308 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Commander Kurt wrote...

It all hinges on two points;

1. If Loghain knew enough about the battle to sound a tactical retreat, what was the beacon for? Him needing it to know the status on the field is not a guess or conjuncture. It's what the game tells us. The writing of the battle of Ostagar is a bit of a mess, I'll give you that much, but this is such a major part of it. Now, it could be to keep Alistair out of the battle, but in the warcouncil scene Loghain himself suggests his own men and says "It's not a dangerous task, but it is vital."

Why is it vital?

Answered below.

2. If the necessity of the wardens was unclear, why did everyone else in the whole of Thedas trust their word? They have rather unique authorities for a group of specialized fighters that aren't really needed, in fact their authority formally surpasses that of the Chantry and kingdoms of Thedas. The evidence for "Wardens are needed during a blight and people in power knows it" is much, much stronger in this setting than any evidence to the contrary.

People in power do act as though the Wardens are necessary. That's not logically the same as the Wardens being necessary, even if the Wardens are necessary. Which means that Loghain has every right to doubt unless he knows the same things the other people in power do. (At least I hope they know, since otherwise this makes no sense.)

I mean, sure, you can disregard this. If you prefer to think that Loghain didn't need the beacon to know what was going on then just play it that way.

I think I will. It's not like I'm short on evidence.

(This, I think, was what TEWR and Zu Long wanted. And all I had to do was google it.)

If you want Thedas to be a place where wardens aren't considered special to the extreme by every entity in power aside from Loghain then whatever works for you is fine.

Except that that's not the argument we're providing. Everyone knows the Wardens are considered special: if you don't see that they are given some degree of leeway, you clearly haven't finished any of the Origins. What we're saying is that saying they aren't truly necessary makes sense except in the context of that last reveal given in the endgame, and that while battling a Blight without them is impossible, Loghain had no way of knowing that that should have held water. Edit: Since everyone acting like something is true isn't proof that it's true.

I just thought I'd give Zu Long some support before he thinks he's going crazy. Head canon aside, it is quite clearly stated in the game that the beacon was crucial, and that wardens are universally accepted as also crucial.

It's also said that it was lit late, which Loghain would have known if he had Alistair's ability to keep track of time. It's vital the beacon is lit at the right time, and meaningless otherwise. And that's without Mary Kirby's explanation, and the possibilty that it was lit too early. (Which isn't strictly impossible, really.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 janvier 2014 - 10:25 .

[Commander Kurt]

XxDeonxX wrote...

This thread is just to stressful to continue to post in, things are going in circles where people seem to feel the need to question points already answered and then they are answered again only to be again questioned.
Then we have Loghain haters like Zu Long who ignore both valid statements & points, and ignore logic. Anyway, I'm outa' here

I actually read the entire thread, and regarding those two points raised by Zu Long and repeated by me I don't see them answered. People are just saying that Loghain is right to distrust the wardens, that they have bad history, that the wardens aren't clear on the threat, that it is sane to distrust the wardens. But fact is, noone else in the entire universe does. They are formally placed above the Chantry and the monarchs in power. This has not been disputed in this thread with anything other than "I think noone else listens to them either".

As for the beacon, it's the same there. In game we learn that the beacon is needed for Loghain to know what is going on. Conclusions like "He must have scouts telling him" and "He can see the battlefield" is guesswork. Not a long stretch, I agree. We do see scouts in the game and he might be able to see the battleground from where he is. But then the beacon is "crucial" why?

Loghain being in the right makes for a more believable setting. Any real life government would never trust the wardens like they do in Thedas based on the evidence. The whole battle plan, including the beacon, is silly and unrealistic. But in this setting the beacon is crucial. And the wardens are needed to stop the blight, something that is common knowledge in Thedas.

I don't mean to go in circles. To my knowledge, this has not been answered and I feel bad for Zu Long thinking that he is the only one to recognize it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Commander Kurt wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

This thread is just to stressful to continue to post in, things are going in circles where people seem to feel the need to question points already answered and then they are answered again only to be again questioned.
Then we have Loghain haters like Zu Long who ignore both valid statements & points, and ignore logic. Anyway, I'm outa' here

I actually read the entire thread, and regarding those two points raised by Zu Long and repeated by me I don't see them answered. People are just saying that Loghain is right to distrust the wardens, that they have bad history, that the wardens aren't clear on the threat, that it is sane to distrust the wardens. But fact is, noone else in the entire universe does. They are formally placed above the Chantry and the monarchs in power. This has not been disputed in this thread with anything other than "I think noone else listens to them either".

Yes, but nobody else distrusting the Wardens isn't proof that the Wardens are trustworthy.

As for the beacon, it's the same there. In game we learn that the beacon is needed for Loghain to know what is going on. Conclusions like "He must have scouts telling him" and "He can see the battlefield" is guesswork. Not a long stretch, I agree. We do see scouts in the game and he might be able to see the battleground from where he is. But then the beacon is "crucial" why?

Kirby quote. See above post.

Loghain being in the right makes for a more believable setting. Any real life government would never trust the wardens like they do in Thedas based on the evidence. The whole battle plan, including the beacon, is silly and unrealistic.

Honestly, yes. Though in fairness I think most heads of state know more about the Wardens than Loghain and Cailan do, and from the fact that Wardens aren't investigated for the Joining (despite a Templar spy infiltrating the Vigil's Keep branch between Awakening and DA2) I can only assume the Chantry as a whole already knows.

But in this setting the beacon is crucial. And the wardens are needed to stop the blight, something that is common knowledge in Thedas.

Yes, but unless you know why the Wardens are needed, "common knowledge" looks a lot more like "common superstition." Even the Warden can express doubt that it's true, after winning an important vote due partially to that supersitition.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 janvier 2014 - 10:35 .

[Commander Kurt]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

2. If the necessity of the wardens was unclear, why did everyone else in the whole of Thedas trust their word? They have rather unique authorities for a group of specialized fighters that aren't really needed, in fact their authority formally surpasses that of the Chantry and kingdoms of Thedas. The evidence for "Wardens are needed during a blight and people in power knows it" is much, much stronger in this setting than any evidence to the contrary.

People in power do act as though the Wardens are necessary. That's not logically the same as the Wardens being necessary, even if the Wardens are necessary.

I mean, sure, you can disregard this. If you prefer to think that Loghain didn't need the beacon to know what was going on then just play it that way.

I think I will. It's not like I'm short on evidence.

(This, I think, was what TEWR and Zu Long wanted. And all I had to do was google it.)

If you want Thedas to be a place where wardens aren't considered special to the extreme by every entity in power aside from Loghain then whatever works for you is fine.

Except that that's not the argument we're providing. Everyone knows the Wardens are considered special: if you don't see that they are given some degree of leeway, you clearly haven't finished any of the Origins. What we're saying is that saying they aren't truly necessary makes sense except in the context of that last reveal given in the endgame, and that while battling a Blight without them is impossible, Loghain had no way of knowing that that should have held water.

I just thought I'd give Zu Long some support before he thinks he's going crazy. Head canon aside, it is quite clearly stated in the game that the beacon was crucial, and that wardens are universally accepted as also crucial.

It's also said that it was lit late, which Loghain would have known if he had Alistair's ability to keep track of time. It's vital the beacon is lit at the right time, and meaningless otherwise. And that's without Mary Kirby's explanation, and the possibilty that it was lit too early. (Which isn't strictly impossible, really.)

I just mess up when I try to mess with the quotes, please just let me know if you don't understand what I'm answering.

1. Wardens. You're right. Everyone in Thedas could think that the wardens are needed without that being true. But you can't very well argue that Loghain didn't have the information. Everyone "knew" (thought) they were needed and he had the same information as they did. The only way to really prove it's true is for them to kill the AD when noone else could. For Loghain to believe it, they would have to kill it when noone else could while he was watching (everyone else seem to be satisfied with it already happening four times in history). Now, I agree. The wardens claim is fantastical, but they have been open enough for the chantry to release control of blood mages and regents to release control of murderers and traitors. For Loghain to bet his nation on this being a fairytale was not the right call.

The last reveal proves nothing at all. You're thinking about the warden dies due to no soul thing, right? This is something the wardens claim, much like they claim that they are needed. If you don't trust their word, this would not be worth anything (since it is just that).

2. Beacon. But you are short on evidence. What Kirby does is say that he sees some of the field but not all. What does that tell us? What we know is that he did not see enough to know when to launch the assault. We know this. Kirby confirms it. You're saying that he can't see "when", but he can see "if". I can't say that that is impossible. What I can say is that it's not what the game tells us. It's possible. Much like Hawke and Isabella having twelve children and sailing the seven seas after DA2 is possible. Kirby also says this in the end of that thread;

"The point was always that he wasn't a crazy, cackling, "I WANT TO DESTROY THE WORLD, BWAHAHAHAHA!" villain, and his motives were comphrensible if not especially admirable. He was human, and he screwed up, and by the end, he knew that. And if you so chose, you could save him from himself. I always kind of saw him as Magus from Chrono Trigger. He's definitely a bad guy even though he did have some good intentions, and sparing him sort of screws one of your buddies... but you can still make that call, and not be completely crazy to do so."

It was lit late. Alistair would know this if he saw the battlefield (when it is supposed to be lit has nothing to do with hours or minutes), if not he's just guessing. It was to be lit at a specific stage during the battle, not at a specific time during the day. Loghain would never know if it was late, Kirby confirmes this in the link you posted.

[Commander Kurt]

Btw, Riverdales, I like your style. You have good points and you argue them well. When I say that it's head canon, what I mean is just that you could be right but we don't see that happening in the game. We don't know what is known about the wardens, or how that bloody battle was supposed to ever work. We see what we see and add in the gaps when the information is incomplete.

It's like with Cory (Legacy DLC), you see the Warden fall down, the smirk, the "thank you for my freedom" line and I think that the bastard is still alive. Someone else may think differently. During Ostagar, you see Cauthrien gasp and say "but, my lord..!", you see the little smirk, you hear the "glory for us all" line. And I think the bastard planned it. Others may not.

[HiroVoid]

Commander Kurt wrote...
It's like with Cory (Legacy DLC), you see the Warden fall down, the smirk, the "thank you for my freedom" line and I think that the bastard is still alive. Someone else may think differently. During Ostagar, you see Cauthrien gasp and say "but, my lord..!", you see the little smirk, you hear the "glory for us all" line. And I think the bastard planned it. Others may not.

As I said before, this was likely done when it was still planned that Loghain abandon Cailan because he was going to abandon Anora for Celene.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I just mess up when I try to mess with the quotes, please just let me know if you don't understand what I'm answering.

1. Wardens. You're right. Everyone in Thedas could think that the wardens are needed without that being true. But you can't very well argue that Loghain didn't have the information. Everyone "knew" (thought) they were needed and he had the same information as they did. The only way to really prove it's true is for them to kill the AD when noone else could. For Loghain to believe it, they would have to kill it when noone else could while he was watching (everyone else seem to be satisfied with it already happening four times in history).

The problem with that is, though, that the Wardens doing it four times doesn't really prove nobody else can. I agree there's some hints in that direction in that the First Blight lasted 1000 years, but the fact remains that you can credibly doubt that this was due to the Wardens being strictly necessary.

Now, I agree. The wardens claim is fantastical, but they have been open enough for the chantry to release control of blood mages and regents to release control of murderers and traitors. For Loghain to bet his nation on this being a fairytale was not the right call.

Not in retrospect. But what I'm saying is that you can see how he came to the conclusion that it was the call to make.

The last reveal proves nothing at all. You're thinking about the warden dies due to no soul thing, right? This is something the wardens claim, much like they claim that they are needed. If you don't trust their word, this would not be worth anything (since it is just that).

What I meant was that unless you accept this as true (which I agree is a stretch) there's no real reason to believe that Wardens are necessary. Which means that until they convince Loghain (and again, that's an uphill battle) he has no reason to believe that they're essential.

2. Beacon. But you are short on evidence. What Kirby does is say that he sees some of the field but not all. What does that tell us? What we know is that he did not see enough to know when to launch the assault. We know this. Kirby confirms it. You're saying that he can't see "when", but he can see "if". I can't say that that is impossible. What I can say is that it's not what the game tells us. It's possible. Much like Hawke and Isabella having twelve children and sailing the seven seas after DA2 is possible. Kirby also says this in the end of that thread;

"The point was always that he wasn't a crazy, cackling, "I WANT TO DESTROY THE WORLD, BWAHAHAHAHA!" villain, and his motives were comphrensible if not especially admirable. He was human, and he screwed up, and by the end, he knew that. And if you so chose, you could save him from himself. I always kind of saw him as Magus from Chrono Trigger. He's definitely a bad guy even though he did have some good intentions, and sparing him sort of screws one of your buddies... but you can still make that call, and not be completely crazy to do so."

Yes, but I'd interpreted that as referring to not the Ostagar decision (which Gaider and Kirby both seem to be signing off on as a good move, or at least Gaider certainly is) but rather everything else he and Howe do all game.

It was lit late. Alistair would know this if he saw the battlefield (when it is supposed to be lit has nothing to do with hours or minutes), if not he's just guessing. It was to be lit at a specific stage during the battle, not at a specific time during the day. Loghain would never know if it was late, Kirby confirmes this in the link you posted.

It didn't sound like he had done any checking, tough. "What he said was 'We've surely missed the signal by now,' and he says this basically the split second the ogre stops moving. He's not shown doing anything to check. And that's what I meant when I said that for all I know, it could have been lit early.

Commander Kurt wrote...

Btw, Riverdales, I like your style. You have good points and you argue them well.

Thanks. I try.

When I say that it's head canon, what I mean is just that you could be right but we don't see that happening in the game. We don't know what is known about the wardens, or how that bloody battle was supposed to ever work. We see what we see and add in the gaps when the information is incomplete.

Fair enough. I'm just saying Ostagar looks like a Sunk-Cost situtation to me.

It's like with Cory (Legacy DLC), you see the Warden fall down, the smirk, the "thank you for my freedom" line and I think that the bastard is still alive. Someone else may think differently. During Ostagar, you see Cauthrien gasp and say "but, my lord..!", you see the little smirk, you hear the "glory for us all" line. And I think the bastard planned it. Others may not.

I think Hiro was right about that being written for another direction in which Loghain was more unambigously villainous. As for Cory, I think I'm going to have to back your interpretation.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 janvier 2014 - 12:11 .

[JJDXB]

Tactically sound, strategically stupid. Yes, he saved half the army against slaughter. Stupid because he now has half an army against the horde instead of a full one. Ostagar was the best chance for the horde to stopped without the full on involvement of the wardens. In other words, he 'won' the battle, only to cripple his chance at winning the war.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

JBDXB wrote...

Tactically sound, strategically stupid. Yes, he saved half the army against slaughter. Stupid because he now has half an army against the horde instead of a full one. Ostagar was the best chance for the horde to stopped without the full on involvement of the wardens. In other words, he 'won' the battle, only to cripple his chance at winning the war.

Don't forget that there are still soldiers he can call upon in Redcliffe and the Bannorn. We know this because we see them rebelling against him immediately instead of presenting a united front until the Blight was over and then asking Loghain pointed questions about why Cailan is dead.

[Commander Kurt]

HiroVoid wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...
It's like with Cory (Legacy DLC), you see the Warden fall down, the smirk, the "thank you for my freedom" line and I think that the bastard is still alive. Someone else may think differently. During Ostagar, you see Cauthrien gasp and say "but, my lord..!", you see the little smirk, you hear the "glory for us all" line. And I think the bastard planned it. Others may not.

As I said before, this was likely done when it was still planned that Loghain abandon Cailan because he was going to abandon Anora for Celene.

Yeah, that makes sense. But playing the game, I got the story that was presented to me and to me at least it screamed "BETRAYAL". I'm just saying that what we took from the game and the conclusions we draw depend on this as well. If I'm dead set on Loghain being a hero, I will likely find support for this in the game. If my first thought was "He set them up!", I will have no trouble concreting this view using logical assumptions and what not.

We fill in the gaps to fit with our assumptions. I'm constantly trying to remember that.

[JJDXB]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

JBDXB wrote...

Tactically sound, strategically stupid. Yes, he saved half the army against slaughter. Stupid because he now has half an army against the horde instead of a full one. Ostagar was the best chance for the horde to stopped without the full on involvement of the wardens. In other words, he 'won' the battle, only to cripple his chance at winning the war.

Don't forget that there are still soldiers he can call upon in Redcliffe and the Bannorn. We know this because we see them rebelling against him immediately instead of presenting a united front until the Blight was over and then asking Loghain pointed questions about why Cailan is dead.

True, but unless there were at least as many soldiers in Redcliffe and the Bannorn as there were with Cailan, he still has less men - and more importantly, probably inexperienced and more poorly equipped men.  Then, of course, he now has to gather them (both in the context of getting people to agree with him and actually moving the troops), wasting precious days and weeks while the horde grows stronger.

Modifié par JBDXB, 08 janvier 2014 - 12:18 .

[HiroVoid]

Commander Kurt wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...
It's like with Cory (Legacy DLC), you see the Warden fall down, the smirk, the "thank you for my freedom" line and I think that the bastard is still alive. Someone else may think differently. During Ostagar, you see Cauthrien gasp and say "but, my lord..!", you see the little smirk, you hear the "glory for us all" line. And I think the bastard planned it. Others may not.

As I said before, this was likely done when it was still planned that Loghain abandon Cailan because he was going to abandon Anora for Celene.

Yeah, that makes sense. But playing the game, I got the story that was presented to me and to me at least it screamed "BETRAYAL". I'm just saying that what we took from the game and the conclusions we draw depend on this as well. If I'm dead set on Loghain being a hero, I will likely find support for this in the game. If my first thought was "He set them up!", I will have no trouble concreting this view using logical assumptions and what not.

We fill in the gaps to fit with our assumptions. I'm constantly trying to remember that.

Right.  The only in-game evidence you get for Loghain is if you look at his general personality and recurit him.  If you look at his personality, it's obvious he's not power-hungry, so he didn't kill Loghain for the throne especially when his daughter is the queen.  If you recruit him and take him to Ostagar, he still says he would make the retreat even knowing what he does now and calls Cailan a fool for being in the battle.  Here's his dialogue with wynne for reference.

───────

• Loghain: Let me know when you're done glaring at me, madam. My memories of this place are no fonder than your own.
• Wynne: No? I remember good friends dying in this place. And a man whom I respected as my king.
• Loghain: All I remember is a fool's death and a hard choice. I'd make the same again.
• Wynne: Even knowing all that you know now, Loghain Mac Tir?
• Loghain: Even so. Come, madam, our bitterness is better spent against the darkspawn than each other.
• Wynne: Yes, Maker forbid that I might waste a whole life's bitterness just on you.

───────

• Wynne: How cold does the King's metal feel in your hands, Loghain?
• Loghain: I feel nothing, old woman, and your constant prodding for regrets will gain you little.
• Wynne: And what if it had been your daughter in his place? Would you have regrets then?
• Loghain: Had I raised her to be such a fool as that,
  I'd have been in no better position to save her! What you forget is that
  your king was beyond saving. The darkspawn would either have had him or
  have had us all. Do you really believe we would have been so much
  better off had I chosen otherwise?
• Wynne: It is my belief that a man who ties his own
  hands behind his back should not cry foul that there is no one left to
  defend his king!

───────

• Loghain: The cheating bastard!
• Wynne: Watch your mouth, Loghain Mac Tir, unless you have forgotten the company you now keep!
• Loghain: It's not my company I worry about, madam, but
  my former son-in-law's! Do you see the familiar tone with which the
  empress writes him, as if my daughter were not already his wife?
• Wynne: Cailan loved Anora with every ounce of his
  heart. It was plain for all to see. The only thing that ever stood
  between them was you.
• Loghain: Are you blind, old woman? The plot is plain as
  day within this letter! Love or no, Cailan was going to cast my
  daughter aside and wed himself to that ****, Celene. In a single vow,
  Orlais would claim all that they could never win by war! And what would
  Ferelden gain? Our fool of a king could strut about and call himself an
  emperor.
• Wynne: And what of peace? Would it not bring us that, at least?
• Loghain: Peace? I would have thought your age might
  have granted more wisdom, madam. Peace just means fighting someone
  else's enemies in someone else's war for someone else's reasons.
• If Dog is with them, when Loghain calls Celene a ****, Dog will growl before Loghain continues the rest of what he is saying.

───────

• Wynne: You've fallen silent, Loghain.
• Loghain: And I wish you would do the same, madam. It has been a long and wearying day.
• Wynne: On that at least the two of us can agree.
• Loghain: We are done here. Let's go home and not speak of this again.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 08 janvier 2014 - 12:18 .

[HiroVoid]

JBDXB wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

JBDXB wrote...

Tactically sound, strategically stupid. Yes, he saved half the army against slaughter. Stupid because he now has half an army against the horde instead of a full one. Ostagar was the best chance for the horde to stopped without the full on involvement of the wardens. In other words, he 'won' the battle, only to cripple his chance at winning the war.

Don't forget that there are still soldiers he can call upon in Redcliffe and the Bannorn. We know this because we see them rebelling against him immediately instead of presenting a united front until the Blight was over and then asking Loghain pointed questions about why Cailan is dead.

True, but unless there were at least as many soldiers in Redcliffe and the Bannorn as there were with Cailan, he still has less men - and more importantly, probably inexperienced and more poorly equipped men.  Then, of course, he now has to gather them (both in the context of getting people to agree with him and actually moving the troops), wasting precious days and weeks while the horde grows stronger.

To be honest, Ostagar as a whole seems dumb to me.  The darkspawn have enough numbers to fight multiple continents at a time as they have in past blights.  The only reason Ferelden even ends up winning is because they managed to kill the archdemon.  If the archdemon didn't show up at Ostagar, they would have been screwed no matter what.  Instead of hearing the archdemon showing up and getting scared of it, it should be 'Heck yes!  We need to kill it and end this now!'

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

JBDXB wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

JBDXB wrote...

Tactically sound, strategically stupid. Yes, he saved half the army against slaughter. Stupid because he now has half an army against the horde instead of a full one. Ostagar was the best chance for the horde to stopped without the full on involvement of the wardens. In other words, he 'won' the battle, only to cripple his chance at winning the war.

Don't forget that there are still soldiers he can call upon in Redcliffe and the Bannorn. We know this because we see them rebelling against him immediately instead of presenting a united front until the Blight was over and then asking Loghain pointed questions about why Cailan is dead.

True, but unless there were at least as many soldiers in Redcliffe and the Bannorn as there were with Cailan, he still has less men - and more importantly, probably inexperienced and more poorly equipped men.  Then, of course, he now has to gather them (both in the context of getting people to agree with him and actually moving the troops), wasting precious days and weeks while the horde grows stronger.

If he lost Ostagar, he'd have to do that anyway. And he wouldn't have the half he saved. If he won the battle, sure, but I don't see that happening.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 janvier 2014 - 01:29 .

[TobiTobsen]

HiroVoid wrote...

Loghain: Are you blind, old woman? The plot is plain as day within this letter! Love or no, Cailan was going to cast my daughter aside and wed himself to that ****, Celene. In a single vow, Orlais would claim all that they could never win by war! And what would Ferelden gain? Our fool of a king could strut about and call himself an emperor.

A bit off topic:

The funny thing is I never understood why Loghain was saying this.

If the inheritance system in Orlais and Ferelden is working like our's in the past then the first son of Cailan and Celene would actually be a Theirin and the legal heir to both Ferelden and Orlais. So just one generation later it would be a Fereldan sitting on the Orlesian Throne and not the other way around..

As long as the nobles in Orlais wouldn't scream bloody murder when a Ferelden Dog Lord ascends to their throne.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 08 janvier 2014 - 02:04 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Because he assumes that the stronger country will dominate the weaker, which is a valid thing for the nobility of the weaker country to fear.

[Augustei]

TobiTobsen wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Loghain: Are you blind, old woman? The plot is plain as day within this letter! Love or no, Cailan was going to cast my daughter aside and wed himself to that ****, Celene. In a single vow, Orlais would claim all that they could never win by war! And what would Ferelden gain? Our fool of a king could strut about and call himself an emperor.

A bit off topic:

The funny thing is I never understood why Loghain was saying this.

If the inheritance system in Orlais and Ferelden is working like our's in the past then the first son of Cailan and Celene would actually be a Theirin and the legal heir to both Ferelden and Orlais. So just one generation later it would be a Fereldan sitting on the Orlesian Throne and not the other way around..

As long as the nobles in Orlais wouldn't scream bloody murder when a Ferelden Dog Lord ascends to their throne.

And what culture would primarily influence the child, the small backwater or the dominating and regardedly superior Orlesian one, where would the capital be? who would have primary influence between the two nations the backwater or the superpower? and what happens when not if but when (Do you really think Celene would keep the fool around? and even if she did do you think Fereldens or Orlais nobles would let him live?) Cailan dies and his mother is calling the shots?

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 janvier 2014 - 02:33 .

[andy6915]

You know, Orlais has "helped" a weaker country survive a blight and then just conveniently not pull their forces out afterward before, I think it was the third blight. So there is a precedent for Loghain fearing Orlais not wanting to leave once let back in.

[Commander Kurt]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

The problem with that is, though, that the Wardens doing it four times doesn't really prove nobody else can. I agree there's some hints in that direction in that the First Blight lasted 1000 years, but the fact remains that you can credibly doubt that this was due to the Wardens being strictly necessary.

----

Not in retrospect. But what I'm saying is that you can see how he came to the conclusion that it was the call to make.

Everything known to them pointed to it being true. That's why everyone in Thedas work under the assumption that it is in fact true. I can see how he came to that conclusion, but it's not the right call to bet so much on everyone else in the world being wrong but you.

What I meant was that unless you accept this as true (which I agree is a stretch) there's no real reason to believe that Wardens are necessary. Which means that until they convince Loghain (and again, that's an uphill battle) he has no reason to believe that they're essential.

Everyone in the world thought that the earth was flat not too long ago. We laugh about this now, but if someone who didn't have proof on the contrary at the time decided to risk an entire country on the assumption that everyone in the world was wrong but him, I'd lop his head off. Even if he turned out to be right, that is not a good call to make.

Established fact is sometimes wrong, this is true. But you don't risk everything on that happening if you aren't sure about being right. It's just not a good call.

Yes, but I'd interpreted that as referring to not the Ostagar decision (which Gaider and Kirby both seem to be signing off on as a good move, or at least Gaider certainly is) but rather everything else he and Howe do all game.

Could be. She avoids passing any judgement on the battle itself, only saying that he saw some but not all and that he is a bad guy but one you can understand.

It didn't sound like he had done any checking, tough. "What he said was 'We've surely missed the signal by now,' and he says this basically the split second the ogre stops moving. He's not shown doing anything to check. And that's what I meant when I said that for all I know, it could have been lit early.

Sure. Either way, Loghain doesn't know if it's late. Or early.

I think Hiro was right about that being written for another direction in which Loghain was more unambigously villainous. As for Cory, I think I'm going to have to back your interpretation.

Yeah, but that's still what actually happened. He said it, smirked, it's what I have to relate to. He did in your game too, how do you explain it? Evil twin..?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

The problem with that is, though, that the Wardens doing it four times doesn't really prove nobody else can. I agree there's some hints in that direction in that the First Blight lasted 1000 years, but the fact remains that you can credibly doubt that this was due to the Wardens being strictly necessary.

----

Not in retrospect. But what I'm saying is that you can see how he came to the conclusion that it was the call to make.

Everything known to them pointed to it being true. That's why everyone in Thedas work under the assumption that it is in fact true. I can see how he came to that conclusion, but it's not the right call to bet so much on everyone else in the world being wrong but you.

He was in a spot, though. He could either save his army and bet on that being sufficient, or sacrifice his army to save the Wardens betting on that being sufficient.

What I meant was that unless you accept this as true (which I agree is a stretch) there's no real reason to believe that Wardens are necessary. Which means that until they convince Loghain (and again, that's an uphill battle) he has no reason to believe that they're essential.

Everyone in the world thought that the earth was flat not too long ago. We laugh about this now, but if someone who didn't have proof on the contrary at the time decided to risk an entire country on the assumption that everyone in the world was wrong but him, I'd lop his head off. Even if he turned out to be right, that is not a good call to make.

Established fact is sometimes wrong, this is true. But you don't risk everything on that happening if you aren't sure about being right. It's just not a good call.

He didn't see any way out except for conventional wisdom being wrong, and his only real evidence for it being right is that it is conventional wisdom. As you say, he has the same information everyone else does, but the conclusion that conventional wisdom draws (though correct) does not logically follow from it. (The historical record contains four cases, and to the best of my knowledge has nothing indicating that the archdemon can reform if killed, which is what would raise flags.) 

It didn't sound like he had done any checking, tough. "What he said was 'We've surely missed the signal by now,' and he says this basically the split second the ogre stops moving. He's not shown doing anything to check. And that's what I meant when I said that for all I know, it could have been lit early.

Sure. Either way, Loghain doesn't know if it's late. Or early.

That depends on what Loghain's seeing. If he's seeing the route the darkspawn are taking towards the field, and he sees both the lit beacon and darkspawn who haven't committed, he knows he's early and that he's not going to get a better timed signal. If he sees the king's lines, and he sees the beacon lit only after the king's forces are beyond saving, he knows that the beacon was lit too late. And you'd think he'd be able to see one of the two.

I think Hiro was right about that being written for another direction in which Loghain was more unambigously villainous. As for Cory, I think I'm going to have to back your interpretation.

Yeah, but that's still what actually happened. He said it, smirked, it's what I have to relate to. He did in your game too, how do you explain it? Evil twin..?

Sarcasm, I guess.

[Commander Kurt]

HiroVoid wrote...

Right.  The only in-game evidence you get for Loghain is if you look at his general personality and recurit him.  If you look at his personality, it's obvious he's not power-hungry, so he didn't kill Loghain for the throne especially when his daughter is the queen.  If you recruit him and take him to Ostagar, he still says he would make the retreat even knowing what he does now and calls Cailan a fool for being in the battle.  Here's his dialogue with wynne for reference.

[*]
[*]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here? He takes the throne, not because he wants it but because he thinks he must. He does this with Anora as well, so it's clearly in his personality. And him being sure it was the right call doesn't really say much. It all worked out, didn't it? In fact, this is the best comment I've seen in regards to him not having all the information when he left the wardens to die. Apparently, he still would have even after knowing EVERYTHING.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Commander Kurt wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Right.  The only in-game evidence you get for Loghain is if you look at his general personality and recurit him.  If you look at his personality, it's obvious he's not power-hungry, so he didn't kill Loghain for the throne especially when his daughter is the queen.  If you recruit him and take him to Ostagar, he still says he would make the retreat even knowing what he does now and calls Cailan a fool for being in the battle.  Here's his dialogue with wynne for reference.

[*]I'm not sure what you're arguing here? He takes the throne, not because he wants it but because he thinks he must. He does this with Anora as well, so it's clearly in his personality. And him being sure it was the right call doesn't really say much. It all worked out, didn't it? In fact, this is the best comment I've seen in regards to him not having all the information when he left the wardens to die. Apparently, he still would have even after knowing EVERYTHING.

[*]
[*]Because those Wardens were already screwed. Loghain's argument there (and by extension Hiro's) is that once things got where they were, the fact that having some Wardens is necessary to end the Blight wasn't the deciding factor for trying to save those Wardens, for the simple reason that those Wardens were already completely screwed no matter what Loghain did.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 janvier 2014 - 03:40 .

[victorbarry]

how is this related to DAI ?