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.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
Here's the common knowledge people have:
A Warden has always battled the Archdemon. A Warden has always killed the Archdemon. A Warden has always died fighting the Archdemon. An Archdemon is a giant dragon. Giant Dragons can seriously maim, maul, mutilate, and mangle a person, if not outright mash them into mush.
Considering people don't know jack **** about their intricate secrets that they will kill over and even Riordan says outside eyes shouldn't see (I have to headcanon just how Anora found out, as I talked about earlier, but also where Genitivi learned it boggles my mind) it's not unreasonable to understand where Loghain was coming from, because people operate under the belief that all a Warden happens to be is a group of people who fight Darkspawn and Darkspawn only.
Which is true, but there's more to it then that that those common folk do not understand because they just don't know.
If I'm hearing tales of how Wardens ended the Blights all the time and I know they went up against a giant Dragon.... and they died.... I'm not going to assume there's some magical element at play here. I'm going to assume the Wardens died in the battle from injuries sustained.
As far as a non-Warden would be concerned, Garahel would've died from having his body thrown clear across Ayesleigh, not from some magic hocus pocus element.
EDIT: And hell, it's not like Loghain didn't want the Warden taken alive. He makes it clear to the men in Lothering they were to bring in any surviving Wardens alive, while Cauthrien was told to bring the Wardens in -- admittedly her instructions were dead or alive, but she does offer you the chance to surrender. If you're taken prisoner, your wounds are treated and you're still kicking in Fort Drakon.
Not the best place to be, all things considered, but we have no idea what Loghain was hoping to do. More then likely, try us for killing Howe -- much as he deserved that death, our methods of doing it should realistically be seen less as self-defense (since only we can say that's what it was) and more as murdering a man in his home considering Wardens can't just kill nobles indiscriminately without fear of reprisal, as Duncan states and the Dryden Rebellion illustrated.
Still, I like to think that Loghain would at least meet with the Warden and/or Alistair to talk about the order, perhaps give them "one last chance to show they will fight for Ferelden", as he might state.
And you know, the thing that bothers me about Duncan's secrecy is that he and his comrades blabbed to Maric about their secrets, and Maric stood by his thing. Not only does it mark Duncan as an idiot and a hypocrite who won't do it again to the people in charge when it's really ****** needed, it marks the Wardens themselves as picking and choosing and being idiots.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
I guess by this point the only ones killing Loghain are the ones so invested in their opinion of him that discussion actually becomes impossible.
On another note, I was thinking about The Drakspawn Chronicles.
In that DLC we effectively get to see how DA:O would have played out without the player's intervention. Ignore how it ended, to completely remove the player, because it isn't relevant. What that leaves us with is who Alistair recruited, and by extension, the choices he made.
I think that part of what makes people judge Loghain so harshly is that, as the player, they can make all the right choices and still prevail. We can save pretty much everyone, avoid do anything like the things Loghain did, and save the day. So, without the morally impeccable yardstick of The Warden to be judged against, how does Loghain fare? Compare his actions to Alistair's, both of them forced into making bad decisions to face the Blight. There are some rather amusing similarities between the two.
In my first game, I let him alive. I was always thinking Dragon Age : Origins is a sort of "Game of Thrones" story, a story which has no evil or bad persons, only political choices and points of view. And to have the advantage at the end with Enora, I prefered to spare Logain's life.
But now I'm playing my second game, and this time I will kill him... with great pleasure ! 
The thing to know is [SPOIL !!!] if you don't kill Logain, you will see him again in Dragon Age : Inquisition. He has a great importance in the story.
In my first game, I let him alive. I was always thinking Dragon Age : Origins is a sort of "Game of Thrones" story, a story which has no evil or bad persons, only political choices and points of view. And to have the advantage at the end with Enora, I prefered to spare Logain's life.
But now I'm playing my second game, and this time I will kill him... with great pleasure !
The thing to know is [SPOIL !!!] if you don't kill Logain, you will see him again in Dragon Age : Inquisition. He has a great importance in the story.
And if Alistair remains a Warden, he takes Loghain's place in that instance.
I guess by this point the only ones killing Loghain are the ones so invested in their opinion of him that discussion actually becomes impossible.
On another note, I was thinking about The Drakspawn Chronicles.
In that DLC we effectively get to see how DA:O would have played out without the player's intervention. Ignore how it ended, to completely remove the player, because it isn't relevant. What that leaves us with is who Alistair recruited, and by extension, the choices he made.
I think that part of what makes people judge Loghain so harshly is that, as the player, they can make all the right choices and still prevail. We can save pretty much everyone, avoid do anything like the things Loghain did, and save the day. So, without the morally impeccable yardstick of The Warden to be judged against, how does Loghain fare? Compare his actions to Alistair's, both of them forced into making bad decisions to face the Blight. There are some rather amusing similarities between the two.
I still haven't played the Darkspawn Chronicles and I really want to. Playing Inquisition has made me want to replay the entire series, so hopefully I'll get to.
I still haven't played the Darkspawn Chronicles and I really want to. Playing Inquisition has made me want to replay the entire series, so hopefully I'll get to.
Darkspawn Chronicles is fun. You play a Hurlock Champion, able to recruit whatever from the darkspawn horde into your party, and they don't really level up, but they do get stronger as you fight through Denerim.
Alistair apparently did the Dark Ritual, recuited the werewolves, and preserved the Anvil of the Void when he did things without the Warden.
Darkspawn Chronicles is fun. You play a Hurlock Champion, able to recruit whatever from the darkspawn horde into your party, and they don't really level up, but they do get stronger as you fight through Denerim.
Alistair apparently did the Dark Ritual, recuited the werewolves, and preserved the Anvil of the Void when he did things without the Warden.
Well, I guess I don't need to play it now. 
I keed, I keed. 
Well, I guess I don't need to play it now.
I keed, I keed.
You should play it. There's a lot more to it than what I said.
EDIT: I mean you have to definitely see the Wade and Herren bit.
You should play it. There's a lot more to it than what I said.
EDIT: I mean you have to definitely see the Wade and Herren bit.
I cant remember wade and herren. Do you see them on their forge? And do you get to kill them as well?
All I remembered is that I poked Alistair dead plenty of times.
While the conversation has moved on a bit, I'd like to add a couple things concerning:
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.
[...]
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
I wouldn't put much stock on those being intentionally designed to that effect, given the very low-resolution ambient textures of DA:O.
However, there are a couple more obvious elements that would render reliable judgement of how the melee was going down in the valley at that point very difficult, at best:
One, already mentioned, the most obvious, it's night-time, and as the fighting commences I doubt that sufficient lighting can be provided by the men in the front-line as they are busy fighting for their earnest. Telling apart who's who by the sources of light visible from a distance would also be further complicated by the combat lines becoming more and more fluid as the melee continues.
Two, on top of that, there is quite a bit of rain coming down during the battle, thunder and lightning on top, see here as well as here. Also does not help at all with the field being poorly lit, I imagine.
So both the time of day as well as the weather work against being able to tell for certain whether 'the king was winning' or not from as removed a position as the tower, which, given the downpour, probably rather provides for a more obscured picture of events rather than the opposite.
(I'll allow that, having mentioned BW's not necessarily completely thought-out usage of ambient textures, we may also assume that not only letting the battle take place at night but during a thunderstorm to boot was primarily to serve a foreboding setting more than anything.)
As 'stair's the one to opine that 'Cailan's winning', all the difficulties of clear vision of the battlefield aforementioned aside we'll also have to consider that, at this point in time, 'stair's rather green when it comes to a commander's tasks, if not war in general (which does not equal martial prowess, mind). Hence, I really would not cite him as an authority here.
I'll give Alistair the benefit of the doubt on this one. It's very possible Cailan was winning at the time Alistair looked through the stain glass window, but as we all know battlefield situations can change very rapidly. I could well believe Cailan was winning when Alistair looked out that window, things changed very rapidly in the darkspawn's favor after he looked down there, and then we get the very reasonable decision by Loghain that it's best to retreat because the army is simply lost by the time he makes that decision. All of that could have been true.
One may gather a bit more insight into their story:
Spoiler
Holy crap i did not know.
I don't think that's the case in the main campaign.
Guest_Caoimhe_*
It's really how you feel about it, since there is no right or wrong in these games in my opinion. Yes there's the logical path, and killing him makes the most sense, but my Warden spent the entire game avoiding killing anyone unless she had no choice and was attacked without the option to choose a different path, so why kill him when she wouldn't kill anyone else? Even blood mages lived and a talking darkspawn in DAA, as well as an assassin who became her best friend and a demon-possessed child.
Holy crap i did not know.
Yeah. In the Darkspawn Chronicls if you approach Wade and Herren Herren will turn into a Desire Demon and get Wade out of there.
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.
Okay I gotta ask......(Bolding mine):
Okay I gotta ask......(Bolding mine):
- If that's the rule, the entire Bannorn must be executed (As in the Banns, not the people living IN the Bannorn).....including both Guerrins. And the Wardens.......and Cailan........'cause they share a lion's portion of responsibility and blame for how things went to hell.
- Except he makes no promises? WTF are you even talking about?
- But you DO need to enrage those people further by murdering their leader, 'cause that's so much more comforting to them. No really, when I'm allied to someone & said someone fails at what we set out to do, seeing them butchered without a trial or even an Act Of Attainder will make me less hostile towards you than an open act of mercy and pragmatism. Uh Huh.
- What? A) Canon disagrees. B)What if I don't give a damn about Alistair and his selfish blood lust? And do not make him king because Ferelden has already suffered under the rule of his even more incompetent half brother.
- Alistair literally doesn't count as an argument in my case. But that's just me.
Loghain didn't commit at Ostagar. I don't really care who else is at fault. Yes, I would kill him. Classic Medieval politics at work, for the win. Make an example out of the biggest troublemaker to show anyone who gets any ideas what happens if you decide to cause problems as well. You'd be surprised how often this worked out. If you spare a guy, the message that sends is that you don't have the spine to finish him off, and that will embolden other pretenders and/or traitors. That's not really necessary here.
He undermines Alistair in that Alistair leaves if you bring him along. I like Alistair, so I'm not giving him the boot for a guy who betrayed his king, lied to the Bannorn and tried to have me murdered.
Loghain didn't commit at Ostagar. I don't really care who else is at fault. Yes, I would kill him. Classic Medieval politics at work, for the win. Make an example out of the biggest troublemaker to show anyone who gets any ideas what happens if you decide to cause problems as well. You'd be surprised how often this worked out. If you spare a guy, the message that sends is that you don't have the spine to finish him off, and that will embolden other pretenders and/or traitors. That's not really necessary here.
He undermines Alistair in that Alistair leaves if you bring him along. I like Alistair, so I'm not giving him the boot for a guy who betrayed his king, lied to the Bannorn and tried to have me murdered.
The Joining is a traditionally acceptable alternative to finishing opponents off, as I understand it. (At least in this setting.) As for it encouraging other pretenders... they don't want to take the Joining.
As for the second paragraph, that's not Loghain undermining Alistair. That's Alistair's own reaction, and whether or not you can consider Loghain to have justified you can't really say that he caused it.
In balance I think it would be smarter to kill Loghain so that he doesn't cut your throat in the night, but I don't think these arguments in that direction work.
Loghain didn't commit at Ostagar. I don't really care who else is at fault. Yes, I would kill him. Classic Medieval politics at work, for the win. Make an example out of the biggest troublemaker to show anyone who gets any ideas what happens if you decide to cause problems as well. You'd be surprised how often this worked out. If you spare a guy, the message that sends is that you don't have the spine to finish him off, and that will embolden other pretenders and/or traitors. That's not really necessary here.
He undermines Alistair in that Alistair leaves if you bring him along. I like Alistair, so I'm not giving him the boot for a guy who betrayed his king, lied to the Bannorn and tried to have me murdered.
When did Henry VIII return from the dead and join the BSN? That whole argument is the very definition of tyranny. It also shows that it's not justice you're after but just violence and power. I wouldn't want to live in your Ferelden.
LMAO, "pretenders and traitors" from the person whose Warden is staging a coup d'etat to put a person under their command on the throne, bypassing Fereldan law, AND thinking that that's a great precedent. Oooookay.
P.S. Loghain was no "pretender". He was the lawful Regent, endorsed by Ferelden's queen. An illegitimate, incompetent bastard "prince" who came into power thanks to a coup d'etat fits the pretender bill far better, just fyi.
When did Henry VIII return from the dead and join the BSN? That whole argument is the very definition of tyranny. It also shows that it's not justice you're after but just violence and power. I wouldn't want to live in your Ferelden.
LMAO, "pretenders and traitors" from the person whose Warden is staging a coup d'etat to put a person under their command on the throne, bypassing Fereldan law, AND thinking that that's a great precedent. Oooookay.
P.S. Loghain was no "pretender". He was the lawful Regent, endorsed by Ferelden's queen. An illegitimate, incompetent bastard "prince" who came into power thanks to a coup d'etat fits the pretender bill far better, just fyi.
It doesn't really matter if Loghain's claim is legitimate, because other than the horde of darkspawn, he's the only obstacle standing between the Warden and the archdemon. Whether or not one thinks that this warrants his execution is another matter, but his removal from power is absolutely necessary. While this is also due in part to the Wardens' secrecy regarding the taint, it's altogether possible that if Riordan decided to just let this little secret out right then and there, Loghain may just greet it with incredulity.
When did Henry VIII return from the dead and join the BSN? That whole argument is the very definition of tyranny. It also shows that it's not justice you're after but just violence and power. I wouldn't want to live in your Ferelden.
LMAO, "pretenders and traitors" from the person whose Warden is staging a coup d'etat to put a person under their command on the throne, bypassing Fereldan law, AND thinking that that's a great precedent. Oooookay.
P.S. Loghain was no "pretender". He was the lawful Regent, endorsed by Ferelden's queen. An illegitimate, incompetent bastard "prince" who came into power thanks to a coup d'etat fits the pretender bill far better, just fyi.
I don't care about justice, I care about winning the war. Justice is subjective based upon the laws of the land. Loghain's (1) Turned much of the Bannorn against him and (2) Turned the Wardens against him, and both parties are required to win the war. If not for his actions, things would be better off. Getting rid of him gets rid of a lot of political complications and headache.
Technically he's only the regent, but in a Medieval state, from where do you draw your authority to rule? Military power. Anora has none. Loghain has all of it. He wants to rule Ferelden and for all intents and purposes, he does rule Ferelden. And he's not doing a particularly good job by causing a civil war in the middle of a Blight. That one is on him. What's to say that when the Blight is over, if he's spared, that he wouldn't turn on the Wardens again and try to seize power a second time? We don't have any hindsight in the first game, so there's not much to go on. He's no less a pretender than Alistair is, but at least Alistair's not constantly trying to cause problems.
I absolutely would prefer Alistair be king. His chivalry and selflessness may not make him a perfect king, but I doubt he'd be as keen to spill blood as Loghain. He also doesn't share his bed with someone like Arl Howe.
Retour en haut