I think it's fascinating how this thread is still going strong. There are a number of good thoughts and well written posts.
from his perspective, we were in fact responsible for Cailan's demise.
You're really stretching on this one. While it's cool that you put all those thoughts together and they may be correct, much of that isn't in the narrative of the game. I'm very big on the idea that important story information must be in the primary media. For example, the Matrix video game had story elements relating to the movies, but it really wasn't plot critical. The story the game tells is that Loghain uses the Wardens as a scapegoat for his having quit the field and abandoned Cailan and the army to die. All his talk about uniting is political because it's only important that people unite behind him. That said, he does care about Ferelden, but he's blinded by arrogance and fear of outside influence, whether from Orlais or the Gray Wardens.
I'm very big on the idea that important story information must be in the primary media.
So am I, but I also don't mind important things being in the game allowing a player that's astute enough to see the bigger picture. Not everything needs to be fed to the player on a silver platter for a proper understanding of events.
I dislike omission of critical information, but I also detest babysitting/handholding through a narrative.
I do like it if it is connected, but I don't want it to be spoonfed to me, if that makes sense. If it is there, but isn't connected, but I can still see the bigger picture, I'm happy enough.
While it's cool that you put all those thoughts together and they may be correct, much of that isn't in the narrative of the game
Much of it, in fact, is in the game. Loghain will tell you that it was Maric who brought the order back to Ferelden, and uses the argument that Cailan was led on by the tales of the Wardens at Ostagar and that's why he wouldn't listen to strategy and proper advice.
Alistair remarks that the beacon is surely late, and Loghain was at the meeting where he heard we would be at the top of the tower to do the job. You can see Cailan's group cracking under the pressure and hear from his honor guard that Cailan knew the battle would be a flop. You can even see enough at Ostagar to know it would be a flop, before the beacon is lit. Seven mages are sent against a horde with emissaries and Ogres? Cailan's foolish charge out of the valley when he was meant to lure the Darkspawn to him, and they had no problem coming to him before he told his men to run out into the open (to say nothing of using 1 volley of arrows only and wasting the Mabari which serve best as support troops).
You have Soldier's Peak in the game, and Levi will probe you on how you're any different from Sophia Dryden for going up against Loghain the Regent and tell you about the era of the time, as much as is known (he tells you the records were destroyed). Loghain will state after Ostagar to the Landsmeet that "there are those who would take advantage of our weakened state", meaning Orlais. So that much is in the game.
Upon having your first nightmare, you can ask why Duncan didn't tell everyone that. And Alistair's response on what Duncan said shows that it wasn't enough for people to believe it was anything but guesswork.
Actually, it'd just be easier for me to bold what isn't directly stated in Origins.
Historically the Wardens pledged themselves to help spread the Chant of Light at Drakon's behest, and he was the one who formally created the Chantry today. It was one of many cults at the time but his favored one dominated the land through his Exalted Marches of other city-states in what is now Orlais. The Chantry and Orlais are deeply intertwined, so they have had a history of being Orlesian agents
That was said in an out-of-game supplementary thing, however one of the bonus items in the game is the amulet Emperor Drakon wore in his Exalted Marches of what would be Orlais.
All his talk about uniting is political because it's only important that people unite behind him.
Yes, because he's the best equipped to lead an army against another army. The man doesn't want power, but feels that he needed to fill the vacuum immediately so that he could prevent a civil war and get the Bannorn to rally against him so they could push the Darkspawn back in the south.
He failed, because he was too idealistic on this front -- something Anora says he is. Not too idealistic, but that he's an idealist like Cailan but one who knows what idealism costs.
So am I, but I also don't mind important things being in the game allowing a player that's astute enough to see the bigger picture. Not everything needs to be fed to the player on a silver platter for a proper understanding of events.
I dislike omission of critical information, but I also detest babysitting/handholding through a narrative.
Much of it, in fact, is in the game. Loghain will tell you that it was Maric who brought the order back to Ferelden, and uses the argument that Cailan was led on by the tales of the Wardens at Ostagar and that's why he wouldn't listen to strategy and proper advice.
Alistair remarks that the beacon is surely late, and Loghain was at the meeting where he heard we would be at the top of the tower to do the job. You can see Cailan's group cracking under the pressure and hear from his honor guard that Cailan knew the battle would be a flop. You can even see enough at Ostagar to know it would be a flop, before the beacon is lit. Seven mages are sent against a horde with emissaries and Ogres? Cailan's foolish charge out of the valley when he was meant to lure the Darkspawn to him, and they had no problem coming to him before he told his men to run out into the open (to say nothing of using 1 volley of arrows only and wasting the Mabari which serve best as support troops).
You have Soldier's Peak in the game, and Levi will probe you on how you're any different from Sophia Dryden for going up against Loghain the Regent and tell you about the era of the time, as much as is known (he tells you the records were destroyed). Loghain will state after Ostagar to the Landsmeet that "there are those who would take advantage of our weakened state", meaning Orlais. So that much is in the game.
Yes, because he's the best equipped to lead an army against another army. The man doesn't want power, but feels that he needed to fill the vacuum immediately so that he could prevent a civil war and get the Bannorn to rally against him so they could push the Darkspawn back in the south.
He failed, because he was too idealistic on this front -- something Anora says he is. Not too idealistic, but that he's an idealist like Cailan but one who knows what idealism costs.
Once you use the books or whatever else to build the argument, that's information missing from the narrative. That's what I was referencing. When does the honor guard say Cailan knew the fight would be a flop? There was no indication of that from Cailan. As far as the tactics, I too always thought it was done to send the Mabari out in their own wave for them to die rather than have your whole force fight at once. Ditto for them leaving their defensive position. The problem was that the game never that any characters noticed that as a tactical mistake. This means I don't know if it is a story telling element or just the way the developers wanted to make the cutscene because it looked cool.
Soldier's Peak definitely adds some info, but it's optional DLC, not part of the main narrative. I know Loghain makes the comment referring to Orlais. So what? He does believe it but it could also be viewed as propaganda and still leaves the question of if that justifies his actions. As to him not wanting power, why then doesn't he let Anora rule, letter her take the political side and simply run the army, as he did with Cailan? He would certainly have Anora's ear more than Cailan's. Anora desires the throne but doesn't have Cailan's desire for personal battlefield glory.
As for Eamon, I also forgot to mention that Howe also shares blame in that. He didn't give the order, but he did have a controlling hand in the situation (Berwick answered to a man in Howe's employ, and Howe is a power-hungry weasel who would stop at nothing to get more power and lands in his hands.)
Wan't there talk that Loghain has poisoned Eamon so he wouldn't interfere in some coming confrontation between Loghain and Cailan and give him the cure later. While Berwick was there to monitor his condition.
Once you use the books or whatever else to build the argument, that's information missing from the narrative. That's what I was referencing. When does the honor guard say Cailan knew the fight would be a flop? There was no indication of that from Cailan. As far as the tactics, I too always thought it was done to send the Mabari out in their own wave for them to die rather than have your whole force fight at once. Ditto for them leaving their defensive position. The problem was that the game never that any characters noticed that as a tactical mistake. This means I don't know if it is a story telling element or just the way the developers wanted to make the cutscene because it looked cool.
Soldier's Peak definitely adds some info, but it's optional DLC, not part of the main narrative. I know Loghain makes the comment referring to Orlais. So what? He does believe it but it could also be viewed as propaganda and still leaves the question of if that justifies his actions. As to him not wanting power, why then doesn't he let Anora rule, letter her take the political side and simply run the army, as he did with Cailan? He would certainly have Anora's ear more than Cailan's. Anora desires the throne but doesn't have Cailan's desire for personal battlefield glory.
The honor guard says it in-game in the Return to Ostagar DLC.
The charging the valley, no one says it's a mistake, but you can look down into the valley while crossing the bridge and you'll see them practically surrounded on three sides. And anyone who knows anything about tactics will know that's just plain stupid. It's likely that Cailan's soldiers were caught up in the moment like Cailan was, and Loghain was not in any position to see it.
Loghain does let Anora rule. He says it to Eamon, and he specifically tells the Warden if spared and made a party member what his long-term goal was. Anora was queen and for the short term he led the armies as regeant because it was a moment of national emergency. The nobility were supposed to fall in line and provide troops because he hoped they would see the darkspawn as a threat worth fighting. He said once he made sure that Orlesians weren't coming in he would take the army south and fight the darkspawn. Without any sign of an archdemon, no one thought it was a blight. And once the darkspawn were driven out of Ferelden then Anora would rule.
He outright tells us that he was only going to be in charge so long as Ferelden was in a state of national emergency because of the darkspawn and he was only going to lead the armies, but the bannorn decided to start a civil war because some saw him grabbing for power and others wanted to grab for power themselves.
Return to Ostagar with Loghain is proven correct in The Masked Empire where Celene specifically says she wanted to achieve through marriage what Megrhen failed to do through force.
It's not relying on the book, but the book backs up what's already in the game.
Wan't there talk that Loghain has poisoned Eamon so he wouldn't interfere in some coming confrontation between Loghain and Cailan and give him the cure later. While Berwick was there to monitor his condition.
That's what Gaider says is the case, but if you look at in-game stuff you find that Gaider's "Word of God" on when the poisoning happened doesn't mesh at all with the timeline of events and isn't just contradictory but outright impossible. Gaider said it happened pre-Ostagar, but it doesn't work at all and requires Loghain to be in two places at once (Ostagar and Denerim), and it works out far better as a post-Ostagar move meant to incapacitate Eamon because Loghain thought Eamon would be naturally biased given that Cailan was his nephew and unable to see clearly.
Berwick was sent to monitor the situation though. But as I said, he was in the employ of a man who answered to Rendon Howe.
I never liked Loghain but I read the Stolen Throne and damn he was awesome there. I still kill him but now I hesitate for a second.
He betrayed the King, left thousands of soldiers to die, poisoned Eamon via blood mage no less and thus he started all that Redcliff stuff (I can say that something like that might have happened sooner or later but at that moment it was his fault), sold elves to slavery, sent an assassin to kill me (now it is personal!), initiated the civil war, his side kick is Howe of all people and etc.
He was great in Stolen Throne and The Calling but there is no white washing his crimes, the dead aren't coming back.
Yeah these were the main reasons why I wanted him dead too. add the crimes he commits and actually sends someone to kill you. IMO he de4serves to die just for that alone.
Yeah these were the main reasons why I wanted him dead too. add the crimes he commits and actually sends someone to kill you. IMO he deserves to die just for that alone.
There's a civil war on, and it's clear early on if there's going to be any resistance the Warden will be at the center of it. If Loghain had succeeded in killing you, there's a very good chance he would have won the civil war.
There's a civil war on, and it's clear early on if there's going to be any resistance the Warden will be at the center of it. If Loghain had succeeded in killing you, there's a very good chance he would have won the civil war.
The honor guard says it in-game in the Return to Ostagar DLC.
The charging the valley, no one says it's a mistake, but you can look down into the valley while crossing the bridge and you'll see them practically surrounded on three sides. And anyone who knows anything about tactics will know that's just plain stupid. It's likely that Cailan's soldiers were caught up in the moment like Cailan was, and Loghain was not in any position to see it.
Loghain does let Anora rule. He says it to Eamon, and he specifically tells the Warden if spared and made a party member what his long-term goal was. Anora was queen and for the short term he led the armies as regeant because it was a moment of national emergency. The nobility were supposed to fall in line and provide troops because he hoped they would see the darkspawn as a threat worth fighting. He said once he made sure that Orlesians weren't coming in he would take the army south and fight the darkspawn. Without any sign of an archdemon, no one thought it was a blight. And once the darkspawn were driven out of Ferelden then Anora would rule.
He outright tells us that he was only going to be in charge so long as Ferelden was in a state of national emergency because of the darkspawn and he was only going to lead the armies, but the bannorn decided to start a civil war because some saw him grabbing for power and others wanted to grab for power themselves.
Return to Ostagar with Loghain is proven correct in The Masked Empire where Celene specifically says she wanted to achieve through marriage what Megrhen failed to do through force.
It's not relying on the book, but the book backs up what's already in the game.
I'd have to go back and hear the exact line then.
You're right about how the battle looks but my point was I don't know if that's supposed to be a narrative element or is it just because. Now had the honor guard mentioned that, it would have made far more sense.
Anora was Queen in name only. Loghain was clearly in charge of everything, not just the army, which is my point. Instead of being locked in the tower or standing in the background, Anora should have been put in front of everyone and been the one calling for all the Bannorn to unite. As to whatever Loghain says in Return to Ostagar or anywhere else as a companion, that's an argument after the fact because you can't know that until after you've made the decision to spare him.
And no, you're using the information from the book to answer what is an open question in the game. You said it yourself; the book proves Loghain correct; the game didn't.
I think it's a great idea that Loghain is introduced as a villain in Origins, although he is a well loved hero of his nation. He is misguided by his irrevocable will to save Ferelden without the help of Orlais. And after speaking with Anora, she'll uncloacks he's probably too stubborn to see where he went wrong. Maybe he sees himself justified by his reputation. He's a good example how a hero could be become the exact oppositve, given time and a desperate situation. In my opinion, it's only fitting to recruit him and let him slay the archdemon, for restoring his honor and as a redemption for the crimes he commited in his campaign against the Grey Wardens. His intentions were good and speaking with him and Anora show that he's a decent person.
Concerning his withdrawal, it's clear that it was an honorless move. But in my opinion, the battle was desperate and seemed to be already lost. From a purely tactical viewpoint it would have been a waste to charge and risk the death of a great general and the bulk of his troops. I think he also didn't intend to kill Cailan. At Ostagar, he clearly warns him about fighting in the first line but Cailan is too temerarious for rethinking this decision. When Loghain says to Anora that Cailan "killed himself", he's not completely wrong.
I would choose Alistair any day over him, but the situation works out well if Alistair is hardened.
You're right about how the battle looks but my point was I don't know if that's supposed to be a narrative element or is it just because. Now had the honor guard mentioned that, it would have made far more sense.
Anora was Queen in name only. Loghain was clearly in charge of everything, not just the army, which is my point. Instead of being locked in the tower or standing in the background, Anora should have been put in front of everyone and been the one calling for all the Bannorn to unite. As to whatever Loghain says in Return to Ostagar or anywhere else as a companion, that's an argument after the fact because you can't know that until after you've made the decision to spare him.
And no, you're using the information from the book to answer what is an open question in the game. You said it yourself; the book proves Loghain correct; the game didn't.
Go to 2:25.
Loghain didn't control everything. Heck, not even in time of peace does Anora and Cailan didn't control everything and that's because of the very nature of Ferelden's politics and how its form of nobility works. And this is information in the game in the codexes.
These codexes, found in-game together tells us that the king and regeant don't have total authority and can't command the bannorn even when there is no national emergency. And the power throughout Ferelden is actually strongest the closer you get to the middle. Heck, even landowners who aren't nobles can change allegiance and start supporting another noble with taxes and manpower if they feel their current lord isn't meeting their needs.
Loghain was the regeant and he controlled the army that remained loyal to Ferelden as a whole, but the governing of land, trade and even choosing who to pledge men to in the civil war belongs strictly to the bannorn.
And even the King and Queen of Ferelden, were there no regeant, would have to persuade or coerce them to follow and cannot command them.
And you're right that a lot of the information on Loghain you don't get unless you spare him, but the game offers other reasons to.
1. Riordan, a senior Grey Warden who had been tortured for who-knows-how-long by Howe and went through his joining with Duncan and thus was a friend of our late leader says there are compelling reasons to. And since we know the Wardens keep their secrets, we can infer that there's a strong reason Riordan would suggest it despite Alistair's reasons for not.
2. If we as gamers feel that Anora would be better than Alistair at governing Ferelden because of Alistair's lack of experience or training in the art of ruling and decide to follow through with her request not to kill her father.
3. A desire not to kill Anora's father in front of her.
4. If you want to metagame, use Loghain to kill the archdemon if you don't trust Morrigan's dark ritual.
5. You want the man who kicked the collective hineys of the bannorn to fight for you.
And the book doesn't prove what I said to be correct. It backs up what is already in the game, as I said previously.
True, you have to take Loghain to Ostagar to get that bit of dialogue, but it's right there in the game and not even Wynne argues it.
Loghain: The cheating bastard!
Wynne: Watch your mouth, Loghain Mac Tir, unless you have forgotten the company you now keep!
Loghain: It's not my company I worry about, madam, but my former son-in-law's! Do you see the familiar tone with which the empress writes him, as if my daughter were not already his wife?
Wynne: Cailan loved Anora with every ounce of his heart. It was plain for all to see. The only thing that ever stood between them was you.
Loghain: Are you blind, old woman? The plot is plain as day within this letter! Love or no, Cailan was going to cast my daughter aside and wed himself to that ******, Celene. In a single vow, Orlais would claim all that they could never win by war! And what would Ferelden gain? Our fool of a king could strut about and call himself an emperor.
Wynne: And what of peace? Would it not bring us that, at least?
Loghain: Peace? I would have thought your age might have granted more wisdom, madam. Peace just means fighting someone else's enemies in someone else's war for someone else's reasons.
If Dog is with them, when Loghain calls Celene a ******, Dog will growl before Loghain continues the rest of what he is saying.
It's obscure since most people in the statistics gathered by Bioware didn't spare Loghain, it's right there in the game, and all the Masked Empire does is confirm that Loghain was right all along. That Celene tried through marriage to get Ferelden's support so they could focus on Nevarra and Tevinter and use Ferelden's resources to that end.
It's not using the book to prove a point since this bit of dialogue was used by Loghain supporters long before the book came out, but using the book to support what's already in the game as a supplement to the already existing argument.
Now, I understand not everyone has read the books and thus can't be expected to know what's in them. But it is there in the game. But some of the information is obscure because it requires certain dialogue options and certain choices, and in Return to Ostagar's case, just plain not doing it until after the Landsmeet and deliberately choosing to spare Loghain for the sole purpose of taking him there.
Which is actually why I spared Loghain the very first time after a few years of refusing to because I was curious on the kind of dialogue he would have. I was expecting to save my game before the Landsmeet, recruit Loghain, talk to him and see what he had to say and take him to Ostagar with Wynne then reload my game and kill him.
Turned out that I came to respect him far more than I expected to and kept him alive into Inquisition.
The testimony of a deserter is hardly compelling. And while there are those that believe Loghain's motives and reasons, these differ greatly from others that were actually there.
Riordin would not have needed increased numbers of Wardens if Loghain had aided them instead of leaving them, and not attempted to kill the others.
Anora's feelings are secondary to what is viewed as what is right, as seen by her prior testimony against her Father.
Etc. Been said many times before....
While I admire the 'true believer' aspect of Loghain's motivation and perspective, I do not admire the deeds performed; deserving of death.
Concerning his withdrawal, it's clear that it was an honorless move. But in my opinion, the battle was desperate and seemed to be already lost.
I am uncertain how these two sentences work together. Considering how many other lives Loghain saved, I'd argue that what he did was more honorable than the alternative.
The testimony of a deserter is hardly compelling. And while there are those that believe Loghain's motives and reasons, these differ greatly from others that were actually there.
And these others are more worthy of trust? If we're using the "deserter" ad hominem I think Aveline qualifies too, and I don't think Alistair could actually see anything that was happening on the battlefield. (Not to mention the jarring transition on his part from reporting evidence that Cailan was about to lose to blaming Loghain for throwing away a sure-win battle.)
I am uncertain how these two sentences work together. Considering how many other lives Loghain saved, I'd argue that what he did was more honorable than the alternative.
And these others are more worthy of trust? If we're using the "deserter" ad hominem I think Aveline qualifies too, and I don't think Alistair could actually see anything that was happening on the battlefield. (Not to mention the jarring transition on his part from reporting evidence that Cailan was about to lose to blaming Loghain for throwing away a sure-win battle.)
One that deserts by his own admission does not gain credibility by second-hand testimony of one that stays their ground. And the other witnesses testimony seems to be in agreement, even if they have no other association (eg; Alistair, Morrigan, Aveline). Also, a big difference between deserter and survivor.
One that deserts by his own and=mission does not gain credibility by second-hand testimony of one that stays their ground. And the other witnesses testimony seems to be in agreement, even if they have no other association (eg; Alistair, Morrigan, Aveline). Also, a big difference between deserter and survivor.
I am unsure what the first sentence means, the second forgets the Haven quartermaster and the officer who tries to arrest you in Lothering (not to mention that I don't think Morrigan ever comments on whether Loghain was justified; all she says is that he quit the field, not that he was wrong to,) and the third requires you to ignore that Aveline decided to just up and leave Ferelden after Ostagar instead of finding some way to put herself back at Ferelden's service. (Alistair and Wynne both survived too, and you'll notice I didn't call either of them deserters.)
Like Loghain, there are others that believe the withdrawal from Ostegar was needed; does not make it right. This is also indicated by the quartermaster. As Aveline appears in Lothering, then departs with husband and refugees, desertion is unlikely.
Like Loghain, there are others that believe the withdrawal from Ostegar was needed; does not make it right. This is also indicated by the quartermaster. As Aveline appears in Lothering, then departs with husband and refugees, desertion is unlikely.
If it was needed, then it was right. That people believe that it was does not make it so, but that's as valid an objection to you citing Aveline's opinion; this is why I prefer to look at the long darkspawn column and the fact that the beacon was used poorly instead of witness opinions. (Witnesses are poor evidence anyway.)
As for Aveline departing Ferelden with the refugees, that's why I'm accusing her of desertion. Loghain went back to Denerim to spectacularly fail at diplomacy, Wynne went back to the Circle, and the Wardens left the field to raise another army; none of that is desertion because they were all still at their country's service (or were trying to be, in Loghain's case.) What's Aveline's excuse?
I am uncertain how these two sentences work together. Considering how many other lives Loghain saved, I'd argue that what he did was more honorable than the alternative.
Why? It's cleary not really honorable to withdraw when it was actually part of the plan. But we'll never know for certain, if Loghain already planned this move before the battle or if it was a quick decision after the beacon was lit (which probably happened far too late). Like I said, Loghain probably wanted to save Cailan but the king put Loghain in his place and refused his advice. Falling back was a pragmatic choice. If Loghain lost the bulk of his army, maybe the Grey Wardens wouldn't have been able to attack the Darkspawn horde afterwards.
@Elhanan
I think there is a big difference between the "desertion" of a general and a common soldier. A general is a tactician, while a soldier should be a subordinate. As a general, Loghain has to look at the goal he wants to achieve and he has to calculate the cost of it, finding the best ratio between reaching his goal and risking the life of his soldiers. Charging into a hopeless battle, throwing away the life of probably thousands of soldiers and his own just wasn't worth it. It was a tactical retreat.
Why? It's cleary not really honorable to withdraw when it was actually part of the plan. But we'll never know for certain, if Loghain already planned this move before the battle or if it was a quick decision after the beacon was lit (which probably happened far too late). Like I said, Loghain probably wanted to save Cailan but the king put Loghain in his place and refused his advice. Falling back was a pragmatic choice. If Loghain lost the bulk of his army, maybe the Grey Wardens wouldn't have been able to attack the Darkspawn horde afterwards.
Is it more honorable to lead an army to what you're convinced will be its death?
Is it more honorable to lead an army to what you're convinced will be its death?
This is a difficult, nearly philosophical question, as he gave his word to the king and Cailan trusted him. It was a pragmatic decision and we can see that Loghain struggles with it. He doesn't want to take the credit for it (hope this is the right expression) as he wants others to believe that the Grey Wardens were responsible for Cailan's death. I don't know if there's any point in the game where he admits his decision in all clearness in front of an audience.
Regardless of honorable or not, his decision was more logical, as I stated in the rest of my post.
If it was needed, then it was right. That people believe that it was does not make it so, but that's as valid an objection to you citing Aveline's opinion; this is why I prefer to look at the long darkspawn column and the fact that the beacon was used poorly instead of witness opinions. (Witnesses are poor evidence anyway.)
As for Aveline departing Ferelden with the refugees, that's why I'm accusing her of desertion. Loghain went back to Denerim to spectacularly fail at diplomacy, Wynne went back to the Circle, and the Wardens left the field to raise another army; none of that is desertion because they were all still at their country's service (or were trying to be, in Loghain's case.) What's Aveline's excuse?
Belief does not equate to fact or truth. What Loghain did was failure to complete his assigned mission. This is fact. Others witness this failure, and then are hunted for that knowledge. That appears to sway my opinion if I had any doubt.
Aveline met her husband who did desert his post to find her, and her Sire was dead. Knowing of Loghain's failure, not following him to Denerim seems to be a good choice, baesed on what happens to others of a sim opinion. She did not desert Loghain; he deserted his troops and duty, the King and his troops, and the Wardens; tactically or not.
Loghain didn't desert his troops at all. He saved as many as he could, planned to gather reinforcements and then take the fight back to the darkspawn.
Leaving the field was not an act of desertion. The only thing that even makes it a grey area was Cailan's presence on the front line, a position he himself put himself in despite arguing with Loghain for days over the decision.
Cailan knew the risks. Heck, according to his own honor guard he even knew the battle couldn't be won because the darkspawn were simply too strong and had too many and chose to be on the front lines anyway.
That or he realized it while on the front lines and sent his honor guard away during the battle.
But traditionally kings stayed away from the front lines. They observed from the general's position and relayed orders based on how circumstances changed, usually with an elite guard to maintain their safety. Cailan deliberately refused to take that position because he wanted the glory of fighting on the front lines and put himself in danger, and thus Loghain was put in charge of the army and was in the leader's position.
And the situation changed and in order to save as much of the army as he could, Loghain chose to retreat. Cailan's own decisions led to his death.
Don't let idealism and blame cloud your judgement of the truth of Ostagar. It was a battle that could not be won and Cailan was an idiot.
Loghain's plan was two fold; only one part was implemented. The overall plan was nullified by the dissolution of the second part. leaving the King, Wardens, and various troops to die was desertion, but according to some, a tactical necessity. Personally, I don't buy it.
Retour en haut
