280 réponses à ce sujet

[The Gay Warden]

I felt that Cailon was an awful king, and that, honestly, Loghain could have done better--like he tried to acheive. I don't necessarily view Loghain as a bad guy. He quit the field at Ostagar, because he used his brain--something which Cailon was obviously lacking--and decided to save his men.

Is that so wrong?

Modifié par The Gay Warden, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:38 .

[Godak]

But Loghain didn't do better. In fact, he did really, really bad.



...Really bad.

[SusanStoHelit]

In my opinion - yes. Others will undoubtedly shriek agreement with you. He broke his oaths to his king and country - which I'm pretty sure didn't include "I'll support you, but only when it's logical to do so" or "...only when I feel it's right". He deliberately left the field so that the wardens would be destroyed, he didn't know that they'd lose, he just didn't give a sh*t. And if Cailan (note the spelling) had to die to get him what he wanted, then he was willing to pay the price.



What he did might (if you're a paranoid delusional) have been sensible and logical - it was also an utter and deliberate betrayal of his king and country - and an abandonment of his son-in-law.



Did he believe he was right? Almost certainly. Was he right? Emphatically not.



He didn't make his decision to 'save his men'. His reasons were political, not military.



I await howls of disagreement.

[beelzeybob]

Cailan never even had the chance to make a king... Anora was barren.



.. or he was, whatever.

[AnniLau]

Cailan is a bit of a spaz on the battlefield and that translates to 'bad king'?

Modifié par AnniLau, 23 janvier 2010 - 04:53 .

[The Gay Warden]

I still view Loghain as a Hero. He didn't betray his country, he tried to save it, though his ways of doign so were not the best.

[SusanStoHelit]

He took an oath. He broke it. That makes him a traitor - when he took the oath to a king.

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 23 janvier 2010 - 04:53 .

[Gold Dragon]

Loghain saved Ferelden, by BETRAYING it.



and he knew it, hence his willingness to not put up a fight after the duel.

[AnniLau]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Loghain saved Ferelden, by BETRAYING it.

That's some wacky logic right there.

[SusanStoHelit]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Loghain saved Ferelden, by BETRAYING it.

and he knew it, hence his willingness to not put up a fight after the duel.

Except he didn't save Ferelden. We did. The Grey Wardens did. Although I'll grant that Loghain thought he was saving Ferelden - or at least Ferelden as he wanted it to be. Ferelden independence was more important to him than Ferelden survival - or the survival of Ferelden's citizens.

[GmanFresh]

umm no. all generals are good for is war...useless in peace time...he was way to paranoid... orlais this or that.. anora di most of the work anyway and calin had the common touch...good stuff...

[Eruanna Guerrein]

The Gay Warden wrote...

I still view Loghain as a Hero. He didn't betray his country, he tried to save it, though his ways of doign so were not the best.

You think Cailan didn't try to save it? Loghain did nothing but cause more problems. Cailan's biggest fail was trying to be more than the king, namely a general. Loghain failed at being Cailan's general, at being Anora's father, at being regent, and at being reasonable.

[Gold Dragon]

Think about it. Had Loghain NOT withdrawn, how many Human soldiers would there be? Somewhat less than HALF of Ferelden's army.



Pretty much: Eamon's forces would be fighting the blight alone (along with whatever else the Grey Wardens recruited, of course).

[Ariella]

The Gay Warden wrote...

I felt that Cailon was an awful king, and that, honestly, Loghain could have done better--like he tried to acheive. I don't necessarily view Loghain as a bad guy. He quit the field at Ostagar, because he used his brain--something which Cailon was obviously lacking--and decided to save his men.

Is that so wrong?

There's been 5 years of stability and growth under Cailan, Loghain didn't do that. The fact of the matter is that Loghain screwed up. He started screwing up the moment he pushed Maric into killing Katriel. The only reason he actually became the "Hero of River Dane" was because Maric wasn't there, as he went and quietly dealt with Katriel's employer. Had Maric been leading the troops, Loghain probably would have been forgotten.

Had Cailan survived, he would have concluded a TRUE peace with Orlais. Loghain screwed it up, and he didn't save his men. He committed them to killing citizens of Fereldan, rather than the dark spawn. He lied to his king, villated his oaths to protect his people and his king, and all he does is try and rationalize it with "Orlais is EVIL!"

He's responsible for the deaths at Ostagar, all througout the south of Fereldan and al the deaths on both sides in the civl war.

Golden Dragon wrote:

Think about it. Had Loghain NOT withdrawn, how many Human soldiers would there be? Somewhat less than HALF of Ferelden's army.



Pretty
much: Eamon's forces would be fighting the blight alone (along with
whatever else the Grey Wardens recruited, of course).

Sorry, that's wrong, as not every noble had come to Ostagar. It wasn't just Eamon.


Sorry, but Loghain is an epic fail... period.

Modifié par Ariella, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:23 .

[Commander Alrix]

i dont think we saw enough of cailan to say how good of a king he was. for sure, you can see that he is maric's son by the way he talks and acts. the same goes for alistair. the three of them, collectively, are not great political kings or anything but they have that charm and easygoing attitude that makes them a "king of the people", and im pretty sure that exact phrase was used at least twice to describe both brothers at some point in the game.

i just thought anora was a ****. she would be loghain's daughter. although loghain was much more likable in the books...when he is a protagonist rather than an antagonist, i guess would be the reasoning there.

Modifié par Commander Alrix, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:21 .

[The Gay Warden]

There's no need to get out of hand, people. It's politics. In a VIDEO GAME.

Anyways, I still think Loghain would have made a better king than Cailon, had he been king already. Cailon was too cocky, too eager to become a hero... and if you've played RtO, you'd know why else he made an awful king. In my opinion at least.

Modifié par The Gay Warden, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:24 .

[fightright2]

Cailon's only fault was to trust Loghain. If Loghain had indeed flanked in when signaled, then I think the battle wouldn't have had the loss it had.

It's true Cailon wanted a glorious battle. But he wouldn't go so far to sending everyone to a useless effort to achieve it. He really believed being outnumbered had nothing on brave men willing to fight for their survival. And he truly believed that good would be stronger over darkness.

But most of all he was not a murdering, poisoning, backstabbing, lying, malicious, power hungry ****



Loghain sought power to achieve his own glory. He believed true victory could only be gained by his hand only. Loghain's lust for power was fueled by his ego and arrogance.



He believed that only he could unite Ferelden and it had to be under him only. He was dubious in giving his agreement to be depended on. And furthermore, he went and sent Jowan to poison the Arl of Redcliffe to achieve that power. He apparently already conspired with Howe ahead of time. Both were conspirators against the king and murderers for what they did.

Claiming to save his people as the reason to abandon the king and all those depending on him and his men was just a cover up.

I mean he could have told the king that he would not be there so don't count him in. But instead he said he would. What a backstabber. And for what? He didn't do it to save his people. That's a big lie he said to cover up what he was really doing. That claim was to gain the trust of all the people that didn't know the truth.



They called him a savior and all along he is just motivated by power lust, he sent Howe to murder your father who would know what a traitorous act (he was planning to do) abandoning the king really was and would never side with Loghain after that.

If it were not for your own skill, Howe and Loghain would have had you dead along with your parents.



And if that isn't enough, he allowed Howe to imprison Anora. He was willing to have his own daughter put to death and my guess he would have covered that up as welll, acting the grieved father.

How much more does it take to convince you that he was a real bad guy?

Kill anyone and everyone that does not side with you because you believe that you are the only one that can run the country. Including your own daughter who loves you dearly. Geesh.

[Celuwen]

I'm one of those weird folk that believe Cailan was more on the ball than most folk realised. I think he felt forced into marrying Anora (this was done so soon after Maric was killed). He obviously (according to Anora) had ladies on the side. I do wonder if he and Anora ever really had sex. I think they were pretty much raised together. I'm not sure it was so much she was barren, more that they were just not feeling the love. Or maybe he didn't want a child Loghain could control.



As for Cailan, he insisted you take Alistair with you to that tower and he knew that he was his brother. I do think he was trying to save him in some way.



I'm not saying he wasn't all "Ooh Glory!" and "Swords are pretty!" but I do think, just like Alistair, there was more going on under the surface.



I do, however, think he was a pretty crappy King.

[AnniLau]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Think about it. Had Loghain NOT withdrawn, how many Human soldiers would there be? Somewhat less than HALF of Ferelden's army.

And if we hadn't bopped around raising our armies, his human soldiers would have been ALL there was. He meant for the Grey Wardens to die, which would have made those treaties useless.

[fightright2]

The Gay Warden wrote...

There's no need to get out of hand, people. It's politics. In a VIDEO GAME.

You asked a question. We answered.

[The Gay Warden]

I like the answers too. But then there's the posters who diss other posters for what they believe in. Can we not just all agree that we have different opinions? What's the point of calling other people out on theirs?

Modifié par The Gay Warden, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:31 .

[The Gay Warden]

Double post

Modifié par The Gay Warden, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:31 .

[SusanStoHelit]

AnniLau wrote...

And if we hadn't bopped around raising our armies, his human soldiers would have been ALL there was. He meant for the Grey Wardens to die, which would have made those treaties useless.

Indeed, if we'd died as Loghain planned - and tried again with Zevran - there would've been no treaties and no allies. And the country would've stayed torn with civil war, each side being decimated until someone won. And the remnants would not have sufficed to stop the blight and the archdemon - far less Loghain's much feared Orlesian invasion if it ever eventuated.

[Gold Dragon]

P.S. I don't say that I condone Loghain's Actions. And had Loghain attacked as ordered, the next battle would have overwhelmed the Ferelden Forces at Ostagar, and Cailan wouldn't have retreated after several victories, would he?

Yes, Loghain committed Treason. Yes, he killed more of Ferelden's people than he did of the Darkspawn. Yes, he weakened the Grey Wardens to the point that it was concievably possible that they would fail, destroying Ferelden entirely, AND giving Orlais the Lands that originally were Ferelden.

But his actions did ensure that there was still a chance that Ferelden COULD be saved.

EDIT:  THe survival of the Wardens was because of Flemeth.  Loghain had actually planned TOO well, not to mention gotten a bit lucky, for the newest Wardens to escape....

Modifié par A Golden Dragon, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:33 .

[The Gay Warden]

I agree with Dragon. Without Loghain's treason, Ferelden would have been lost.