280 réponses à ce sujet

[earl of the north]

Xandurpein wrote...

earl of the north wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

earl of the north wrote...
...and the murder of the Couslands to reduce the voices of dissent before he takes control.

That was all Howes idea.

Maybe, Howe certainly benefits......but Loghain has to have a hand in it as well, the murder of a powerful noble family wouldn't have convinced the nobles that Loghain wasn't just seizing power.  It was more likely to cause civil war (after all who's next) rather than prevent one, which is what Loghain wants after all...inept as he is, he isn't trying to start a civil war. 

David Gaider has explained that Howe killed the Couslands before he allied with Loghain, even if Loghain certainly knew about it when he allied himself with Howe.

Strange that, because it would mean Howe expected King Calian not to act against him after he killed one of the King's main allies and that Loghain planned to poison Arl Eamon himself (since both happened just before Ostagar)......which I'd say was more Howe's style.

I suppose Howe could have found out about Loghain's plot before hand and used the opportunity or he just got lucky.

Modifié par earl of the north, 23 janvier 2010 - 01:47 .

[Herr Uhl]

earl of the north wrote...
Strange that, because it would mean Howe expected King Calian not to act against him after he killed one of the King's main allies and that Loghain planned to poison Arl Eamon himself (since both happened just be Ostagar)......which I'd say was more Howe's style.

I suppose Howe could have found out about Loghain's plot before hand and just used the opportunity or he just got lucky.

if you aren't a human noble, he succeeds. And I think there might be a reason to why Fergus went on that scout mission.

[Xandurpein]

Solica wrote...

More seriously: Ferelden seem to have managed well enough during his reign, despite the attempts at manipulation by the Loghains. The worst damage that that very ambitious and treacherous peasant woman Anora and her disgusting father seem to have managed, up to the start of the game, is raising Howe in influence and power. And that is of course bad indeed. But one has to imagine that Cailan, even if he must have become wise and disillusioned regarding his wife by then, still trusted Loghain, for his previous involvement with his father. In fact we know this, by his exhibition of trust at Ostagar.

Are you even attempting to be impartial or do you write like that just for fun? It's clearly spelled in the Game that Anora is running the country in the five years up to the game start. Cailan just plays with his army, and for a time it seems both where happy with it. That the country is run well is all Anora's doing. If you don't belive it's Anora running things during Cailan's reign despite all the facts in the game saying so (and I mean the Codex, not Anora's own words) then you just igonre facts on purpose.

Howe is not allied with Loghain when the game starts. Get your facts straight. Howe kills the Couslands on his own. It's only later, when Loghain realizes that he faces a civil war after Ostagar, that he decides on a tactical alliance with Howe. It's been explained by David Gaider on this forum.

Solica wrote...

But ultimately, this and his infatuation with "glory" are the only visible fails by Cailan, and they cannot be considered great, as a personal defects, even though the consequences are great. Though, of course, a truly wise, and great king would have gotten rid of the Loghains, long before. ...And wouldn't have exposed himself on the battlefield.

Cailen has no interest in running the country. He leaves that to Anora. His only interest is playing at war. Even that is really enough to decide that he is a poor King. He only wants to play at war, nd as a leader in war Cailan is atrocious. There is few things worse than a King who seeks war for personal glory. A general who seeks battle for glory has dimmed judgement and is walking disaster who will end up killing those who follows him.

/Edit

@Solica
I won't bother arguing with you about your views on Loghain as this thread is about Cailan. Suffice to say that you have obviously no intent of trying to be objective and seems to just thinks it's fun to twist things around, so I see no point in having any sort of serious debate over it as it would just derail the thread anyway.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 23 janvier 2010 - 02:08 .

[earl of the north]

Herr Uhl wrote...

earl of the north wrote...
Strange that, because it would mean Howe expected King Cailan not to act against him after he killed one of the King's main allies and that Loghain planned to poison Arl Eamon himself (since both happened just be Ostagar)......which I'd say was more Howe's style.

I suppose Howe could have found out about Loghain's plot before hand and just used the opportunity or he just got lucky.

if you aren't a human noble, he succeeds. And I think there might be a reason to why Fergus went on that scout mission.

Only if Cailan dies, and if Arl Eamon is out of the picture as well......if Cailan and Arl Eamon are still around Howe's ability to murder the Couslands and frame them as traitors to cover it up is much harder.  Which makes Howe's actions strange, the attack on the Couslands makes sense if he has no fear of retribution, less so if he's going to have to explain it to their allies.

Its official, so that's what happened in the story.....but it doesn't work well for me.

Modifié par earl of the north, 23 janvier 2010 - 01:56 .

[Xandurpein]

earl of the north wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

earl of the north wrote...
Strange that, because it would mean Howe expected King Cailan not to act against him after he killed one of the King's main allies and that Loghain planned to poison Arl Eamon himself (since both happened just be Ostagar)......which I'd say was more Howe's style.

I suppose Howe could have found out about Loghain's plot before hand and just used the opportunity or he just got lucky.

if you aren't a human noble, he succeeds. And I think there might be a reason to why Fergus went on that scout mission.

Only if Cailan dies, and if Arl Eamon is out of the picture as well......if Cailan and Arl Eamon are still around Howe's ability to murder the Couslands and frame them as traitors to cover it up is much harder.  Which makes Howe's actions strange, the attack on the Couslands makes sense if he has no fear of retribution, less so if he's going to have to explain it to their allies.

If you don't play human noble Howe is free to make up any lies he wants to cover up what happened. He concocts some lies with false evidence sufggesting that the couslands where planning to betray the King.

[Asylumer]

earl of the north wrote...

Only if Cailan dies, and if Arl Eamon is out of the picture as well......if Cailan and Arl Eamon are still around Howe's ability to murder the Couslands and frame them as traitors to cover it up is much harder.  Which makes Howe's actions strange, the attack on the Couslands makes sense if he has no fear of retribution, less so if he's going to have to explain it to their allies.

Its official, so that's what happened in the story.....but it doesn't work well for me.

How so? If Cailan, and Eamon, had not clue about the murders, Howe could have created any story at all, not simply the traitor excuse he uses when confronting your PC. If it weren't for the PC noble surviving there'd be no witnesses. Concievably he could've had a plan to convince the others of his story, or at least influenced certain people much like Bhelen did.

Oh, and it isn't the official story, but rather David Gaider said it was his opinion that Howe murdered the Couslands on his own and Howe's alliance with Loghain was due to the latter's desperate need for allies.

DG also said is less uncertain terms that Eamon's poisoning wasn't mean to kill him. In-game evidence seems to support, as even if the poison was meant to look like sickness and not kill instantly, it'd be rather odd for a single person to catch a non-contagious disease in the whole of Redcliffe, especially that one. If Loghain had meant to kill Eamon he could've come up with a far more lethal poison that would've removed Eamon from the picture permenantly -- without giving Connor a chance to "save" him. I say "save" because DG also implies that the demon didn't do anything about the poison, and whether she has the power to do what most magic could not is still an unknown.

Modifié par Asylumer, 23 janvier 2010 - 02:11 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein , it doesn't matter what lies he concokts.

It's too big of a stretch.



A ENTIRE noble family butchered in the middle of the night, down to the children and servants - no sane man will believe you acted out of defense of Ferelden.

Even moreso, it would be unthinkable to act like that without informing the king. Especially since the Couslands were friends of the king AND outrank Howe. This is one part of the story that really has a big hole IMHO.



I really doubt any excuse Howe can come up with could spare him the gallows.

[Redem0]

Well you could argue that with the growing Blight in Ferelden, Orlais with the grey warden would have been force to invade Ferelden in order to do something about the darkspawn



actually Loghain action helped make it all the more likely Orlais could invade because of the Dark Spawn because of the lack of Grey Warden to kill the archdemon and the destruction on Ferelden army (Orleasian and Grey warden, he would being buddy with those wouldn't he?)



but anyway Loghain plan always stroke me as pretty dumb



-He would play defensive against Orlesian despiste the fact they are at peace

-He himself acknowledge he would face civil wwar

-and at the same the darkspawn keep growing and he doesn't do anything about it



strike as a pretty stupid plan fueled by paranoia

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xandurpein , it doesn't matter what lies he concokts.
It's too big of a stretch.

A ENTIRE noble family butchered in the middle of the night, down to the children and servants - no sane man will believe you acted out of defense of Ferelden.
Even moreso, it would be unthinkable to act like that without informing the king. Especially since the Couslands were friends of the king AND outrank Howe. This is one part of the story that really has a big hole IMHO.

I really doubt any excuse Howe can come up with could spare him the gallows.

I have to agree with you that this seems to be stretching creduility quite far. But nevertheless evidence from both the Game and David Gaider clearly spells that this is indeed what Howe was planning. Maybe Howe isn't the brilliant planner he thought. I don't know, but that doesn't change the facts.

[earl of the north]

Asylumer wrote...

earl of the north wrote...

Only if Cailan dies, and if Arl Eamon is out of the picture as well......if Cailan and Arl Eamon are still around Howe's ability to murder the Couslands and frame them as traitors to cover it up is much harder.  Which makes Howe's actions strange, the attack on the Couslands makes sense if he has no fear of retribution, less so if he's going to have to explain it to their allies.

Its official, so that's what happened in the story.....but it doesn't work well for me.

How so? If Cailan, and Eamon, had not clue about the murders, Howe could have created any story at all, not simply the traitor excuse he uses when confronting your PC. If it weren't for the PC noble surviving there'd be no witnesses. Concievably he could've had a plan to convince the others of his story, or at least influenced certain people much like Bhelen did.

Oh, and it isn't the official story, but rather David Gaider said it was his opinion that Howe murdered the Couslands on his own and Howe's alliance with Loghain was due to the latter's desperate need for allies.

DG also said is less uncertain terms that Eamon's poisoning wasn't mean to kill him. In-game evidence seems to support, as even if the poison was meant to look like sickness and not kill instantly, it'd be rather odd for a single person to catch a non-contagious disease in the whole of Redcliffe, especially that one. If Loghain had meant to kill Eamon he could've come up with a far more lethal poison that would've removed Eamon from the picture permenantly -- without giving Connor a chance to "save" him. I say "save" because DG also implies that the demon didn't do anything about the poison, and whether she has the power to do what most magic could not is still an unknown.

So Howe decides knowing that the Couslands are sending their troops south to join the King to stage a coup....leaving Fergus alive at the head of a Cousland army.

IF Calian isn't killed at Ostagar, he will find out that his chancellor Arl Eamon has been poisoned and that one of his loyal allies (who's troops were at Ostagar) are supposed to be traitors, oh, and their all dead.

He's going to believe Howe's story and evidence or is he going to be taking a long hard look at Howe?

Frankly that would be an amazingly stupid act on Cailans, Anoras and Loghains part to believe Howe just happened to find some evidence of the Cousland being traitors, attacked their now undefended castle, killed them all and never informed anybody.

Howe's plan makes sense if he knows what Loghains planning, if he doesn't know he's in a lot of trouble.

But if that's what the writer of the story says happened, then thats what happened.....even if it makes less sense than Loghain and Howe being involved pre-Ostagar.

Modifié par earl of the north, 23 janvier 2010 - 02:24 .

[Solica]

Xandurpein wrote...

Solica wrote...

More seriously: Ferelden seem to have managed well enough during his reign, despite the attempts at manipulation by the Loghains. The worst damage that that very ambitious and treacherous peasant woman Anora and her disgusting father seem to have managed, up to the start of the game, is raising Howe in influence and power. And that is of course bad indeed. But one has to imagine that Cailan, even if he must have become wise and disillusioned regarding his wife by then, still trusted Loghain, for his previous involvement with his father. In fact we know this, by his exhibition of trust at Ostagar.

Are you even attempting to be impartial or do you write like that just for fun? It's clearly spelled in the Game that Anora is running the country in the five years up to the game start. Cailan just plays with his army, and for a time it seems both where happy with it. That the country is run well is all Anora's doing. If you don't belive it's Anora running things during Cailan's reign despite all the facts in the game saying so (and I mean the Codex, not Anora's own words) then you just igonre facts on purpose.

Howe is not allied with Loghain when the game starts. Get your facts straight. Howe kills the Couslands on his own. It's only later, when Loghain realizes that he faces a civil war after Ostagar, that he decides on a tactical alliance with Howe. It's been explained by David Gaider on this forum.

First, I think you've misunderstood the viewpoint from which I speak. I did say that the developers intend Cailan to be cast as a less than average regent. So I'm not at all ignoring those things you so often claim are "facts".  I was specifically talking about what little in-game evidence there is, one way or other. And I explicitly said so.

If you consider "codex" as something more than just various found myths and other texts written in Ferelden, by fictional characters, displaying their fictional beliefs or opinions, or fictional public perceptions, intended to cast more light on the background of things, it would be meta gaming. I don't do that. So, in the sense of me not accepting every codex as gospel 100% truth...

As for all what people claim David Gaider to have "explained", I've seen a lot of what D.G. have written, and he has never really said exactly what is usually claimed. Some people tend to read in a lot, into what D.G. has commented. I don't. For instance, D.G. has dismissed the certainty that the battle of Ostagar was necessarily winnable. Almost all Loghain fans have emphatically tried to use this as proof that the battle at Ostagar was a certain loss, and that Loghain thus was right in leaving, and that this also was the reason he left. Completely different things, and not at all what D.G. said.

I do admit though, that he has been much more clear than usual, regarding the Couslands, about that he thinks Howe acted alone.
My problem with that is simply that it's not terribly convincing or even reasonable. It may be true, in a fictional sense, and D.G. seem to intend it to be true. But from (as I said, pre-face) in-game hard evidence, it's reasonable to interpret the situation differently, just as in my example. Meaning again that we have no hard in-game evidence to conclude that Cailan was a poor king. Which was what I said. Just as I pointed out that it seemed to be the intention of the developers to cast Cailan as one. Which is your entire argument, but which is something I also already said.

Solica wrote...

But ultimately, this and his infatuation with "glory" are the only visible fails by Cailan, and they cannot be considered great, as a personal defects, even though the consequences are great. Though, of course, a truly wise, and great king would have gotten rid of the Loghains, long before. ...And wouldn't have exposed himself on the battlefield.

Cailen has no interest in running the country. He leaves that to Anora. His only interest is playing at war. Even that is really enough to decide that he is a poor King. He only wants to play at war, nd as a leader in war Cailan is atrocious. There is few things worse than a King who seeks war for personal glory. A general who seeks battle for glory has dimmed judgement and is walking disaster who will end up killing those who follows him.

If that is true, you're indeed correct. And it might be true. But we don't really know that. You make up your opinion, but you have as little insight into what is inside Cailan'd head, or what is happening regarding him or Anora ruling the country, as I have. My point was exactly the one I expressed in my summary. That developers want to hint one thing, but that in-game evidence can be interpreted differently, based on perfectly good reasoning.

My opinion of Anora is definitely well founded upon how she behaved vs my PC in-game. Anora is definitely a bad person. I'd never leave Alistair to be married to that lying, treacherous conneiving b'. I cannot imagine that her ruling talents goes anyway beyond charming and manipulating weak nobles. So it would be a too far stretch to give her credit for any good ruling having taken place the last 5 years. Sorry. You might be able to do that, but my PC cannot, and neither can I, having seen it from her perspective.

Modifié par Solica, 23 janvier 2010 - 03:02 .

[Xandurpein]

One thing that I want to say to all those that thinks Loghain is a bad general. The only time in the game we see any real example of Loghain as general is at Ostagar. The fact that Loghain gets a civil war on his hands after Ostagar does not really say anything about his ability as a general, it only shows that Loghain seems to have some serious deficiencies as political leader. He would cetainly not be the first, nor the last able military commander who fails as political leader.



So blaim him for being a bad political leader, but I would like to see better evidence before doubting his abilities as General.

[Xandurpein]

Solica wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Solica wrote...

More seriously: Ferelden seem to have managed well enough during his reign, despite the attempts at manipulation by the Loghains. The worst damage that that very ambitious and treacherous peasant woman Anora and her disgusting father seem to have managed, up to the start of the game, is raising Howe in influence and power. And that is of course bad indeed. But one has to imagine that Cailan, even if he must have become wise and disillusioned regarding his wife by then, still trusted Loghain, for his previous involvement with his father. In fact we know this, by his exhibition of trust at Ostagar.

Are you even attempting to be impartial or do you write like that just for fun? It's clearly spelled in the Game that Anora is running the country in the five years up to the game start. Cailan just plays with his army, and for a time it seems both where happy with it. That the country is run well is all Anora's doing. If you don't belive it's Anora running things during Cailan's reign despite all the facts in the game saying so (and I mean the Codex, not Anora's own words) then you just igonre facts on purpose.

Howe is not allied with Loghain when the game starts. Get your facts straight. Howe kills the Couslands on his own. It's only later, when Loghain realizes that he faces a civil war after Ostagar, that he decides on a tactical alliance with Howe. It's been explained by David Gaider on this forum.

First, I think you've misunderstood the viewpoint from which I speak. I did say that the developers intend Cailan to be cast as a less than average regent. So I'm not at all ignoring those things you so often claim are "facts".  I was specifically talking about what little in-game evidence there is, one way or other. And I explicitly said so.

If you consider "codex" as something more than just various found myths and other texts written in Ferelden, by fictional characters, displaying their fictional beliefs or opinions, or fictional public perceptions, intended to cast more light on the background of things, it would be meta gaming. I don't do that. So, in the sense of me not accepting every codex as gospel 100% truth

As for all what people claim David Gaider to have "explained", I've seen a lot of what D.G. have written, and he has never really said exactly what is usually claimed. Some people tend to read in a lot, into what D.G. has commented. I don't. For instance, D.G. have dismissed the certainty that the battle of Ostagar was necessarily winnable. Almost all Loghain fans have emphatically tried to use this as proof that the battle at Ostagar was a certain loss, and that Loghain thus was right in leaving, and that this also was the reason he left. Completely different things, and not at all what D.G. said.

I do admit though, that he has been much more clear than usual, regarding the Couslands, about that he thinks Howe acted alone.
My problem with that is simply that it's not terribly convincing or even reasonable. It may be true, in a fictional sense, and D.G. seem to intend it to be true. But from (as I said, pre-face) in-game hard evidence, it's reasonable to interpret the situation differently, just as in my example. Meaning again that we have no hard in-game evidence to conclude that Cailan was a poor king. Which was what I said. Just as I pointed out that it seemed to be the intention of the developers to cast Cailan as one. Which is your entire argument, but which is something I also already said.

Solica wrote...

But ultimately, this and his infatuation with "glory" are the only visible fails by Cailan, and they cannot be considered great, as a personal defects, even though the consequences are great. Though, of course, a truly wise, and great king would have gotten rid of the Loghains, long before. ...And wouldn't have exposed himself on the battlefield.

Cailen has no interest in running the country. He leaves that to Anora. His only interest is playing at war. Even that is really enough to decide that he is a poor King. He only wants to play at war, nd as a leader in war Cailan is atrocious. There is few things worse than a King who seeks war for personal glory. A general who seeks battle for glory has dimmed judgement and is walking disaster who will end up killing those who follows him.

If that is true, you're indeed correct. And it might be true. But we don't really know that. You make up your opinion, but you have as little insight into what is inside Cailan'd head, or what is happening regarding him or Anora ruling the country, as I have. My point was exactly the one I expressed in my summary. That developers want to hint one thing, but that in-game evidence can be interpreted differently, based on perfectly good reasoning.

My opinion of Anora is definitely well founded upon how she behaved vs my PC in-game. Anora is definitely a bad person. I'd never leave Alistair to be married to that lying, treacherous conneiving b'. I cannot imagine that her ruling talents goes anyway beyond charming and manipulating weak nobles. So it would be a too far stretch to give her credit for any good ruling having taken place the last 5 years. Sorry. You might be able to do that, but my PC cannot, and neither can I, having seen it from her perspective.

Your entire argument simply boils down to the argument that your personal subjective opinion is more important than any objective evidence. The codex and in-game descriptions of Anora represents what others think and feel in Fereldan. It's not proof that Anora is a good Queen, but it's proof that people think she is a good Queen. Apparently the only persons opinions that matters to you are your own though.

The sole acceptable scale for determining Anora's ability to rule a Kingdom is how she treats you when you try to force her off the throne. The fact that other people in the game says differently is just lies and misunderstanding - you alone know the truth.

Don't you even for a moment think this line of reason is very self-centred? You are of course free to reason so, but I don't see how that can have any relevance for anyone other than yourself.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 23 janvier 2010 - 03:32 .

[Shizaharan]

The Gay Warden wrote...

I don't approve of Loghain's actions--I know he was a traitor, and I won't doubt he made awful mistakes--but you have ot understand Loghain's INTENTIONS. He TRIED to save Ferelden. He TRIED to end the Blight. Though he may have failed, his intentions were still righteouss.

I like the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" , besides, Loghain did not beleive it was a real blight until the Archdemon surfaced.  He did not beleive that the Grey Wardens were necessary for defeating the Blight.  He was making 'good' decisions based on incomplete information, or information he may have been given, but chose to ignore.  The former is a fact of life, it happens; the latter is incompitence.

Yes, he truly did beleive he was doing what is right for Ferelden.  Yes, Cailan was indeed a little to Glory-seeking (also known as childish).

The main reason Loghain chose to quit the field was because he honestly beleived that Orlais would bring their army under the banner of assistance, but then conquer Ferelden again.  Would that have happened, we don't know, it may have, it may not have.

Suppose he was correct.  Suppose that they did indeed have every intention of doing that.  One would have to wonder what would happen if he did perform the plan, meaning he charged the lines as intended.  Would that have saved the troops at the gate?  If so, would that mean that he would have more troops for when Orlais did invade, or less?

You cannot judge a person by their actions only, but you must include the results thereof.

Back to the thought of Cailan being a horrible king.  A king loved by his people, respected by them, and loving them in return, is by no means a bad king.  Besides, it seems that in Ferelden, the women can have the same power and respect as men, so the queen runs the logistics, and the king inspires the people.  That is a good rule, no matter how you look at it.

[Xandurpein]

Shizaharan wrote...

Back to the thought of Cailan being a horrible king.  A king loved by his people, respected by them, and loving them in return, is by no means a bad king.  Besides, it seems that in Ferelden, the women can have the same power and respect as men, so the queen runs the logistics, and the king inspires the people.  That is a good rule, no matter how you look at it.

A King who likes going to War is a bad King in my book, no matter what. War is bad and anyone who wants war is a bad leader. If there had been no Darkspawn horde, do you think he would have been content to sit at home and drill? He would have gone to war with someone else instead. Maybe invaded Orlesia or something.

[Dragon Age1103]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...
Yeah but with Loghain dead Alistair wouldn't have anyone to advise his armies. Being such a nice guy might get him far when it comes to how the public views him but it holds little to no value in making hard choices or strategic planning on the battle field.

So you're assuming Loghian is the only capablegeneral in the world?

lol zip! right by ya!

[Dragon Age1103]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...
cheating with an Orlesian Wh*** is far from being a good guy. I understand everything is cut throat, medieval world, most or all marriages are forced BUT I take cheating personal so due to that fact he can deserves to die. I realize that is very unforgiving & terrible to say but loghain treated or at least acknowledged him as a son. So perhaps if he wasn't paranoid about the Grey Warden's & Orlesians & if he didn't know Cailan cheated with some Orlesian Wh*** he would of defended his king at Ostagar. I hated to see Cailan die b/c his system did work & he was a great guy but when I found that out I forgave Loghain for a lot & could care less that we lost our King.

What w****?
It seems as tough Anora was barren, meaning as king he would have no heir. Apparenlty, Anora was also allright with his "dalliances" aside...and who knows if anora had any?

  Anora is probably too cold to even care about sex. haha. We don't have any proff that she did or didn't so it has no effect on anything & was entirely pointless to mention.

[Herr Uhl]

Xandurpein wrote...

Shizaharan wrote...

Back to the thought of Cailan being a horrible king.  A king loved by his people, respected by them, and loving them in return, is by no means a bad king.  Besides, it seems that in Ferelden, the women can have the same power and respect as men, so the queen runs the logistics, and the king inspires the people.  That is a good rule, no matter how you look at it.

A King who likes going to War is a bad King in my book, no matter what. War is bad and anyone who wants war is a bad leader. If there had been no Darkspawn horde, do you think he would have been content to sit at home and drill? He would have gone to war with someone else instead. Maybe invaded Orlesia or something.

Probably not Orlais, maybe he would have tried to conquer the Chasind or other barbarians though. His prospective marriage with Celene probably would have been a cause for civil-war, though it was still only a prospect.

Ferelden is nowhere near strong enough to fight an offensive war against Orlais.

[Dragon Age1103]

Xandurpein wrote...

Shizaharan wrote...

Back to the thought of Cailan being a horrible king.  A king loved by his people, respected by them, and loving them in return, is by no means a bad king.  Besides, it seems that in Ferelden, the women can have the same power and respect as men, so the queen runs the logistics, and the king inspires the people.  That is a good rule, no matter how you look at it.

A King who likes going to War is a bad King in my book, no matter what. War is bad and anyone who wants war is a bad leader. If there had been no Darkspawn horde, do you think he would have been content to sit at home and drill? He would have gone to war with someone else instead. Maybe invaded Orlesia or something.

  What!? You do know Cailan was planning on uniting Ferelden with Orlais by dumping Anora & marrying some harlot from Orlais slash their Queen! lol. I'm not sure how that is starting a war, it is possible a conflict could start, very but it doesn't mean is he looking for one. Cailan just wanted peace & to make history just that an event of the past that only serves as a lesson now to not repeat the same mistake.

[Asylumer]

Xandurpein wrote...

A King who likes going to War is a bad King in my book, no matter what. War is bad and anyone who wants war is a bad leader. If there had been no Darkspawn horde, do you think he would have been content to sit at home and drill? He would have gone to war with someone else instead. Maybe invaded Orlesia or something.

Cailan did not want to go to war, he wanted to prove himself a good king worthy of legend. If he stood side by side with the Warden's he'd finally get out of Anora's, Maric's, and Loghain's shadows. I think it's clear in the game that Cailan wasn't very important to the way things were run, and that's why I believe he made the mistakes he did. He was naive when it came to international politics and foolish when it came to war, but he took the actions he did because he desperately wanted to be a good king and mustered his backbone at the worst time possible.

...but that's just how I see it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Shizaharan wrote...
Back to the thought of Cailan being a horrible king.  A king loved by his people, respected by them, and loving them in return, is by no means a bad king.  Besides, it seems that in Ferelden, the women can have the same power and respect as men, so the queen runs the logistics, and the king inspires the people.  That is a good rule, no matter how you look at it.

This is not being a ruler. This is being a figurehead. A tool. Without Anora, he is worth nothing. Anora was the one who ruled. Alexander too wanted glory, but at least he was a good ruler and a remarkable strategist, sometimes even a philosopher. Cailan is none of these things. An empty glory monger and nothing more.

[Xandurpein]

I know he was hoping to marry the Empress of Orlais, but I wasn't to sure it wolud actually come true. I am also perfectly aware that Fereldan don't have the strength to attack Orlais, I just seriously doubt it would stop Cailan. He needs as big an enemy as possible so his glory would be bigger than Maric's.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein wrote...
I have to agree with you that this seems to be stretching creduility quite far. But nevertheless evidence from both the Game and David Gaider clearly spells that this is indeed what Howe was planning. Maybe Howe isn't the brilliant planner he thought. I don't know, but that doesn't change the facts.

Evidently. He crossed my path. So did Loghain.
Clear proof that both of them are dumb and have a deathwish.

[fightright2]

Intentions are defined by what is right and wrong. And what he intended and followed through with was all wrong.

His intentions were always self serving.

[Herr Uhl]

Even though it is a monarchy, a war against Orlais would not go down well with the nobility of Ferelden. I have a hard time seeing them going through with it. He might also have matured with age to someone less prone to lead a charge screaming "GLORY!".