3201 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryriena]

Found it! Here is what it says:

"It was actually confirmed via the Bioware Devs on Twitter that Loghain had no idea about the slavery; the Tevinter magisters created the "Plague" in the Alienage, and Loghain authorized the removal of the sick elves in the belief that the magisters could cure them of said plague and because that's what you often had to do in such communities in the past; either remove the sick ones and limit the spread of the disease, or doom everyone to a slow and painful death.
Only later (albeit before the Landsmeet, in which he creates a great speech about it all being "necessary" for the war) did he truly understand who he had been dealing with."

AND

"David Gaider's own words on Loghain going to Ostagar & more (accessed on the Bioware Dragon Age forums, thread name "The Complete Defense of Loghain Mac Tir") was as follows:
"In my mind, Loghain did not go to Ostagar expecting to walk away from the battle. It was clear, however, that he and Cailan were already having profound disagreements -- mainly centering on Cailan's overtures to Orlais. Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that. I think he was doing what Loghain does, and trying to ensure that if that moment of confrontation with Cailan came the battle was already won."

"That said, he had been fighting the darkspawn for some time in the south with Cailan there, and had already seen what Cailan was capable of. I think he made preparations prior to that last battle for the possibility that he would have to walk away. He once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom. Whether that error in judgement condemns him right there is up to you."

"There is also the matter of his association with Arl Howe, someone Loghain evidences great distaste for -- but politics makes for strange bedfellows, as they say. In my mind, Loghain always thought that Howe was an ally completely under his control and was probably never able to admit even to himself how much Howe was able to manipulate him. Howe acted on a great number of things without Loghain's involvement or approval, but by then the two were already in bed together -- Loghain was committed, as it were, and after Ostagar doubly so. For all his faults, Loghain is not a man to waver once a decision is made -- good or bad. The only reason he gives up, in the end, is because he sees that there is someone else beside himself who can save Ferelden, someone who hasn't made the mistakes he has. The burden does not rest entirely on his shoulders -- which, yes, is how he feels."

"The darkspawn forces were getting stronger with each engagement. Loghain knew that, and knew that it wasn't going to keep being so easy. I would say that he knew what might happen the minute Cailan made his absymal strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day. In my mind, Loghain still wasn't certain that he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Certainly the darkspawn horde at the last battle was far bigger than anyone had anticipated.""

So they are trying to turn him in too pasty type charcter? I mean come on at least show it inside the game. They are trying to make his Charcter into a pasty, come on now.

[Ryriena]

Found it! Here is what it says:

"It was actually confirmed via the Bioware Devs on Twitter that Loghain had no idea about the slavery; the Tevinter magisters created the "Plague" in the Alienage, and Loghain authorized the removal of the sick elves in the belief that the magisters could cure them of said plague and because that's what you often had to do in such communities in the past; either remove the sick ones and limit the spread of the disease, or doom everyone to a slow and painful death.
Only later (albeit before the Landsmeet, in which he creates a great speech about it all being "necessary" for the war) did he truly understand who he had been dealing with."

AND

"David Gaider's own words on Loghain going to Ostagar & more (accessed on the Bioware Dragon Age forums, thread name "The Complete Defense of Loghain Mac Tir") was as follows:
"In my mind, Loghain did not go to Ostagar expecting to walk away from the battle. It was clear, however, that he and Cailan were already having profound disagreements -- mainly centering on Cailan's overtures to Orlais. Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that. I think he was doing what Loghain does, and trying to ensure that if that moment of confrontation with Cailan came the battle was already won."

"That said, he had been fighting the darkspawn for some time in the south with Cailan there, and had already seen what Cailan was capable of. I think he made preparations prior to that last battle for the possibility that he would have to walk away. He once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom. Whether that error in judgement condemns him right there is up to you."

"There is also the matter of his association with Arl Howe, someone Loghain evidences great distaste for -- but politics makes for strange bedfellows, as they say. In my mind, Loghain always thought that Howe was an ally completely under his control and was probably never able to admit even to himself how much Howe was able to manipulate him. Howe acted on a great number of things without Loghain's involvement or approval, but by then the two were already in bed together -- Loghain was committed, as it were, and after Ostagar doubly so. For all his faults, Loghain is not a man to waver once a decision is made -- good or bad. The only reason he gives up, in the end, is because he sees that there is someone else beside himself who can save Ferelden, someone who hasn't made the mistakes he has. The burden does not rest entirely on his shoulders -- which, yes, is how he feels."

"The darkspawn forces were getting stronger with each engagement. Loghain knew that, and knew that it wasn't going to keep being so easy. I would say that he knew what might happen the minute Cailan made his absymal strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day. In my mind, Loghain still wasn't certain that he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Certainly the darkspawn horde at the last battle was far bigger than anyone had anticipated.""

[Natureguy85]

Found it! Here is what it says:

 

"It was actually confirmed via the Bioware Devs on Twitter that Loghain had no idea about the slavery; the Tevinter magisters created the "Plague" in the Alienage, and Loghain authorized the removal of the sick elves in the belief that the magisters could cure them of said plague and because that's what you often had to do in such communities in the past; either remove the sick ones and limit the spread of the disease, or doom everyone to a slow and painful death.

Only later (albeit before the Landsmeet, in which he creates a great speech about it all being "necessary" for the war) did he truly understand who he had been dealing with."

 

 

If that's how they wanted the character to be, that needs to come up in a conversation or lore note. If they just say it behind the scenes, then it's bs because Loghain justifies and stands by it in the game.

 

I agree that he didn't go to Ostagar planning to abandon Cailan. That decision was made during the strategy meeting you attend.

[dragonflight288]

Whether we like it or not, whether the lore supports it or not, it is the word of Gaider, lead writer. 

 

For those fans of the game who don't bother reading up on his words, or looking for things beyond the games like the novels, there is a lot that can be missed, and sometimes, I almost prefer having that ignorance as it allows me as a gamer to form my own opinions based on my understanding of the codex entries, in-game events and dialogues. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

If that's how they wanted the character to be, that needs to come up in a conversation or lore note. If they just say it behind the scenes, then it's bs because Loghain justifies and stands by it in the game.

 

I agree that he didn't go to Ostagar planning to abandon Cailan. That decision was made during the strategy meeting you attend.

Well, Loghain lightly implies during RtO that he wasn't yet sure he was going to abandon Cailan until the beacon went up, which works fairly well with the Word of Gaider. Hence why I said that that bit of WoG works for me. It's the slavery bit I agree with you on.

[-TC1989-]

The only time I am comfortable with sparing  Loghain is when I'm playing as a Cousland who wants to become king.  Keeping Anora happy is more important than appeasing Alistair, especially since Loghain will ultimately die killing the Archdemon.  It's unfortunate that  Alistair won't listen to reason, but I suppose his stubbornness is what makes it a difficult decision.  If the Warden has no option to become king, however, then there is no reason to support Anora and thus Loghain's life is forfeit.  Although I think that Anora is a far better ruler than Alistair could ever be, I don't play as patriotic Wardens, and whoever rules Ferelden is very low on their list of priorities.

 

The bottom line is that since either Alistair or Loghain will die killing the Archdemon, it doesn't really matter to me which of them survives the Landsmeet.  It really just comes down to whether or not Anora's satisfaction with the outcome is a factor.

 

For me, that actually makes the decision easier. If Alistair is that prepared to let Ferelden die simply because Loghain is allowed to live, then to hell with Alistair. We are in the middle of a freaking war, and he gets all pissy over this?! I understand Loghain has low morals, but good lord man... what does that say about you? I don't love the man either, but you're telling me he has no worth against the war moving forward? In this part of the game, I actually came to hate Alistair.... let the (eventual) drunk rot. Regardless if I was a Cousland or not, Loghains military experience would be invaluable in the end game.

 

And yes the bottom line is either one of them would die killing the Archdemon, but I hate playing with the mindset that I know what's going to happen. I try to play as close to the moment as I can without thinking too far ahead. And every time I come down to that decision, I'm just shaking my head at Alistair... I can't help it.

[Natureguy85]

For me, that actually makes the decision easier. If Alistair is that prepared to let Ferelden die simply because Loghain is allowed to live, then to hell with Alistair. We are in the middle of a freaking war, and he gets all pissy over this?! I understand Loghain has low morals, but good lord man... what does that say about you? I don't love the man either, but you're telling me he has no worth against the war moving forward? In this part of the game, I actually came to hate Alistair.... let the (eventual) drunk rot. Regardless if I was a Cousland or not, Loghains military experience would be invaluable in the end game.

 

And yes the bottom line is either one of them would die killing the Archdemon, but I hate playing with the mindset that I know what's going to happen. I try to play as close to the moment as I can without thinking too far ahead. And every time I come down to that decision, I'm just shaking my head at Alistair... I can't help it.

 

I see where you are coming from, but I saw it as putting an end to the civil strife.

[Natureguy85]

Well, Loghain lightly implies during RtO that he wasn't yet sure he was going to abandon Cailan until the beacon went up, which works fairly well with the Word of Gaider. Hence why I said that that bit of WoG works for me. It's the slavery bit I agree with you on.

 

Was there a note in RtO? I don't remember. That's better, but what clued me in is the way Loghain talks at the very end of the meeting. His lines are laced with a hidden agenda. That's why I chose that moment.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Was there a note in RtO? I don't remember. That's better, but what clued me in is the way Loghain talks at the very end of the meeting. His lines are laced with a hidden agenda. That's why I chose that moment.

During RtO, Loghain sticks by his defense of his actions at Ostagar, namely "It was him or all of us." While that seems like the sort of thing he'd be planning starting immediately after Cailan's idiocy becomes the most obvious, it seems like the sort of decision you'd want to know as much as possible before committing to. That, plus Loghain's utter surety that Wynne won't be able to gainsay what he says about the battlefield, (and the fact that she can't) strikes me as evidence that he made that decision in context of the exact situation on the ground. (None of that is strong evidence that, but taken together it strikes me as fairly decent.)

[-TC1989-]

I see where you are coming from, but I saw it as putting an end to the civil strife.

 

Oh sure, they are both big problems. But I would rather take care of the Darkspawn threat first. The threat leaving death and destruction across the nation. But after all that, then I would definitely take care of the other problem. I'm not saying give him a slap on the wrist, and forget he did nothing wrong.... but think about the man being put to the sword, the man that could (hypothetically) change the course of the war. I don't want to make it sound like we win or lose with/without him, but you have to be kidding if you don't think he would be invaluable against the Darkspawn.

 

The way that Alistair threw that hissy fit over that was just.... despicable. I know it was about Duncan and blah blah, but you know Duncan was thinking "Would you please shut up? The war is bigger than this"

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Oh sure, they are both big problems. But I would rather take care of the Darkspawn threat first.

If the Civil strife is not handled, there's not much to do. The crown and the areas directly effected by the Blight (plus the areas that the army that would handle it would need to move through) need to be on the same page to handle the Blight.

[Natureguy85]

Whether we like it or not, whether the lore supports it or not, it is the word of Gaider, lead writer. 

 

For those fans of the game who don't bother reading up on his words, or looking for things beyond the games like the novels, there is a lot that can be missed, and sometimes, I almost prefer having that ignorance as it allows me as a gamer to form my own opinions based on my understanding of the codex entries, in-game events and dialogues. 

As I said with Mass Effect, the games are the Primary source, and I should not have to look to outside, secondary sources for the plot to make sense. Background and side stuff is fine, but anything of major importance should be in the games. I suppose Loghain's motivations aren't that plot integral so maybe it's fine.

 

As for the lead writer's words, if he says something that isn't in his actual writing, that's a problem.

 

Oh sure, they are both big problems. But I would rather take care of the Darkspawn threat first. The threat leaving death and destruction across the nation. But after all that, then I would definitely take care of the other problem. I'm not saying give him a slap on the wrist, and forget he did nothing wrong.... but think about the man being put to the sword, the man that could (hypothetically) change the course of the war. I don't want to make it sound like we win or lose with/without him, but you have to be kidding if you don't think he would be invaluable against the Darkspawn.

 

The way that Alistair threw that hissy fit over that was just.... despicable. I know it was about Duncan and blah blah, but you know Duncan was thinking "Would you please shut up? The war is bigger than this"

 

The way I understood the plot, the civil strife was preventing the country from uniting against the darkspawn. As dumb as that sounds, it's common in writing if not reality. Look at all the races in Mass Effect making you solve their problems before they will help against the life annihilating abominations.

[-TC1989-]

If the Civil strife is not handled, there's not much to do. The crown and the areas directly effected by the Blight (plus the areas that the army that would handle it need to move through) need to be on the same page to handle the Blight.

 

Sure, but I was referring to the Alistair/Loghain scuffle specifically. Also considering at that point I had already united everyone, so that part was sort of out of the way.

 

 

The way I understood the plot, the civil strife was preventing the country from uniting against the darkspawn. As dumb as that sounds, it's common in writing if not reality. Look at all the races in Mass Effect making you solve their problems before they will help against the life annihilating abominations.

 

Nah, it's not dumb at all. And I guess it was similar, even if in Mass Effects case, were talking about species, and not lands in one country. But yeah everyone needs to know that they're following the right idea going forward. But the way I see it is, let's get the mindless zombies out of the way first, before we choose who leads what.

[gottaloveme]

What's written and out there shouldn't be messed with. It becomes a world in which the gamer immerses themself and becomes a world of theirs rather than the writer's. The gamers give it the backstory and emotional colouring and fill in the holes. Novels, anime, graphic novels all well and good so long as they don't mess with the game story.

 

Putting that together in my playthroughs Loghain was an arse that betrayed his King. Justify his actions or not by all means. His part of the plan was set, people were relying on him. If we follow the mediaeval feel of the time then kings were annointed by God to rule (no. not Gaider) or in Ferelden's case the Maker. Didn't stop betrayal or rebellion, just that if the malcontent lost the fight, they also lost their head.

 

Mostly those ideas are outdated and so we feel that justification or not proves traitorous intent or not. And now it's time to stop because I'm losing track of my point.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The problem I see with Loghain and why I don't believe a "second chance" or "chance at redemption" is the right move is because in order to find redemption or a second chance one has to be sorry. As evidenced by his speech in the Landsmeet, he is not. There is no redemption for someone who continues to believe the misery he brought was right and/or justified.

His last words if you give him the US are evidence to the contrary. (Edit: Or were you talking RP-wise, as far as actually making the decision?)

 

 

If we follow the mediaeval feel of the time then kings were annointed by God to rule (no. not Gaider) or in Ferelden's case the Maker.

That's explicitly not the way it is in Ferelden, though. The Codex makes clear that Ferelden is a place where the ruling class is responsible to the people (assuming the ears of the people in question are the correct shape,) as a counterpoint to the more traditional medieval outlook of Orlais.

[Aimi]

During RtO, Loghain sticks by his defense of his actions at Ostagar, namely "It was him or all of us." While that seems like the sort of thing he'd be planning starting immediately after Cailan's idiocy becomes the most obvious, it seems like the sort of decision you'd want to know as much as possible before committing to. That, plus Loghain's utter surety that Wynne won't be able to gainsay what he says about the battlefield, (and the fact that she can't) strikes me as evidence that he made that decision in context of the exact situation on the ground. (None of that is strong evidence that, but taken together it strikes me as fairly decent.)

I'm not sure how good of a source Return to Ostagar is, because it changes a great deal about some basic characterizations in the game. Zevran's disapproval for burning Cailan's body, for example, makes no sense: he's generally willing to go along with almost anything and has few strong approval changes in game for the Hero's actions. In Origins, Wynne was not reticent about discussing her past love life, but she was never anything other than motherly (or grandmotherly) in the "present" with the members of the party; in Return to Ostagar, she and Alistair flirt with each other. (I especially don't understand that, because Sheryl Chee - Wynne's writer - was one of the two credited writers on the DLC.) And then there's this Loghain stuff.

It's also kind of bizarre how, outside of Return to Ostagar, no one suggests that the battle was already lost except Loghain himself. But in the DLC, we get Elric, Alistair, Wynne, and Loghain - the only four voiced characters with extended roles - all suggesting, with varying degrees of certainty, that Cailan and the Wardens were doomed. How does that match with, for example, Alistair's comments at Flemeth's hut, or at the Landsmeet? (Let alone the logical problems...) The dissonance between the main game and Return to Ostagar there is quite jarring.

I mean, on one level, Return to Ostagar is part of the same game as Origins; it's not like how Gaider's quoted comments are entirely separate from the games. But like Gaider's comments, Return to Ostagar promotes an entirely alternative explanation to the way things were in the vanilla game. I'm uncomfortable with simply rejecting the parts of the games I don't like: the story isn't mine to decide. But...well...

What annoys me the most about this stuff is that the vanilla game worked perfectly well in this respect. There were people who said that the Battle of Ostagar was winnable, and there was a person who said that it wasn't. None of the people was a trustworthy source, and more importantly, none of them was in a position to know. The matter was left open: the player was not unduly pushed toward a particular interpretation. Even Loghain, who was demonized plenty during the game, could be recruited and, after a fashion, try in a limited way to justify certain of his actions. All sides of the discussion were represented in the game, and had a voice.

But for awhile, starting with Return to Ostagar, it seems like the terms were shifted: few materials or statements left the matter so open-ended. The DLC had all of the characters acting like defeat was a foregone conclusion. Gaider's subsequent forum posts played the same role: it's hard to construe references to "Cailan's idiocy" any other way. It's not a discussion with multiple valid sides if one side is explicitly described as being stupid by the game's lead writer. Hell, he might as well have said that the player was a fool for ever opposing Loghain.

I suppose this may be what comes of trying to make the setting more morally gray. The thing is that it was already plenty gray. The Stolen Throne and The Calling - both of which came out before the game - painted Loghain in largely sympathetic colors. His patriotism was not simply the last refuge of the scoundrel, and his suspicions of Orlesian plots were not without precedent. He was a decorated war hero. He did have military instincts - and they were portrayed in the same way as BioWare writing has generally painted those of sympathetic soldiers: the subordinate commander who knows better than a superior and who eventually strikes out on his own in order to prove he's correct. And on the other side of the ledger, the game does not show Cailan as a sober-minded military commander, and both the game and the books paint the Wardens as rather less than unvarnished, trustworthy heroes.

I don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing that subsequent references have shifted the other way. Dragon Age 2 seemed to swing the pendulum all the way past the Origins baseline: Varric outright describes Ostagar as a betrayal, and Aveline says the same thing while adding that the only reason the darkspawn won was because of the "betrayal". The only character who even implies differently is Carver, and the implication isn't even particularly strong. DA2's story is only concerned with Ostagar in a very peripheral sense, and the participants who discuss it aren't exactly as crucial to the action there as were Loghain and the Hero. Maybe that's why it never seems to come up in the threads as ammo for one side or another.

Ah, well. I'm heartily sick of Ostagar by now.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

It's also kind of bizarre how, outside of Return to Ostagar, no one suggests that the battle was already lost except Loghain himself. But in the DLC, we get Elric, Alistair, Wynne, and Loghain - the only four voiced characters with extended roles - all suggesting, with varying degrees of certainty, that Cailan and the Wardens were doomed. How does that match with, for example, Alistair's comments at Flemeth's hut, or at the Landsmeet? (Let alone the logical problems...) The dissonance between the main game and Return to Ostagar there is quite jarring.

I don't remember Alistair saying anything at Ostagar that made me suspect that he wasn't sure of what he'd said at Flemeth's hut. I do remember not ten minutes of gameplay before that thing at Flemeth's hut, when Alistair said that they'd surely missed the signal that struck me as presumably meaning something kinda important, and having been forewarned of Loghain's betrayal I said "Oh, here it comes." Then Alistair said his lines at Flemeth's hut, and I go, "Hold up, what?"

 

I also remember later, being shown a column of darkspawn that from my admittedly shaky estimate of scale seems to stretch for miles, and looking it up in my own game. I don't see any evidence in the game to suggest that the numbers exist to take that army down (at least not in Ferelden), though I will note that pulling out of Ostagar doesn't seem to have granted much of an improvement in the situation except insofar as there was a Keystone piece for the inhuman horde in the form of the Archdemon. (Which Loghain could not have seen coming.)

 

The point is, though, that going off the vanilla game as a standalone unit with no other knowledge of the series, it's still not as clear cut as you're describing. (Edit: "It" refers to Ostagar, mind you. A lot of the rest of it is pretty clearly reprehensible.)

[Natureguy85]

I'm not sure how good of a source Return to Ostagar is, because it changes a great deal about some basic characterizations in the game. Zevran's disapproval for burning Cailan's body, for example, makes no sense: he's generally willing to go along with almost anything and has few strong approval changes in game for the Hero's actions. In Origins, Wynne was not reticent about discussing her past love life, but she was never anything other than motherly (or grandmotherly) in the "present" with the members of the party; in Return to Ostagar, she and Alistair flirt with each other. (I especially don't understand that, because Sheryl Chee - Wynne's writer - was one of the two credited writers on the DLC.) And then there's this Loghain stuff.

It's also kind of bizarre how, outside of Return to Ostagar, no one suggests that the battle was already lost except Loghain himself. But in the DLC, we get Elric, Alistair, Wynne, and Loghain - the only four voiced characters with extended roles - all suggesting, with varying degrees of certainty, that Cailan and the Wardens were doomed. How does that match with, for example, Alistair's comments at Flemeth's hut, or at the Landsmeet? (Let alone the logical problems...) The dissonance between the main game and Return to Ostagar there is quite jarring.

I mean, on one level, Return to Ostagar is part of the same game as Origins; it's not like how Gaider's quoted comments are entirely separate from the games. But like Gaider's comments, Return to Ostagar promotes an entirely alternative explanation to the way things were in the vanilla game. I'm uncomfortable with simply rejecting the parts of the games I don't like: the story isn't mine to decide. But...well...

What annoys me the most about this stuff is that the vanilla game worked perfectly well in this respect. There were people who said that the Battle of Ostagar was winnable, and there was a person who said that it wasn't. None of the people was a trustworthy source, and more importantly, none of them was in a position to know. The matter was left open: the player was not unduly pushed toward a particular interpretation. Even Loghain, who was demonized plenty during the game, could be recruited and, after a fashion, try in a limited way to justify certain of his actions. All sides of the discussion were represented in the game, and had a voice.

But for awhile, starting with Return to Ostagar, it seems like the terms were shifted: few materials or statements left the matter so open-ended. The DLC had all of the characters acting like defeat was a foregone conclusion. Gaider's subsequent forum posts played the same role: it's hard to construe references to "Cailan's idiocy" any other way. It's not a discussion with multiple valid sides if one side is explicitly described as being stupid by the game's lead writer. Hell, he might as well have said that the player was a fool for ever opposing Loghain.

I suppose this may be what comes of trying to make the setting more morally gray. The thing is that it was already plenty gray. The Stolen Throne and The Calling - both of which came out before the game - painted Loghain in largely sympathetic colors. His patriotism was not simply the last refuge of the scoundrel, and his suspicions of Orlesian plots were not without precedent. He was a decorated war hero. He did have military instincts - and they were portrayed in the same way as BioWare writing has generally painted those of sympathetic soldiers: the subordinate commander who knows better than a superior and who eventually strikes out on his own in order to prove he's correct. And on the other side of the ledger, the game does not show Cailan as a sober-minded military commander, and both the game and the books paint the Wardens as rather less than unvarnished, trustworthy heroes.

I don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing that subsequent references have shifted the other way. Dragon Age 2 seemed to swing the pendulum all the way past the Origins baseline: Varric outright describes Ostagar as a betrayal, and Aveline says the same thing while adding that the only reason the darkspawn won was because of the "betrayal". The only character who even implies differently is Carver, and the implication isn't even particularly strong. DA2's story is only concerned with Ostagar in a very peripheral sense, and the participants who discuss it aren't exactly as crucial to the action there as were Loghain and the Hero. Maybe that's why it never seems to come up in the threads as ammo for one side or another.

Ah, well. I'm heartily sick of Ostagar by now.

 

Very well thought out. The only thing I will add is that characters might have a perspective, such as Aveline thinking the battle was winnable, but they could be wrong. Your strongest character point is those who seem to change their mind between vanilla and DLC.

[Natureguy85]

I am so sick and tired of Dev tweets that apparently want to paint Loghain with more of a tragic hero brush, now, instead of a villain.

 

Should all in-game evidence be ignored?

 

- Berwick says he was hired by Howe but added Howe was Loghain's right hand

- Irminric says he was taken by Loghain's men

- Jowan says he was hired by Loghain personally

- Zevran says he was hired by Loghain

- Oswyn says they were ordered to retreat early

- Bann Telmen's land is being seized by Loghain.

 

And, most befitting of the above quote, Caladrius says he has been in talks with Loghain and says that recently the name of the Warden has surpassed even Gold in value. Devera says in regards to the slavery issue that they have been given "dispensation to do their business"..."You Fereldens talk a great deal about how wrong slavery is, isn't it funny how the smell of gold can overcome such ideals." Are we supposed to believe Loghain either did not know Caladrius was a magister or perhaps did not know what type of magic was practiced in Tevinter? Or possibly Loghain just thought the kind, friendly archer, with the great-looking bow, was taking the elves to a better place? Please.

 

All of that doesn't touch the fact that he claims the role of regent. Anora is first of all not a child. There was no regent that is known in-game when Cailan ruled, and, Anora is older than Cailan.

 

Varric's narration in the beginning of the second installment says that Cailan was "betrayed by his most trusted general" the artwork shown is dark, tragic and clearly leaves no room for interpretation.

 

The problem I see with Loghain and why I don't believe a "second chance" or "chance at redemption" is the right move is because in order to find redemption or a second chance one has to be sorry. As evidenced by his speech in the Landsmeet, he is not. There is no redemption for someone who continues to believe the misery he brought was right and/or justified.

 

Well said. As I pointed out, Loghain immediately justifies the slavery. There is no surprise or betrayal in his voice or lines.

[dragonflight288]

Oh sure, they are both big problems. But I would rather take care of the Darkspawn threat first. The threat leaving death and destruction across the nation. But after all that, then I would definitely take care of the other problem. I'm not saying give him a slap on the wrist, and forget he did nothing wrong.... but think about the man being put to the sword, the man that could (hypothetically) change the course of the war. I don't want to make it sound like we win or lose with/without him, but you have to be kidding if you don't think he would be invaluable against the Darkspawn.

 

The way that Alistair threw that hissy fit over that was just.... despicable. I know it was about Duncan and blah blah, but you know Duncan was thinking "Would you please shut up? The war is bigger than this"

 

In the mage origin, the Warden can ask Duncan's opinion on blood magic, and Duncan's response to that is probably also an equally good response to Loghain living.

 

"I believe we need to defeat the Darkspawn, one way or another."

[Han Shot First]

... Really? I mean, I can see evidence in game for the Ostagar stuff, but this just strikes me as just made up after the fact and not really supported by the game itself.

 

I'm not surprised. They did the same thing with Alistair's mother being Fiona instead of Goldanna's mother. The game says one thing, Twitter canon says another. 

 

Once a game establishes something as canon, leave it alone. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'm not surprised. They did the same thing with Alistair's mother being Fiona instead of Goldanna's mother. The game says one thing, Twitter canon says another. 

 

Once a game establishes something as canon, leave it alone. 

The "Goldanna's mother" thing is less egregious. At least the only evidence we have of that in the game is the word of someone who could credibly not know, ie Alistair himself. (Unless Loghain or Eamon said something about the mother that I missed?) This thing with the slavery, on the other hand? This sounds like it's the sort of condition that would have come up in game, while Loghain is explaining the plot of Origins up to that point from his POV in response to your post-Landsmeet interrogation. At the very least he should be arguing less passionately that this dirty business he didn't know was being done on his behalf was necessary.

[-TC1989-]

In the mage origin, the Warden can ask Duncan's opinion on blood magic, and Duncan's response to that is probably also an equally good response to Loghain living.

 

"I believe we need to defeat the Darkspawn, one way or another."

 

Exactly. I think initially as a Warden I say kill the Darkspawn, but then I thought about it politically. Only fools argue about ruling the cabin while it burns down around them. In this case I saw a similar situation. Alistair whining about morals, and justice of one man, and people arguing about who should lead Ferelden. In my head I'm thinking... why the hell does this matter right now? We need to stomp out the threat killing, and poisoning our lands. Lets handle that, and then talk about this in a calm, logical manner. I would think by the time of the Landsmeet, everyone is aware just how bad the Darkspawn situation has gotten. The Darkspawn aren't like wars with Orlais or something, it's fighting feral creatures. They don't give a crap who's leading, or that were trying to handle a civil war. I know it's not technically the right way of going about it, but how often do we take on a threat like this? I just don't see the point of getting holed up in a castle, and pointing fingers.

 

I make a strong push for Loghain, because despite what he's done recently, he is still very respected. People listen to him, and would fight for him in war. Not to mention he has a brilliant military mind, and is still a very capable fighter. I just don't see the point to just kill him, and waste his skill for the fight that's ahead. I understand people's argument if they are going about it personally, but at the moment, we can't get caught up in making big decisions based on personal feelings. It's not about making it up to poor Alistair, it's what can we use against the Darkspawn?

[Natureguy85]

Exactly. I think initially as a Warden I say kill the Darkspawn, but then I thought about it politically. Only fools argue about ruling the cabin while it burns down around them. In this case I saw a similar situation. Alistair whining about morals, and justice of one man, and people arguing about who should lead Ferelden. In my head I'm thinking... why the hell does this matter right now? We need to stomp out the threat killing, and poisoning our lands. Lets handle that, and then talk about this in a calm, logical manner. I would think by the time of the Landsmeet, everyone is aware just how bad the Darkspawn situation has gotten. The Darkspawn aren't like wars with Orlais or something, it's fighting feral creatures. They don't give a crap who's leading, or that were trying to handle a civil war. I know it's not technically the right way of going about it, but how often do we take on a threat like this? I just don't see the point of getting holed up in a castle, and pointing fingers.

 

The problem is that Loghain doesn't follow that mantra either. Does it bother you that he refuses reinforcements just because they come from Orlais? That he betrayed his King so he could take over? That he poisons an Arl with a large army for political reasons?

[Han Shot First]

The "Goldanna's mother" thing is less egregious. At least the only evidence we have of that in the game is the word of someone who could credibly not know, ie Alistair himself. (Unless Loghain or Eamon said something about the mother that I missed?) This thing with the slavery, on the other hand? This sounds like it's the sort of condition that would have come up in game, while Loghain is explaining the plot of Origins up to that point from his POV in response to your post-Landsmeet interrogation. At the very least he should be arguing less passionately that this dirty business he didn't know was being done on his behalf was necessary.

 

The Fiona/Goldanna thing has similar problems in that if you recruit Loghain, he says that Maric said he didn't acknowledge Alistair as son for fear of turning Rowan into a concubine in the eyes of the people of Ferelden. The problem there is that Rowan was already long dead when Maric first met Fiona. He was unmarried at the time and a dead woman can't be reduced to the status of concubine. Loghain's dialogue in DA:O implied that Alistair was born while Rowan still lived. The whole Fiona retcon has timeline issues and creates problems with both Alistair and Loghain's dialogue implying that Alistair had been conceived through infidelity.