308 réponses à ce sujet

[Angrywolves]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...
If he had we can't call that in truth a betrayal of Ferelden. If countries stayed enemies with countries who they had fought the US would not have become friends with Great Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan. There has to be a peace and Loghain didn't want to accept that.

As Loghain so elequently put it, peace just means fighting other peoples battles for other peoples reasons.
All it would have meant is a bloody civil war as the Ferelden nobility try to maintain their independence and eventually Ferelden being drafted into a war with Nevarra.

And if you think it isn't A betrayal then you are naive. if your countrys leader went and deprived your country of its independence what would you call it? If they subjected you to the rule of a foreign power? If Washington went bowed to British rule 30 years after the revolutionary war what would people call that?

Orlais would have dominated Ferelden, Val Royeaux would be the capital dont doubt it, the future monarchs would be Orlesians, Ferelden would be completely subserviant to Orlais and Val Royeaux and majority of revenues and beneficials would be redirected to Orlais.. Ferelden is a country with great potential,. that potetial would be crushed under Orlesian rule

The depriving Ferelden of its independence claim is just your opinion.

The Orlais would have dominated Ferelden claim is just your opinion.

I think you sir are naive.

But believe what you want.Like I said, if some players  like Loghain and believe in him that's fine.
I don't.

End of story as far as I am concerned.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Angrywolves wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...
If he had we can't call that in truth a betrayal of Ferelden. If countries stayed enemies with countries who they had fought the US would not have become friends with Great Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan. There has to be a peace and Loghain didn't want to accept that.

As Loghain so elequently put it, peace just means fighting other peoples battles for other peoples reasons.
All it would have meant is a bloody civil war as the Ferelden nobility try to maintain their independence and eventually Ferelden being drafted into a war with Nevarra.

And if you think it isn't A betrayal then you are naive. if your countrys leader went and deprived your country of its independence what would you call it? If they subjected you to the rule of a foreign power? If Washington went bowed to British rule 30 years after the revolutionary war what would people call that?

Orlais would have dominated Ferelden, Val Royeaux would be the capital dont doubt it, the future monarchs would be Orlesians, Ferelden would be completely subserviant to Orlais and Val Royeaux and majority of revenues and beneficials would be redirected to Orlais.. Ferelden is a country with great potential,. that potetial would be crushed under Orlesian rule

The depriving Ferelden of its independence claim is just your opinion.

The Orlais would have dominated Ferelden claim is just your opinion.

And it's more consistent with Orlais' national character than yours, if the Codex is anything to go by.

[Angrywolves]

perhaps.

As it is it's not a critical point for the DA series anymore.

If Loghain is dead, as I suspect he is in most players playthroughs he can't show up in DAI.

If some players saved him and the developers decide to throw them an easter egg and he shows up in their playthroughs that's fine.

DAO is over.
<_<

Modifié par Angrywolves, 10 janvier 2014 - 02:17 .

[Augustei]

Angrywolves wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...
If he had we can't call that in truth a betrayal of Ferelden. If countries stayed enemies with countries who they had fought the US would not have become friends with Great Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan. There has to be a peace and Loghain didn't want to accept that.

As Loghain so elequently put it, peace just means fighting other peoples battles for other peoples reasons.
All it would have meant is a bloody civil war as the Ferelden nobility try to maintain their independence and eventually Ferelden being drafted into a war with Nevarra.

And if you think it isn't A betrayal then you are naive. if your countrys leader went and deprived your country of its independence what would you call it? If they subjected you to the rule of a foreign power? If Washington went bowed to British rule 30 years after the revolutionary war what would people call that?

Orlais would have dominated Ferelden, Val Royeaux would be the capital dont doubt it, the future monarchs would be Orlesians, Ferelden would be completely subserviant to Orlais and Val Royeaux and majority of revenues and beneficials would be redirected to Orlais.. Ferelden is a country with great potential,. that potetial would be crushed under Orlesian rule

The depriving Ferelden of its independence claim is just your opinion.

The Orlais would have dominated Ferelden claim is just your opinion.

I think you sir are naive.

But believe what you want.Like I said, if some players  like Loghain and believe in him that's fine.
I don't.

End of story as far as I am concerned.

An opinion as you say, based on logic and extreme likelihood, esentially inevitable.
Do you know how many cases there are of two countries merging and the weaker backwater dominating the superpower has occoured? 0.

As to depriving Ferelden of its independence, the only other possibily is a bloody war which Ferelden would most likely lose and then...Lose their independence.. there is no possibily of peace in that scenario.
I suppose you think the two will just live together in perfect harmony, how amusing . Perhaps we should grant every citizen their own castles to live in, in the sky.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 10 janvier 2014 - 05:39 .

[bEVEsthda]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes, I know. But I cannot regard everything that Loghain says as fact.

Why would he lie about this? He's willing to admit he's ****ed up if spared on everything except Ostagar, maintaining that it was the right call he made. Why would we discount that they were his men?

He's making conversation. He's a written character and we have to assume he stays in character. He's not suddenly the gospel source of information. Even given my intepretation, there could be a grain of reality in what he says. He likely knew some of the king's soldiers, wether they were part of his personal command or not.

He owes up to those things he cannot no longer avoid, with that certain audience. What he'll say in a speech to a village or something like that is a different matter.
Regardless, and regardless of what he actually did at Ostagar, few, if any, type of personal character would say or admit that leaving the field at Ostagar was wrong. It's extremely hard to imagine. Thus there is nothing remarkable about that he continues to maintain that he did the right thing. That the battle was unwinnable is now his main excuse. He'll never abandon that.  He may even have convinced himself of this, after the fact.

I am curious about hints at the battle. I cannot remember anything conclusive.

What sort of hints are you looking for, precisely? I have a good recollection of Ostagar related things, considering I've debated it into oblivion.

Like into the disposition of the forces. I have vague memories of Cailan saying something like "I'll stand with the Grey Wardens and Loghain will attack with the army".
There's also the matter of type of armor, visible in the videos. I'll try to find an old save and replay Ostagar. Essentially, I do not expect any conclusive evidence one way or other, but I'm curios why my characters interpreted the situation like that.

It more raises the question why Loghain is so anxious to be heard to warn the king. He should have been tired of that game.

Loghain's the general and Cailan's the king. Regardless of how successful you think you'll be, you are obligated to at least advise your king when to stay out of battle.

Even if it's failed repeatedly in the past.

What you said is what Joy Division said above in reply to someone else's stance. If Loghain says something, it's evidence against him. If he doesn't say something, it's evidence against him.

Yes. Sort of. But my main point (as I gather Joy Division's) is rather that this interpretation is every bit just as reasonable and sound as any other. What Loghain says in these situations absolutely doesn't work as evidence of his innocense.

[OMGsideboob]

LucianaIV wrote...

The decision itself was probably the smart move.

The motivations and the way he went about it, was not, just when the signal was lit, which meant ''move your ass into the battle'', he gives the opposite order, then suddenly rushes to Denerim, seizing power and declaring the Wardens to be traitors.

Loghain intentionally retreated when he should have reinforced and the way he went about it makes it seem pretty clear that he planned to do so from the start.

Agreed...

It's clear his intent, motivation (keep Orlesians out of Fereldan, being paranoid about the Orlesians), also it was said that Anora and Empress Celene had diplomatically worked out their history and were allies to face the Darkspawn. A sage warrior like Duncan wouldn't march off to battle if he felt he would be overwhelmed without help... Additionally Cailan was suggesting they wait for their Orlesian back-up to arrive to help drive off the darkspawn, but Loghain himself insisted they could do it alone and came up with the tower of Ishal idea with Cailan, again... Likely to forward his "treachery"...

Tactically, It might have been smart but it was a really snake-like way of going about it...

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


[quote]Yes, I know. But I cannot regard everything that Loghain says as fact.[/quote]

Why would he lie about this? He's willing to admit he's ****ed up if spared on everything except Ostagar, maintaining that it was the right call he made. Why would we discount that they were his men?[/quote]

He's making conversation. He's a written character and we have to assume he stays in character. He's not suddenly the gospel source of information. Even given my intepretation, there could be a grain of reality in what he says. He likely knew some of the king's soldiers, wether they were part of his personal command or not.

He owes up to those things he cannot no longer avoid, with that certain audience. What he'll say in a speech to a village or something like that is a different matter.[/quote]

Considering that he's debating with his second-most strenous opponent at this point, (I say second most because Wynne doesn't leave the party rather than fight alongside him) and doesn't seem to think he's going to sway her, you'd think he might owe up to more if that were the case.

[quote]
Regardless, and regardless of what he actually did at Ostagar, few, if any, type of personal character would say or admit that leaving the field at Ostagar was wrong. It's extremely hard to imagine. Thus there is nothing remarkable about that he continues to maintain that he did the right thing. That the battle was unwinnable is now his main excuse. He'll never abandon that.  He may even have convinced himself of this, after the fact. [/quote]

Except that he doesn't make excuses for a lot of the rest of it. In this context you'd expect him to abandon his excuses for Ostagar unless he was somewhat more sure that the alternative would be a slaughter.

[quote]

[quote]I am curious about hints at the battle. I cannot remember anything conclusive.[/quote]

What sort of hints are you looking for, precisely? I have a good recollection of Ostagar related things, considering I've debated it into oblivion.[/quote]

Like into the disposition of the forces. I have vague memories of Cailan saying something like "I'll stand with the Grey Wardens and Loghain will attack with the army". [/quote]

Cailan *annoyed* "Loghain, my decision is final. I will stand with the Grey Wardens in the coming assault."

I don't remember the exact wording, but it's only later that Cailan reviews the strategy, where Cailan notes that the plan is to draw the darkspawn into charging his lines, whereupon Loghain explains that the rest of the plan is to light the signal for Loghain to flank the darkspawn. Loghain then notes that he has a few men stationed in the Tower, and Cailan decides on a whim to send Alistair and the Warden, refusing to consider the Warden's offer to go alone if it's made. (Presumably this is because he's well aware that there's at least a chance of death and decides to make sure the only other person with Theirin blood is alive, though he knew or should have known that Alistair's bastard status would have been a major complication.)

Uldred then tries to interject that the beacon is an unnecessary complication given that mages can conjure fire, but is shouted down by the Revered Mother, who refuses to trust him with anything other than killing. What this means, essentially, is that if Loghain was willing to charge and the beacon was lit at the wrong time (the latter point is supported by Alistair's note right before the beacon is lit if you give it a bit of thought) then the Revered Mother is more at fault for this than anyone. On the other hand, Word Of God is that part of Uldred's motivation was that he can make a judgement call about the battle, and if he doesn't think it's winnable he spares Loghain the heat he'd provoke by not lighting anything. Word Of God goes on to say that Loghain is planning to do the same with the Ishal beacon if he comes to the same conclusion, but had nothing to do with the complications the Wardens suffered.

[quote]
There's also the matter of type of armor, visible in the videos. I'll try to find an old save and replay Ostagar. Essentially, I do not expect any conclusive evidence one way or other, but I'm curios why my characters interpreted the situation like that.[/quote]
Largely because of Alistair's vehemence, I think, plus Flemeth's cryptic hints that he did this out of selfishness. This, of course, if if your characters interpreted it that way at all, since Alistair's largely the one doing the speaking. Though I will note that the only interpretation you're allowed to voice is if that character believes them.
[quote]

[quote]It more raises the question why Loghain is so anxious to be heard to warn the king. He should have been tired of that game.[/quote]

Loghain's the general and Cailan's the king. Regardless of how successful you think you'll be, you are obligated to at least advise your king when to stay out of battle.

Even if it's failed repeatedly in the past.

What you said is what Joy Division said above in reply to someone else's stance. If Loghain says something, it's evidence against him. If he doesn't say something, it's evidence against him.[/quote]

Yes. Sort of. But my main point (as I gather Joy Division's) is rather that this interpretation is every bit just as reasonable and sound as any other. What Loghain says in these situations absolutely doesn't work as evidence of his innocense.
[/quote]

No, it absolutely doesn't work as proof of his innocence. But the fact that he tries to get Cailan not to fight on the frontlines when the plan you're proposing requires this attempt to fail, and does so often enough to get on Cailan's nerves, absolutely works as evidence of Loghain trying to save Cailan. That, I think, is what Joy Division was saying.

[bEVEsthda]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Considering that he's debating with his second-most strenous opponent at this point, (I say second most because Wynne doesn't leave the party rather than fight alongside him) and doesn't seem to think he's going to sway her, you'd think he might owe up to more if that were the case.

I think there must be some misunderstanding here. But let me first comment this.
Well, you might. But if he doesn't, you can't make an argument of it it as an indication that he is Snowwhite, that there isn't anything. That is not reasonable. It's reasonable to interpret things as that he's innocent of the king's death. But making an argument of that he doesn't confess, for that, is not reasonable.
That's one reason why I think there's a misunderstanding here.
...

Except that he doesn't make excuses for a lot of the rest of it. In this context you'd expect him to abandon his excuses for Ostagar unless he was somewhat more sure that the alternative would be a slaughter.

The second reason is that you go there a second time.
Regardless if he's completely innocent, or planned the massacre on only the Grey Wardens, or also planned to kill the King, or didn't plan anything, just acted on a whim, or he's just a coward fleeing the field - regardless of what lies behind this, he's NEVER going to say anything else than that the battle was unwinnable and he had to save the army. This seem to me to be utterly selfevident. It's not reasonable, heck, it's not even rational, to expect him to say: "Ok, I killed the king intentionally. I lied when I said the battle wasn't winnable."

As for the excuses he don't make, he's in character and don't feel he has to make any. The only thing that takes him, is that he now understands that the Darkspawn is a serious problem.

......

Yes. Sort of. But my main point (as I gather Joy Division's) is rather that this interpretation is every bit just as reasonable and sound as any other. What Loghain says in these situations absolutely doesn't work as evidence of his innocense.

No, it absolutely doesn't work as proof of his innocence. But the fact that he tries to get Cailan not to fight on the frontlines when the plan you're proposing requires this attempt to fail, and does so often enough to get on Cailan's nerves, absolutely works as evidence of Loghain trying to save Cailan. That, I think, is what Joy Division was saying.

I suppose it's arguable. And it's perfectly reasonable to have a character interpret it that way. And to interpret it that way.

However, when our character thus meets Loghain, the PC has no personal intimate knowledge of either Loghain or the Cailan. So the ability to decypher what is really going on between them is pretty nonexistent.
Later, - in the light of learning that Loghain isn't particularly concerned about the darkspawn, and instead prefers to direct his energies on a corrupt power scheme, heavily soaked in murders, lies, false evidence, slavery, - it is somewhat reasonable to assume that Loghain of Ostagar was the same man then, at Ostagar, and concerned himself with the same things, then. So with that later perspective on Loghain, and with the perspective on Cailan as the fool, it's very reasonable to think that regardless if Loghain planned to have the king dead or not, Loghain would say the exact same things. The scene would play out exactly the same in either case. How can it then work as evidence for something?
It doesn't.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 janvier 2014 - 04:33 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Considering that he's debating with his second-most strenous opponent at this point, (I say second most because Wynne doesn't leave the party rather than fight alongside him) and doesn't seem to think he's going to sway her, you'd think he might owe up to more if that were the case.

I think there must be some misunderstanding here. But let me first comment this.
Well, you might. But if he doesn't, you can't make an argument of it it as an indication that he is Snowwhite, that there isn't anything. That is not reasonable. It's reasonable to interpret things as that he's innocent of the king's death. But making an argument of that he doesn't confess, for that, is not reasonable.
That's one reason why I think there's a misunderstanding here.
...

Except that he doesn't make excuses for a lot of the rest of it. In this context you'd expect him to abandon his excuses for Ostagar unless he was somewhat more sure that the alternative would be a slaughter.

The second reason is that you go there a second time.
Regardless if he's completely innocent, or planned the massacre on only the Grey Wardens, or also planned to kill the King, or didn't plan anything, just acted on a whim, or he's just a coward fleeing the field - regardless of what lies behind this, he's NEVER going to say anything else than that the battle was unwinnable and he had to save the army. This seem to me to be utterly selfevident. It's not reasonable, heck, it's not even rational, to expect him to say: "Ok, I killed the king intentionally. I lied when I said the battle wasn't winnable."

Whether or not it's reasonable to expect him to admit wrongdoing, he admits he has things to atone for in the endgame. Repeatedly. He never says what specifically, I suppose, but just the same, even after he stops bothering to defend the rest of it, he never admits to any wrongdoing in the king's death. Considering that he never bothers to defend the slavery or his actions with Jowan (at least not after the Landsmeet), I think that's stronger evidence than you take it for.

As for the excuses he don't make, he's in character and don't feel he has to make any. The only thing that takes him, is that he now understands that the Darkspawn is a serious problem.

He already understood they were a problem. It's not the Orlesians he mentions when he's trying to get more soldiers from the Bannorn. As for not feeling he has to make excuses, that's a bit more cynical a view of him than the endgame supports.

......

Yes. Sort of. But my main point (as I gather Joy Division's) is rather that this interpretation is every bit just as reasonable and sound as any other. What Loghain says in these situations absolutely doesn't work as evidence of his innocense.

No, it absolutely doesn't work as proof of his innocence. But the fact that he tries to get Cailan not to fight on the frontlines when the plan you're proposing requires this attempt to fail, and does so often enough to get on Cailan's nerves, absolutely works as evidence of Loghain trying to save Cailan. That, I think, is what Joy Division was saying.

I suppose it's arguable. And it's perfectly reasonable to have a character interpret it that way. And to interpret it that way.

However, when our character thus meets Loghain, the PC has no personal intimate knowledge of either Loghain or the Cailan. So the ability to decypher what is really going on between them is pretty nonexistent.
Later, - in the light of learning that Loghain isn't particularly concerned about the darkspawn, and instead prefers to direct his energies on a corrupt power scheme, heavily soaked in murders, lies, false evidence, slavery, - it is somewhat reasonable to assume that Loghain of Ostagar was the same man then, at Ostagar, and concerned himself with the same things, then. So with that later perspective on Loghain, and with the perspective on Cailan as the fool, it's very reasonable to think that regardless if Loghain planned to have the king dead or not, Loghain would say the exact same things. The scene would play out exactly the same in either case. How can it then work as evidence for something?
It doesn't.

Because you'd think Loghain would be less persistent giving the advice than Cailan indicates through his tone if he wanted Cailan to not take said advice. What you say is reasonable, but I don't see how it answers the argument I made.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2014 - 06:11 .

[bEVEsthda]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
... he never admits to any wrongdoing in the king's death. Considering that he never bothers to defend the slavery or his actions with Jowan (at least not after the Landsmeet), I think that's stronger evidence than you take it for.

I'm sorry but no. I can't see any possibility of him ever admitting any wrongdoings in Ostagar. It's not credible. Regardless of what he's done or not done. It's also quite likely that, even if he manipulated that event, he has since convinced himself that leaving was the right thing to do. Regardless, it's the story he'll stick to. He has no reason to do otherwise.

....

Because you'd think Loghain would be less persistent giving the advice than Cailan indicates through his tone if he wanted Cailan to not take said advice. What you say is reasonable, but I don't see how it answers the argument I made.

It doesn't. I said that it was a reasonable interpretation from some vantage points. From other, it lacks weight.

Putting it another way: The interpretation you make of events is reasonable, and as plausible as any other. Otoh, arguing that some things should be taken as evidence that this particular interpretation is the correct one, is IMO not reasonable. It's just events, that fit just as fine and well in another interpretation.


I still have this creeping feeling there is some misunderstanding lingering somewhere.
Let me make clear that my foundation is that there is no one truth, which we can find out or claim that this is how it really was.
We are presented with a series of scenes and episodes. Which ones exactly, depends on our character. From those experiences, the character (and the player) can make a number of different assumptions and interpretations which will fit the facts.
This is how it should be. Gaider once said something to the effect that everything the player char doesn't experience firsthand, is highly debatable  (I don't remember exactly). And that's how it should be. IMO.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 11 janvier 2014 - 12:40 .

[Mike3207]

It comes down to lack of information about the number of forces in the battle. We simply don't know how many Ferelden forces and how many darkspawn fought in the battle. Without that information, it's hard to get a handle on whether it was winnable or not by the Ferelden forces.

We do get some soft numbers before the battle. Both Alistair and Duncan say there are thousands of darkspawn, maybe ten thousand or more. Duncan says by now, the darkspawn look to outnumber us. If you go with 10,000 darkspawn before the battle, it's reasonable that there are 7000-8000 Ferelden troops.

The thing of it is, we simply don't know how may darkspawn fought in the battle. The Ferelden forces were clearly surprised by the number of darkspawn that showed up. I'd say the number of darkspawn could be anywhere from 15,000 to up to 100,000. Keep in mind there were also quite a few at the Tower, and you're never able to return to the Kokcari Wilds because of the darkspawn.

The thing that convinces me-the Ferelden forces don't get any reinforcements. They're already outnumbered before the battle starts, so if the darkspawn get anything more than the 10,000 they were originally estimated to have, you're looking at a stalemate being turned into a defeat. I imagine that was what Loghain is facing at the time of the battle.

Would that dynamic have changed if the Ferelden forces had got reinforcements. It's possible, but it really depends on how many darkspawn were in the battle. If it was 20,000-they may have made a difference. If there were 80,000, it just means more casualties on the Ferelden side.

I think dividing the forces would have made sense if they were just looking at the 10,000 that were originally estimated. The thing of it is though, I think there were a lot more darkspawn than that in the battle.

[bEVEsthda]

Yes.

But we don't have to (and can't) make any analysis of numbers.
We simply don't know if the battle was winnable or not. Period.

Because one or the other fact has never been written into the game.
And it has to be, for us to know. The battleplan, battle and fighting are all depicted too representationally. There is no information for us there. It's just utterly nonsensical Hollywood-fantasies about how a medieval style battle would look.

So it's the same along the whole line. We don't know if the battleplan was good or not, because that would take writing that into the game. We cannot judge the plan from how it's represented to us in the game. It seem utter madness, of course, but if the writer writes into the game that it was a brilliant plan, then it is, because that's how fiction works.

Comparing to reality doesn't work. Not for numbers either. At Marathon and particularly Plataea, Greek forces slaughtered many times greater Persian forces in the open field. And did so with only very light own losses. These kind of feats were repeated almost everywhere Greek Phalanx or later Roman forces met the more typical fighting style of ancient times. Darkspawn very much seem to employ the loose fighting order of ancient times. Ferelden is more medieval, and should thus have armed, disciplined soldiers well trained at fighting in close formations. Stopping 100,000 Darkspawn with 10,000 soldiers shouldn't be much of a problem. "Shouldn't". But because DA is fiction, that is entirely up to the writers. But we also don't have even rough estimates of numbers, neither numbers or proportions. We know nooothing!

And that is much how it should be, I think. In this case.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 11 janvier 2014 - 12:17 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
... he never admits to any wrongdoing in the king's death. Considering that he never bothers to defend the slavery or his actions with Jowan (at least not after the Landsmeet), I think that's stronger evidence than you take it for.

I'm sorry but no. I can't see any possibility of him ever admitting any wrongdoings in Ostagar. It's not credible. Regardless of what he's done or not done. It's also quite likely that, even if he manipulated that event, he has since convinced himself that leaving was the right thing to do. Regardless, it's the story he'll stick to. He has no reason to do otherwise.

Except that he admits wrongdoings, despite denying that Ostagar was one of them. That's not proof, but it strikes me as at least being evidence.

Because you'd think Loghain would be less persistent giving the advice than Cailan indicates through his tone if he wanted Cailan to not take said advice. What you say is reasonable, but I don't see how it answers the argument I made.

It doesn't. I said that it was a reasonable interpretation from some vantage points. From other, it lacks weight.

Putting it another way: The interpretation you make of events is reasonable, and as plausible as any other.

I dunno. Leaving aside how reasonable yours is for a second, there was one poster who thought that Loghain had arranged for the darkspawn to take the Tower of Ishal.

Otoh, arguing that some things should be taken as evidence that this particular interpretation is the correct one, is IMO not reasonable. It's just events, that fit just as fine and well in another interpretation.

I dunno. It takes some reaching to stretch Loghain repeatedly telling Cailan to stay off the frontlines into a murder attempt.

I still have this creeping feeling there is some misunderstanding lingering somewhere.
Let me make clear that my foundation is that there is no one truth, which we can find out or claim that this is how it really was.
We are presented with a series of scenes and episodes. Which ones exactly, depends on our character. From those experiences, the character (and the player) can make a number of different assumptions and interpretations which will fit the facts.
This is how it should be. Gaider once said something to the effect that everything the player char doesn't experience firsthand, is highly debatable  (I don't remember exactly). And that's how it should be. IMO.

The only thing I remember him saying in that direction was that he isn't sure his interpretation (which is the same one I'm defending) is automatically right due entirely to being his interpretation. Which I suppose is reasonable, but there's other things that seem (at least to me) to point in that direction. (Which I think either caused it to be his interpretation, or were put there because it was his interpretation.)

Now, I will concede that I don't think there's one learnable truth on some aspects of the setting. I don't think anyone really knows which non-Archdemon gods, if any, are real, or where the Ashes got their powers. I don't think Bioware's even really decided that. (Though that doesn't stop some people from thinking they do.) But this? I'll concede that it's not 100%, but I see more signs that point towards Loghain not wanting Cailan dead than the opposite of that.

[dainbramage]

Ah, this thread again.

12 pages of walls of text is TLDR, but my brief take on the whole thing...

The plan was to lure the darkspawn into committing into the battle. Hence why the defensive line was broken - maintaining one wouldn't have got the darkspawn to commit.

The darkspawn horde at Ostagar isn't the full blight, just a big bunch of them. The battle probably could've been won, but wouldn't have been at all a decisive blow (and probably very costly to ferelden.

Loghain opts to retreat in order to kill Cailan, who he thinks is going to ditch Anora and marry Celene, which would jepoardize Ferelden's independence. He also thinks it's not a real blight, so that allowing the darspawn to advace would not necessarily be disastrous.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

dainbramage wrote...

Ah, this thread again.

12 pages of walls of text is TLDR, but my brief take on the whole thing...

The plan was to lure the darkspawn into committing into the battle. Hence why the defensive line was broken - maintaining one wouldn't have got the darkspawn to commit.

They have numbers, emmisarries, and ogres, on top of which the bog-standard darkspawn don't really seem all that smart. I think they'll attack any line they see.

The darkspawn horde at Ostagar isn't the full blight, just a big bunch of them. The battle probably could've been won, but wouldn't have been at all a decisive blow (and probably very costly to ferelden.

A big bunch of darkspawn is still a big bunch of darkspawn. And don't forget that the signal was by Alistair's own words almost certainly off, and that by your own admission the defensive line wasn't up to snuff.

Loghain opts to retreat in order to kill Cailan, who he thinks is going to ditch Anora and marry Celene, which would jepoardize Ferelden's independence. He also thinks it's not a real blight, so that allowing the darspawn to advace would not necessarily be disastrous.

Loghain's tone of voice and choice of words when you get your hands on the letters seem to indicate that he did not see anything of the sort coming: he seems to have honestly believed it was going to stop at an alliance, though he seems to have believed that to be bad enough.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:33 .

[bEVEsthda]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
The only thing I remember him saying in that direction was that he isn't sure his interpretation (which is the same one I'm defending) is automatically right due entirely to being his interpretation. Which I suppose is reasonable, but there's other things that seem (at least to me) to point in that direction. (Which I think either caused it to be his interpretation, or were put there because it was his interpretation.)

There is a difference between writing a cRPG of DA:O magintude and writing a novel. Possibly, novel-writing has proved to have occupational hazards for the good D.G.?

In a novel, you can write one story. I'd much appreciate if D.G. takes care to avoid that in games. That goes for retrospective as well.

[bEVEsthda]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I dunno. Leaving aside how reasonable yours is for a second, there was one poster who thought that Loghain had arranged for the darkspawn to take the Tower of Ishal.

But of course. If you mean recently, and in this thread, that was probably me?
Nothing wrong with that interpretation. It comes naturally, if the player character is pre-disposed to suspicions about suspicious things going on in the tower, and then everything that happens confirms´it.

There is nothing that character will experience in the game, that will not fit well, and thus seemingly provide confirming 'evidence' for that story. Just as you find all your character's evidence so convincing.

In fact, there is absolutely nothing, AFAIK,  in the game at all, that rules out that interpretation.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I dunno. Leaving aside how reasonable yours is for a second, there was one poster who thought that Loghain had arranged for the darkspawn to take the Tower of Ishal.

But of course. If you mean recently, and in this thread, that was probably me?
Nothing wrong with that interpretation. It comes naturally, if the player character is pre-disposed to suspicions about suspicious things going on in the tower, and then everything that happens confirms´it.

There is nothing that character will experience in the game, that will not fit well, and thus seemingly provide confirming 'evidence' for that story. Just as you find all your character's evidence so convincing.

In fact, there is absolutely nothing, AFAIK,  in the game at all, that rules out that interpretation.

I'd meant at least a year ago.

As for Loghain having any influence over what the darkspawn do, much less being inclined to use them as a weapon against the beacon when he could so easily give orders to the soldiers at the beacon not to light it, it seems to me that the lack of evidence you cite isn't enough to make that plausible. A claim that far out of left field would require actual evidence before I'd even consider it as a potential interpretation.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 11 janvier 2014 - 01:39 .

[bEVEsthda]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
I'd meant at least a year ago.

As for Loghain having any influence over what the darkspawn do, much less being inclined to use them as a weapon against the beacon when he could so easily give orders to the soldiers at the beacon not to light it, it seems to me that the lack of evidence you cite isn't enough to make that plausible. A claim that far out of left field would require actual evidence before I'd even consider it as a potential interpretation.

Well, then it wasn't me. I never suggest Loghain had any influence with the darkspawn.
As for the rest: Well, for the aftermath, there does have to be a credible explanation why the signal wasn't lit. So Loghain's own men not lighting it, doesn't work.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
I'd meant at least a year ago.

As for Loghain having any influence over what the darkspawn do, much less being inclined to use them as a weapon against the beacon when he could so easily give orders to the soldiers at the beacon not to light it, it seems to me that the lack of evidence you cite isn't enough to make that plausible. A claim that far out of left field would require actual evidence before I'd even consider it as a potential interpretation.

Well, then it wasn't me. I never suggest Loghain had any influence with the darkspawn.
As for the rest: Well, for the aftermath, there does have to be a credible explanation why the signal wasn't lit. So Loghain's own men not lighting it, doesn't work.

I can't find the post in question, so I might be remembering it wrong too. Regardless, using the darkspawn like that is a really risky move of the sort that I'm inclined to assume that anyone is smarter than to do in the absence of evidence against that assumption, due primarily to the fact that nobody has any influence with the darkspawn. Besides, in Loghain's own words those are his soldiers in the Tower. (While I know you're not inclined to trust his words on whether or not it's his men who are dying, Cailan certainly doesn't seem to remember sending any: the men he sends he sends on a spur of the moment thing to keep his brother out of harm's way.)

Yes, I'm aware that there has to be some excuse for the beacon not to be lit, but even if for some reason Loghain can't simply blame the men and execute them, or simply blame whoever was supposed to signal the Tower to light the beacon, there's still the problem that this would require him to allow the darkspawn past a defensive line that would otherwise slow them down for his escape.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 11 janvier 2014 - 07:32 .

[dragonflight288]

[quote]Dorrieb wrote...

[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...

Yes, Loghain planned the strategy, but Cailan chose to disregard a lot of what he said.[/quote]

As Loghain knew he would.[/quote]

You have no evidence that Loghain wanted him in the battle, especially since Gaider said that Loghain didn't make the decision to retreat until the very moment he made it. It wasn't planned.

[quote]
[quote]Cailan disregarded Duncan mentioned Eamon could send reinforcements in less than a week, and simply said Eamon wanted in on the glory as if that was the end of it. [/quote]

Yes, Duncan made that argument, not Loghain. Nor did Loghain say anything like 'Yes, listen to Duncan, he's talking sense.' Funny that.[/quote]

Cailan wasn't exactly listening to anyone. After meeting him, one of the last things he says in the conversations is "Loghain awaits to bore me with his strategies." Cailan wasn't interested in strategy or advantages. He only wanted a war like in the tales, and to make his mark on history. He didn't want to share the glory with Eamon, and had no desire to wait for reinforcements.

So let me ask this, if Cailan was ignoring Duncan over such matters, why would he listen to Loghain who was also offering the same advice? (although Loghain didn't want to let Orlesians in)

[quote]

[quote]Add in that Loghain was saying constantly that Cailan should attend to reality and not put all his hopes in stories and legends, and that the front line was too dangerous for the king to fight, and Cailan disregarded it completely. [/quote]

Several times, loudly and within earshot of just about everyone. How convenient! He's just covering himself in advance. He knows how it's going to end up, and he wants to be able to say 'I told him not to fight in the front lines, everyone heard me!' while knowing full well that Cailan will anyway. Maybe he even wants to be able to tell himself that, to ease his own conscience.[/quote]

And Gaider said specifically that Loghain had no intention of abandoning him until the very moment he gave the order. It was a split-second decision. One he never tries to cover up or dismiss. Throughout the whole game, from beginning to end, he never steps away from the line "everything I've done has been to secure Ferelden's independence."

And ultimately, we know that he was right about Orlais. Orlais was sending a lot more soldiers than Cailan and Loghain had been told. He says at the Landsmeet that the Orlesians were sending 4 legions of chevalier's, but Riordan in Howe's dungeon says he came with a dozen divisions of calvary plus 400 Wardens.

12 divisions, (Roman Empire numbers being used here) far outnumber 4 legions.

[quote]And it was Cailan who chose to charge out into the open and got himself surrounded on all sides.

Not to mention all the darkspawn numbers, their tunneling and taking the tower, and surrounding them on all sides.

It was simply a battle that could not be won, and many of the problems of that battle were not the result of maliciousness of Loghain, but the idiocy of Cailan. [/quote]

No one doubts that Cailan was foolish and reckless.  Loghain in particular knew it, and counted on it. The plan was not set in stone -- Cailan might have won the battle, after all -- but his goal was: He believed that Cailan's leadership was wrong, and he intended to usurp him and (as he saw it) do it right.
[/quote]

With Duncan giving Cailan the same advice as Loghain was, you are in essence allowing me to make the same argument about Duncan as you are making about Loghain, in setting up and trying to get the king killed.

And Loghain never usurped Cailan, ever. Alistair theorizes this with Flemeth, but Alistair doesn't know for sure. And Alistair is hardly an impartial source. He has survivor's guilt, and is less concerned about Cailan's death than he is about Duncan's. He hates Loghain not because the King, his half-brother died, but because his father figure Duncan did.

Loghain never calls himself a King (although some of his followers do, like outside Orzammar,) and was made Regent by the Queen. And she never stepped down. By all rights, her remaining queen, which she had been for five years, is perfectly legitimate. And naming Loghain Regent is also perfectly legitimate.

There is no usurption going on.

[DarthGizka]

Whether Loghain calls himself a king or not is irrelevant; what's relevant is that he arranged for Cailan to die so that he could have all the powers of a king and make Ferelden dance to his tune.

Given all the ramifications of deserting your king and leaving him to die in order to usurp his power, it seems that Loghain must have considered this for quite some time and that he must have had his ducks all neatly lined up in a row. Hence the subject of that famous split-second decision could only have been whether this was the opportunity he had been waiting for, whether the darkspawn horde was strong enough to obliterate the bait troops led by Cailan and ensure the king's death with a high degree of certainty.

The king absolutely had to die for Loghain's plan to come off, and Cailan's troops had to be utterly routed for the whole thing to look plausible. The fact that Loghain waited until the last moment seems to indicate that the darkspawn horde wasn't quite as big as portrayed in the cutscene, that it was just barely big enough to suit Loghain's plans.

[dragonflight288]

Whether Loghain calls himself a king or not is irrelevant; what's relevant is that he arranged for Cailan to die so that he could have all the powers of a king and make Ferelden dance to his tune.

And there is no evidence to support this beyond the word of a traumatized Alistair.

Given all the ramifications of deserting your king and leaving him to die in order to usurp his power, it seems that Loghain must have considered this for quite some time and that he must have had his ducks all neatly lined up in a row. Hence the subject of that famous split-second decision could only have been whether this was the opportunity he had been waiting for, whether the darkspawn horde was strong enough to obliterate the bait troops led by Cailan and ensure the king's death with a high degree of certainty.

This opinion goes directly against what Gaider said, the lead writer of the game. I'll believe Gaider over Alistair.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 14 janvier 2014 - 10:38 .

[Mike3207]

Faerunner wrote...



Then he declares himself regent right after the king has died at the hands of the monsters he fled from, leaving him and his men conveniently without a scratch. Again, right after leaving the southern border wide open (indicating they're not a threat) and then telling people they were too powerful to defeat (indicating you're lying). Yeah, people won't think you're lying about the danger to take leadership and trying to scare them into rallying behind you at all.

Loghian doesn't make himself the Regent. Queen Anora makes him the Regent.