280 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

earl of the north wrote...
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.

From what I gather, Howe and Loghian allied before Ostagar. Howe didn't infrom Loghain about his plan to attack hte Couslands - I dobut that he would ever agree.
But Howe probably knew what Loghian was planing and decided to size the opportunity - if Loghain killed Cailan, then he's set, and Loghain would still need him as an ally.
But still, that would be a big risk for him to take. We know Loghian wasn't sure if he will betry Cailan or not. He was undecided at that point. But he did plan it.

[Shizaharan]

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.

He didn't WANT to go to war, he HAD to go to war.  Oh, BTW, I do beleive I heard in the dialogue that he considered Orlais an ally.  Loghain may have gone to war with Orlais, but not Cailan.

War is bad, huh.  Well, yes.  War for the sake of war is bad.  But sometimes, it is necessary.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, is a fool.

Before you say it, yes I remember the line with him saying that the battle will be glorious.  That same line has been echoed by our own species numerous times, most of which viewed the war as bad, but necessary.  You can't talk everyone down.  There is evil in the world.  Get out of the clouds and back to reality.  Cailan did not want the war, but he did beleive that  the darkspawn battle would define him as a king, and he was right.

So do I beleive that Cailan would have started a war just to have one were there no darkspawn threat, no, not a chance in Hell.  And I have no idea why you beleive this to be so.

[Xandurpein]

Asylumer wrote...

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.

I think you may at least partly right. I know that before Ostagar he comes off as an arrogant child, rather than someone haunted by the shadow of his father, but doesn't mean he can't be driven by a will to escape his father's shadow. It's even possible he feels driven to seek glory in war, because he is unable to compete with Anora in civil politics. Nevertheless I still think it's more like he has read and belived too many fairy tales of his father's and Loghain's exploits.

[Solica]

Xandurpein wrote...
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 than yourself.

In a way you do finally hit the button, though you word it in a dismissive and derogatory (hostile?) manner.
That's exactly how it should be to play a game like this. And I think it is exactly what the developers intended. They wanted a complex villain, with human and realistic motives, that can be interpreted on many levels, and one the player can apply personal values on, to regard and condemn, or understand, according to personal values.

Your arguments are just as personal and subjective, both here and in all the various threads where you always defend Loghain. You always tending to claim that "facts" or the developers say you are right, (which they usually really don't) doesn't make your view in any way less subjective.

My regard for "objectivity" is that I try to consider the in-game available hard game-play evidence. You seem to consider that as subjective? In a constricted way, it is, since it in the first sense applies to what the PC experiences. But I try to go farther than that, and consider all available in-game experiences, as I know of. Then, the application of values tend to be subjective, and that subjectivity tends to have a certain direction. Loghain does have Duncan and the Gray Wardens killed, blames the king's death on you, tries to assissinate you, starts a civil war, in fact does a lot of really bad things, after all.
I won't give my detailed description of what I think you typically try to do, but I certainly can't see it as being "objective".

But finally, no I didn't base my judgement on Anora's qualities for ruling, based on her reactions when I "try to force her off the throne". Not at all. First of all, the throne is not really hers to have. But never mind that, because secondly, I never did! Long before it came to any discussion about Ferelden's ruler, she twice betrayed my first PC to torture and death. Twice. Why? It doesn't really matter even if my PC could have many bad thoughts about it. Because the overriding concern would be that a b' that would think nothing about having innocent people tortured, murdered and silenced, just for the sake of her personal ambitions, makes for a very bad ruler. Never mind that she is completely void of honor and an accomplished lier. Case rested.

[Xandurpein]

Solica wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
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 than yourself.

In a way you do finally hit the button, though you word it in a dismissive and derogatory (hostile?) manner.
That's exactly how it should be to play a game like this. And I think it is exactly what the developers intended. They wanted a complex villain, with human and realistic motives, that can be interpreted on many levels, and one the player can apply personal values on, to regard and condemn, or understand, according to personal values.

Your arguments are just as personal and subjective, both here and in all the various threads where you always defend Loghain. You always tending to claim that "facts" or the developers say you are right, (which they usually really don't) doesn't make your view in any way less subjective.

My regard for "objectivity" is that I try to consider the in-game available hard game-play evidence. You seem to consider that as subjective? In a constricted way, it is, since it in the first sense applies to what the PC experiences. But I try to go farther than that, and consider all available in-game experiences, as I know of. Then, the application of values tend to be subjective, and that subjectivity tends to have a certain direction. Loghain does have Duncan and the Gray Wardens killed, blames the king's death on you, tries to assissinate you, starts a civil war, in fact does a lot of really bad things, after all.
I won't give my detailed description of what I think you typically try to do, but I certainly can't see it as being "objective".

But finally, no I didn't base my judgement on Anora's qualities for ruling, based on her reactions when I "try to force her off the throne". Not at all. First of all, the throne is not really hers to have. But never mind that, because secondly, I never did! Long before it came to any discussion about Ferelden's ruler, she twice betrayed my first PC to torture and death. Twice. Why? It doesn't really matter even if my PC could have many bad thoughts about it. Because the overriding concern would be that a b' that would think nothing about having innocent people tortured, murdered and silenced, just for the sake of her personal ambitions, makes for a very bad ruler. Never mind that she is completely void of honor and an accomplished lier. Case rested.

If you bother to read my posts I never claim Loghain was a good person. I specifically claim that he was very bad political ruler, typical of many military leaders who, mistakenly, feel that they can become political leaders. I never ever tried to defend Loghain's evil actions. All I have ever claimed is that it's perfectly possible to play a "good" character who decides to let Loghain live at the Landsmeet, just as I can see how people who play a "good" character decides to kill him, it all depends on your personal belief.

If I end up sounding like I think Loghain was good, it's because I contend that he is a complex chacter that started with good intentions who lost his way and ended up doing horrible things, while debating who simply wants to see a black-and-white "Mwahahaha" evil villian.

Anora IS the Queen of Fereldan before the Landsmeet. Well... that is David Gaider clearly says so, but that may not impress you, so I don't know how else to explain it. Anora was not a consort, she was Queen. You have the option to call for the Landsmeet to depose her, but that's it. As for her betrayal, she will "betray" you to Ser Cauthrien, but only if you betray her first, by exposing her. I don't know what other time before the Landsmeet you are talking about.

The only time she will actually lie and betray you without first being provoked by you, is if you decide to give the crown to Alistair and tells her so before the Landsmeet. I agree that this is a lousy thing to do, it may be explained by the fact that you are about to steal her crown, at least in her own mind, but it's not really an excuse. I do however think that it hardly disqualifies her a good, if rather ruthless Queen of a medieval kingdom.

[BHRamsay]

It's scary how many men and women in history have had Loghain's attitude.



--I'm screwing you for the greater good you'll hate me now but thank me later. --



I usually kill him with little regret. I figure he tried several times to kill me and to make matters worse set events in motion either on purpose or as a result of misplaced trust in Howe that would have accomplished the same thing.



Even if you set aside all the stuff that went down at Ostagar (and I do) his actions following Ostagar make it pretty clear that he can not be trusted with power in fact i'm seriously questioning Anora's fitness to rule since she pretty much rubber stamped his takeover and apparently only really got in his face about his actions when Howe's influence became a threat



She might still have been flying Daddy's banner right up until the Archdemon was clawing at her doorstep if Howe and Daddy Dearest hadn't decided to imprison her.



Of course this is just my opinion I ould be wrong.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ BHRamsay.

IT doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, since this thread is not about Loghain, it's about Cailan.

[Xandurpein]

BHRamsay wrote...

She might still have been flying Daddy's banner right up until the Archdemon was clawing at her doorstep if Howe and Daddy Dearest hadn't decided to imprison her.

Of course this is just my opinion I ould be wrong.

Personally I think the cutscene where Anora accuses Loghain of killing her husband and then throwing her hands up in disgust pretty much says that she is loosing faith in Loghain fast, but as KnightofPhoenix said, it's beside the point. It's really about Cailan.

[Xandurpein]

Shizaharan wrote...

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.

He didn't WANT to go to war, he HAD to go to war.  Oh, BTW, I do beleive I heard in the dialogue that he considered Orlais an ally.  Loghain may have gone to war with Orlais, but not Cailan.

War is bad, huh.  Well, yes.  War for the sake of war is bad.  But sometimes, it is necessary.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, is a fool.

Before you say it, yes I remember the line with him saying that the battle will be glorious.  That same line has been echoed by our own species numerous times, most of which viewed the war as bad, but necessary.  You can't talk everyone down.  There is evil in the world.  Get out of the clouds and back to reality.  Cailan did not want the war, but he did beleive that  the darkspawn battle would define him as a king, and he was right.

So do I beleive that Cailan would have started a war just to have one were there no darkspawn threat, no, not a chance in Hell.  And I have no idea why you beleive this to be so.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that war isn't sometimes necessary. I said that it was bad. Sometimes it's necessary to do bad things, because to not do it would be worse. That said, I still think Cailan did want the war, any war, so he could go out and get his glory.

/Edit. To quote the Duke of Wellington, "The only thing more melancholy than a battle won, is a battle lost.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:16 .

[Solica]

Xandurpein wrote...
If you bother to read my posts I never claim Loghain was a good person. I specifically claim that he was very bad political ruler, typical of many military leaders who, mistakenly, feel that they can become political leaders. I never ever tried to defend Loghain's evil actions. All I have ever claimed is that it's perfectly possible to play a "good" character who decides to let Loghain live at the Landsmeet, just as I can see how people who play a "good" character decides to kill him, it all depends on your personal belief.

If I end up sounding like I think Loghain was good, it's because I contend that he is a complex chacter that started with good intentions who lost his way and ended up doing horrible things, while debating who simply wants to see a black-and-white "Mwahahaha" evil villian.

Anora IS the Queen of Fereldan before the Landsmeet. Well... that is David Gaider clearly says so, but that may not impress you, so I don't know how else to explain it. Anora was not a consort, she was Queen. You have the option to call for the Landsmeet to depose her, but that's it. As for her betrayal, she will "betray" you to Ser Cauthrien, but only if you betray her first, by exposing her. I don't know what other time before the Landsmeet you are talking about.

The only time she will actually lie and betray you without first being provoked by you, is if you decide to give the crown to Alistair and tells her so before the Landsmeet. I agree that this is a lousy thing to do, it may be explained by the fact that you are about to steal her crown, at least in her own mind, but it's not really an excuse. I do however think that it hardly disqualifies her a good, if rather ruthless Queen of a medieval kingdom.

(I do bother to read your posts)
And exactly! That's right. But we argue, which is great fun and also reveals more of the game to us.
You make up your mind about the events. I make up my mind. The interest here is whether there is a reasoning available that is based upon existing facts. I mainly accepts your positions, as far as they are valid. But they are just as subjective as mine. The only argument I have with you is your claim that only I am subjective, and that you often are fond to make a claim of something being "fact", when in reality it is just your interpretation of a few details. Often that interpretation is reasonable, as reasonable as mine. Always it's subjective, as mine. Always, it's not a fact.

If you do not understand what I'm refering to, this is an example: "As for her betrayal, she will "betray" you to Ser Cauthrien, but only if you betray her first, by exposing her."
This is an interpretation! Your interpretation. Perfectly reasonable, even though, lacking in detail it doesn't present much logic. You consider it a fact? Then please consider this picture instead:

It doesn't matter what you do. This plot ends the same way regardless. This is just as valid as that which you assume:
Anora doesn't betray me to Cauthrien, when I "betray" her. She just keep up appearances to Cauthrien who is always usefully clueless. Anora betrayed me when she "asked for my help". If Howes soldiers didn't manage to kill the obvious criminals, the intruders, Cauthrien is the backup plan. Regardless, Anora always keep her back free. It was always a trap. Did she collude with Howe, Loghain, both, or just herself? Everything is plausible.

See? How is your version a fact now? These are just interpretations of events.

As for question of the second time she betrays me, it is at the landsmeet. When I call on her support against Howe, she instead claims to all the assembled nobles that I am a criminal that kidnapped her.
In either case I never said beforehand that I would dipose her from the throne. She may have guessed it, but I never revealed any intentions on who I would support for the throne. I kept that guarded. Lack of explicit promise to support her, might have been enough. I don't know.

That you don't think it disqualifies her as a "good" ruler, is you applying your values (and maybe some wishful thinking). I will apply mine, if you don't mind: For as long as she can keep up appearances, I'm not disputing that she can be perceived as good ruler. In my estimate though (opinion again), eventually things will crumble and Ferelden will slide into misery. She will have betrayed too many trusts, buffed too many slimebags (like Howe), and truths will circulate as increasing rumours, fueling dissent. And she will have committed a lot of unjustices, a thing which actually is bad, in itself.
A ruler may well be slightly ruthless, in few specific cases, but she cannot be honorless.

Modifié par Solica, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:35 .

[Xandurpein]

Solica wrote...

That you don't think it disqualifies her as a "good" ruler, is you applying your values (and maybe some wishful thinking). I will apply mine, if you don't mind: For as long as she can keep up appearances, I'm not disputing that she can be perceived as good ruler. In my estimate though (opinion again), eventually things will crumble and Ferelden will slide into misery. She will have betrayed too many trusts, buffed too many slimebags (like Howe), and truths will circulate as increasing rumours, fueling dissent. A ruler may well be slightly ruthless, in few specific cases, but she cannot be honorless.

I am merely reading what the end title in the game says. It never mentions anything other than that she is a good and effective ruler. I did "assume" that this was facts, yes - not someones interpretation. I would believe that if you contend that the game info there is wrong there you would have the burden of proof.

[Solica]

Xandurpein wrote...

I am merely reading what the end title in the game says. It never mentions anything other than that she is a good and effective ruler. I did "assume" that this was facts, yes - not someones interpretation. I would believe that if you contend that the game info there is wrong there you would have the burden of proof.

Lol, okay. Then that is a fact.
Now I didn't, and probably never will, have access to that fact, as I have to make up my mind about making her a ruler before that,  And I'm afraid I will mostly assume something different.
But I concede this point.

Modifié par Solica, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:41 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

If I was Calian, I'd order Loghain to lead the first half of army as decoy and lead the flanking army myself. It is safer, and I can still hoard the glory since it would be the flanking action that won the day.

I'd also suggest him do that if I was Loghain and was a loyal general.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:47 .

[Asylumer]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

If I was Calian, I'd order Loghain to lead the first half of army as decoy and lead the flanking army myself. It is safer, and I can still hoard the glory since it would be the flanking action that won the day.

I'd also suggest him do that if I was Loghain and was a loyal general.

Well, Loghain did urge Cailan to stay off the front lines...

Cailan pulled out royal decree to get himself a front row seat alongside the Wardens.

[Xandurpein]

Solica wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

I am merely reading what the end title in the game says. It never mentions anything other than that she is a good and effective ruler. I did "assume" that this was facts, yes - not someones interpretation. I would believe that if you contend that the game info there is wrong there you would have the burden of proof.

Lol, okay. Then that is a fact.
Now I didn't, and probably never will, have access to that fact, as I have to make up my mind about making her a ruler before that,  And I'm afraid I will mostly assume something different.
But I concede this point.

I thought your whole reasoning was based around the fact that you made up your mind that she was a bad Queen. If there is proof that she is an efficient Queen that can stay the uncontested ruler for all her life and stave off all attempts to force a husband on her (unless she marries Alistair or Human noble in the game) then just maybe one or two of your other assumptions need to be revisited, in light of that. Well, maybe you don't feel so, just a thought... 

But now I'll drop that subject as it still derails the original thread.

[master-fluff]

Xandurpein wrote...

Anora IS the Queen of Fereldan before the Landsmeet. Well... that is David Gaider clearly says so, but that may not impress you, so I don't know how else to explain it. Anora was not a consort, she was Queen. 

Surely there must be some confusion here. 

Anora is a queen dowager (widow of a king) and lost power the day Cailan died.  A queen consort is the wife of a reigning king.  Presumably by "Queen" you mean queen regnant - a queen who reigns in her own right (with or without a husband, who would be called a king/prince consort). 

As bloodlines determine succession in Ferelden (or a Landsmeet if there is no heir), then Anora could not be considered queen regnant until after a Landsmeet.  Loghain declaring himself regent for Anora would not make her a legal queen regnant and it's why there's a civil war. 

Have I missed some subtle Ferelden succession tradition or maybe misunderstood your comment ?

[Maria13]

[quote]BHRamsay wrote...

It's scary how many men and women in history have had Loghain's attitude.

--I'm screwing you for the greater good you'll hate me now but thank me later. -- [quote]

Amazingly, quite a few bosses think like that, too.  And over-strict teachers and parents...  It's the bully mentality.  Replacing: "I'm doing this because actually, I'm getting off on it" with "I'm doing this for your own good!"  Ha!

[nos_astra]

2Master-Flyff

I believe the rumor that Anora has the power of a ruler has to do with the human noble origin . You can marry Alistair who will refer to you as his betrothed "who will soon be your queeilogun". The epilogue card said you were princess-consort. People concluded the status was different to Anora's married to Cailan.



Even wikipedia says queen(-consort)=princess-consort=wife of a king.



Could this be the reason why Loghain can declare himself regent? Because Anora has no actual power until she is affirmed by the landsmeet as queen-regnant? And Loghain as the only Teyrn left is the highest ranking noble?

[Xandurpein]

A regining King of Fereldan can, as far as I understand it, decide when they marry if the spouse becomes Queen (co-ruler) or consort. If a Cousland male marries Anora she offers him to become consort. The Cousland male can then ask to be King instead, but Anora will then state that she will not give up being sole ruler and will only offer him to become consort. This clearly implies though that Anora has a choice in the matter. Otherwise she would simply have said that it's not possible.

Cailan made Anora Queen, i.e. co-ruler - not consort. Hence she is still Queen after Cailan's death and by default reigning Queen. Fereldan does however have some checks on the ruling King/Queen. To be specific, a Landsmeet can legally depose the reigning King/Queen, which is why Arl Eamon wants to call a Landsmeet. Anora is Queen, but she knows Eamon wants to replace her with Alistair because Alistair is of Maric's blood so he wants to replace Anora.

/Edit. I could be wrong, but this how I understand the whole matter. Unless any of the developers cares to clarify the matter, of course.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:26 .

[master-fluff]

@Xandurpein and klarabella



So if Ferelden can have both a king regnant and a queen regnant at the same time, that makes for interesting succession (and power-plays - think of the assassinations, Zev will be happy) ! But it then begs the question why and how Loghain declares himself regent if Anora is rightfully queen regnant after Cailan dies.

[Xandurpein]

master-fluff wrote...

@Xandurpein and klarabella

So if Ferelden can have both a king regnant and a queen regnant at the same time, that makes for interesting succession (and power-plays - think of the assassinations, Zev will be happy) ! But it then begs the question why and how Loghain declares himself regent if Anora is rightfully queen regnant after Cailan dies.

As I said, I could be wrong, but I would assume that if I am right, Loghain convinces Anora to accept it. It's war and Loghain is the war-leader. It would make sense for her to trust her father to lead the country in time of war, at least initially.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:45 .

[Solica]

Xandurpein wrote...

Solica wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

I am merely reading what the end title in the game says. It never mentions anything other than that she is a good and effective ruler. I did "assume" that this was facts, yes - not someones interpretation. I would believe that if you contend that the game info there is wrong there you would have the burden of proof.

Lol, okay. Then that is a fact.
Now I didn't, and probably never will, have access to that fact, as I have to make up my mind about making her a ruler before that,  And I'm afraid I will mostly assume something different.
But I concede this point.

I thought your whole reasoning was based around the fact that you made up your mind that she was a bad Queen. If there is proof that she is an efficient Queen that can stay the uncontested ruler for all her life and stave off all attempts to force a husband on her (unless she marries Alistair or Human noble in the game) then just maybe one or two of your other assumptions need to be revisited, in light of that. Well, maybe you don't feel so, just a thought... 

But now I'll drop that subject as it still derails the original thread.

My reasoning was based on how I experience Anora, this is all I have without resorting to meta-gaming, to make up my mind about Anora. But never mind that,.. Because:

I think you maybe still don't get the point. The center point is this: that "good and effective ruler" is only a stated fact after your path through this game. Not in mine. Bioware does not pop an epilogue in my face that says:
"The choices you made about Anora were wrong. We, the omnipotent developers hereby decide that you were wrong in making two plus two add up to four. In our omnipotence we can decide that, this time, it adds up to seven, if we want to. And guess what? We do!
Anora would have made a brilliant ruler, if only you, you conceited and vengeful player, had been gracious enough to ignore all her obvious and suspected crimes and make her the queen ruler, bla, bla. If, if and if, bla,bla, if, bla."

Now, think a moment, why do you think they don't do that?

Bioware have endeavored to make a game that gives us many different experiences, depending on where we come from (our origins) and depending upon our choices. As the story develops, it really splits off into different stories, different events. It's not the same story with the same facts. Not just because the experience is different, but because they have also striven to make the environment (including persons) change with our actions.
Presenting a story with many different faces on many coins cannot be an easy task. But the whole purpose of doing it in the first place would be ruined if the developers would then step in and say: "This is what you should think. This is how it really is, even though there are no events in the game that shows or tell you this. This is the *real* Loghain, this is exactly what he thinks. This is the *real* Cailan. Considering what you experienced in the game, this may seem like a really faaar stretch, but this is what really went on, bla bla".

I'd hate to speak for D.G. but I'm kinda leaning towards that this is exactly the reason why he is so vague and ambigious, when he responds to players, desperately seeking confirmation that their interpretation is the right one. He wants to tell them that they maybe aren't wrong, but he cannot tell others, at the same time, that they are wrong.

So no, I don't have to revisit any of my conclusions or assumptions. Not even this one, about Anora being unfit to rule.
The only thing worth discussing in these terms, are in-game events. Is there an event that contradicts my conclusion? Not really. Is there an event that contradicts yours? Not really (most of the time). We can discuss how events really merits one assumption or other. As long as the case is that there is no conclusive in-game evidence, that is ultimately just up to subjective perception. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be fun and educational to have such a discussion.

This thread is precisely about a thing like that. Cailan being a good king or not. The game certainly provides some suspicions about "not" being the case. But my first post was about that the evidence is not conclusive. We can fit the evidence to supporting a somewhat different picture of Cailan, than the one Loghain's personal judgement shoves down our throat.

My personal mind is not made up on Cailan. I just want to give him the benefit of a doubt, because the game actually gives room for that.
 
Now I will confess one thing: If some developer would suddenly step in (in a way some seem to want them to, and some seem to claim they do) and say: "No, no, Cailan was really a terrible king. Only the good, divine Anora held up Ferelden,.."  I would not only deeply resent it. I would actually reject it. Straight out. Take comfort in that I would equally resent them saying Cailan was a good king.

Modifié par Solica, 24 janvier 2010 - 01:32 .

[thegreateski]

Well it's a good thing that Queen Anora was the one actually controlling the kingdom isn't it?

[Ariella]

Xandurpein wrote...

-Conspirator wrote...

Cailan was very popular and his courage and confidence knew to motivate the soldiers. From what we can see he was a fine warrior too. Ruling wasn't his thing, but he had Anora to do it for him, which worked well. He might not be the most intelligent or strategic thinking person, but he was definitive a good guy who was very popular, and that is also very important.

The problem is that we can learn in Return to Ostagar that Cailan had plans to dump Anora and re-marry the Orlesian Empress. So h seems to be ready to do without Anora and forge politics on his own, which I contend doesn't seem to lead to any good.

Bull.... there's absolutely nothing in Cailan's papers that says he was going to marry Celene. The ONLY way you can get that is via Loghain, who's not very trustworthy when it comes to looking at Orlais clearly.

[master-fluff]

Solica wrote...

Bioware have endeavored to make a game that gives us many different experiences, depending on where we come from (our origins) and depending upon our choices. As the story develops, it really splits off into different stories, different events. It's not the same story with the same facts. Not just because the experience is different, but because they have also striven to make the environment (including persons) change with our actions.

Presenting a story with many different faces on many coins cannot be an easy task. But the whole purpose of doing it in the first place would be ruined if the developers would then step in and say: "This is what you should think. This is how it really is, even though there are no events in the game that shows or tell you this. This is the *real* Loghain, this is exactly what he thinks. This is the *real* Cailan. Considering what you experienced in the game, this may seem like a really faaar stretch, but this is what really went on, bla bla".

I'd hate to speak for D.G. but I'm kinda leaning towards that this is exactly the reason why he is so vague and ambigious, when he responds to players, desperately seeking confirmation that their interpretation is the right one. He wants to tell them that they maybe aren't wrong, but he cannot tell others, at the same time, that they are wrong.

This. I think you've nailed the essence of the game and why I love it.  Thank you.