160 réponses à ce sujet

[Solica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

This is a good point. But it's not conclusive. We still can't know.
 

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.

This is not a good point though. We have several different "Loghain's estimations". One that made the battle plan for a supposedly winnable battle. Another that we have no reason to value, since it could just be an excuse to have left the battlefield.
And now we're back to those silly debate tactics "As an experienced general, I think Loghain's estimations carry more weight than yours"   Really? You really think so? You know that phrase of yours have one purpose: To devalue what I have to say. To put me down. In this case it's really totally ridiculous, since Loghain isn't really an experienced general. he's just a written figure. And you have no way to know that I'm not a much more experienced general than anyone that have participated in writing Loghain. But that doesn matter. In the end it's just a way 14 years olds argue. Argue on facts and the merit of evidence. State your case and leave it at that. Is that so hard?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Solica wrote...

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.

This is not a good point though. We have several different "Loghain's estimations". One that made the battle plan for a supposedly winnable battle. Another that we have no reason to value, since it could just be an excuse to have left the battlefield.
And now we're back to those silly debate tactics "As an experienced general, I think Loghain's estimations carry more weight than yours"   Really? You really think so? You know that phrase of yours have one purpose: To devalue what I have to say. To put me down. In this case it's really totally ridiculous, since Loghain isn't really an experienced general. he's just a written figure. And you have no way to know that I'm not a much more experienced general than anyone that have participated in writing Loghain. But that doesn matter. In the end it's just a way 14 years olds argue. Argue on facts and the merit of evidence. State your case and leave it at that. Is that so hard?

You are right, this is not the best argument I have put forth. It's just that I have participated in hundreds of Loghain threads and I end up repeating myself over and over again, so I just felt lazy now. I do apologise.

Your main premise is that Loghain was planning to betray Cailan from the very start. You ignore what Mr Gaider said. But that's ok, we usually like to make our prejudices fit somehow.
It makes little sense to say that Loghain was planing to retreat from the start, while he waited for the beacon. If he wanted to leave, he would have left anyhow, he wouldn't have waited. You might say that he waited so that the troops don't suspect him. He could have waited for a while and left, since the beacon was lit later than expected. Infact, it would have been better for him if he left before the beacon was lit. But he waited. Why?

Because he genuinely thought the battle was lost by that point. Was he right? We don't know. But that's what he thought. But he was not planing on killing Cailan or doing all this from the start, RtO points this out clearly. Granted, Loghain doesn't feel regret after he knew what Cailan was planing (marrying the Orlesian Impress). But he left Ostagar not for personal reason when he did. He left because he knew / thought the battle was unwinnable.

Another argument. The Howe murder. Mr. Gaider said Loghain had nothing to do with it and he never knew about it. but ok, you ignore that. Howe didn't have to collaberate with Loghain to do this. Duncan said that if Howe managed to kill all Couslands, he coudl have told whatever story he wished to Cailan and Cailan would have known nothing. In all other origins, no one talks about the couslands even. The fact that Howe is allied with Loghain does not mean that there wa a plot organised by the two since the very beginning. It's a theory of yours, not a fact. A theory that Mr. Gaider rejects. 
The other argument. Eammon. The fact that eammon was poisonned does not necessarily mean that Loghain planned everythign before Ostagar. Eammon and Ostagar are seperate issues. It's possible that there was a link, but it's a theory not a fact. One that Mr Gaider doesn't agree with.

You must realise that you don't present evidence. You present facts and link them up and ultimately, you present a theory of what happened. Which is valid. We can also do the same and come to the conclusion that Loghain decided to retreat at that very moment and not before.
So you must understand that you are presenting a theory of yours. It's not a fact. Ultimately, only Loghain knows Loghain.  

And once again, I apologise for the "cheap shot".

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:50 .

[Solica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You are right, this is not the best argument I have put forth. It's just that I have participated in hundreds of Loghain threads and I end up repeating myself over and over again, so I just felt lazy now. I do apologise.

Accepted.

Your main premise is that Loghain was planning to betray Cailan from the very start. You ignore what Mr Gaider said. But that's ok, we usually like to make our prejudices fit somehow.
It makes little sense to say that Loghain was planing to retreat from the start, while he waited for the beacon. If he wanted to leave, he would have left anyhow, he wouldn't have waited. You might say that he waited so that the troops don't suspect him. He could have waited for a while and left, since the beacon was lit later than expected. Infact, it would have been better for him if he left before the beacon was lit. But he waited. Why?

I don't see any point here? Leaving the field would be cowardice and treason. He couldn't do that. He had to wait. His plan was that the beacon would never be lighted. D.G. does hint that, btw. When it is lit, there's no point any longer. What he then needs is an explanation, thus "Gray Wardens were the traitors", and later "it was unwinnable".
The question is more poignant if you turn it around: From your viewpoint, why did he wait until it lighted? ...- And THEN promptly left?

Another argument. The Howe murder. Mr. Gaider said Loghain had nothing to do with it and he never knew about it. but ok, you ignore that. Howe didn't have to collaberate with Loghain to do this. Duncan said that if Howe managed to kill all Couslands, he coudl have told whatever story he wished to Cailan and Cailan would have known nothing. In all other origins, no one talks about the couslands even. The fact that Howe is allied with Loghain does not mean that there wa a plot organised by the two since the very beginning. It's a theory of yours, not a fact. A theory that Mr. Gaider rejects. 

Mmm. Plausible. I haven't really seen D.G. reject this though. (He might have, ofc, just stating I haven't seen this)

The other argument. Eammon. The fact that eammon was poisonned does not necessarily mean that Loghain planned everythign before Ostagar. Eammon and Ostagar are seperate issues. It's possible that there was a link, but it's a theory not a fact. One that Mr Gaider doesn't agree with.

Again, I haven't seen any such facts put forward as indeed facts, by D.G. (again, he might have, etc)
My main feeling is however that there is a certain 'weight', and that Loghain fans maybe are grasping a bit for straws. But of course. We can't know.

You must realise that you don't present evidence. You present facts and link them up and ultimately, you present a theory of what happened. Which is valid. We can also do the same and come to the conclusion that Loghain decided to retreat at that very moment and not before.
So you must understand that you are presenting a theory of yours. It's not a fact. Ultimately, only Loghain knows Loghain.  

But of course. I think I've been very careful to make it clear, from the start, that this is my opinion, and my case for it. But I beg your pardon: I do present evidence. Just not conclusive, complete or unexplainable. And apparently, I'm supposed to make up my own mind. That is how I interpret D.G.'s ambiguous comments.

Modifié par Solica, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:26 .

[Gold Dragon]

Loghain hasn't been Whitewashed.



The path to Hades is littered (almost to the point of outright blocked) with the greatest of intentions.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Solica wrote...
I don't see any point here? Leaving the field would be cowardice and treason. He couldn't do that. He had to wait. His plan was that the beacon would never be lighted. D.G. does hint that, btw. When it is lit, there's no point any longer. What he then needs is an explanation, thus "Gray Wardens were the traitors", and later "it was unwinnable".
The question is more poignant if you turn it around: From your viewpoint, why did he wait until it lighted? ...- And THEN promptly left?

Mr Gaider said that Loghain was planing not to light the beacon, had it come to that. As in if he was 100% sure that the battle couldn't be won anymore. Hence why he initially wanted Uldred to do the job, but didn't insist on it at all.

Why did he leave when the beacon was lit? Because he couldn't decide what he wanted to do. The beacon was not lit on time, or when Loghain expected it. He might have suspected something. It was the Wardens job to light the beacon and they didn't. Maybe his doubts started multiplying. Maybe he truly thought that the Wardens were planing to kill the king there and now, while Orlesian forces in the North march to Denerim. Which is entirely plausible. I don't know what rushed in Loghain's mind.

But when the beacon was lit late, he thought the battle was lost at that point, or it was too risky to go in there. Even if he had won, he knew that the horde was getting bigger and bigger and Ostagar won't break it, but will likely break Ferelden instead. It was only at that point did he decide to leave. He was defintely entertaining the thought, even planned for it had the situation come to that. But he decided right at that moment. 

It is presciely because he left only when the beacon was lit that shows that he wasn't sure what to do. We know that the beacon was lit later than expected. Loghain could have very easily said that "the beacon was not lit on time, something must have happened, so we leave". And that wouldn't have hurt him this much. The fact that he waited until the beacon was lit is what hurt his rep. That shows, imo, that he wasn't planing to retreat beforehand. Of ir he did, then his plan was outlandishly stupid, which I doubt was the case.

Again, I haven't seen any such facts put forward as indeed facts, by D.G. (again, he might have, etc)
My main feeling is however that there is a certain 'weight', and that Loghain fans maybe are grasping a bit for straws. But of course. We can't know.

The opinion of an author who supervised the writing on all of this, has alot more weight than simple opinion. Authors can't put everything in mind in the story, as Mr Gaider said. But they have an idea in mind of what the characters are and what they are thinking. Were they able to present all the facts? No, it's too difficult and ressource / time intensive. but they still have a "pure" idea of their characters tht they created that we do not.
So I would not dismiss Gaider's statements as simple "opinions". He is talkign about a character he wrote / help write.

You can always make your own mid up and I respect that. but I fail to see the whole point of the discussion anyways. I can make up my mind about anythign really.
I thought that Gaider's comments would put an end to most of those arguments. It's not strawmans. As said beforehand, authors have a much clearer and purer idea of their character than what was presented in the game. But that's of course strictly out of game. In game, your PC can't know any of this.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:36 .

[Solica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Solica wrote...
The question is more poignant if you turn it around: From your viewpoint, why did he wait until it lighted? ...- And THEN promptly left?

Mr Gaider said that Loghain was planing not to light the beacon, had it come to that. As in if he was 100% sure that the battle couldn't be won anymore. Hence why he initially wanted Uldred to do the job, but didn't insist on it at all.

Why did he leave when the beacon was lit? Because he couldn't decide what he wanted to do. The beacon was not lit on time, or when Loghain expected it. He might have suspected something. It was the Wardens job to light the beacon and they didn't. Maybe his doubts started multiplying. Maybe he truly thought that the Wardens were planing to kill the king there and now, while Orlesian forces in the North march to Denerim. Which is entirely plausible. I don't know what rushed in Loghain's mind.

But when the beacon was lit late, he thought the battle was lost at that point, or it was too risky to go in there. Even if he had won, he knew that the horde was getting bigger and bigger and Ostagar won't break it, but will likely break Ferelden instead. It was only at that point did he decide to leave. He was defintely entertaining the thought, even planned for it had the situation come to that. But he decided right at that moment. 

It is presciely because he left only when the beacon was lit that shows that he wasn't sure what to do. We know that the beacon was lit later than expected. Loghain could have very easily said that "the beacon was not lit on time, something must have happened, so we leave". And that wouldn't have hurt him this much. The fact that he waited until the beacon was lit is what hurt his rep. That shows, imo, that he wasn't planing to retreat beforehand. Of ir he did, then his plan was outlandishly stupid, which I doubt was the case.

That seems, to me, awfully thin, frankly. I'm not sure I can find any argument in there at all.
Sure, he may have felt the beacon was a bit late. But:
How late was the beacon? "Not on time"? Wasn't the whole purpose of the beacon to show when it was the right time?
He didn't knew what to do? But suddenly, when the beacon lit, he immediately knew he had to leave?
I hope you see how unconvincing this is? And if his plan was that the beacon would never be lit, what is outlandishly stupid about that? It's perfect.

The opinion of an author who supervised the writing on all of this, has alot more weight than simple opinion. Authors can't put everything in mind in the story, as Mr Gaider said. But they have an idea in mind of what the characters are and what they are thinking. Were they able to present all the facts? No, it's too difficult and ressource / time intensive. but they still have a "pure" idea of their characters tht they created that we do not.
So I would not dismiss Gaider's statements as simple "opinions". He is talkign about a character he wrote / help write.

You can always make your own mid up and I respect that. but I fail to see the whole point of the discussion anyways. I can make up my mind about anythign really.
I thought that Gaider's comments would put an end to most of those arguments. It's not strawmans. As said beforehand, authors have a much clearer and purer idea of their character than what was presented in the game. But that's of course strictly out of game. In game, your PC can't know any of this.

hmm, maybe. But again, isn't it also a question of what and how much people read into D.G. words?
My chosen opinion (it is a chosen thing after all, since none of this is real) is ALSO that Loghain made up his mind to walk away the very moment the beacon was lit. Isn't that right? It is! I don't really think D.G. is terribly explicit about the rest.

Modifié par Solica, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Solica wrote...
That seems, to me, awfully thin, frankly. I'm not sure I can find any argument in there at all.
Sure, he may have felt the beacon was a bit late. But:
How late was the beacon? "Not on time"? Wasn't the whole purpose of the beacon to show when it was the right time?
He didn't knew what to do? But suddenly, when the beacon lit, he immediately knew he had to leave?
I hope you see how unconvincing this is? And if his plan was that the beacon would never be lit, what is outlandishly stupid about that? It's perfect.

The whole idea of the beacon is a tactical farce anyways. There was no way the PC and Alistair could know when was the right time. We just had to rush in and light it asap. The entire battle makes very little sense if you think about it. 
But as Mary Kirby said, Loghain could see parts of the battle (not all of it), thus could have an idea of when to charge. The beacon was supposed to be the signal, but it was not to be lit on a precise timing. It just was to be lit as soon as the darkspawn reached the valley. And that shouldn't take too long. Thus, Loghain had every reason to start suspecting, as the beacon took longer than he thought.

The Grey WArdens were assigned to light the beacon. By that point, Loghain's original plan was in jeaopordy. He couldn't control the beacon anymore. So yes it would be stupid on his part to wait for the beacon he knows will be lit, if he had planned to retreat anyways.
A further proof that Loghain wasn't sure he would retreat is that he didn't insist that Uldred lights the beacon. If he was 100% sure that he was going to retreat before the battle, he would have assigned Uldred to the beacon from the very beginning and Cailan would not have objected. Loghain did not insist on the issue, while he could have.

Yes, only when the beacon as lit, did he make up his mind. The battle was a lost cause and he was leaving. Before that, he did not yet decide what he was going to do and his suspions started to aggravate because the Wardens were taking too long to light the beacon (which would have been highly suspicious to a man who planned for the possibility of not lighting it in the first place). 

Of course, all of this is talking about what's in Loghain's mind. You may not find any argument in my post, just like I don't find any argument in your post. It's all speculation. We are just linking facts and trying to make sense of them. I am aligning my speculation with what Mr. Gaider said.

Solica wrote...
hmm, maybe. But again, isn't it also a question of what and how much people read into D.G. words?
My chosen opinion (it is a chosen thing after all, since none of this is real) is ALSO that Loghain made up his mind to walk away the very moment the beacon was lit. Isn't that right? It is! I don't really think D.G. is terribly explicit about the rest.

Because he isn't a jerk like say Lucas. He knows that the game lacks facts and the rest is up to the player to decide. But I am going to trust Gaider's opinion on Loghain, since he knows him more than the rest.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:35 .

[RangerSG]

Xandurpein wrote...

Curlain wrote...

It some ways it irrelevant since no matter what Loghain was already intending to betray Cailan and take power, he had by this time already poisoned Eamon, and had already sanctioned Howe's attack on the Couslands (and likely a number of other necessary actions need to quickly assume power). He was never intending on attempting to win that battle from the start, whether it was winnable or not, he had already by Ostragar gone to far with his treason to turn back or change his mind (he makes one attempt to persuade Cailan not to enter the front lines, in which I assume he would have then placed him under a kind of house arrest) but otherwise, Loghain's course was set before the Warden ever arrived in Ostragar

It's always amusing when people state things with absolute certainty, that have been disproved by the developers elsewhere. Loghain did plan to deal with Cailan one way or another as he belived Cailan was betraying Fereldan with his dreams of an alliance with Orlais. Loghain was hoping to stage some sort of coup, but he did not plan in advance to leave the Grey Wardens to be slaughtered by the Darkspawn. He did not plan to abandon Cailan on the battlefield ahead of the battle. Read the posts where David Gaider explains it.

It's still perfectly possible to consider Loghain's action treasonable after knowing all the facts, and I would tend to agree, even if I can understand his motives. But you really just set yourself up to look bad if you claim things with absolute certainty when you don't know.

Where did DG say that the battle plan wasn't designed to get the Grey Wardens killed? I've never seen such a post.

In fact, I firmly believe that was EXACTLY what Loghain wanted to do with that battleplan. Win or lose the battle, he wanted the Wardens dead. Why? Because he thought they were in bed with Orlais. And he had personal experience with Duncan to know that he was not above being shifty.

When Cailan willed himself to the front line, Loghain was aghast. But he remembered his promise to Meric. "No one person is more important than Ferelden. " Not even the king. So as lamentable as Cailan's folly was, it didn't change his opinion when the time came.

DG's statements have always left the motivation of Loghain in that decision ambiguous. And I think that's best. If Loghain is just this person who made a tragically misunderstood strategic decision, then nothing afterwords makes sense. He had political as well as strategic reasons for his decision. Whether or not they clouded him into the wrong decision, we cannot know.

And no, I don't accept the word of the honor guard as absolute truth. It's one soldier's opinion. An opinion colored by his own personal failure to fulfill his duty and fleeing the battle instead of saving his King (or at least the King's body) as was his DUTY. 

[Herr Uhl]

Bio-Boy 3000 wrote...


The real reason why that Ostagar could not have been won is because the army only consisted of phantoms...

They ripped off LOTR yet again *shakes fist*

[Solica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The whole idea of the beacon is a tactical farce anyways. There was no way the PC and Alistair could know when was the right time. We just had to rush in and light it asap. The entire battle makes very little sense if you think about it. 
But as Mary Kirby said, Loghain could see parts of the battle (not all of it), thus could have an idea of when to charge. The beacon was supposed to be the signal, but it was not to be lit on a precise timing. It just was to be lit as soon as the darkspawn reached the valley. And that shouldn't take too long. Thus, Loghain had every reason to start suspecting, as the beacon took longer than he thought.

The Grey WArdens were assigned to light the beacon. By that point, Loghain's original plan was in jeaopordy. He couldn't control the beacon anymore. So yes it would be stupid on his part to wait for the beacon he knows will be lit, if he had planned to retreat anyways.
A further proof that Loghain wasn't sure he would retreat is that he didn't insist that Uldred lights the beacon. If he was 100% sure that he was going to retreat before the battle, he would have assigned Uldred to the beacon from the very beginning and Cailan would not have objected. Loghain did not insist on the issue, while he could have.

Yes, only when the beacon as lit, did he make up his mind. The battle was a lost cause and he was leaving. Before that, he did not yet decide what he was going to do and his suspions started to aggravate because the Wardens were taking too long to light the beacon (which would have been highly suspicious to a man who planned for the possibility of not lighting it in the first place). 

Of course, all of this is talking about what's in Loghain's mind. You may not find any argument in my post, just like I don't find any argument in your post. It's all speculation. We are just linking facts and trying to make sense of them. I am aligning my speculation with what Mr. Gaider said.

Still is very unconvincing. First of all if it truly was a farce, then that would just be more damning evidence against Loghain. But maybe it wasn't. (I personally feel that this convenient info that Loghain could see part of the battlefield comes terribly late, but never mind...) Maybe the purpose was that it would be lit when all the darkspawn were committed into the valley? Just like M.K. said? So that Loghain's forces wouldn't be sandwiched? Like M.K. said?
In that case Alistair and the PC CAN know and KNOWS that the right time is now.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

RangerSG wrote...

DG's statements have always left the motivation of Loghain in that decision ambiguous. And I think that's best. If Loghain is just this person who made a tragically misunderstood strategic decision, then nothing afterwords makes sense. He had political as well as strategic reasons for his decision. Whether or not they clouded him into the wrong decision, we cannot know.

My personal opinion is that Loghain was plotting well before Ostagar. The real question is, just exactly what was he plotting for? Was it a contingency plotting, in case things went terribly wrong (Loghain has been described as someone, who tactically, likes to think far in advance and defeat his enemies before he meets them), or was he planning on a finaly confrontation with the king, after the battle was won? (We see Loghain had more than "disagreements" with the king, and the revelation letters at ostagar, we can only imagine just what was going on in Loghain's head, since he admitted to some knowledge of it).

I think Gaider established that Eamon was poisoned before ostagar, so obviously, Loghain was preparing the road for something. he was also conspiring with Uldred as well. I think that Loghain did plan on removing the king, one way or another, whether through direct confrontation or the Landsmeet (in both cases, removing Arl Eamon from the playing board would be essential to success, especially if he tried a coup with the Landsmeet). But I'm not entirely certain that was his plan at Ostagar. He seemed too openly arguemenative with the king, trying to get the king to see his point of view, trying to force the king to back down out of his glory-frenzy. But in the end, perhaps he decided that he had been just given an opprotunity to be rid of a leader he found dangerous without so much as drawing his own weapon.

I think, however, in the beginning, Loghain wanted to get rid of the king, but wanted to do it cleanly, without all the collateral damage that the defeat at ostagar caused (the deaths of thousands of good Ferelden soldiers who were needed by their country, which Loghain considered a waste, from his conversations with Wynne). But in the end, I think at that moment, he decided he might be willing to pay such a high price after all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Solica wrote...
Still is very unconvincing. First of all if it truly was a farce, then that would just be more damning evidence against Loghain. But maybe it wasn't. (I personally feel that this convenient info that Loghain could see part of the battlefield comes terribly late, but never mind...) Maybe the purpose was that it would be lit when all the darkspawn were committed into the valley? Just like M.K. said? So that Loghain's forces wouldn't be sandwiched? Like M.K. said?
In that case Alistair and the PC CAN know and KNOWS that the right time is now.

The horde was much bigger than they anticipated, they couldn't have all fit in the valley. And since Loghain saw the battlefield (not in a precise way at all mind you), he probably saw that the horde is much larger than he expected.

They couldn't take their time with activating the beacon, otherwise the darkspawn would have overwhelmed Cailan's forces as they can't hold out for long, and all of this would have been for nothing. So there was not a precise time to wait for really. This is not Cannae or Trasimane Lake. The beacon was to be lit shortly after the darkspawns engaged Cailan, before his forces succumb to sheer numbers.

And did the PC know? Or did Alistair know?  I was under the impression we just had to light the beacon asap, just when the darkspawn entered melee, which is when we decide to go to the tower. We never had a full view of the battlefield. and even if we did, by the time we fought all the darkspawns and killed the Ogre in the tower, we probably were late anyhow. Cailan and Duncan died just a few minutes after the beacon was lit.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:29 .

[Vicious]

[quote]Korva wrote...

Frankly if it becomes "official" that Ostagar wasn't winnable then I'm going to feel really ticked off and my already-faded interest in this game/franchise is going to fade even more because it stinks of nonsensical retconning (since there's nothing in the actual game to point to the battle being a lost cause) with the goal of whitewashing Loghain.[/quote]

[/quote]

lol, thats quite a stance to take. 'I am losing interest in the story because it's turning out the villain might actually have reasons for what he does that might possibly make sense.'


Anyway David Gaider indicates that the Darkspawn horde was HUGE. Probably a lot bigger than the game represented. Flanking attacks don't always work, to the armchair generals. Particularly when your enemy outnumbers you and has zero morale issues.

And keep in mind even if the battle WAS won, it would have been at great and horrible cost. A cost of which is ultimately pointless since the Archdemon was still underground, and he had untold legions of Darkspawn gathering by the time you run into him in the Deep Trenches.

food for thought.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I think Gaider established that Eamon was poisoned before ostagar, so obviously, Loghain was preparing the road for something. he was also conspiring with Uldred as well. I think that Loghain did plan on removing the king, one way or another, whether through direct confrontation or the Landsmeet

I think he was plannign for the possibility to remove Cailan, but was not 100% determined to do so. That's why he incapacited Eammon. Eammon was a "negative influence" on Cailan. So I suspect Loghain thought that without Eammon spewing in Cailan's ear, the king could be made to see reason. If not, then the king had to go.

And Gaider established that Loghain didn't plan to kill Eammon, just put him out of action for a while. Hence why Eammon didn't die when the demon who was supposedely sustaining him as killed.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:30 .

[Vicious]

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.

Well said.



Also, Loghain was not 'working with the Darkspawn' DaveG has already confirmed this, unless y'all want to posture some more with your 'just because he wrote it doesn't make it true because of literary yatta etc' garbage.

[draxynnus]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The whole idea of the beacon is a tactical farce anyways. There was no way the PC and Alistair could know when was the right time. We just had to rush in and light it asap. The entire battle makes very little sense if you think about it. 

Actually, if you'd paid closer attention, the idea behind the beacon is actually fairly clear. The Grey Wardens were supposed to have been able to get to the top of the tower unopposed, from which vantage point they'd be able to see the signal from Cailen to light the beacon. Having been delayed, however, Alistair decides that the signal has probably been missed and that the beacon should be lit immediately.

Regarding Loghain's motives: The impression that I've had is that he believed that Cailen was being unduly influenced by people who were in bed with the Orlesians (the Wardens) and those who were friendly to them (such as Arl Eamon). He didn't actually want Cailen dead, but what he really wanted was the "undesirables" out of the way so that Loghain could be free to swing Cailen around to his point of view. That said, the battle plan did seem to be expressly designed so that, win or lose, the Wardens would at least take high casualties - and while Loghain would have preferred Cailen to have been away from that part of the battlefield, Cailen dying was certainly a contingency Loghain had planned for.

WoG is that Loghain didn't decide to leave until he saw the beacon. I believe this to be the case, but that doesn't mean he wasn't planning to - abandoning your son-in-law, your friend's son and your king is, after all, the sort of thing that a person never really knows for sure  if they will actually carry out until the point of no return is reached. It's possible, maybe even likely, that if the beacon had been lit earlier Loghain would have had second thoughts and gone in after all - but the delay gave him time to start thinking that Cailen was already dead and that pulling out would be justified. It's also likely that this is when he decided to accuse the Wardens of treason - after all, if he didn't know about the attack on the Tower, it's actually not that unreasonable a conclusion for him to come to that the Wardens sent to light the beacon had deliberately delayed it in order to bring about the King's death. Especially if he'd been thinking along similar lines himself.

[Solica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The horde was much bigger than they anticipated, they couldn't have all fit in the valley.

Could be. Could be... But it also could be that they did fit in the valley.

And since Loghain saw the battlefield (not in a precise way at all mind you), he probably saw that the horde is much larger than he expected.

Or maybe he couldn't see how large the horde was, because he could only see a small part of the battlefield, and that was why he needed the beacon in the first place. Meaning: The beacon was already planned from the start for a bigger horde than he would be able to see.

And did the PC know? Or did Alistair know?  I was under the impression we just had to light the beacon asap, just when the darkspawn entered melee, which is when we decide to go to the tower. We never had a full view of the battlefield.

We were in a very high tower, that could be seen clearly against the sky by everybody, and that sightline works in the other direction too. I was under the impression that we could view the battlefield, only that it wasn't implemented in the game due to technical inconvenience, but that the fact was always assumed.

and even if we did, by the time we fought all the darkspawns and killed the Ogre in the tower, we probably were late anyhow.

Maybe, but I don't think that is really indicated in any way.

Cailan and Duncan died just a few minutes after the beacon was lit.

That is news to me. Again maybe. But also again there is nothing in the game that indicates this was the case. The death scenes comes after Loghain has departed, some time, eventually.

[lqutois]

I don't think we know enough to know if the battle was winnable. I think logain was to worried about the troops from orlai and I was under the impression they HAD all the troops they could get from ferelden and that the grey wardens were there really only if the arch deamon appeared. It is supposed to be unclear who is right so we can have these discussions and both in game decisions make sense. But I think logahain was more worried about orlay and didn't think this was a real blight and could be dealt with later after the kingdom was safe from orlay. If a definite decision is made as to what is real than I will be upset.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...


I think he was plannign for the possibility to remove Cailan, but was not 100% determined to do so. That's why he incapacited Eammon. Eammon was a "negative influence" on Cailan. So I suspect Loghain thought that without Eammon spewing in Cailan's ear, the king could be made to see reason. If not, then the king had to go. [/quote]

Perhaps, though I'm guessing that he thought Cailan was beyond reason, and as far as the Orlesians were concerned, would never come around. Thus, the king had to go. Eamon was just aggrivating and goading the situation, as Cailan's uncle, and was highly influencial, with many nobles backing him. Thus, I think Loghain was working on setting up a Landsmeet to have the king outsted.

And Gaider established that Loghain didn't plan to kill Eammon, just put him out of action for a while. Hence why Eammon didn't die when the demon who was supposedely sustaining him as killed. [/quote]

I know. When i said "removed eamon from the board" I was refering to getting him out of the picture for the time being. A dead Eamon could become a martyr/figurehead for resistance to Loghain, where as a sick, incapacitated one would be better.

[Sidney]

Doesn't Wynne at some point basically say that Ostagar was unwinnable even if Loghain did attack? I don't think there is any in-game observer who thinks the battle could have been won even with Loghain's prompt action.



Since we have no idea the scale of forces involved or their relative merits there is no way to judge other than the opinions of educated observers that the game gives as witnesses and they don't seem to think this was a winnable fight.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Draxynnus, yes I mostly agree with what you are saying.
I wonder however, if the Wardens were supposed to be in the Tower, why weren't they there before the battle began?

I think a large part of the events at Ostagar was due to a misunderstanding (that happens in war alot). The darkspawn attack on the tower was brilliant (whether they actually knew about that is unkown). It delayed the beacon and made Loghain even more suspicious (like you said, it was not unreasonable).

@ Solica. Too much "could be"s and "maybe"s (on both sides of the argument). For now, this is what we have to make due with. Unless Bioware decides to impose a clear version of it, which would be bad and similar to Lucas' arrogant retconning and canonisation. It's not really known what would have happened or what was in Loghain's mind (unless we talk to him, but he coud be lying. I don't think he was). We can only believe at the end. And that's very realistic. And that makes the story even more complex. There is no real right or wrong belief about this. But, once again, I prefer to side with WoG. And that's partially because I shared the same view before.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:08 .

[Vizkos]

The way I see it, since Gray Wardens can sense the horde, if Duncan thought they could win, they probably would have if Loghain didn't wuss out.

[Zemore]

if you look at it objectivly several battles were already won at Ostagar so yes they probrably couldve won the battle if as a whole they werent so up themselves

we have two untapped resources that they couldve called upon Eamons troops and Orlays and i know it would take a while for them to get there HOWEVER Eamon couldve been called long before the battle and Orlay couldve been there too but Loghain told Cailen that they dident need them "how many times must i tell you we dont need the Orleasians to defend ourselves" I think was the line mabye its slightly wrong but to me this implies its been an issue that they conversed for a while then theres also Logs troops.
honestly the place wouldve fell eventually that was obvious when you go in to the deep roads ... the trench is filled with thousands upon thousands of darkspawn marching to the archdemons tune and then there is supposedly thousands upon thousands up top

i do belive that battle was winnible but it would have been a fleeting Victory the real question i ask is How would it effect the blight if the battle was a Victory?

Modifié par Zemore, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:14 .

[Sidney]

If you have not played RtO and don't want to know this minor spoiler stop reading.







You meet one of Cailin's guards. If you have Loghain along he'll say it was a fool's battle and Cailin's man will agree that the battle could not be won and even Cailin realized it - albeit too late - and sent him away to protect some important items.