
the darkspawn horde at the last battle was far bigger than anyone had
anticipated.

The decision, I think, was made at the moment
Loghain saw the beacon lit. He prepared for the possibility, as he
prepared for everything, but I don't think he decided to go through
with it until right then.

Link.

So Loghain did not believe that he could win, but this does not mean Ostagar could not have been won (the latter is left up to the player). To be honest, given all of the things Loghain did in anticipation of a chance to get rid of Cailan, I'm leaning towards the idea that he saw what he wanted to see.

I think those who are looking for "evidence" in developer's posts are reading too much into them. If you read it carefully, you'll note that David "think" this and that and that "Loghain probably..." etc. There is no hard information. And that is of course intentional. I think we are supposed to make up our own minds.
I also think that the "official" developer version on Loghain may have changed somewhat progressively. That's right, we are right in the middle of a classical "revisionistic" history rewrite.

The evidence the gameplay gives us is not 100% conclusive, but it is very damning:
Cailan does not pose any threat to Ferelden, when Loghain's plans on treason are set in motion. In fact, it's doubtful if he ever was a threat to Ferelden, as Loghain claims. In the end, if Loghain truly didn't like the battleplans, it was his absolute duty to make that very clear to the king, whatever it takes. But frankly, I don't think he was particularly concerned about the plans in that way. I think his main concern must have been whether or not he would be able to use the battle to get rid of the king.
There is another detail in the game, Cailan seem to indicate, in one sentence, that it is in fact Loghain's battle plan.
The Couslands had already been murdered, Eamon was poisoned etc. Loghain was already deep into a vast treason, aiming for the murders of a really lot of Ferelden's people. His time was starting to run out, the sh' would soon hit the fan, so to speak. He knew he had to kill the king soon.
There are a number of details in the game concerning the beacon in the tower. Loghain wanted his own henchmen to have control of the tower. When that plan didn't work, his men abandoned the tower's defenses, so darkspawn could take over the tower and, hopefully, make it impossible to light the beacon.

The emotions we see in Loghain's face as the beacon is lighted, is in my opinion and belief, not a commander taking a decision. It is disappointment, and understanding of that he now has to abandon the field, in direct contradiction to the battleplan.
This is a clear act of treason which he knows will be much more difficult for his men and others to understand, than just waiting indefinitely on a beacon, that will never be lighted, which really was his original plan.
As for the darkspawn forces being far greater than anticipated, or possible to cope with, I really can't say. Ultimately we don't know. But it doesn't matter at all, regarding Loghain's part.
Because he didn't know. He couldn't see. He received no reports. That's why he needed the beacon in the first place. He had placed himself and his army in a place where they wouldn't be able to see the plight of the king and the gray wardens. That was the whole point. The beauty of the plan. He would just stay there and wait. For a beacon that would never be lit. So he had no way of knowing wether the battle could have been won or not. But he probably assumed it could be, based on earlier encounters.
One of the cornerstones in Loghain's treasons must have been that he never considered the Blight to amount to much. Why would he otherwise himself destroy so much of Ferelden? No, the 'Blight' was in his mind just an opportunity.
The game does in fact offer us another very damning clue here: Loghain first blame the defeat and the king's death, not on the darkspawn, but on the Gray Wardens! Very good evidence, IMO, of that Loghain still wasn't much concerned about the darkspawn numbers.

So could the battle at Ostagar have been won? Of course! Other views are most likely just the products of post battle disinformation and propaganda from Loghain.
There is the fact that Ferelden doesn't become rapidly overwhelmed after the battle. The party moves around fairly freely. Evidence that the darkspawn at that time really weren't as many.

But either way, that is actually still irrelevant for Loghain's part. I think he believed it was possible to win when he abandoned the battle. He believed it was possible to win when he first claimed the opposite.
He may have convinced himself that he didn't think it was winnable, later. I can't guess what went on in his mind. But I'm convinced that he never intended to take part in the battle at Ostagar, and that he always intended the king to die there.
His decision to leave, was undoubtedly taken at the moment the beacon was lighted, just as D.G. "thinks". His decision not to fight, otoh, had been taken long ago.

Modifié par Solica, 20 janvier 2010 - 07:30 .

[InvaderErl]

I think unless the Darkspawn Horde at Ostagar staggeringly outnumbered the Fereldan/Grey Warden forces assembled that yes a large flanking assault should have been able to win the day.

[robertthebard]

Solica wrote...

Althernai wrote...

Here is what David Gaider actually said on the subject:

The darkspawn forces were getting stronger with each engagement.
Loghain knew that, and knew that it wasn't going to keep being so easy.
I would say that he knew what might happen the minute Cailan made his
strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day. In my mind,
Loghain still wasn't certain that
he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley
could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Whether his
belief that this couldn't happen was the truth or just his twisted
perception of it is something you can decide for yourself. Certainly
the darkspawn horde at the last battle was far bigger than anyone had
anticipated.

The decision, I think, was made at the moment
Loghain saw the beacon lit. He prepared for the possibility, as he
prepared for everything, but I don't think he decided to go through
with it until right then.

Link.

So Loghain did not believe that he could win, but this does not mean Ostagar could not have been won (the latter is left up to the player). To be honest, given all of the things Loghain did in anticipation of a chance to get rid of Cailan, I'm leaning towards the idea that he saw what he wanted to see.

I think those who are looking for "evidence" in developer's posts are reading too much into them. If you read it carefully, you'll note that David "think" this and that and that "Loghain probably..." etc. There is no hard information. And that is of course intentional. I think we are supposed to make up our own minds.
I also think that the "official" developer version on Loghain may have changed somewhat progressively. That's right, we are right in the middle of a classical "revisionistic" history rewrite.

The evidence the gameplay gives us is not 100% conclusive, but it is very damning:
Cailan does not pose any threat to Ferelden, when Loghain's plans on treason are set in motion. In fact, it's doubtful if he ever was a threat to Ferelden, as Loghain claims. In the end, if Loghain truly didn't like the battleplans, it was his absolute duty to make that very clear to the king, whatever it takes. But frankly, I don't think he was particularly concerned about the plans in that way. I think his main concern must have been whether or not he would be able to use the battle to get rid of the king.
There is another detail in the game, Cailan seem to indicate, in one sentence, that it is in fact Loghain's battle plan.
The Couslands had already been murdered, Eamon was poisoned etc. Loghain was already deep into a vast treason, aiming for the murders of a really lot of Ferelden's people. His time was starting to run out, the sh' would soon hit the fan, so to speak. He knew he had to kill the king soon.
There are a number of details in the game concerning the beacon in the tower. Loghain wanted his own henchmen to have control of the tower. When that plan didn't work, his men abandoned the tower's defenses, so darkspawn could take over the tower and, hopefully, make it impossible to light the beacon.

The emotions we see in Loghain's face as the beacon is lighted, is in my opinion and belief, not a commander taking a decision. It is disappointment, and understanding of that he now has to abandon the field, in direct contradiction to the battleplan.
This is a clear act of treason which he knows will be much more difficult for his men and others to understand, than just waiting indefinitely on a beacon, that will never be lighted, which really was his original plan.
As for the darkspawn forces being far greater than anticipated, or possible to cope with, I really can't say. Ultimately we don't know. But it doesn't matter at all, regarding Loghain's part.
Because he didn't know. He couldn't see. He received no reports. That's why he needed the beacon in the first place. He had placed himself and his army in a place where they wouldn't be able to see the plight of the king and the gray wardens. That was the whole point. The beauty of the plan. He would just stay there and wait. For a beacon that would never be lit. So he had no way of knowing wether the battle could have been won or not. But he probably assumed it could be, based on earlier encounters.
One of the cornerstones in Loghain's treasons must have been that he never considered the Blight to amount to much. Why would he otherwise himself destroy so much of Ferelden? No, the 'Blight' was in his mind just an opportunity.

So could the battle at Ostagar have been won? Of course! Other views are most likely just the products of post battle disinformation and propaganda from Loghain.
There is the fact that Ferelden doesn't become rapidly overwhelmed after the battle. The party moves around fairly freely. Evidence that the darkspawn at that time really weren't as many.

But either way, that is actually still irrelevant for Loghain's part. I think he believed it was possible to win when he abandoned the battle. He believed it was possible to win when he first claimed the opposite.
The game does in fact offer us another very damning clue here: Loghain first blame the defeat and the king's death, not on the darkspawn, but on the Gray Wardens! Very good evidence, IMO, of that Loghain still wasn't much concerned about the darkspawn numbers.
He may have convinced himself that he didn't think it was winnable, later. I can't guess what went on in his mind. But I'm convinced that he never intended to take part in the battle at Ostagar, and that he always intended the king to die there.
His decision to leave, was undoubtedly taken at the moment the beacon was lighted, just as D.G. "thinks". His decision not to fight, otoh, had been taken long ago.

Do you not see the contradiction in your last line?  If he decided not to fight, then his decision to leave the field was made at that time, not when the beacon was lit.  While waffles are really good breakfast foods, or dinner, if you subscribe to IHOP, using both sides of an argument to support your position isn't really having a position.

Just so you know, there is more than one line that suggests that the battle plan at Ostagar was in fact Loghain's.  One is when the King greets Duncan and the PC on entering Ostagar; "Loghain waits eagerly to bore me with his strategies", and then again at the strategy meeting after the Joining;  "Speak your plan then", then he interrupts Loghain with "Yes, I remember".  So, the battle strategy is Loghain's.

Regarding the bolded part, I suppose we could choose to ignore the fact that the horde has grown bigger, instead of smaller after every battle.  No metagame knowledge needed, if you talk to a few NPC's around the camp.  Even Duncan will point this out after the initial dialog with Cailin.  So we have plenty of information regarding the size of the horde, none of which indicates a win or loss if Loghain charges.  However, the bulk of the horde is not a myth propogated by Loghain.  It is factual.

[Ulicus]

My answer: Yes it could have been won but the opinion that it *couldn't* was completely justifiable.

[Xandurpein]

Isn't this just fantastic. A developer takes the time to try and explain what happened, and those who believed differently now, instead of accpeting they misunderstood things, accuse the developers of revising history.

I mean seriously. People here have argued either way here about Loghain's intentions and actions. I would say that the very fact that people have argued (reasonably) coherently for different ideas in itself would have shown that maybe things weren't so clear as to make one interpretation the only possible one. But instead of accepting it when David Gaider tries to fill in the blanks in the history and it doesn't fit with their belief, do they accept it. No they were right all along and mr Gaider is just trying to cover up that he is changing the story.

It takes a certain type of arrogance to believe so blindly in that your own opinions are the only truth and even the guys who wrote the game are wrong.

[MGeezer]

Xandurpein wrote...

Isn't this just fantastic. A developer takes the time to try and explain what happened, and those who believed differently now, instead of accpeting they misunderstood things, accuse the developers of revising history.
I mean seriously. People here have argued either way here about Loghain's intentions and actions. I would say that the very fact that people have argued (reasonably) coherently for different ideas in itself would have shown that maybe things weren't so clear as to make one interpretation the only possible one. But instead of accepting it when David Gaider tries to fill in the blanks in the history and it doesn't fit with their belief, do they accept it. No they were right all along and mr Gaider is just trying to cover up that he is changing the story.
It takes a certain type of arrogance to believe so blindly in that your own opinions are the only truth and even the guys who wrote the game are wrong.

Actually, it is a pretty common place in literary and other art criticism that later statements of authors should not be accepted as defintively resolving ambiguities in the original work.  This is even more true when the work, like a movie or game, is the work of a committee of writers, directors, cut-scene makers, etc, so all of the evidence is not the work of anyone person. 

I certianly appreciate David joining the discussion, but once a work is out for everyone to see, its what's actually in the work and not what's in the author's head that really counts.  I would find his ideas more convincing if he pointed to the clues in the orignal work that might have lead us to his conclusion and why clues that lead people in other directionswere unintentional rather than broad assertions as to what he had in his head.  besides, his statemnts are made,as they should be with a certain tentativeness, rather than as factual assertions.

[Asturok]

Maybe if Loghain charged they would won that battle, and if they hold there some more days and redcliff warriors and orlesian chevaliers arrived in time the blight could be stopped there. but with a LOT of casualties for sure... and with the games plot ruined xD

I think that Loghain retreated because he saw the high costs in manpower that they will suffer holding there, so cailan must be taken apart to stop loosing more warriors, and even more because he hates orlesians so much and didn't wanted a single orlesian chevalier put a foot on ferelden even to save it

Modifié par Arturokneitor, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:10 .

[Godak]

I'm just pointing something out...



Before the battle of Ostagar, you can speak to a soldier outside of the tower of Ishal. This soldier tells the warden that the tower is off limits, as Loghain's men have discovered an underground passage, and are attempting to secure it. This soldier then states that he never saw any such passage.



So, did Loghain himself order the creation of this passage in an attempt to give himself an excuse not to join the battle? "Oh, uh, the tower beacon never got lit, so I couldn't join the battle. Oops." It would be easy enough for Loghain to tell his men that the passage is part of the battle strategy. "Uh, yeah, I want to attack the darkspawn from behind. Or, something like that."



And yes, this is all wild speculation.



P.S. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that Mr. Gaider is trying to turn Loghain into a misunderstood quasi-hero. Seriously, if you make the decision for someone to be a tragic-villain, commit to that decision.

[JackDresden]

Logan appears to have had a very sizeable army had they taken the field the battle could possibley have been won provided the grey wardens had been able to take out the Archdemon when it arrived. Which it would have if the battle had not been an easy win for the horde.

[Asturok]

Loghain was a hero, but he was blind by his hate to orlesians and turned into a menace for it's own land. But I think that in it's head he was doing what needs to be done at any price.



As said in the game Cailan never listen to him

[DreGregoire]

I can read just as well as anybody, but what I feel is clear from David's response about Loghain is that he is careful to state facts, and then add what he supposes is going on with Loghain. I see nothing in that statement that says exactly what Loghain was up to. I can break down his statement for you.



Facts:

1. The darkspawn forces were getting stronger with each engagement. Loghain knew that, and knew that it wasn't going to keep being so easy

2. Certainly the darkspawn horde at the last battle was far bigger than anyone had

anticipated.



Then he clearly says that he thinks or supposes these things about Loghain

1. I would say that he knew what might happen the minute Cailan made his

strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day.

2. In my mind, Loghain still wasn't certain that he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Whether his belief that this couldn't happen was the truth or just his twisted perception of it is something you can decide for yourself.

3. The decision, I think, was made at the moment Loghain saw the beacon lit. He prepared for the possibility, as he prepared for everything, but I don't think he decided to go through with it until right then.



Note that statements like; I think, in my mind, I would say are terms a person use when giving a personal opinion. Now I would say sounds more like a firm statement but it isn't a fact.



Oh sorry I slipped into teacher mode. My bad! LMAO

[Solica]

robertthebard wrote...

Solica wrote...

...His decision to leave, was undoubtedly taken at the moment the beacon was lighted, just as D.G. "thinks". His decision not to fight, otoh, had been taken long ago.

Do you not see the contradiction in your last line?  If he decided not to fight, then his decision to leave the field was made at that time, not when the beacon was lit.  While waffles are really good breakfast foods, or dinner, if you subscribe to IHOP, using both sides of an argument to support your position isn't really having a position.

There is no contradiction. You must have read too fast,.. or something... He intended to have a better excuse: The beacon never being lighted. When it was, he really can't just stand there and ignore it.
(Also I wish people's debating tactics would be more factual, and less 'triumphantly' silly, or pretending rhetoric or logic superiority. Just state your point. Should be simple enough. This "waffles..." etc just looks foolish.)

Just so you know, there is more than one line that suggests that the battle plan at Ostagar was in fact Loghain's.  One is when the King greets Duncan and the PC on entering Ostagar; "Loghain waits eagerly to bore me with his strategies", and then again at the strategy meeting after the Joining;  "Speak your plan then", then he interrupts Loghain with "Yes, I remember".  So, the battle strategy is Loghain's.

Yes.

Regarding the bolded part, I suppose we could choose to ignore the fact that the horde has grown bigger, instead of smaller after every battle.  No metagame knowledge needed, if you talk to a few NPC's around the camp.  Even Duncan will point this out after the initial dialog with Cailin.  So we have plenty of information regarding the size of the horde, none of which indicates a win or loss if Loghain charges.  However, the bulk of the horde is not a myth propogated by Loghain.  It is factual.

Of course. And it's not ignored in any way. The question is a somewhat different one: Was it at Ostagar bigger than they could have defeated?
We don't know. But as you say, Duncan and Loghain were aware. For reasons I've already laid out, I believe Loghain thought the battle winable. (He certainly must have been able to convince Cailan about that, though that might have been an easy task.) And my point was that the later impression, that the horde was already too big to defeat, probably comes from Loghain's only possible way to explain why he left the field when the beacon was lit. I'm not speaking about each battle becoming harder here.

Ultimately, we also do know that the horde wasn't too big to handle, in the end. Even after additional time and growth. Even with the gray wardens and many other good men lost at Ostagar, and as a consequence of the aftermath, the hord can still be defeated at the end, with only Ferelden's own forces, after a forced march, in a what looks like much less advantageous or organized tactical environment.

For these two reasons, my estimate is the battle could have been won. Comfortably even.

[Godak]

Arturokneitor wrote...

As said in the game Cailan never listen to him

Would you?

Loghain comes off just as bratty as Cailan. The big difference is that Loghain is willing to play dirty to get what he wants.

[Althernai]

Godak wrote...

So, did Loghain himself order the creation of this passage in an attempt to give himself an excuse not to join the battle? "Oh, uh, the tower beacon never got lit, so I couldn't join the battle. Oops." It would be easy enough for Loghain to tell his men that the passage is part of the battle strategy. "Uh, yeah, I want to attack the darkspawn from behind. Or, something like that."

I don't think he is that good at manipulating Darkspawn -- they just showed up by themselves. He did want the option of not lighting the beacon though:

David Gaider

Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that
they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that.
If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining
the battle in time. But, no, they had no control over the darkspawn and
no way of ensuring that the tower was swamped. That was unexpected.

Link.

Uldred is a nice touch and perhaps easy to miss: he's the mage at the council that says something like "Your Majesty, the tower and the beacon are unnecessary, the Circle of Magi could..." and then the priestess cuts him off.

[Costin_Razvan]

Would you?



Loghain comes off just as bratty as Cailan. The big difference is that Loghain is willing to play dirty to get what he wants.

A soldier follows orders, no matter how cocky or bratty the commanding officer looks, acts etc.You don't get the luxury of questioning orders when you are the military, if you do it is considered insubordination.



I would have listened to Loghain if I had been Cailan. Cailan knew very well one thing about Loghain:



Every plan that had worked during the rebellion ( emphasis on EVERY single one that worked ) had been made by Loghain himself. Cailan knew this very well and yet acted like a child in a candy store who had a parent reminding him that he couldn't have it all.

[Sephlock]

@ TC: Have you FOUGHT Ser Cauthrien (SP)?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Solica wrote...
Ultimately, we also do know that the horde wasn't too big to handle, in the end. Even after additional time and growth. Even with the gray wardens and many other good men lost at Ostagar, and as a consequence of the aftermath, the hord can still be defeated at the end, with only Ferelden's own forces, after a forced march, in a what looks like much less advantageous or organized tactical environment.

For these two reasons, my estimate is the battle could have been won. Comfortably even.

The Blight was defeated at Denerim because the Archdemon was killed. If the Archdemon wasn't there, chances are we would have lost. The blight was defeated, but not really the horde. So that argument is not pertinent.
 
As an experienced general, I think Loghain's estimations carry more weight than yours. RTO hinted that Ostagar was unwinnable, or even if it was, it would have come at such a high cost that it would have been a strategic defeat.

[KnightofPhoenix]

double post.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:42 .

[robertthebard]

Solica wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Solica wrote...

...His decision to leave, was undoubtedly taken at the moment the beacon was lighted, just as D.G. "thinks". His decision not to fight, otoh, had been taken long ago.

Do you not see the contradiction in your last line?  If he decided not to fight, then his decision to leave the field was made at that time, not when the beacon was lit.  While waffles are really good breakfast foods, or dinner, if you subscribe to IHOP, using both sides of an argument to support your position isn't really having a position.

There is no contradiction. You must have read too fast,.. or something... He intended to have a better excuse: The beacon never being lighted. When it was, he really can't just stand there and ignore it.
(Also I wish people's debating tactics would be more factual, and less 'triumphantly' silly, or pretending rhetoric or logic superiority. Just state your point. Should be simple enough. This "waffles..." etc just looks foolish.)

Just so you know, there is more than one line that suggests that the battle plan at Ostagar was in fact Loghain's.  One is when the King greets Duncan and the PC on entering Ostagar; "Loghain waits eagerly to bore me with his strategies", and then again at the strategy meeting after the Joining;  "Speak your plan then", then he interrupts Loghain with "Yes, I remember".  So, the battle strategy is Loghain's.

Yes.

Regarding the bolded part, I suppose we could choose to ignore the fact that the horde has grown bigger, instead of smaller after every battle.  No metagame knowledge needed, if you talk to a few NPC's around the camp.  Even Duncan will point this out after the initial dialog with Cailin.  So we have plenty of information regarding the size of the horde, none of which indicates a win or loss if Loghain charges.  However, the bulk of the horde is not a myth propogated by Loghain.  It is factual.

Of course. And it's not ignored in any way. The question is a somewhat different one: Was it at Ostagar bigger than they could have defeated?
We don't know. But as you say, Duncan and Loghain were aware. For reasons I've already laid out, I believe Loghain thought the battle winable. (He certainly must have been able to convince Cailan about that, though that might have been an easy task.) And my point was that the later impression, that the horde was already too big to defeat, probably comes from Loghain's only possible way to explain why he left the field when the beacon was lit. I'm not speaking about each battle becoming harder here.

Ultimately, we also do know that the horde wasn't too big to handle, in the end. Even after additional time and growth. Even with the gray wardens and many other good men lost at Ostagar, and as a consequence of the aftermath, the hord can still be defeated at the end, with only Ferelden's own forces, after a forced march, in a what looks like much less advantageous or organized tactical environment.

For these two reasons, my estimate is the battle could have been won. Comfortably even.

Actually, this last isn't quite true.  Even if you don't summon your group of allies, the dwarves, werewolves/elves, mages/templars are present at Denerim.  You don't summon them from their respective homes when or if you do summon them.  Regarding my first point, if he'd decided before the battle that he wasn't going to fight, then that's when he decided to leave.  Unless your position is that he wasn't going to fight, but simply watch the army get wiped out?  As far as I can tell from in game events, and DG's posts in other threads, he wasn't quite sure what he was going to do, and made his decision on the spot. 

Had he started working against Cailan prior to the battle?  Most certainly.  What is in question is whether he intended to kill Cailan, and whether or not the battle could have been won.  Regarding the battle, from what information we do have, it's impossible to say yes or no, despite you feeling that it could.  I have postulated in the past that it was possible, the strategy is sound.  However, it also hinges on how many troops are on both sides.  If they are significantly outnumbered, it might have looked good, but would probably have failed anyway.  End result, all the troops dead, save Eamon's for sure, who were not present, and any that may have managed to escape the battle.

[Solica]

Xandurpein wrote...

Isn't this just fantastic. A developer takes the time to try and explain what happened, and those who believed differently now, instead of accpeting they misunderstood things, accuse the developers of revising history.
I mean seriously. People here have argued either way here about Loghain's intentions and actions. I would say that the very fact that people have argued (reasonably) coherently for different ideas in itself would have shown that maybe things weren't so clear as to make one interpretation the only possible one. But instead of accepting it when David Gaider tries to fill in the blanks in the history and it doesn't fit with their belief, do they accept it. No they were right all along and mr Gaider is just trying to cover up that he is changing the story.
It takes a certain type of arrogance to believe so blindly in that your own opinions are the only truth and even the guys who wrote the game are wrong.

And you don't think that this position of yours is really twisting it?
If you read D.G more carefully you should be able to see that he doesn't actually support any idea. On the contrary, I can only undersstand it as a big hint that we are supposed to make up our own minds.
Secondly, I made a long post entirely based on evidence that is available in the gameplay. From that I formulated an opinion. My opinion.Which I'm free to have and state.
Thirdly, nothing D.G. has written or said contradicts this opinion. He gives no "truth". And my version fits perfectly with all things actually stated as facts.

The feeling, I also expressed, that Loghain is the subject of a somewhat exploring revision, is a different thing. Not once do I ignore anything in any kind of "arrogance", when I make the case for my opinion.

[_Aine_]

Godak wrote...

Loghain comes off just as bratty as Cailan. The big difference is that Loghain is willing to play dirty to get what he wants.

I seriously question whether Loghain's "wants" factor in ... he is a man who, in the past, has been more than willing to sacrifice the very thing he loves in order to fulfill a promise he had made, or a belief he had on either freeing and then keeping Ferelden free.  Now fears, there is a story for another time  

He had become a hero by taking chances, doing the unexpected and by listening to his instincts ( and yes maybe his paranoia, although its only paranoia if you feel he was wrong probably) and so whether or not he had lost his mind or his way by the end, i can't say.  I honestly think that it was what he considered *necessary* and not what he wanted for personal gain.    I may feel differently after "The Calling" though but i have a couple weeks to wait for a birthday for that  

[Solica]

robertthebard wrote...

Actually, this last isn't quite true.  Even if you don't summon your group of allies, the dwarves, werewolves/elves, mages/templars are present at Denerim.  You don't summon them from their respective homes when or if you do summon them. 

????   I'm not sure what you think you're are arguing here. The elves, dwarves, mages are all part of Ferelden's resorces. That's how I interpret things anyway, and that assumption was part of my argument.

Regarding my first point, if he'd decided before the battle that he wasn't going to fight, then that's when he decided to leave.  Unless your position is that he wasn't going to fight, but simply watch the army get wiped out? 

But of course. Though he can't really watch anything. I thought I was clear enough. Just leaving the battle is an act of cowardice and treason. So he intended to wait forever for a beacon that would never be lighted. When it was, his plan crumbles. He can't just stand there, passive, looking foolish, his designs plain for everyone. Leaving doesn't make him look good. In desperation he first blames the Gray wardens for treason.

As far as I can tell from in game events, and DG's posts in other threads, he wasn't quite sure what he was going to do, and made his decision on the spot. 

I have seen nothing of D.G. that actually, truly contradicts my theory. He typically says "he thinks" or "probably".

Had he started working against Cailan prior to the battle?  Most certainly.  What is in question is whether he intended to kill Cailan, and whether or not the battle could have been won.  Regarding the battle, from what information we do have, it's impossible to say yes or no, despite you feeling that it could.  I have postulated in the past that it was possible, the strategy is sound.  However, it also hinges on how many troops are on both sides.  If they are significantly outnumbered, it might have looked good, but would probably have failed anyway.  End result, all the troops dead, save Eamon's for sure, who were not present, and any that may have managed to escape the battle.

I agree. Though I think it's hard to get around his need to kill Cailan. Or even ready plans. The Couslands are already murdered. Howe cannot have acted without believing that he wouldn't have to face Cailan's wrath.

[Ronin 3000]

I think they definitely wouldve won if Logain wasnt such an ass. They wouldve flanked the darkspawn army and won easily. also, they wouldve had Ser Cauthrien. nuff said.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Godak wrote...



P.S. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that Mr. Gaider is trying to turn Loghain into a misunderstood quasi-hero. Seriously, if you make the decision for someone to be a tragic-villain, commit to that decision.

Gaider is NOT trying to turn Loghain into some "quasi hero" or what not. He gave an opinion, and filled in some holes in Loghain's character that were asking questions in game. Even before RTO, and I have never read the books, I felt that as far as Loghain's character and reasons for what he did, there was simply alot more going on in his skull than: "Kill the King" blah blah blah blah.

I don't see this as making Loghain heroic or something. It simply shows that a good villian is a very complex one, and the most dangerous villians are those who believe that they are truly doing the right, honorable, and moral thing. The cackling madmen with vision of power and glory are predictable, boring advisaries. Loghain is not. He is trapped by his own borders, his own history, his own prejudices, and continues to allow this to shape his actions, stubbornly refusing to accept any other way until it's too late, and he has been defeated.

The fact that he justifies certain evils because he believes so strongly in what he is doing is even worse.

[robertthebard]

Solica wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Actually, this last isn't quite true.  Even if you don't summon your group of allies, the dwarves, werewolves/elves, mages/templars are present at Denerim.  You don't summon them from their respective homes when or if you do summon them. 

????   I'm not sure what you think you're are arguing here. The elves, dwarves, mages are all part of Ferelden's resorces. That's how I interpret things anyway, and that assumption was part of my argument.

Regarding my first point, if he'd decided before the battle that he wasn't going to fight, then that's when he decided to leave.  Unless your position is that he wasn't going to fight, but simply watch the army get wiped out? 

But of course. Though he can't really watch anything. I thought I was clear enough. Just leaving the battle is an act of cowardice and treason. So he intended to wait forever for a beacon that would never be lighted. When it was, his plan crumbles. He can't just stand there, passive, looking foolish, his designs plain for everyone. Leaving doesn't make him look good. In desperation he first blames the Gray wardens for treason.

As far as I can tell from in game events, and DG's posts in other threads, he wasn't quite sure what he was going to do, and made his decision on the spot. 

I have seen nothing of D.G. that actually, truly contradicts my theory. He typically says "he thinks" or "probably".

Had he started working against Cailan prior to the battle?  Most certainly.  What is in question is whether he intended to kill Cailan, and whether or not the battle could have been won.  Regarding the battle, from what information we do have, it's impossible to say yes or no, despite you feeling that it could.  I have postulated in the past that it was possible, the strategy is sound.  However, it also hinges on how many troops are on both sides.  If they are significantly outnumbered, it might have looked good, but would probably have failed anyway.  End result, all the troops dead, save Eamon's for sure, who were not present, and any that may have managed to escape the battle.

I agree. Though I think it's hard to get around his need to kill Cailan. Or even ready plans. The Couslands are already murdered. Howe cannot have acted without believing that he wouldn't have to face Cailan's wrath.

The treaty armies, no matter which way you take the 2 treaties that can have different results, are the GW's army.  There were 7 mages at Ostagar, but there were no dwarves or elves.  They are not obligated to help Ferelden in any way, save through the GW's.