Actually, Morrigan's for the templars here. She doesn't like Circle mages and wants them to face the consequences of giving up their freedom and all be slaughtered.
Morrigan's kind of a jerk.
I realize that. In fact that line was where my canon Warden started writing her off. Still, you would expect her to be at least a little upset if the Circle mages are all killed, if only because she remembers being hunted by Templars herself.
Modifié par springacres, 22 mars 2015 - 10:21 .
I realize that. In fact that line was where my canon Warden started writing her off. Still, you would expect her to be at least a little upset if the Circle mages are all killed, if only because she remembers being hunted by Templars herself.
She remembers the game Flemeth made so she would learn not to fear. And then she herself started killing templars with Flemeth, although she does say that Flemeth was a glutton for such things.
It's not that she sympathizes with her fellow mages but she finds how they cower to the templars and their acceptance of how things are as mindless as utterly worthy of contempt. She doesn't see them as her fellows but as people who allow others to make their decisions for them and live in fear of the people making those decisions and she finds them weak as a result.
I realize that. In fact that line was where my canon Warden started writing her off. Still, you would expect her to be at least a little upset if the Circle mages are all killed, if only because she remembers being hunted by Templars herself.
I would expect her to be upset that the Mages had to be killed because of the pragmatism involved with them, namely that Mages are friggin' powerful. This is the woman who advocates keeping the Anvil because of its power, after all. Power is important to her mindset in Origins.
I think there should be a duality to her perspective there. She condemns them for their cowardice and love of the leash and thus they should be killed, but should at least point out that the Mages are themselves a useful war asset.
That said, the Circle plot is rife with problems in that it falls into a black and white paradigm when it was fairly grey in the beginning. There should've been outbreaks of Demons in the countryside as a random encounter, along with some blood mages who escaped the Circle, if it was spared. If it wasn't, the moral ambiguity is in and of itself contained within the Circle plot because you put dozens of men, women, and children to the sword because you couldn't take a chance.
That said, the Circle plot is rife with problems in that it falls into a black and white paradigm when it was fairly grey in the beginning. There should've been outbreaks of Demons in the countryside as a random encounter, along with some blood mages who escaped the Circle, if it was spared. If it wasn't, the moral ambiguity is in and of itself contained within the Circle plot because you put dozens of men, women, and children to the sword because you couldn't take a chance.
You're able to persuade a blood mage to pass herself off as innocent if you take the right specs, if that helps.
So I suppose a better phrasing would be that the game doesn't sufficiently and adequately challenge the players on their decisions, and even if it did I doubt it'd do much for a lot of people who are convinced they will always hold the moral high ground because they're the protagonist. Unless they're savvy enough to get that the Wardens are shady from the game (which they indeed are). Problem is that the narrative holds us up as paragons of virtue and honor and heroically valiant warriors -- things that the naive like Alistair believe and are untrue.
These are fair points. Especially about Leliana--who, given her background, ought to demonstrate political savvy much more often than she does. Even if she sticks to her 'be faithful, do good' mantra, she ought to be able to analyze situations more cannily.
Though when the solution to the problem is simply 'more game' I have to admit I have some sympathy for the designers. More dialogue, more choices, more opportunity to lose companions you can't play without... well, sure. And how about a pony, too?
If your point is that the balance ought to be different--all the game needs are a few small shifts, snip away some praise & replace it with some criticism--that's possible. On the other hand, why do you think this would be effective? All the information you need is right in front of you. Plenty of people will tell you that Anora is a good queen partly because she is a ruthless political animal. Anora herself will warn you that she's only your ally for so long as you're helping her achieve her ends (which is awfully forthright for a ruthless political animal). I don't see how an extra cutscene would change anything for the players who shout BETRAYAL!
To my mind, the fact that it's so easy for the player to have a biased & blinkered understanding of their own behavior is the coolest thing about the game. In the end, it's the best argument--the best proof--of the game's underlying philosophy, which is (as far as I can tell) to draw a sharp distinction between the way history is made and the way history is told, that life is painful and nobody is perfect, victory is costly and temporary, and one way or another power diminishes anyone who obtains it.
True, but that's not what I was getting at. It's something that I've pointed out before however in the years I've been on this forum but that's something that relies on the more savvy players to grasp -- and even then, despite the arguing done to point it out, many are quick to gloss over it for whatever reason.
But there are times where the narrative tries to argue that what you did was right, when it was wrong. Case in point, Anora and the "betrayal" that happens -- whether it's in Howe's Estate or at the Landsmeet. If at the former, then it's because the Warden was a dolt who did precisely what Anora asked us not to do.
Yet the companions end up going "HOW DARE SHE BETRAY US". This coming from Leliana who was invested in Orlesian politics and should know that we were the idiots in this scenario, or Zevran who was assigned to kill political people. Both of them should know that we did the exact thing Anora wanted to not have happen and put her in a dangerous situation..
This is what I mean. Our choices are deemed prim and proper by the narrative, when they're not, and thus the players believe they were right because they fail to see things. Their power fantasy ends up being lofted to higher heights.
The Warden can engage in criminal acts like murder (Denerim but also throughout the game) and flout Chantry authority (Mage's Collective), things that Loghain is condemned for and are seen as irredeemable acts but for us it's different because "We're Wardens". The companions may make a remark or two saying they dislike a choice or two, but ultimately it falls flat because they're not doing anything to truly challenge us. And on the rare instances that they take a stand, players still find them to be acting like dolts because "We're Wardens".
It's a no-win scenario. Either the game challenges the player and people just go "LOL nah" or it doesn't and the players go "LOL we're always right."
For instance, selling out the Elves to Caladrius should have Zevran refuse to work with us any longer. Considering he was enslaved by the Antivan Crows, he should have that be a breaking point, pointing out how we are truly no different then Loghain (something we can comment on). Perhaps even having him side with Loghain and exposing our own duplicitous nature to the Landsmeet. It'd be a claim without proof coming from an Elf, but Zev could go to Loghain with the information and Loghain would present it.
So I suppose a better phrasing would be that the game doesn't sufficiently and adequately challenge the players on their decisions, and even if it did I doubt it'd do much for a lot of people who are convinced they will always hold the moral high ground because they're the protagonist. Unless they're savvy enough to get that the Wardens are shady from the game (which they indeed are). Problem is that the narrative holds us up as paragons of virtue and honor and heroically valiant warriors -- things that the naive like Alistair believe and are untrue.
He will always die.
Killing the King, Killing Duncan and the most of the wardens at Ostagar, Trying to kill me! (in every playthrough), Making the wardens be the suspect for what happened in Ostagar, Selling elves as slaves in my hometown(city elf origin)!, Allying with Howe who massacred House Cousland(Human Noble). So TELL ME AN EFFIN reason why I Should not kill him (note i am not angry its for emphasis 
). Killing him at landsmeet is already deemed merciful for me because he dies with honor. I couldve tortured him until he begs for death and throw him at the Dead Trenches where all the darkspawn are settled so he gets eaten.
He will always die.
Killing the King, Killing Duncan and the most of the wardens at Ostagar, Trying to kill me! (in every playthrough), Making the wardens be the suspect for what happened in Ostagar, Selling elves as slaves in my hometown(city elf origin)!, Allying with Howe who massacred House Cousland(Human Noble). So TELL ME AN EFFIN reason why I Should not kill him (note i am not angry its for emphasis
As has been stated numerous times.
Loghain didn't kill the king. Loghain didn't kill Duncan, and he didn't kill most of the Wardens.
That was the darkspawn. I think Loghain was right to make that retreat, the line was already broken by the time the beacon was lit, which was late, and there was no guarantee had Loghain made the charge that anyone would have been saved at all.
The devs have confirmed that Loghain had nothing to do with the Cousland massacre, we have discussed at length how Howe had seized too much power to oppose at the point immediately following Ostagar, and it was the bannorn who started the civil war and not Loghain.
Blame him for slavery and hiring a blood mage to poison Eamon and hiring the crows, but those are the only crimes he's actually guilty of. Howe is guilty of many other crimes. Teagan is also responsible for the Civil War, and the bannorn who fought Loghain are guilty of treason against their queen.
I always let Alistair do the deed. Hence, Loghain always die
I always let Alistair do the deed. Hence, Loghain always die
At least let Loghain live in one playthrough, just one, to see him in Return to Ostagar and Inquisition.
It's worth playing through at least once.
I let Loghain live in my last playthrough for the first time, and I'd definitely recommend worth trying it at least once, to the skeptics.
To be honest, while I was playing the game, I didn't entirely see why I should hate Loghain so much. Ostagar seemed defensible - if a little shocking, at first. Cailan struck me straight away as someone who had no idea what he was doing - I kind of predicted we'd lose the battle, it seemed the most obvious way it'd end. What surprised me was that Loghain retreated not when he saw the lack of signal, but when it appeared. After reading the codexes more thoroughly, and finding out about the extent of Loghain's Orlais hatred (which is hardly without justification), and given how political the Grey Wardens actually are in practice, I'm not surprised he turned down extra reinforcements and I'm not surprised he made the decision to retreat. What irritated me more was how last minute it was - if I were in Loghain's shoes I'd point blank refuse to risk my soldiers on something so foolish - but I suppose nobody but the Grey Wardens predicted the bulk of the hoarde, and Loghain's skepticism lead him to downplaying their advice, good or bad. To his army's near-peril.
So no, I don't think Loghain killed Cailan, or Duncan. He decided taking a small hit was better than a large one - because, y'know, you'd rather lose one battle than lose an army and a war. To be honest, I question whether the army gathered would have been able to take the forces, or be completely overwhelmed - personally, I think they stood little chance. And so if Loghain hadn't withdrawn, I'd question at all whether Alistair and the Warden, even if saved by Flemeth, could gather an army large enough to allow them to tackle the Archdemon.
I guess what threw me more was the outlawing of the Wardens - unless Loghain somehow saw *them* as responsible for Cailan's death, or whether he was taking a ruthless, no-loose-ends approach which meant there'd be as little political opposition to his new leadership (which totally backfired). From a tactical point, I can sort of justify it but it's dead ****** cold. Asides from that, I think a lot of the dodgier tactical choices were made because he had a lack of opposition and debate amongst his advisors with Howe and himself - I reckon if he'd had someone more compassionate supporting him, maybe it wouldn't have been such a disaster. A lot of the nastier outcomes were part of Howe's influence.
So yeah, even on my first playthough (as an elf, no less), I nearly saved Loghain for that reason - I can see where he's coming from, and thus would have thrown him to the Wardens first time if Alistair hadn't spoken up (more because I didn't wanna lose his gear, than any RP related reason). As Anora says, the Joining can be fatal (have no idea how she knows that, but oh well), so it may be a death sentence for him. If not, he might be useful. Given that he was a former war hero, I reckoned that he wasn't completely without principles, and probably could perform some kind of redemption.
I suppose I'd agree with the criticisms saying that the game doesn't expose the complexity of the situation very well. Like, we're told certain things at the beginning (Wardens are good, being a warden is an honour, treated by respect by most - or should be etc. etc.) which are at best questionable, if not complete horsepiss. That's fine - I think starting from a point of unreliable narration and bias with Duncan and Alistair is actually really interesting from a literary standpoint, but they don't challenge that view enough, I think, in the game, or make it clear that they're *unreliable*. I mean, I personally really like Alistair's reaction at the Landsmeet because to me it shows off his worst flaws - his petulance, how *subtle* and rarely shown his vengeful, nasty streak is, and also how he desperately tries to maintain this romantic image the Wardens like to advertise, at the cost of weakening their forces against the Blight (3 ferelden wardens are better than 2). But plenty of people just think his reaction is completely justified and don't see the clash of characters, principles, and commitments going on.
It's annoying - DA:O has some fantastically nuanced characters, but it doesn't expose them very well and doesn't allow them to object or question what you do.
Edit:
Also, I'll add - I really, *really* liked Loghain as a companion. He was very forthright about the situation he was in, but in person (and not in DRAMATIC LANDSMEET HYPERBOLE MODE) he's very funny, and his candid demeanour does a lot for him. Warmed to him very quickly. Love his voice as well, it's full of character. I didn't expect to be a Loghain fan at all, but there you are.
Does he turn up in DA:I? I've played through II but I'm not getting DA:I until after my final exams. If he turns up for more than a cameo, I'll get it.
Does he turn up in DA:I? I've played through II but I'm not getting DA:I until after my final exams. If he turns up for more than a cameo, I'll get it.
Without spoiling too much, I was personally overwhelmingly pleased with how Loghain's character is handled in DAI.
Without spoiling too much, I was personally overwhelmingly pleased with how Loghain's character is handled in DAI.
Oh, that's excellent to know! Now I'll have trouble putting off getting DA:I...
Also without spoiling too much, he has a lot more than a cameo.
He is the reason Ferelden is weaker than ever, the reason the Wardens are nearly extinct, the reason the king is dead etc.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Alistair was a major dick? What kind of Grey Warden leaves a Blight for personal reasons?
He is the reason Ferelden is Free, the reason the King's army survives and honestly Callan's death was a positive.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Alistair was a major dick? What kind of Grey Warden leaves a Blight for personal reasons?
Who do you think those soldiers were who died in Ostagar with the king? Those weren't just wardens dying down there. Loghain skipped off with Gwaren's army, not the King's men, who were pretty much wiped out except for that one guy who you encounter in RtO.
I don't give a rat's ass what he did 30 years ago. Kind of makes him a huge hypocrite to whine about freedom only to turn around and become as bad as the Orlesians or did you miss the part where he was selling Ferelden citizens to Tevinter blood mages?
Alistair's hissy fit isn't an example of sterling behavior if you let Loghain live either, but I'd hardly call him a 'major dick' for it. Considering Loghain's tactics the entire game was 'try to murder and/or hinder the remaining wardens at every turn', I can hardly fault Alistair for not wanting to share a camp or a battlefield with someone just as likely to shove a blade into his back as to fight the enemy. But since I prefer to have Alistair duel him, I am never subjected to his tirade.
Who do you think those soldiers were who died in Ostagar with the king? Those weren't just wardens dying down there. Loghain skipped off with Gwaren's army, not the King's men, who were pretty much wiped out except for that one guy who you encounter in RtO.
That is not the impression I get from his dialogue with Wynne. He flatly says that the people who died there were his men.
That is not the impression I get from his dialogue with Wynne. He flatly says that the people who died there were his men.
He left with Gwaren's army, not the king's men. Doubtless he felt bad about any soldiers who died that day and felt they were all 'his men' or 'good soldiers', but he would have been in the lead of his men, not the king's army (the guys who were in Lothering left behind to kill any surviving wardens were certainly his men).
He left with Gwaren's army, not the king's men. Doubtless he felt bad about any soldiers who died that day and felt they were all 'his men' or 'good soldiers', but he would have been in the lead of his men, not the king's army (the guys who were in Lothering left behind to kill any surviving wardens were certainly his men).
I'm not sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. We aren't told where the men in Lothering were originally from, and while the men in Gwaren can be assumed mostly loyal to him I was under the impression that he also had authority over the king's army due to being its general.
I'm not sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. We aren't told where the men in Lothering were originally from, and while the men in Gwaren can be assumed mostly loyal to him I was under the impression that he also had authority over the king's army due to being its general.
I would assume he did have authority over the king's men since he was the general in charge, but that they were the ones in the trenches down there with wardens and Cailan. In that, he would have considered them "his men", but they were still the King's army. That Loghain felt badly for their loss I don't dispute. He is, through and through a soldier, and would feel their loss keenly, feeling responsible for them and considering them 'his men', fellow Fereldens. Perhaps that was to what he refers?
Mostly I'm drawing my conclusion as to who was in that valley from Elric in RtO--one of the king's men.
The army with Loghain marched through Lothering and you are told by refugees that some stayed behind in the tavern to watch for any surviving grey wardens. No one specifies which army they are from, but they are quite obviously loyal to Loghain by the conversation, refusing to hear anything you may have to say on the subject, which makes me assume from the dialogue they are part of Gwaren's army. It could be simply they are grateful to Loghain for getting them out of Ostagar alive, I don't know.
I would assume he did have authority over the king's men since he was the general in charge, but that they were the ones in the trenches down there with wardens and Cailan. In that, he would have considered them "his men", but they were still the King's army. That Loghain felt badly for their loss I don't dispute. He is, through and through a soldier, and would feel their loss keenly, feeling responsible for them and considering them 'his men', fellow Fereldens. Perhaps that was to what he refers?
"I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families. I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day." That sounds more likely to be true if they'd actually been his subordinates, and for a long time. Not necessarily because they came from Gwaren, though: I'm under the understanding that Loghain has been leading Cailan's army in Cailan's name for a while.
And for all we know, some of those men down in the valley were from Gwaren.
I kind of got the impression that the men and general forces were pretty spread out.
After seeing the Orlesian nobility first-hand in Inquisition, I now completely understand Loghain's opposition to bringing their influence into Fereldan and why he would rather take his chances against the Darkspawn. That thing was rotten. To. The. Core.
"I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families. I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day." That sounds more likely to be true if they'd actually been his subordinates, and for a long time. Not necessarily because they came from Gwaren, though: I'm under the understanding that Loghain has been leading Cailan's army in Cailan's name for a while.
I wonder if that might be beside sylvanaerie's core point, though, at least as I understood it.
Loghain didn't "save the king's army" in the sense that a lot of the army died in the battle when Loghain quit the field. He preserved some of it, and left the rest to die.
Retour en haut