3201 réponses à ce sujet

[Callidus Thorn]

* Loghain's plan was mot limited by Cailan; only where the King was to be during the battle was in play. And while others bear responsibility, The King and Duncan are dead, Uldred became possessed, and have no idea of that specific leader of the Chantry, but she was more instrumental in watching over the Mages while there. Only Loghain lived; how fortuitous....

* If one has a snake attached to them, better remove it before the poison spreads further.

* Take each soldier as an indv basis. Men at Lothering were killed, men killing innocents were killed, others defending Loghain while helping the Inquisition were pardoned, etc.

* Poisoning Eamon via Blood Mage cannot be justified, to me at least.

* Justifying the ends by any means seems to be a key Loghain tactic; gets easier with practice.

+ Even if Loghain believed Alistair betrayed him, the Regent was wrong about needing Wardens for the Blight, and nearly doomed Ferelden in his ignorance.

* Eamon may have been delayed due to poison, as Cousland was delayed due to treachery; uncertain.

* Pride in his refusal to listen to other council, ignorance about needing Wardens, bigotry against Orlais are examples that spring to mind. And Teagon seems capable, IMO.

 

 

Are you just arguing idealism against what we're shown in the game? In your opinion, should Loghain simply have fallen on his sword after Ostagar, never mind the potential consequences? Just completely desert his duty to defend Ferelden because he failed to win a battle that may not even have been winnable? You even argue that he should turn on one of the few allies he has, at a time when he can't afford to lose any.

 

The plan at Ostagar failed, people died, and Loghain deserves death for that? Even though just as many, possibly including Cailan and the Grey Wardens, could have died winning that battle? Would you maintain that he deserved death then? If the strategy had been successful, a military victory, but at the cost of the Grey Wardens, meaning the Blght could not be stopped?

 

Or are you just brushing him off as an antagonist? No matter that he was trying to defend Ferelden, he was a baddie and has to go? Because as a villain nothing he did can be excused, there can be no possible exenuating circumstances for his actions? Because he wasn't some morally impeccable saviour? Because, unlike the Warden, there's no possible way that he could save Ferelden without getting his hands dirty? In essence, because he wasn't the player?

 

Either way, I think we're done here.

[TEWR]

Personally, I like to believe that after Loghain confiscated the supplies in the Denerim Warden Storehouse he had Howe work on deciphering the Wardens' encrypted documents and wanted to know what they were so bloody secretive about, and given Anora's knowledge of the Joining's fatality I'm led to believe he at least cracked part of it and wanted to make his own Wardens, loyal to Ferelden, taken from Fereldan citizens.

 

He could have easily destroyed everything he took from there, but he didn't. That says something about him, I think.

[Elhanan]

Loghain was not the only one who erred ay Ostegar, but is the only one left breathing. But rather than show remorse, he continues to act in ways that worsen this failure, and adds to his list of crimes. Rather than admit to his responsibilities, he attempts to further his own cause. Rather than imprison or banish Howe, Loghain rewards him. Etc.

Loghain is the greatest personal fave villain since Cardinal Richelieuin the Three Musketeer films. Both deserve death, but only one offers the opportunity to grant it.

[dragonflight288]

Loghain was not the only one who erred ay Ostegar, but is the only one left breathing. But rather than show remorse, he continues to act in ways that worsen this failure, and adds to his list of crimes. Rather than admit to his responsibilities, he attempts to further his own cause. Rather than imprison or banish Howe, Loghain rewards him. Etc.

Loghain is the greatest personal fave villain since Cardinal Richelieuin the Three Musketeer films. Both deserve death, but only one offers the opportunity to grant it.

 

What about Aveline, Carver, non-mage Hawke or Wynne? They are all deserters. In that sense, every one of them deserve execution for that.

 

Threnn served Loghain and remained loyal to him, even in inquisition because she felt what he did was the right thing to do. 

 

Loghain wasn't the only one who lived. His actions made sure many others could live where had he charged there was a high probability every one would die and no one would be around to stop the blight.

 

He had to work without crucial information, like why the wardens are needed, and he had to deal with a bunch of banns who felt starting a war over politics while the country burned was a good idea. He made several bad decisions, but he cannot be blamed for everything that went wrong in the country. 

[Elhanan]

What about Aveline, Carver, non-mage Hawke or Wynne? They are all deserters. In that sense, every one of them deserve execution for that.
 
Threnn served Loghain and remained loyal to him, even in inquisition because she felt what he did was the right thing to do. 
 
Loghain wasn't the only one who lived. His actions made sure many others could live where had he charged there was a high probability every one would die and no one would be around to stop the blight.
 
He had to work without crucial information, like why the wardens are needed, and he had to deal with a bunch of banns who felt starting a war over politics while the country burned was a good idea. He made several bad decisions, but he cannot be blamed for everything that went wrong in the country.

They weren't deserters any more than many of the soldiers under Loghain. But those that continued to bully, murder, and break the law after Ostegar certainly does not speak to their great character; get the sword mostly.

Loghain was the only leader surviving Ostegar. Good thing that not all the witnesses to his crimes were murdered.

Loghain and others may justify their actions if they wish; their failure to accept responsibility speaks volumes.

[dragonflight288]

Umm, yes they were. They abandoned their duty. Those soldiers did not, remained with the army and followed their commanding officer. Hawke, Carver (if Hawke is a mage) and Aveline not only abandon their duty as soldiers, they also abandon their country.

 

Ser Landry is a bully, murderer and breaker of the law? Threnn the quatermaster? Ser Cauthrien?

 

So the witnesses, who didn't actually witness anything, being Alistair and the Warden since they were at the top of a tower and missed the signal by a whole hour, witnessed the high crime of a tactical retreat while being filled with arrows, and then only learn about Loghain quitting the field from secondhand information from Morrigan since they didn't actually witness it themselves? 

 

There's a reason that bringing up Ostagar at the Landsmeet doesn't actually help us out. Because there's no evidence that he fled the field with the intention of letting Cailan die, and thus no evidence that he was a traitor. 

 

Loghain accepts responsibility for everything that happened. If you recruit him, you hear it from him, how passionate he is. You hear it in his party banter with the others, but he also, and quite rightly, says Cailan is responsible for his own death. Even in Inquisition, when trapped in the Fade with the nightmare, he responds to these same accusations with "That's all you've got? You're not telling me anything I don't already tell myself every day."

 

He is many things, but Loghain is no deserter or regicide. He did his duty based on the information he had. He's just also the type of guy who'll burn anything and everyone that gets in the way of him doing his duty and saving Ferelden based on the information he has. 

[Elhanan]

In one of the dialogue paths with Flemeth outside her home, Alistair seems to indicate that he witnessed the action himself. Morrigan and Flemeth confirm it, and offer the end results. And if all of these witnesses are deserters, it is a wonder how the lore seems to side with their versions.

Loghain is more about hating Orlais than loving Ferelden, and it nearly cost him the country.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In one of the dialogue paths with Flemeth outside her home, Alistair seems to indicate that he witnessed the action himself. Morrigan and Flemeth confirm it, and offer the end results. And if all of these witnesses are deserters, it is a wonder how the lore seems to side with their versions.

Loghain is more about hating Orlais than loving Ferelden, and it nearly cost him the country.

If you find it surprising that the people who won were allowed to write the lore, and that that on its own is not considered sufficient evidence to conclude that those people are reliable witnesses, then you've missed half the artistry of Dragon Age's lore as it relates to the games themselves. As for Morrigan, I don't think she ever addresses whether or not Loghain was justified: I remember her describing what Loghain did, and asserting that he is your enemy, which are both true but don't really answer whether or not the battle was winnable. And Flemeth doesn't explicitly state it, either: you'll note if you listen to what she's saying that she stops just short of actually saying Loghain wasn't justified.

 

And Alistair's just not being consistent before and after the beacon is lit, as I've already pointed out.

[Elhanan]

Nobody won the battle at Ostegar except Darkspawn. And those that appear at the Landsmeet often present enough evidence to condemn Loghiain for his actions since that time, but one usually has to pass on speaking of Ostegar to do so.

My point is exactly that: If Loghain is so clearly innocent of the actions, responsibility, and events at Ostegar as some contend, then history would be on that side. But it ain't, because he failed big time.

[Monica21]

In one of the dialogue paths with Flemeth outside her home, Alistair seems to indicate that he witnessed the action himself. Morrigan and Flemeth confirm it, and offer the end results. And if all of these witnesses are deserters, it is a wonder how the lore seems to side with their versions.

Loghain is more about hating Orlais than loving Ferelden, and it nearly cost him the country.

 

Nobody confirms that Alistair is correct. Alistair says something like, "The King was winning!" Alistair makes an incredibly bold (and wrong) assumption based on lack of evidence. He's spent most of his time fighting his way to the top of the tower. Do you see windows? I don't see windows. How could Alistair have possibly seen which way the battle was going? Alistair wants the king to have been winning, and that's all. Alistair didn't see anything and could not have seen anything.

[TEWR]

Nobody confirms that Alistair is correct. Alistair says something like, "The King was winning!" Alistair makes an incredibly bold (and wrong) assumption based on lack of evidence. He's spent most of his time fighting his way to the top of the tower. Do you see windows? I don't see windows. How could Alistair have possibly seen which way the battle was going? Alistair wants the king to have been winning, and that's all. Alistair didn't see anything and could not have seen anything.

 

Well, there are windows, but they're stained glass windows it looks like and wherever they're broken they're not broken in places a person could look out of, if they're not blocked by large amounts of debris.

 

But hell, after the beacon's lit Alistair and the Warden are more focused on the Ogre then making sure things will be okay

 

Nobody won the battle at Ostegar except Darkspawn. And those that appear at the Landsmeet often present enough evidence to condemn Loghiain for his actions since that time, but one usually has to pass on speaking of Ostegar to do so.

My point is exactly that: If Loghain is so clearly innocent of the actions, responsibility, and events at Ostegar as some contend, then history would be on that side. But it ain't, because he failed big time.

 

Except history is written by the victors.

 

He is justified in his retreat. But he lost, so the details are going to be thrown out like caution to the wind.

.

 

 

 

 

 

Loghain was the only leader surviving Ostegar. Good thing that not all the witnesses to his crimes were murdered.

 

Again, the Grand Cleric that was at Ostagar survived the battle, and came out in support of Loghain and the Regency. She shows up during the Landsmeet.

[Elhanan]

The Grand Cleric was not a leader with decision bearing authority; only spoke up when it came to the Mages and lighting the pyre. All the battle strategy was between Loghain, Duncan, and the King.

There are windows, as the original plan was for Alistair to see the signal from the ground, then light the fire to signal Loghain. This altered due to time, and was lit ASAP.

If all history is written by the victorious, there would be accounts of Loghain's tactical brilliance by withdrawing from the battle as his soldier's claim. Many of his men survive. And as Alistair is not always placed as King, and Anora rules, this would seem to also alter the known record, but it does not.

Loghain failed several times, and the Warden and the Landsmeet are offered the opportunity to act as the judiciary.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The Grand Cleric was not a leader with decision bearing authority; only spoke up when it came to the Mages and lighting the pyre. All the battle strategy was between Loghain, Duncan, and the King.

There are windows, as the original plan was for Alistair to see the signal from the ground, then light the fire to signal Loghain. This altered due to time, and was lit ASAP.

If all history is written by the victorious, there would be accounts of Loghain's tactical brilliance by withdrawing from the battle as his soldier's claim. Many of his men survive. And as Alistair is not always placed as King, and Anora rules, this would seem to also alter the known record, but it does not.

Loghain failed several times, and the Warden and the Landsmeet are offered the opportunity to act as the judiciary.

1: I don't think that is relevant to TEWR's point that she's a witness who favors Loghain.

 

2: Noted, but that doesn't mean that Alistair could see what was happening at that distance. You can't see the battlefield all that well from the bridge to the Tower, so I'm not sure what Alistair could see from the top of the Tower itself.

 

3: Anora wins by using a coalition of Loghain's enemies, and possibly by allowing his execution. In one of my playthroughs she even won by marrying the man she didn't manage to talk out of allowing Alistair to kill her father. Hell, in one of my playthroughs she lost, and ascended the throne as a default candidate who was put on out of lack of anyone else after the preferred candidate died to kill the Archdemon; try to imagine how secure she feels on the throne in that one. There are playthroughs where Anora can stay at the top, but she does so by throwing her father under the bus.

 

4: I'm not denying that Loghain failed in several big ways. The things I'm really most defending were Ostagar (which I don't think he could have won) and the decision that Wardens weren't literally necessary (I'm still waiting to hear how he should have known that.)

[Elhanan]

1: I don't think that is relevant to TEWR's point that she's a witness who favors Loghain.
 
2: Noted, but that doesn't mean that Alistair could see what was happening at that distance. You can't see the battlefield all that well from the bridge to the Tower, so I'm not sure what Alistair could see from the top of the Tower itself.
 
3: Anora wins by using a coalition of Loghain's enemies, and possibly by allowing his execution. In one of my playthroughs she even won by marrying the man she didn't manage to talk out of allowing Alistair to kill her father. Hell, in one of my playthroughs she lost, and ascended the throne as a default candidate who was put on out of lack of anyone else after the preferred candidate died to kill the Archdemon; try to imagine how secure she feels on the throne in that one. There are playthroughs where Anora can stay at the top, but she does so by throwing her father under the bus.
 
4: I'm not denying that Loghain failed in several big ways. The things I'm really most defending were Ostagar (which I don't think he could have won) and the decision that Wardens weren't literally necessary (I'm still waiting to hear how he should have known that.)

She may be, unless one tells her of the Blood Mage used to poison Eamon. This seems to dissuade her a bit.

A higher elevation could allow for one to judge the overall battle even more; hence the call for free Tac-Cam mode for DAI made by many.

Anora is her Father's daughter, it seems. That said, she often creates a memorial to his memory, and one that mentions his rightful call at Ostegar would seem appropriate, if it was avtually warranted.

It is doubtful that Loghain could have known exactly that Warden's were needed. But seeing as this was common lore, it would seem prudent for the greatest tactician and strategist in Ferelden to be prepared for this, rather than ignore it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

She may be, unless one tells her of the Blood Mage used to poison Eamon. This seems to dissuade her a bit.

A higher elevation could allow for one to judge the overall battle even more; hence the call for free Tac-Cam mode for DAI made by many.

Anora is her Father's daughter, it seems. That said, she often creates a memorial to his memory, and one that mentions his rightful call at Ostegar would seem appropriate, if it was avtually warranted.

It is doubtful that Loghain could have known exactly that Warden's were needed. But seeing as this was common lore, it would seem prudent for the greatest tactician and strategist in Ferelden to be prepared for this, rather than ignore it.

1: The point is that what Loghain did at Ostagar doesn't dissuade her. I'm not defending what Loghain did after Ostagar, and I don't know why what Loghain did after Ostagar keeps popping up during debates on whether Ostagar itself was justified. (I suppose it is relevant to the original intent of the thread, but I'd thought it had been derailed a while ago.)

 

2: Higher elevations help you see all of what's happening. Being too high up, however, means that you can't see any of it well.

 

3: She creates a monument to his memory if he dies, whether or not Alistair is on the throne with her. If Loghain dies at the Landsmeet, nobody visits it. If Loghain dies at Fort Drakon, it becomes fairly popular. But it's still the Warden who is acknowledged as the Hero of Ferelden no matter what happens: if Loghain wins back his status as a hero, it's as the subordinate of the Warden who took him down while he was a villain. There is no ending in which there is any reason to expect that Loghain wins completely enough to make his story the accepted one. (And of course this assumes that any of that monument thing actually happens: I tend to assume that anything from the epilogue holds true until given reason to doubt it, but it is an assumption.)

 

4: You can argue that Loghain does a lot of stupid things. You can even argue that this makes the list. But given how little evidence Loghain sees that it is stupid it's not exactly first place.

[Elhanan]

1: The point is that what Loghain did at Ostagar doesn't dissuade her. I'm not defending what Loghain did after Ostagar, and I don't know why what Loghain did after Ostagar keeps popping up during debates on whether Ostagar itself was justified. (I suppose it is relevant to the original intent of the thread, but I'd thought it had been derailed a while ago.)
 
2: Higher elevations help you see all of what's happening. Being too high up, however, means that you can't see any of it well.
 
3: She creates a monument to his memory if he dies, whether or not Alistair is on the throne with her. If Loghain dies at the Landsmeet, nobody visits it. If Loghain dies at Fort Drakon, it becomes fairly popular. But it's still the Warden who is acknowledged as the Hero of Ferelden no matter what happens: if Loghain wins back his status as a hero, it's as the subordinate of the Warden who took him down while he was a villain. There is no ending in which there is any reason to expect that Loghain wins completely enough to make his story the accepted one. (And of course this assumes that any of that monument thing actually happens: I tend to assume that anything from the epilogue holds true until given reason to doubt it, but it is an assumption.)
 
4: You can argue that Loghain does a lot of stupid things. You can even argue that this makes the list. But given how little evidence Loghain sees that it is stupid it's not exactly first place.

Perhaps if the Grand Cleric was more involved in the strategy, this might be more impressive. As is, she is just another one of Loghain's supporters, but one ignorant of all his crimes.

Again, well enough to spot a signal from the ground when given.

No matter what kind of monument is left, DA lore and history state that Ostegar was a failure for Loghain.

If common lore states that a Warden is needed, and you go to great lengths to remove the last two in country, this seems to be more epic fail then not, IMO.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Perhaps if the Grand Cleric was more involved in the strategy, this might be more impressive. As is, she is just another one of Loghain's supporters, but one ignorant of all his crimes.

Again, well enough to spot a signal from the ground when given.

No matter what kind of monument is left, DA lore and history state that Ostegar was a failure for Loghain.

If common lore states that a Warden is needed, and you go to great lengths to remove the last two in country, this seems to be more epic fail then not, IMO.

1: Fair, but it's not like we don't have arguments that don't require her.

 

2: If you want to make something easily visible from that height at night, you can do it. Fine details are going to be lost, but if you light a bonfire at the bottom of the ravine at a predetermined location Alistair only has to look to see whether or not it's there at all. Seeing a battlefield at night well enough to know what you saw is a harder task. 

 

3: I can't help but feel this doesn't answer the point it purports to.

 

4: Common lore isn't very good evidence of truth.

[Elhanan]

1: Fair, but it's not like we don't have arguments that don't require her.
 
2: If you want to make something easily visible from that height at night, you can do it. Seeing a battlefield at night well enough to know what you saw is a harder task. Fine details are going to be lost, but if you light a bonfire at the bottom of the ravine at a predetermined location Alistair only has to look to see whether or not it's there at all.
 
3: I can't help but feel this doesn't answer the point it purports to.
 
4: Common lore isn't very good evidence of truth.

2 - It should not have been anything with fire due to the huge amount of flames seen around the area, as well as flaming arrows, Fireballs, siege projectiles, etc. So whatever it was, the tower could not have been too high to miss it.

3 - Clarification: Whether or not that the monument is well received, either version also comes attached with the failed battle as history. Loghain leaving the King to die is not an opinion; it is a fact, but one that appears to not be premeditated.

4 - While true, ignoring it is rather ignorant.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

2 - It should not have been anything with fire due to the huge amount of flames seen around the area, as well as flaming arrows, Fireballs, siege projectiles, etc. So whatever it was, the tower could not have been too high to miss it.

3 - Clarification: Whether or not that the monument is well received, either version also comes attached with the failed battle as history. Loghain leaving the King to die is not an opinion; it is a fact, but one that appears to not be premeditated.

4 - While true, ignoring it is rather ignorant.

1: It was night, and we see how high up the Tower is from the bridge. The bridge isn't at the same level as the battlefield either. You're making a good point about why fire is suboptimal, but unless sorcery was involved nothing else even could work.

 

2: Nobody's denying that Loghain left Cailan to die and that the battle was a failure. What I'm arguing is that that's not entirely Loghain's fault, and that Cailan's death was more his own fault than Loghain's.

 

3: I can find three definitions of this word, and they all appear at first glance to apply to Loghain; could you please give the one you're using?

[Elhanan]

Ignoring the common lore about Wardens and trying to kill last of them seems to be ignorant; showing a lack of knowledge despite being informed of it.

[Monica21]

Ignoring the common lore about Wardens and trying to kill last of them seems to be ignorant; showing a lack of knowledge despite being informed of it.

 

You realize that Loghain's lack of knowledge can, under no circumstances, be described as willful ignorance on his part, don't you? He is not avoiding anything. He's not running around with his fingers in his ears while the Wardens try to explain their necessity to him. The Wardens are the ones withholding some very crucial information and it's not Loghain just not wanting to know, it's Loghain unable to know because the Wardens haven't told him anything.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Kill him because he almost got Ferelden killed by the Darkspawn. A guy like that can't be trusted. It doesn't matter what he promises to do. He would have enough political supporters and allies to continually try to push for the throne, and someone like that is not what you need in the midst of a Blight.

 

That and he undermines Alistair.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Ignoring the common lore about Wardens and trying to kill last of them seems to be ignorant; showing a lack of knowledge despite being informed of it.

The problem is that the information doesn't have anything backing it that really counts as proof, especially not when you account for the extraordinary nature of the claims they are making. If the Wardens had told him exactly why they were needed I'd sympathize with him less on this one, but they didn't. Maybe having a Warden around just in case would be a good idea, but for Loghain to not massively readjust his plans to accommodate this isn't as stupid as you make it out to be.

[Elhanan]

You realize that Loghain's lack of knowledge can, under no circumstances, be described as willful ignorance on his part, don't you? He is not avoiding anything. He's not running around with his fingers in his ears while the Wardens try to explain their necessity to him. The Wardens are the ones withholding some very crucial information and it's not Loghain just not wanting to know, it's Loghain unable to know because the Wardens haven't told him anything.

Forget the source. Common knowledge everywhere including the Cousland lad speak of Griffons, and that Wardens slay Archdemons. To eliminate the only remaining Wardens in light of that possibility (and actual truth) is seemingly foolish; uncharacteristic of a great strategist like Loghain. Giving him a break, I prefer to go with willful ignorance.

[parico]

kill him since you can pretty much make any world state you want in the keep for dai he is more interesting than Stroud though.