230 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

 To those saying Loghain should have been focused on the Blight, and not Orlais...

 

(1) HE WAS (focused on the Blight... and arguably more so than Cailan was).

 

The army was having success against the darkspawn, but their numbers were still growing each day. It was a valid concern that their luck would run out at Ostagar. And then there was also no sign of the Archdemon (Loghain himself notes the lack of any dragon sightings), which made it pointless to throw the army at them there. Cailan should have agreed to hold back his forces, but he insisted on the battle for no other reason than to feed his vanity, above the needs of his country. Loghain didn't stand for it.

 

And I don't blame him. I would not have, either (personally, I could tell Cailan was an idiot before he even opened his mouth).

 

(2) It's his job to worry about Orlais, and anything after the Blight.

 

Cost does not determine the ultimate success of the war. What happens after the war is over does. Why do people say that the US lost the Vietnam War? Because the country fell to communism shortly after we pulled out. Sure, we got our arse handed to us in the conflict quite a few times, but would it still be considered a loss if not for the spread of communism through the country after he left?

 

Or, look at Mass Effect 3, to use the example of another game. Nobody just drops everything and bands together to fight the Reapers when they invade the galaxy. All of them want to make sure they secure their future in some way before they commit to joining Shepard's fleet.

 

Bottom line: nobody fights a war to become a new regime's p!ss-pot.

 

Ostagar was the result of several bad calls including Loghain (Created a tactically-inflexible plan for Ostagar), Cailan (Well-intentioned, but underestimated the Blight) and Duncan (Letting nobility dictate Grey Warden movements and not leaving someone behind in case things went south). That said, I wouldn't fault him for pulling out as it was the intelligent and tactical move.

 

Everything after Ostagar speaks for itself.

 

That said, it's not so much that being considerate about the country after the Blight is bad and I'd actually call that very wise. It's just that Loghain was so fixated on a possible future that he lost sight of what was important at that present moment: The Blight. Who cares about Orlais when the Blight is overrunning the South? Focus on the present threat now and worry about the future after that.

 

Single minded attempts to secure the future while ignoring present reality only makes possibilities for both time frames worse. The ultimate cost of Loghain's paranoia  and actions would have destroyed the very country that he had freed not 30 years earlier.

[Mike3207]

You know,  I wonder how the battle at Ostagar might have turned out if the decison had been made to defend the Ostagar fortress itself. It's very defensible, and I think the darkspawn would have had a lot more trouble attacking it then they did when the forces came out of the fortress. I think they did the darkspawn a favor by coming out of the fortress.

[TEWR]

Whether it was justified or not he did betray the army by leaving them to die.

 

I can't even wrap my head around this logic....

 

That's like saying every tactical retreat made in the history of mankind was a betrayal.

 

The only thing that really mattered is that more troops were on their way to help defeat the darkspawn. Even if they had designs on Ferelden, they would have to contend with the darkspawn as well. The darkspawn was the greater and more pressing threat. Two doze troops could have saved the land from the darkspawn at that point in time, bought the wardens time to end the blight before it really started then they could have dealt with orlais. Loghain retreated willfully letting the king die.

 

That's placing a lot of faith in Orlais to not put politics ahead of military matters as well.

 

(Pre-emptive comment) And no Loghain didn't do the same. He was always focused on the Darkspawn until a civil war popped up, started by the Bannorn, which created a second front that he had to contend with. Fighting a war on multiple fronts is difficult. The more fronts you fight on, the less likely a chance of victory)

 

It's also assuming that they would've made it to Ostagar in time, which ignores the fact that the only route through the Frostbacks down to Ostagar is a narrow mountain pass that takes weeks to navigate for even a small amount of people. Imagine how much time it'd take an entire army.

 

Then factor in how the Darkspawn wouldn't be all polite and wait for the troops to arrive. They'd attack the castle, and Ostagar would've eventually been lost because the Darkspawn had greater numbers.

 

Eventually, a Zerg rush will topple a fortress.

[TEWR]

I would guess that "division" might mean something different in Thedas than it does IRL.

 

Also, Loghain is most definitely a traitor to those people of Ferelden he sold into slavery.

 

That is certainly a valid reason to execute him, though one should at least be aware of why he did it. Both the situation and what he was planning on doing. The funds gathered would've been able to resupply the army, get people out of the Alienage (which brings up the "Is slavery worse then death" idea, murky in and of itself), and after the main army was fully supplied the remaining Elves in the Alienage would be given their own weapons and armor to defend themselves.

 

Had the Warden not stopped it, that is (these are things he says).

 

It's not nearly so cut and dry as people like to make it out to be.

[Xilizhra]

That is certainly a valid reason to execute him, though one should at least be aware of why he did it. Both the situation and what he was planning on doing. The funds gathered would've been able to resupply the army, get people out of the Alienage (which brings up the "Is slavery worse then death" idea, murky in and of itself), and after the main army was fully supplied the remaining Elves in the Alienage would be given their own weapons and armor to defend themselves.

 

Had the Warden not stopped it, that is (these are things he says).

 

It's not nearly so cut and dry as people like to make it out to be.

He wouldn't have had to resupply the army if he hadn't pressed the Bannorn (really, Anora could have handled the political side), and it clearly showed that he'd either stopped caring about what Ferelden's freedom meant to anyone, or he was just plain racist.

Also, hilariously, the market is completely depopulated during the final battle, while the Alienage is only barely starting to get attacked when the Warden shows up.

 

In any case, I don't execute him. I figure that's Alistair's decision if I choose him for the fight; otherwise I let him live, because it adds a Grey Warden.

[MisterJB]

Loghain did not sell people into slavery. He sold elves.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

That is certainly a valid reason to execute him, though one should at least be aware of why he did it. Both the situation and what he was planning on doing. The funds gathered would've been able to resupply the army, get people out of the Alienage (which brings up the "Is slavery worse then death" idea, murky in and of itself), and after the main army was fully supplied the remaining Elves in the Alienage would be given their own weapons and armor to defend themselves.

 

Had the Warden not stopped it, that is (these are things he says).

 

It's not nearly so cut and dry as people like to make it out to be.

Elves being given weapons? Where does he say this is going to happen?

[TEWR]

He wouldn't have had to resupply the army if he hadn't pressed the Bannorn (really, Anora could have handled the political side)

 

True, Anora could've and should've handled the politics. And true, Loghain did press the Bannorn to ally under him. But let's not act like the Bannorn are not responsible for starting the civil war here. They struck the first blow. They decided that politics was more important then staving off an invasion. They decided they couldn't swallow their pride.

 

Loghain did not sell people into slavery. He sold elves.

 

 

In a sense, it's true. They're not really considered people by the Andrastian nations.

 

Not that I agree with it.

 

Elves being given weapons? Where does he say this is going to happen?

 

If he's recruited. You have to pick the right options (danaduchy has it available I believe in her "Talks with Loghain" video).

[Xilizhra]

True, Anora could've and should've handled the politics. And true, Loghain did press the Bannorn to ally under him. But let's not act like the Bannorn are not responsible for starting the civil war here. They struck the first blow. They decided that politics was more important then staving off an invasion. They decided they couldn't swallow their pride.

But he didn't have to, that's what drives me bonkers. Anora was already highly popular; had Loghain backed off and acted contrite for the Ostagar thing, it's far less likely people would look at him suspiciously if he was just the military leader while Anora rallied the Bannorn behind her. Loghain tried to make everything about him personally, and since the Bannorn didn't actually see Ostagar or understand the tactical situation--and since Loghain sure as hell never bothered explaining it adequately--naturally, suspicions would arise over an incident that killed the king and every last Grey Warden. Loghain provoked a war by doing almost the same thing as what Orlais did, and never seemed to see the irony.

 

I'm not saying the Bannorn was perfect, but the lion's share of the provocations was provided by Loghain.

[Cobra's_back]

Loghain is a fantasy Character from a game that has its share of glitches and problems. Bioware stated that Loghain was not planning on abandoning the king. Check out the lines from Lothering:

 

Warden: Do you think Loghain had something to do with the Erl’s illness?

 

Ser Donall: The Erl fell sick before the King’s death.

 

Jowan: Loghain talked to me himself and ask me to poison the Erl.

 

Howe commits treason by attacking a Teryn and the king calls it treason made it clear an army would march against him.

 

The story has some issues. Howe actions don’t make sense. Why would Loghain poison the Erl before the battle at Ostagar?

 

Tyrants always have an excuse for what they do. Loghain had to sell citizens, etc Blah, Blah, Blah. Thanks to his quick thinking the south of Ferelden was taken over by the darkspawn. Many families and home were destroyed. Loghain wouldn’t care they are just the little people. I actually enjoyed his execution. 

 

Having said this I really didn’t like killing the flying Templar or First Enchanter in DA2. I saw them as victims of their own madness. Must have been something in the air because everyone was crazy in that town.  Didn’t care for that game at all. This game has Loghain to kill and the Archdemon. Both need to die. 

 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

As far as poisoning Eamon, we have from Word Of Gaider that that wasn't in preparation for Ostagar. He figured that the next Landsmeet was going to involve something stupid by Cailan (acting on this assumption would fall into Xanatos Roulette territory if this wasn't Cailan) and that Eamon would always support Cailan. (Again, plausible.)

 

As for something in the air in Kirkwall, they have a captured Ancient Darkspawn a few miles out of town, one of Gaxkaang's siblings in the town, and the city streets are a giant blood magic array that half the slaves the city imported seem to have been used to fuel. (Well, okay, I forget the exact proportion.) So, you're not that far off the mark. (Or at all off the mark, if these semi-plausible causes for madness effect the air.)

 

As for Howe, I think his actions just don't make sense.

[Cobra's_back]

Thank you Riverdaleswhiteflash very informative you help me understand this story better.

[TheLastArchivist]

Waiting for someone to finally voice that it's impossible to consider the morality of Loghain's actions as being solely righteous or wrongful...as well as his character, hardly just virtuous or traitorous.

[ShadowLordXII]

Waiting for someone to finally voice that it's impossible to consider the morality of Loghain's actions as being solely righteous or wrongful...as well as his character, hardly just virtuous or traitorous.

 

That's how the situation is designed, but a lot of objective reasoning also plays a part in the viewpoints. For my wardens, Loghain's actions after Ostagar are inherently stupid/harmful to both Ferelden and facing the Blight which makes it much easier to determine that what he did was wrong and traitorous. If Loghain's actions weren't so detrimental to the country that he was trying to save, I'd be able to at least acknowledge the validity of his paranoia and distrust even If I disagreed.

 

But seeing as that Ferelden would've been a Blight-infested wasteland if he hadn't been disposed and if the Warden hadn't survived through a twist of fate and regrouped, it's hard to see any justification or validity for the man.

[Monica21]

Actually, there's very little objective reasoning and it if it is, it's based on what your Warden knew or you as the player know, rather than any consideration of what Loghain actually knew and when he knew it.

 

• Loghain did not know it was a Blight. How could he? Not a single Warden told him they dreamed about the Archdemon.
• Loghain did not start the civil war. Bann Teagan did when he said the Bannorn would not bow to him and stormed off.
• Loghain was suspicious of Cailan's dealings with Orlais, and rightfully so, as it turned out. (So you actually can acknowledge the validity of his paranoia.)
• While we don't know when Loghain realized that it was a Blight, we know that he believed it by the time of the Landsmeet.

 

The above are in-game facts. In addition, there are a lot of comments by Gaider and Mary Kirby to support Loghain's decisions, so the continued belief that he was a paranoid simpleton who sort of stumbled upon greatness long ago continue to astound me. He was morally gray, of course, but a traitor? Those are quite strong words to describe a man who many players force into giving his life because of a petty need for revenge. As if that fixes anything.

[DarthGizka]

In one of the cutscenes shortly after Ishal, Loghain says "This is not a true Blight." or something to that effect. Whether he believed it or not, this is in direct contradiction to his claim that the enemy force at Ostagar was so overwhelming that he had to withdraw the gros of the forces, thus abandoning Cailan and the other troops who were playing the cheese in the trap.

 

Unfortunately we have little hard information to go on, and the visual depictions - charging enemy hordes at Ostagar, moving troops in the Dead Trenches and so on - are probably the least reliable of all, right after whatever Gaider says he may or may not have intended to write.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In one of the cutscenes shortly after Ishal, Loghain says "This is not a true Blight." or something to that effect. Whether he believed it or not, this is in direct contradiction to his claim that the enemy force at Ostagar was so overwhelming that he had to withdraw the gros of the forces, thus abandoning Cailan and the other troops who were playing the cheese in the trap.

 

Unfortunately we have little hard information to go on, and the visual depictions - charging enemy hordes at Ostagar, moving troops in the Dead Trenches and so on - are probably the least reliable of all, right after whatever Gaider says he may or may not have intended to write.

How exactly does Loghain's claim that "This is not a true Blight" contradict there being too many darkspawn for that battle to be winnable?

[DarthGizka]

Loghain claims that the king's troops combined with those of several lords were so hopelessly outnumbered by the enemy at Ostagar that he had to turn tail and abandon Cailan. This doesn't wash with his claim that the darkspawn do not represent an immediate threat, since the forces gathered at Ostagar must have represented a sizable portion of what the country had to throw at the darkspawn.

The "several lords" is of course pure conjecture, since the only thing we can say with certainty is "at least one". I think it is reasonable to assume that the king's troops would be at least a match for those of any lord. This means that the one single darkspawn horde at Ostagar was of a size to threaten any single lord's forces with annihilation, and that it would take the combined forces several lords to defeat it (at the very least). If that doesn't make the darkspawn an extremely serious, immediate threat then I don't know what does.

 

The in-game lore implies that massive darkspawn incursions like this are seen on the surface only during a Blight.

[KaiserShep]

The weird thing about the distinction between a "true Blight" and a massive darkspawn invasion regardless of the presence of an archdemon is that the effect is pretty much the same. If the darkspawn are organizing massive assaults with enough numbers to overwhelm a king's army and spread the Blight disease across the countryside, whether or not one considers it a "true" anything is kind of irrelevant. If anything, darkspawn organizing on their own would be even worse, because it leaves no single target to focus on, but rather just pushing back against a massive army of diseased monsters that may just as well kill you with its taint if their blades and arrows don't.

[Monica21]

Loghain claims that the king's troops combined with those of several lords were so hopelessly outnumbered by the enemy at Ostagar that he had to turn tail and abandon Cailan. This doesn't wash with his claim that the darkspawn do not represent an immediate threat, since the forces gathered at Ostagar must have represented a sizable portion of what the country had to throw at the darkspawn.

 

A claim backed by Gaider and Mary Kirby, in addition to Loghain having a blocked view of the valley. So yes, the horde was far larger than anticipated.

 

The in-game lore implies that massive darkspawn incursions like this are seen on the surface only during a Blight.

 

No one has seen a Blight for 400 years. They knew it happened, but you're living in an age with writing and no video. You rely on word of mouth or really old books that describe the Blights. In-game lore also implies that a. it's been so long since a Blight that the darkspawn were defeated for good. In the Human Noble Origin you can even say that the Wardens "defeated the Darkspawn" and Duncan corrects you. In-game lore also implies that b. non-Wardens don't know what's true and what's legend concerning the details of the Blight.

 

The weird thing about the distinction between a "true Blight" and a massive darkspawn invasion regardless of the presence of an archdemon is that the effect is pretty much the same. If the darkspawn are organizing massive assaults with enough numbers to overwhelm a king's army and spread the Blight disease across the countryside, whether or not one considers it a "true" anything is kind of irrelevant. If anything, darkspawn organizing on their own would be even worse, because it leaves no single target to focus on, but rather just pushing back against a massive army of diseased monsters that may just as well kill you with its taint if their blades and arrows don't.

 

Right. Which is what Loghain was trying to do when the banns decided they weren't having any of it. He uses the actual words "we will defeat this darkspawn incursion" so it's difficult to argue that he was doing anything but that.

[Xilizhra]

Actually, there's very little objective reasoning and it if it is, it's based on what your Warden knew or you as the player know, rather than any consideration of what Loghain actually knew and when he knew it.

 

• Loghain did not know it was a Blight. How could he? Not a single Warden told him they dreamed about the Archdemon.
• Loghain did not start the civil war. Bann Teagan did when he said the Bannorn would not bow to him and stormed off.
• Loghain was suspicious of Cailan's dealings with Orlais, and rightfully so, as it turned out. (So you actually can acknowledge the validity of his paranoia.)
• While we don't know when Loghain realized that it was a Blight, we know that he believed it by the time of the Landsmeet.

 

The above are in-game facts. In addition, there are a lot of comments by Gaider and Mary Kirby to support Loghain's decisions, so the continued belief that he was a paranoid simpleton who sort of stumbled upon greatness long ago continue to astound me. He was morally gray, of course, but a traitor? Those are quite strong words to describe a man who many players force into giving his life because of a petty need for revenge. As if that fixes anything.

He was a traitor to those he sold into slavery. It seems they remain "just elves" in the minds of much of the fandom too.

[Cobra's_back]

Actually, there's very little objective reasoning and it if it is, it's based on what your Warden knew or you as the player know, rather than any consideration of what Loghain actually knew and when he knew it.

 

• Loghain did not know it was a Blight. How could he? Not a single Warden told him they dreamed about the Archdemon.
• Loghain did not start the civil war. Bann Teagan did when he said the Bannorn would not bow to him and stormed off.
• Loghain was suspicious of Cailan's dealings with Orlais, and rightfully so, as it turned out. (So you actually can acknowledge the validity of his paranoia.)
• While we don't know when Loghain realized that it was a Blight, we know that he believed it by the time of the Landsmeet.

 

The above are in-game facts. In addition, there are a lot of comments by Gaider and Mary Kirby to support Loghain's decisions, so the continued belief that he was a paranoid simpleton who sort of stumbled upon greatness long ago continue to astound me. He was morally gray, of course, but a traitor? Those are quite strong words to describe a man who many players force into giving his life because of a petty need for revenge. As if that fixes anything.

Petty revenge and gray. You have to be joking. Per in game there is no slavery in Ferelden. He sold per the game citizens of Ferelden. He also did the following:

 

attempted murder by poisoning

kidnapped and imprisoned a Templar

 

None of these are gray. He broke the law.

 

The question I ask you is how does a society function without laws? Is it a gray area if you or your children were taken from your home and sold into slavery. 

 

If David said that then I would have to say he has zero respect for laws or believes that some people are above the law. I don't agree with that thinking at all.

[Mike3207]

I don't think the poisoning was intended to kill Loghain. I think there's a Gaider quote where he says the poisoning was intended to incapacitate Eamon. It might be that Jowan botched the poisoning.

 

I don't think you can absolve Jowan of guilt either. He was the one who did the actual poisoning, and it's a bit naive to think Loghain could square things with the Circle. The minimum Jowan could expect was to be made tranquil for using blood magic.

[DarthGizka]

A claim backed by Gaider and Mary Kirby, in addition to Loghain having a blocked view of the valley. So yes, the horde was far larger than anticipated.

 

Nobody disputes that. The point is that a darkspawn horde so massive as to justify Loghain's turning tail at Ostagar - leaving his king and the rest of the forces gathered there to be slaughtered - must have been the most serious and immediate threat facing the country at that time. The reasoning being that such a horde would certainly be able to wipe out any single lord's forces, and that it would require the combined forces of several - or even many - lords to defeat. Which makes it a national, non-local problem and puts it squarely at the door of the regent.

On the other hand, Loghain says the darkspawn pose so little threat that they can be safely ignored and dealt with later.

Anora: Enough! I would like to know what you intend to accomplish, Father. Should we not be fighting the darkspawn instead of each other?

Loghain: The nobility shall be brought into line and then the darkspawn defeated. This is no true blight, Anora. Only Cailan's vanity demanded it be so.

There's the inherent contradiction.

 

P.S.: I wish people would stop quoting Gaider. It is completely irrelevant what he says he may have intended when he attempted to write something. Relevant is only what he did write, and even of that mostly the things that made it into the game.

[Cobra's_back]

I don't think the poisoning was intended to kill Loghain. I think there's a Gaider quote where he says the poisoning was intended to incapacitate Eamon. It might be that Jowan botched the poisoning.

 

I don't think you can absolve Jowan of guilt either. He was the one who did the actual poisoning, and it's a bit naive to think Loghain could square things with the Circle. The minimum Jowan could expect was to be made tranquil for using blood magic.

 

They both broke the law. Seriously, do we think it is okay to poison a person because they don't share your views? A Templar is kidnapped and imprisoned without due process. Citizens are sold into slavery. This is how a tyrant thinks. He believes that anything is on the table. He stripped the rights of others for the greater good. It is a lesser crime if he could prove he didn't mean to kill the guy. Having said that he has established a pattern. Human trafficking being the worst in my mind. The nobles were more concern about their own kind but that doesn't excuse the laws.