3201 réponses à ce sujet

[DinkyD]

<snip>

Finally, he then has the men under his command -- men who hail from Denerim and Gwaren, if you look at the heraldry on the shields -- charge straight out into the open, exposing them to the Darkspawn on all sides which can lead to a double envelopment. They'd have nowhere to go and be attacked from all sides. You can even clearly see Cailan using his greatsword to tell his men to make the charge.

 

As was mentioned, we missed the signal to light the beacon (which Alistair ends up contradicting by saying the battle could be won. Though one must note we don't even have a window to look out of in the first place. Thanks Bioware!). Alistair's comments tell us we missed the signal, but then he doesn't even bother to see if the Darkspawn are fully committed (which was kinda the more important part of the arrangement).

 

Loghain sums it up well in many points of the game, but perhaps the best one is if he's recruited and you talk to him about Ostagar in a "You traitor" mentality.

 

(Paraphrase): There's no possible chance that because Cailan insisted on leading the charge against my own advice, he contributed to the failure that was Ostagar! Because Cailan died, he must be absolved of all guilt, and because I lived, all the guilt must fall to me!

 

Loghain does bear some blame for the battle failing, but so too does Cailan, the Wardens (us included), the Chantry, and even in a meta-sense Bioware itself for not really writing things properly to make it seem like it wasn't a gigantic clusterfuck plot device.

 

Did they put enough in to convince me it was a lost cause? Yes. Did they write the battle to maximize the potential of Ostagar? Not really.

 

 

Duncan tells us that we have less then an hour to light the signal. So no, Loghain has more then "just the signal" to go off of. He has a rough estimate of how long it should take to get to the top of the tower and survey the field. When an hour passes and no signal appears, what is he left to think? The Wardens are in full control of the tower, something Loghain did not particularly care for.

 

<snip>

 

 

Do you really think with a column that long could be held off by a smaller force? At best, it would only distract some of the immediate ones while many more just circled around and keep charging and then we'd be right back to the point of Loghain's men being sandwiched between two groups of Darkspawn.

 

Images were pulled from KoP's blog post on the subject of Ostagar on the old BSN years ago, though they originally belong to Monica21. Take a gander if you wish.

 

How does Loghain know that Cailan charged out of position when he made his decision? How does he know they are "cracking under pressure"? Cailan may have contibuted to the defeat at that point but how can it inform Loghain's decision making? Again,it's just a happenstance.

 

And if Loghain does definately have more than the signal to go off, again, why didn't he react earlier? A what point did he decide he was no longer going to charge? It makes no sense to me. If he thought that the signal was deliberatly being delayed, again, why didn't he react earlier? So he just stands there and waits, and when the signal is lit says to himself, well that was late, best go? If he knew he'd have to charge in about an hour (given that's the time it takes) then why doesn't he just do that? The signal isn't needed in the first place. The signal must be needed because Loghain can't know when this putative time frame is going to begin therefore he can't know when it might be up.

 

"Calian insisted on leading the charge against my advice" : So was there or wasn't there to be a charge? Cailan died and now occupies the moral high ground. I'm not sure that Loghain is necessarily commenting on actual miltary strategy there. Unless it's a comment on the King not getting himself killed in front of his men as it's detrimental on morale.

 

May be Alistair is wrong about missing the "signal" if he hasn't checked the darkspawn - that argument cuts both ways.

 

The diagrams show exactly what a good general doesn't do - commits his entire force at once.  Anyway, the relative sizes of the armies can be drawn at different sizes to make any point you want. In the game I don't remember getting any idea of the relative size of Loghain's or the King's army, so we can speculate away! (Although Loghain's looks huge) We don't know if the column could have be held off by a smaller force (a smaller part of Loghain's army, not a force smaller than the head of the column) because he don't know numbers. We don't know relative strengths. But the darkspawn army looks intimidating in a few screen shots so it must win? <shrugs>

 

As there's no way to prove it either way arguing about armies we no little about and strategies that could be changed on the fly (If Loghain is such a military genius). The miltary side is not proven because we have too little information. And I'm sure Bioware didn't put enough effort into the brief battle scenes to allow us to make an accurate judgement.

 

It's not enough to explain why it was going to be a defeat, it has to explained how Loghain knew all this in such certainty he was morally justified in abandoning the field.

Modifié par DinkyD, 31 juillet 2014 - 08:09 .

[WolfeMannOrigins92]

I always kill him b/c well I don't like him and his lust for power n the way he tried to gain it. also I kill him n let the architect live, idk if its jus me or not but i feel deeply that, thats how it should go for me lol 

[Xandurpein]

Bioware really don't seem to know how to deliver military action well. I don't know if their writers lack understanding, or they don't have the tools to deliver it, but I suppose it's a bit of both. I would therefore be wary of drawing any absolute conclusions from the cutscenes in the game. As others have pointed out, taken literally, they imply a gross missmanagement of the kings force.

Obviously we are meant to get the feeling that Loghain is abandoning the king and us. That in itself is however not the same as that this is also the literal truth. After all, if everything would be as it first seems, there would be no plot twists. So the fact that we get the feeling that Loghain is a traitor that abandons us, doesn't by itself prove that he does.

At the same time, it's a fact that Loghain was disenchanted with Cailan and prepared to get rid of him unless he could change his mind about Orlais, because he believed Cailan was dangerously naive about Orlais. That's why he set the stage by incapacitating Arl Eamon.

I don't believe Loghain planned to betray Cailan at Ostagar. I believe David Gaider has mentioned that Loghain hadn't made up his mind to betray Cailan at the battle. He was more likely planning a relatively bloodless coup. Cailan, with his naive sense for fairy tale drama insisted on placing himself at the front with the outnumbered force facing the horde. I believe that when Loghain saw the size of the horde, and realized it was way larger than expected, he made a snap judgement and thought "screw you Cailan, I'm done". Whether this was the correct military decision or not, I don't think anyone can say based on the evidence, but I do believe that it had been Maric, instead of Cailan, Loghain would have charged.

Some may argue that this equates treason, but again that's really a modern interpretation of the events. Discipline, martial laws and so on, such as we know it, didn't exist in feudal armies. Many battles have been lost in real history because parts of the army refused to fight or wandered off the field to loot, without the guilty being charged with treason. The victor decided who was a traitor and who wasn't, not the law book.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Bioware really don't seem to know how to deliver military action well. I don't know if their writers lack understanding, or they don't have the tools to deliver it, but I suppose it's a bit of both. I would therefore be wary of drawing any absolute conclusions from the cutscenes in the game. As others have pointed out, taken literally, they imply a gross missmanagement of the kings force.

Obviously we are meant to get the feeling that Loghain is abandoning the king and us. That in itself is however not the same as that this is also the literal truth. After all, if everything would be as it first seems, there would be no plot twists. So the fact that we get the feeling that Loghain is a traitor that abandons us, doesn't by itself prove that he does.

At the same time, it's a fact that Loghain was disenchanted with Cailan and prepared to get rid of him unless he could change his mind about Orlais, because he believed Cailan was dangerously naive about Orlais. That's why he set the stage by incapacitating Arl Eamon.

I don't believe Loghain planned to betray Cailan at Ostagar. I believe David Gaider has mentioned that Loghain hadn't made up his mind to betray Cailan at the battle. He was more likely planning a relatively bloodless coup. Cailan, with his naive sense for fairy tale drama insisted on placing himself at the front with the outnumbered force facing the horde. I believe that when Loghain saw the size of the horde, and that the ranks of the kings army was broken, he made a snap judgement and thought "screw you Cailan, I'm done". Whether this was the correct military decision or not, I don't think anyone can say based on the evidence, but I do believe that it had been Maric, instead of Cailan, Loghain would have charged.

Some may argue that this equates treason, but again that's really a modern interpretation of the events. Discipline, martial laws and so on, such as we know it, didn't exist in feudal armies. Many battles have been lost in real history because parts of the army refused to fight or wandered off the field to loot, without the guilty being charged with treason. The victor decided who was a traitor and who wasn't, not the law book.

I don't know that we were meant to get the impression that Loghain betrayed Cailan on purpose. Or at least, I don't think that's meant to be the only possible reaction upon seeing it for the first time. It seems to me that that point of view is contradicted by the start of the strategy meeting (in which Cailan rebuffs what we're certainly meant to conclude is Loghain's umpteenth attempt to get him off the front lines) and the line from Alistair where he concludes that they've surely missed the signal by that point. (Whether or not they have isn't central to my point, since the fact remains that he's lighting it without looking and hoping that the battle can be salvaged. That said, for those who actually listen to Word Of Gaider he apparently said they were upwards of an hour late.) And people can argue all they want about the ambiguity of cutscenes, but a column stretching pretty much all the way out to the horizon looks pretty unambiguous to me. I would be singing a different tune if Varric was narrating Origins to Cassandra, but as far as we can know our eyes are supposed to be reliable narrators in this game. (And I don't see why a gross mismanagement of the king's forces in those cutscenes is enough to call that into question.)

 

I also think you're mistaken about whether or not Loghain would have charged to save Maric. As I understand, Loghain allowed an army to be destroyed one time to save him, and Maric made him swear that he would never allow one man to be more important to him than the entire country ever again.

 

@DinkyD: As for the argument that we need to prove Loghain knew he was justified during a justified retreat? You're going to have to explain that one to me. If he was justified in retreating, it seems to me that he was justified in retreating, and never mind that it's not as difficult to believe that he could see the battlefield as you're trying to portray. Don't forget that he only needs to be able to see still advancing darkspawn or the king's lines in order to know more than your arguments assume he knows. And that it's not hard to assume he still needs the beacon in order to make sure that there are no darkspawn occluded from his field of vision. (Since there would need to be some cover on it.)

[Hunter_Rayder93]

Loghain?! ... HA! that vile traitor deserves to die after all he has done! I always executed him, no I'm sorry but his gesture and I inperdonabile such a person even to dream that I leave alive!

[Xandurpein]

I also think you're mistaken about whether or not Loghain would have charged to save Maric. As I understand, Loghain allowed an army to be destroyed one time to save him, and Maric made him swear that he would never allow one man to be more important to him than the entire country ever again.

As far as I see it, we know Loghain broke that promise anyway. The records says he spent two years looking for his friend, when Maric was lost. He almost emptied the treasury in a futile attempt to find Maric. Isn't that putting one man above the entire country?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

As far as I see it, we know Loghain broke that promise anyway. The records says he spent two years looking for his friend, when Maric was lost. He almost emptied the treasury in a futile attempt to find Maric. Isn't that putting one man above the entire country?

Good point.

[Xandurpein]

Let me first say that I believe that the darkspawn horde at Ostagar from all evidence must have been a lot larger than anyone expected, and Cailan was very foolhardy in his whole attitude to the battle. All he really seemed to care about was personal glory.

Just to be the devil's advocate though, the darkspawn horde shown on the pictures you posted can actually be decieving. First of all it's a marching column. An army on the march is very long. According to one source, a roman legion would be 10 kilometers long ,travelling along a wide Roman road (6 man abreast). Maybe darkspawn have much less of a baggage train, as they don't need much sustenance, but a siezable horde of maybe 10000, would probably stretch for several kilometers.

Also note that the column doesn't at all stretch "until the horizon". Our vision is clearly halted by a hill crest, and it's easy to see the individual pine trees there. What we see in the picture could really be anything from one thousand to maybe ten times as much (non-scientific guess work, but still). The images are a compelling argument, but not enough for me to call it conclusive evidence.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Let me first say that I believe that the darkspawn horde at Ostagar from all evidence must have been a lot larger than anyone expected, and Cailan was very foolhardy in his whole attitude to the battle. All he really seemed to care about was personal glory.

Just to be the devil's advocate though, the darkspawn horde shown on the pictures you posted can actually be decieving. First of all it's a marching column. An army on the march is very long. According to one source, a roman legion would be 10 kilometers long ,travelling along a wide Roman road (6 man abreast). Maybe darkspawn have much less of a baggage train, as they don't need much sustenance, but a siezable horde of maybe 10000, would probably stretch for several kilometers.

Also note that the column doesn't at all stretch "until the horizon". Our vision is clearly halted by a hill crest, and it's easy to see the individual pine trees there. What we see in the picture could really be anything from one thousand to maybe ten times as much (non-scientific guess work, but still). The images are a compelling argument, but not enough for me to call it conclusive evidence.

Most of that is fair, but the darkspawn marching column seems to be wider and less spread out than the Roman equivalent from all we're able to see of it. (Though I suppose that doesn't mean all that much as far as the bits all the way out in the back of the line.)

[dragonflight288]

When it comes to killing Howe, I think a lot of people argue from a far too modern point of view. In a medival feudal setting, such as in Dragon Age, the Rule of Law is much weaker than in a modern world. The victor writes the rules. This is because the rules are embodied much more by the ruler than by the law. It's true that if you break traditions, your peers may turn against you. For example, Loghain breaks the laws and traditions when he sells elves into slavery. This costs him esteem and votes at the Landsmeet, but there's no question of impeachment, prosecution or similar modern ideas.

Ultimately it's up to Anora to decide if what Howe did was treachery or not, and she choses to endorse his death, so justice is done. This why the game doesn't call upon us to consult the laws or a magister to decide if Loghain should live or not. At that particular moment, you, the Warden, ARE the law.

 

Except you end up in Fort Drakon almost immediaely after for murdering a nobleman in his house and slaughtering his men at arms. 

 

We escape, but those are the charges Cauthrian throws at us. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Except you end up in Fort Drakon almost immediaely after for murdering a nobleman in his house and slaughtering his men at arms. 

 

We escape, but those are the charges Cauthrian throws at us. 

Yes, but I think his point is that it's less the law that she's doing it to uphold and more Loghain's word. This is entirely consistent with the Warden not consulting a lawyer before executing Loghain, and almost nobody who isn't directly harmed by the Warden-Commander deciding to forgo rule of law objecting when the Warden-Commander does so during the court scene in Awakening.

[TEWR]

I'm not going to be up for much longer so I'll reply to some posts sometime tomorrow (evening most likely), but I can agree that a feudal society's people will end up usually looking out for themselves if they can, regardless of whether it's legal or not by the nation's legal system. There's no centralized government. This is the problem with feudalism. For example, try and muster an army without a clear chain of command and every bann would go out and try to defend their own lands from the Darkspawn.

 

you, the Warden, ARE the law.

 

 

However I still don't buy completely into this. Feudalism is not my area of expertise however (I'm learning though). Perhaps I'll discuss it a bit more in-depth tomorrow. 3 hours of sleep tends to make you not really focus on much of anything.

[KaiserShep]

Except you end up in Fort Drakon almost immediaely after for murdering a nobleman in his house and slaughtering his men at arms. 

 

We escape, but those are the charges Cauthrian throws at us. 

 

Only because the Warden either submits to Cauthrien or is defeated after trying to get past her and her men. My first Warden killed them all. Victory saw her charges dropped.

[Xilizhra]

Except you end up in Fort Drakon almost immediaely after for murdering a nobleman in his house and slaughtering his men at arms. 

 

We escape, but those are the charges Cauthrian throws at us. 

Assuming you lose the fight, of course. If you have someone who can cast Storm of the Century and Mana Clash, it isn't that hard.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Assuming you lose the fight, of course. If you have someone who can cast Storm of the Century and Mana Clash, it isn't that hard.

My usual strategy is to bring Cauthrien and the two men (iirc) who follow her into the room where Anora was kept, kill them all (this is the hardest part of the fight) and then hit and run whoever stayed behind killing one or two per attack. I hope the AI in Inquisition isn't improved, or else I might be in trouble.

[Xilizhra]

My usual strategy is to bring Cauthrien and the two men (iirc) who follow her into the room where Anora was kept, kill them all (this is the hardest part of the fight) and then hit and run whoever stayed behind killing one or two per attack. I hope the AI in Inquisition isn't improved, or else I might be in trouble.

You don't just use Storm of the Century to wipe out all the archers and Mana Clash to take out the mage?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

You don't just use Storm of the Century to wipe out all the archers and Mana Clash to take out the mage?

I only discovered how awesome Mana Clash is while playing Awakening, and I haven't touched the main campaign since I bought it. As for Storm of the Century, somehow I never both have that combo and decide to fight Cauthrien.

[sylvanaerie]

Meh I usually just use /killallhostiles.  

Yep, I cheat when I don't want to waste time in a battle I've done more times than I care to remember.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

And I feel bad about my use of the Fade Essence bug.

[Dabrikishaw]

Bug?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Well, I doubt I was meant to be able to get my level 10- Arcane Warrior up to 41 cunning by rapidly spam-clicking one essence.

[DinkyD]

<snip>

 

@DinkyD: As for the argument that we need to prove Loghain knew he was justified during a justified retreat? You're going to have to explain that one to me. If he was justified in retreating, it seems to me that he was justified in retreating, and never mind that it's not as difficult to believe that he could see the battlefield as you're trying to portray. Don't forget that he only needs to be able to see still advancing darkspawn or the king's lines in order to know more than your arguments assume he knows. And that it's not hard to assume he still needs the beacon in order to make sure that there are no darkspawn occluded from his field of vision. (Since there would need to be some cover on it.)

 

I'll try to explain what I mean because I think it's an interesting point. I think we're using justification in two different ways?

 

I don't think pushing a random man under a bus is justified by me finding a note on his body that tells of his own plans to murder loads of people; it can't justify my actions because it wasn't the reason I did it. I had no clue to it so it can't inform my moral decision making. It didn't cause me to act as I did. Justification is a case of Cause and Effect – A can't be said to justify B unless A caused B.

 

(If a jury let me off on those grounds, wouldn't they still wonder why I did it in the first place?)

 

Or – justification nothing to do with moral decision making. When I pushed that man under a bus the facts turned out in my favour, even through no agency of my own, I am justified by the outcome. So Loghain's reasons, beliefs or thought processes are irrelevant - he is justified, as long as the circumstances likewise turn in his favour. The good results are the justification, whatever his reasons for what he did.

 

Two different senses of justification here – I'm using it is the first sense – the one that implies moral agency and decision making. Others are using the second perhaps. If we are talking of whether Loghain deserves punishment, the moral agency one is most important I think? It's not justice to punish someone just because something didn't turn out the right way, although they acted in good faith. So, is it just for someone to escape punishment because it happened to go the right way?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

You know, you're right. If Loghain didn't know he was justified at the time, then he was doing something evil for evil reasons regardless of the good that came of it. On the other hand, this argument still works if we're dealing with legality than morality, and more specifically the legality of punishing him. If Loghain thought he could win and decided not to try because he wanted Cailan dead, he was doing a scummy thing. But he can argue that his actions broke no laws that were not outweighed by the quantifiable good his actions did, if whoever is making the judgement accepts, as you seem to, that it was necessary for him to do so.*

 

You are right to assert that it would be different if we knew that Loghain, as you assert, cannot see enough to know that he's justified. Intent does matter in law, which is why I'd like to note that I'm arguing the legality of punishing him in this hypothetical, not the legality of his actions. If we knew for a fact that Loghain thought he could win the battle, and acted to kill Cailan not knowing he was saving his army from annihilation, I would argue that Loghain was not morally or legally justified. On the other hand, the Warden still wouldn't know that, so as far as justifying the Warden in taking his head this argument wouldn't work without metagame knowledge. (Though the Warden might not think it through well enough to acknowledge he doesn't know this. Or he might put Loghain to death over the things he did that are somewhat harder to argue. Or because the only other option the game gives is to let Loghain into the camp he sleeps in, and the law takes a backseat to not dying. Or maybe the Warden just wants to placate Alistair; I've done that at least twice, notwithstanding that out-of-character I think it's a crap reason to kill someone.)

 

(This was long enough ago that I don't remember exactly what was going through my head at the time, but I think this was what I was trying to say.)

 

* Though now that I think about it my argument does require the law to be able to accept the affirmative defense of Necessity in cases of regicide, which is a combination most kings probably took a dim view of. So I'm probably arguing based on laws that should exist rather than laws that do.

[Lavaeolus]

Going by the wiki, actual Ferelden law seems pretty loose. They are, after all, the country that is one step up from barbarianism. Sure, murder and all that gets a look-in, but petty theft seems to be largely ignored. "As long-term imprisonment is frowned upon in general in Ferelden, punishment is often quick and violent. Common methods include public humiliation, whipping, disfigurement, fines and even executions."

 

The wiki is citing the Dragon Age tabletop RPG for that, though, so I can't vouch for whether it's accurate or even if we should take the RPG at its word.

[King Dragonlord]

Thanks to Loghain, I'm enjoying my more active lifestyle.