Why he poisoned Eamon?
Here is a two page thread that discusses that very topic.
http://forum.bioware...n-poison-eamon/
It's fascinating reading. A post from Gaider on the subject, well a link to a blog he wrote about it, is also in that thread, along with the holes in it brought up by TEWR.
Well, I hoped that you would have given your opinion in this particular context but thanks for the link 
(Mmm it seems the link to Gaider's blog is broken though)
And in my mind, he definitely usurped her throne. And this is discussed in other conversations in the game. And how quickly her support dried up when she saw Daddy Dearest may not be the man to get the job done, and even worse left her without any real power. The king's (her) army was dead, he had Gwaren and (with Howe) Highever's manpower to support him, plus the mercenaries his slave trade bought him. Had she stood up to him, would he have backed down?
However, I am willing to admit this may be a matter of you and I having a different perception of the situation. Perhaps Anora was too afraid to stand up to her father (that can take a LOT of courage she may not--at the time--have had, standing up to a parent I mean, especially one you hero-worship). Perhaps she didn't want to admit the father she loved was too far gone (and maybe he wasn't yet, only becoming unreasonable after he became 'committed and desperate' on his path and she felt she could reason with him--borne out by later convos with her after she's at Eamon's estate).
Certainly makes for a complex character study in familial relationships.
Well, I hoped that you would have given your opinion in this particular context but thanks for the link
(Mmm it seems the link to Gaider's blog is broken though)
Well, if you want my opinion, sure, I can offer it. I just thought that thread made for interesting reading.
My opinion on why he poisoned Eamon?
Unity for the country and to protect his daughter.
He knew that with Cailan dead, Eamon the traditionalist would want one with Therein blood on the throne. And Loghain knew about Alistair. He knew that if Eamon was up and about, he'd be pushing for Alistair to be the new king despite Anora already being the Queen. He also knew that Eamon was popular enough with the people that it would cause people to ask questions and this would cause even more dissent.
And lo and behold, when we revive Eamon, look what happens. He starts spreading rumors about Maric's illegitimate son and pushing his candidacy, starts talking to all the other nobles about Loghain abandoning Cailan. The gossipers talk about how they hoped that Eamon's recovery meant he should've been helping stop the war, not rile people up further.
Skip ahead to the Landsmeet, if you place Alistair on the throne by himself or are a female Cousland marrying him, the first thing Eamon tries to do is get Alistair to deal with Anora in some way. A hardened Alistair will order her taken to the tower with strength and conviction, and then state outright that she is to be kept there, and should he fall in battle, she will lead Ferelden, surprising and impressing Anora with his sudden leadership. An unhardened Alistair is shocked that Eamon seems to imply that she should be executed and suggests she should be taken to the tower instead of executed, and kind of stumbles around there.
With Eamon and Alistair both around, there was a very tangible threat to Anora's rule, and should she be deposed, Eamon would want her executed as a matter of practicality. Anora certainly does the same for Alistair. The difference between the two is that Alistair would be willing to make the oath that he and his heirs have no right to the throne, whereas Anora tells Eamon that suggesting she does that shows he doesn't know her at all.
That is my personal opinion on why he poisoned Eamon.
And in my mind, he definitely usurped her throne. And this is discussed in other conversations in the game. And how quickly her support dried up when she saw Daddy Dearest may not be the man to get the job done, and even worse left her without any real power. The king's (her) army was dead, he had Gwaren and (with Howe) Highever's manpower to support him, plus the mercenaries his slave trade bought him. Had she stood up to him, would he have backed down?
However, I am willing to admit this may be a matter of you and I having a different perception of the situation. Perhaps Anora was too afraid to stand up to her father (that can take a LOT of courage she may not--at the time--have had, standing up to a parent I mean, especially one you hero-worship). Perhaps she didn't want to admit the father she loved was too far gone (and maybe he wasn't yet, only becoming unreasonable after he became 'committed and desperate' on his path and she felt she could reason with him--borne out by later convos with her after she's at Eamon's estate).
Certainly makes for a complex character study in familial relationships.
It is a complex relationship. And yes, I suppose we did perceive things differently.
For me, I didn't see her as hiding away, at least not until we got closer to the landsmeet. Erlina meeting Eamon and telling us that Howe locked Anora away and was threatening to kill her seemed a little too convenient.
Anora is not stupid. That little gambit had Howe killed, several nobles freed from the dungeons, risked the Warden's life, whose voice would be a very strong one, and put her in a position where she could try to influence the Warden and Alistair so that she could keep her throne.
Work with her, in the interest of keeping her throne, she'll turn on her father. Tell her you won't support her candidacy for the throne, and she'll support her father, and thus make your task in the Landsmeet a lot more difficult. The thing she does not, cannot count on is the Landsmeet actually giving the Warden full control over who Ferelden should unite behind.
I've listened to Loghain when he was in my party, questioned him about Anora, heard him discuss with Shale that even if it meant saving Ferelden, he could never hurt his daughter, defend her honor to Wynne, and I feel like he genuinely and truly cared about her and the country, and although misguided, was doing what he truly thought was best.
In the end, even though I end up respecting him, I think letting him live and doing the dark ritual is the worst thing you could do to him. He ends serving the Wardens in Orlais. He's separated from his family, his country and forced to fight in a country he despises where he'll probably be treated with a great deal of scorn and die a brutal death.
Even if we hate him, letting him live can be a much more brutal punishment than the quick decapitation he gets if we execute him.
It is a complex relationship. And yes, I suppose we did perceive things differently.
For me, I didn't see her as hiding away, at least not until we got closer to the landsmeet. Erlina meeting Eamon and telling us that Howe locked Anora away and was threatening to kill her seemed a little too convenient.
Anora is not stupid. That little gambit had Howe killed, several nobles freed from the dungeons, risked the Warden's life, whose voice would be a very strong one, and put her in a position where she could try to influence the Warden and Alistair so that she could keep her throne.
Work with her, in the interest of keeping her throne, she'll turn on her father. Tell her you won't support her candidacy for the throne, and she'll support her father, and thus make your task in the Landsmeet a lot more difficult. The thing she does not, cannot count on is the Landsmeet actually giving the Warden full control over who Ferelden should unite behind.
I've listened to Loghain when he was in my party, questioned him about Anora, heard him discuss with Shale that even if it meant saving Ferelden, he could never hurt his daughter, defend her honor to Wynne, and I feel like he genuinely and truly cared about her and the country, and although misguided, was doing what he truly thought was best.
In the end, even though I end up respecting him, I think letting him live and doing the dark ritual is the worst thing you could do to him. He ends serving the Wardens in Orlais. He's separated from his family, his country and forced to fight in a country he despises where he'll probably be treated with a great deal of scorn and die a brutal death.
Even if we hate him, letting him live can be a much more brutal punishment than the quick decapitation he gets if we execute him.
I know she's not being entirely truthful (even Howe will say you're being manipulated by her), but I also think perhaps it's definitely a scenario that crossed her mind earlier, making it plausible at least in hearsay. I also believe Loghain may have loved his country and his daughter. Doesn't stop me from hating him, even if I can understand his point of view. Perhaps because he is so easy to relate to, I don't know.
And I take everything he says with a grain of salt. He will also tell you there's nothing she won't do to get the throne, but that's not true. If you agree to support her but still say he has to die, she will not support you in the Landsmeet. If you arrange the marriage for yourself or Alistair, she will not marry the man who kills her father. She wants the throne but she wants her father to live too. She only accepts his death after if she is left with no option. Even she has her limits, something I think would have surprised him if he had known.
I know she's not being entirely truthful (even Howe will say you're being manipulated by her), but I also think perhaps it's definitely a scenario that crossed her mind earlier, making it plausible at least in hearsay. I also believe Loghain may have loved his country and his daughter. Doesn't stop me from hating him, even if I can understand his point of view. Perhaps because he is so easy to relate to, I don't know.
And I take everything he says with a grain of salt. He will also tell you there's nothing she won't do to get the throne, but that's not true. If you agree to support her but still say he has to die, she will not support you in the Landsmeet. If you arrange the marriage for yourself or Alistair, she will not marry the man who kills her father. She wants the throne but she wants her father to live too. She only accepts his death after if she is left with no option. Even she has her limits, something I think would have surprised him if he had known.
True, but so does Loghain. Shale calls him out on this.
So both had their limits, and apparently it was the same limit. And both had blinders on about each the other as well.
Like I said, complex character study in familial relationships.
The one time I spared Loghain I raced from Landsmeet to endgame to finish. It was a lark run with a lot of choices I wouldn't have normally made. (I lost everyone except Dog, Leliana, Wynne, Oghren and Loghain). I never recruited Shale, sent Sten away in Haven, killed Zevran in Denerim and lost Alistair at the Landsmeet. I didn't take Loghain around for banters or talk to him much in camp. He annoys the ****** out of me normally, and I only did it just before DA2 to see 'drunken Alistair' in the sequel. While I did feel the 'most true' ending for that was "Loghain redeems himself by dying on the Archdemon" I did go back and do the US (for Anora's eulogy) and the DR to see what Loghain had to say at the Coronation.
I was truly evil. Not only did I force him to live, but I made him do the dark ritual with Morrigan (my warden was a male also). I think the only one more horrified at the prospect than Alistair was Loghain...Then, he lived and was forced to go to Orlais.
..That is my personal opinion on why he poisoned Eamon.
Thx for your answer 
So, you think it was a mix of selfish and strategic reasons? Personally, I think Loghain is the type of person who would have sacrificed (very reluctantly) his own daughter if he was sure that it was in Ferelden's best interests. Luckily for him, her daughter and him seemed to share the same views on politics (or, at least, she could not bring herself to contradict him), which put her in a safe position in this context.
Still, the description you give of Lhogain's behaviour gives me the impression that he was in a dictator mindset. Also maybe the aliance with Orlais would have turned to be a good thing for Ferelden, and for Orlais too. Celene seems to be a progressive, pragmatic but fair ruler, nothing to suggest that she would have treated Ferelden badly.
Thx for your answer
So, you think it was a mix of selfish and strategic reasons? Personally, I think Loghain is the type of person who would have sacrificed (very reluctantly) his own daughter if he was sure that it was in Ferelden's best interests. Luckily for him, her daughter and him seemed to share the same views on politics (or, at least, she could not bring herself to contradict him), which put her in a safe position in this context.
Still, the description you give of Lhogain's behaviour gives me the impression that he was in a dictator mindset. Also maybe the aliance with Orlais would have turned to be a good thing for Ferelden, and for Orlais too. Celene seems to be a progressive, pragmatic but fair ruler, nothing to suggest that she would have treated Ferelden badly.
You're welcome. As for Loghain being a dictator...yes he is. He pretty much dictates to the bannorn what he expects at the Landsmeet and expected it to happen. He's not noble born, he wasn't trained for the court. He's a commoner who was raised to be a high nobleman, and a military man. He's used to dealing with problems directly, and doesn't have the patience or the mindset to play too much in politics.
I posted a conversation he has with Shale about that very subject, so I don't think he would sacrifice his daughter in favor of his country, but he would do just about anything else.
Ah, but what of the nobles playing the Game? What of the overseers that would come? What of the Chevalier's sent in to enforce the peace?
Celene seems to be fair minded and decent, but she also encourages the game among the nobility as a way to keep them weaker than her. And Orlais doesn't accept Ferelden's tradition of the shareholders and land owners acting independent of the King or Queen. The Landsmeet codex makes it clear that a king or queen of ferelden trying to persuade the Bannorn to support them is an item of great confusion to all their neighbors. Ferelden's power structure seems to go from the middle on up, compared to every other nation that goes from the top to the bottom.
As for the peace, there's another bit of Loghain dialogue, with Wynne in the RtO DLC that adds an interesting perspective. In that same dialogue, it also shows Wynne's ignorance about Cailan's and Anora's relationship.
Anora tells a female Warden that Cailan took on many mistresses, and Anora knew about each one. Doesn't exactly sound like Wynne's vision of Cailan's and Anora's marriage.
Still, it's a nice bit of dialogue about the 'peace' with Orlais that would come.
...
I posted a conversation he has with Shale about that very subject, so I don't think he would sacrifice his daughter in favor of his country, but he would do just about anything else.
Mmm I'm not sure if that makes him more sympathetic in my eyes or kind of a hypocrite...
Ah, but what of the nobles playing the Game? What of the overseers that would come? What of the Chevalier's sent in to enforce the peace?
What about them? Ferelden was struggling with a Blight at that time, better have reinforcement than nothing. Also, maybe the Chevalier were only preparing to defend Orlais' borders, I don't know, I don't remember this part well (what Riordan said about the Chevaliers).
Celene seems to be fair minded and decent, but she also encourages the game among the nobility as a way to keep them weaker than her. And Orlais doesn't accept Ferelden's tradition of the shareholders and land owners acting independent of the King or Queen. The Landsmeet codex makes it clear that a king or queen of ferelden trying to persuade the Bannorn to support them is an item of great confusion to all their neighbors. Ferelden's power structure seems to go from the middle on up, compared to every other nation that goes from the top to the bottom.
Lol and you wonder why the nobility didn't took Loghain's decisions/dictatorship very well?
Perhaps an alliance could have been forged with Orlais but only under some conditions? Like keeping the political systems separated and give the title of consort to Celene while she's in Ferelden and to Caillan while he's in Orlais?
There are numerous other holes in the logic other then the ones I mentioned in the linked thread, FWIW. I'd have to get a few days off where all I could do is replay the game and pay attention to the lines and codexes in detail, but I don't have that luxury.
Thx for your answer
So, you think it was a mix of selfish and strategic reasons? Personally, I think Loghain is the type of person who would have sacrificed (very reluctantly) his own daughter if he was sure that it was in Ferelden's best interests. Luckily for him, her daughter and him seemed to share the same views on politics (or, at least, she could not bring herself to contradict him), which put her in a safe position in this context.
Still, the description you give of Lhogain's behaviour gives me the impression that he was in a dictator mindset. Also maybe the aliance with Orlais would have turned to be a good thing for Ferelden, and for Orlais too. Celene seems to be a progressive, pragmatic but fair ruler, nothing to suggest that she would have treated Ferelden badly.
Anora had to support her father in the beginning. At this point in time, there's a war going on and Loghain is the best-equipped to lead the armies. But Loghain's insistence on doing everything himself puts her in a precarious situation. She could oppose him in public, undoubtedly, but it would mean giving the Bannorn even more reason to fight against Loghain and would actually lead to more chaos, which is something she's trying to avoid.
Loghain also had the full backing of his own forces along with the greater part of the Coastlands thanks to Howe throwing in with him. That automatically gives him the edge. By throwing her lot in with him, her hope is that the (at this point in time) leaderless Bannorn will not try and fight against a man who they have no chance of winning against.
Alas, Teagan's statements and Loghain's statements incited the Bannorn. Both are at fault for the tension in the political spectrum, but it seems that the fault for the first blow goes to the Bannorn (it wouldn't make sense for a man who wants to avoid Civil War actually go and strike the first blow).
Indeed, you hear tales of how the Banns can't even unite against Loghain. They're either fighting for Loghain, against Loghain, against themselves, etc. Most of the time they get their asses handed to them, but in the off chance they do win against him (like when 3 banns united) their victory is short-lived as it leaves them without sufficient defenses to go against the Darkspawn.
Is Loghain a dictator? Well, yes and no. You have to understand the political situation he's in. His direct act of demanding the Banns unite under his banner does fly straight in the face of Fereldan custom as pertains to the freeholders, but it's also done in the name of ensuring Ferelden appear strong and not fall to petty infighting after the loss of their king. Anora is no doubt named the queen during that Landsmeet (as she's consistently referred to as such, so she must've secured th) but she's not a Theirin, which would rustle a lot of jimmies.
In the absence of a Theirin heir, it opens up a political vacuum. Many would seek to fill it, and this would lead to a chaotic civil war. Loghain fills the vacuum immediately, hoping to quell any and all hopes opportunistic nobles might have, and demands their support in defeating the Darkspawn. He cites them as the immediate concern then and there, though he makes it a point to mention offhand how others would take advantage of their weakened state (Orlais, which is right when you look at the history of the nation).
He declares himself Anora's Regent. Anora herself is fine with this (again, she has to be). In truth though, this was perhaps one thing Loghain shouldn't have done. He says he did everything to protect Anora from the fallout that might occur, when Anora doesn't need to be coddled. She could handle the politics on her own. Indeed, talking to him about Anora and saying he knows her better then anyone will yield a "You think so? I'm not so sure of that".
I like to think Howe kept Loghain from going to Anora for advice by trying to manipulate him into believing Anora unfit for rule due to grief from Cailan's death. Think Grima Wormtongue. And when Anora brings up Cailan, Howe then goes somewhere off-screen to Loghain "See my liege? She is unfit for the burden of rule. Come to me for help." and Loghain fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Certainly, Gaider said Loghain thought himself above Howe's influence but Howe was manipulating Loghain.
Anyway, the civil war was the result of a few things. Loghain's demands reminding a once-oppressed nation of their Orlesian overlords' similar things (though the reasons are different), Teagan inciting the banns, etc. As the banns fought against the Regency, they were effectively committing treason against the crown.
When the civil war broke out, grudges were brought to a boil. Old grudges from centuries ago. The thing is, once a civil war occurs it's next to impossible to get it to go back to normal. You'd need sufficient power brokers to stop it, people who can effectively sway people to their side. This is, in effect, Eamon and Anora at the time of the game with the absence of Bryce. Teagan's next, and we can't forget the Warden. I'm talking strictly politics here, which Loghain has no mind for.
As a result of this, with Teagan deadset to be against Loghain, Loghain had to turn his attention towards quelling the rebel banns. This is the prudent course of action from his perspective. Stepping down would have been pointless once the banns started fighting against one another (remember, these are the people who would go to war over a tree). You can't fight a war on multiple fronts, not easily anyway. And the banns, although hardly united, would still present a credible threat to Loghain's efforts to dealing with the Darkspawn.
They could attack his supply caravans or harass his troops. Geographically, the banns stand in the way for his southern movements. Even passing through his own territory wouldn't solve the problem, as he'd eventually come into conflict with banns who aren't on his side. And even then, the troops he does have at his disposal aren't enough to deal with the Darkspawn. That's why he needed the banns to resupply the army.
Fighting the rebel banns was the thing that needed to be done once they elected to start a war out of a sense of short-sighted altruism and "honor". These are the people who are supposed to be protecting their lands from foreign aggressors, yet they saw fit to attack a man who wanted to deal with the Darkspawn. How many lives did these banns throw to the flames?
Sadly, his alliance with Howe presented its own problems. Howe began to embezzle from the royal treasury and committed numerous acts Loghain had no knowledge of and never approved of while he (Loghain) was out in the field leading his armies -- for instance, the needless Purge of the Alienage. Coupled with the Civil War, Howe's actions led to the treasury becoming near bankrupt. This isn't the first time the nation suffered a near-bankruptcy. When Maric disappeared, Loghain exhausted a great deal of funds trying to find him.
Loghain had previously turned to the Circle of Magi for help against the Darkspawn, as they were Ferelden's greatest possible asset against them. He nearly had them on his side too, though Wynne's meddling in matters she's ignorant of and Uldred's ****** reaction ended up keeping them away from Loghain. Still, had he gotten them, he would have had access to the Formari and the Lucrosians and could have had them help keep the treasury running.
But he didn't. And so Howe offered him a "solution". To sell Elves to a bunch of Tevinter Magisters to fund the war-chest. Ignoring for the moment how this is a rather shoddy way to portray the struggles of Elves because it's only really used in relation to Loghain as either a means to get you to side against him or Alistair for his drama, it was a "dirty fix".
Now I'm not saying I discount it. Rather I just think it should've been retooled a bit to actually have a great deal of focus on the implications and consequences of such an action, rather then being a simple emotional crutch (unless you're a Tabris, in which you faced that stuff a lot). Leaving it at that from a writing perspective doesn't do much for me, particularly when everyone uses Ostagar as being the definitive "anti-Loghain" statement (in-game and out). If anything, it's the slavery, as it can mark him as being no better then the Orlesians, even if his reasons aren't like theirs (where it was For The Evulz).
But anyway, that's tangential, and the slavery thing is certainly something to hold against him. But, and I only say this for the full exploration of it all, the Alienage is presented to us as an indefensible location. True or not in the grand scheme of things (it's arguable to me, given how it's walled off yet it's also got a lot of dilapidated hovels) it's certainly true in the context of it only being able to be saved because the Warden will make a heroic rescue.
Beyond that, talking to Loghain yields further insight. At the time of the Warden's intervention, approximately 36 Elves ("a few dozen" as he says) were sent out with the Tevinters and the war-chest was 1/3 of the way full. There's no real way for us to determine the amount of coin a slave in Thedas would go for, and Hayder's statement in DAII of how Castillon's slaves -- originally refugees trying to flee the Blight -- were worth 100 sovereigns a head seems outlandish. At a reluctant guess, I'd put a slave as being perhaps anywhere from 40-60 sovereigns, and that's being generous.
But anyway, with the war chest completely filled, Loghain's intention was to resupply the army and then, once that was done, supply the Elves so they could defend themselves.
Is his logic a bit warped? Certainly. He thinks that by this time even being alive as a slave is preferable to dying without hope at the hands of the Darkspawn. Whether one agrees it's better to live as a slave or die without hope is up to them, though a case could be made you're dead either way. The only difference being how literal it is.
Still, Elves being able to defend themselves would've been great and falls in line with the original Loghain that led an entire group of Elves in the rebellion.
Am I defending the slavery? Not really. I just think examining the full context of it is important, but I agree it's one thing that can be used to justify his execution. Other things... not so much.
As for Celene... well... let me link to a post of mine with what I said on that topic recently.
(I can elaborate later if people wish).
Hayder's claim of 100 sovereigns a head was either 1) him milking it for everything he can at the moment and/or 2) utter bullsh*t. Zevran will say he was purchased by the Crows for...what was it? 3 sovereigns--I forget--but nothing near 100 or even 40. And he will say it was 'a bargain', though he won't clarify if it was a buyer or seller's deal. And the elf in the alienage you can talk to says they took men, women and children, so no telling how many were taken.
At that rate of sale, it would be a lot more than just 'a few dozen' elves to come close to covering a third of the treasury if it was as depleted as Loghain claims. Either this is a plot hole, or Loghain is lying to your face. (I'm thinking plot hole, since the game post Landsmeet is a landmine of misfiring plot flags and bugs galore). Also, his excuse of the elves being indefensible is laughable considering they were besieged, but the alienage fared better than the market or other places (at least it lasted longer) and you can convince them to stay and fight for their home.
The whole slavery thing is what really pushes my buttons and ultimately condemns him in my eyes. I don't see anywhere in the game where Howe suggests he sells the elves. It may have happened but it's not in the game, unless he makes that claim in a conversation at camp. Admittedly, I may have missed it because I didn't talk to him the one time I didn't kill him at the Landsmeet.
It's possible that the elves being taken were being taken for a very specific purpose, say a blood sacrifice ritual. I think Tevinter would pay handsomely to get slaves for such a purpose so they wouldn't have to waste their own.
As for the slaves Castillon picked up, it does sound like a bit of an exaggeration but if the demand for slaves is high enough, the price in turn would sky-rocket.
Yes, Zevran was bought for 3 sovereigns, but he also said he was a sad little waif, all skin and bones and with no skills. I imagine a child who was perfectly healthy and trained in basic combat would be a much higher price for the crows to purchase. Like a squire to a Chevalier or something.
Except elves aren't allowed weapons or to fight (the PC being a notable exception--one his/her father tries to keep hush hush on the fighting skills). Which makes the bravery of Shianni and others during the darkspawn siege much more noteworthy (if you convince them to fight). I usually tell them to run and hide, but my City elf always encourages them to fight for their homes.
And if Tevinter were paying for them to just be sacrificed in a blood ritual...gah I never thought of that!...makes what Loghain did that much more horrible to me since the only argument you can have for him at that point was 'better to be alive and a slave than dead at darkspawn hands'. Cause, you know, bled out by a Tevinter blood mage was so very preferable to that... 
.
Lalalalalala not listening...I'm gonna prefer to believe they just bought them for usual slave stuff and not just for that.
It is a complex relationship. And yes, I suppose we did perceive things differently.
For me, I didn't see her as hiding away, at least not until we got closer to the landsmeet. Erlina meeting Eamon and telling us that Howe locked Anora away and was threatening to kill her seemed a little too convenient.
Anora is not stupid. That little gambit had Howe killed, several nobles freed from the dungeons, risked the Warden's life, whose voice would be a very strong one, and put her in a position where she could try to influence the Warden and Alistair so that she could keep her throne.
Work with her, in the interest of keeping her throne, she'll turn on her father. Tell her you won't support her candidacy for the throne, and she'll support her father, and thus make your task in the Landsmeet a lot more difficult. The thing she does not, cannot count on is the Landsmeet actually giving the Warden full control over who Ferelden should unite behind.
I've listened to Loghain when he was in my party, questioned him about Anora, heard him discuss with Shale that even if it meant saving Ferelden, he could never hurt his daughter, defend her honor to Wynne, and I feel like he genuinely and truly cared about her and the country, and although misguided, was doing what he truly thought was best.
In the end, even though I end up respecting him, I think letting him live and doing the dark ritual is the worst thing you could do to him. He ends serving the Wardens in Orlais. He's separated from his family, his country and forced to fight in a country he despises where he'll probably be treated with a great deal of scorn and die a brutal death.
Even if we hate him, letting him live can be a much more brutal punishment than the quick decapitation he gets if we execute him.
I'm so glad you wrote this. I have always thought Anora was putting a few too many fingers in a few too many pies. She is good at the intrigue and finesse of political infighting. Loghain, I feel, is an idealist and she can twist that to suit herself. To give her her due tho', she always supports her father at the end. Would have been interesting to see if she would have supported the wardens, should they have greater support than Loghain.
...
Well, in my point of vue the banns were trying to defend themselves and their values when they refused Loghain's regency. I mean, that's something Logain should have expected, no? You said yourself that his demand to unite under his banner flies straight in the face of Ferelden's custom so, what was his backup plan? Reunite the bannorn anyway, by force? Wouldn't that have been easier if, instead of that he had tried, I don't know, diplomacy? Apparently the Landsmeet works so, perhaps he should have been the one who reunited the banns (instead of Eamon) and tried to convince them of his good intentions / the dangers of the Blight, etc.
I'd forgotten about Zev's comments on how much he was bought for. Perhaps that speaks to Antiva's mentality concerning how much people are worth. Although perhaps it also has to do with the Antivan Crows themselves. Would you charge an obscene amount of money towards a guildmaster for a group of people that can make you vanish in the middle of the night?
And to be fair towards this:
Also, his excuse of the elves being indefensible is laughable considering they were besieged, but the alienage fared better than the market or other places (at least it lasted longer) and you can convince them to stay and fight for their home.
Note that we come at the time that the Alienage is actually being besieged, which was why I said that's the only reason it actually stands. Because we come in to save the day. If we weren't there, chances are it wouldn't have lasted.
Outside of that, from a more objective military standpoint, I can't speak to the actual veracity of the claim that it's indefensible. Only that that's what we're told and we don't witness much.
But given the nature of the Alienage (walled off sections of the city) I'd say it is a load of rubbish.
Except elves aren't allowed weapons or to fight (the PC being a notable exception--one his/her father tries to keep hush hush on the fighting skills). Which makes the bravery of Shianni and others during the darkspawn siege much more noteworthy (if you convince them to fight). I usually tell them to run and hide, but my City elf always encourages them to fight for their homes.
And if Tevinter were paying for them to just be sacrificed in a blood ritual...gah I never thought of that!...makes what Loghain did that much more horrible to me since the only argument you can have for him at that point was 'better to be alive and a slave than dead at darkspawn hands'. Cause, you know, bled out by a Tevinter blood mage was so very preferable to that...
Lalalalalala not listening...I'm gonna prefer to believe they just bought them for usual slave stuff and not just for that.
Nelaros is an accomplished smith, and although blacksmiths do more then just make weapons he would no doubt be tasked with that as part of it. Plus, he's more skilled then a newbie would reasonably be in terms of weapons (not that he makes it out alive).
In fact, Nelaros isn't just an accomplished smith, his father is one as well.
Highever is told to us as being a good place for the Elves by Iona, because of Bryce. Given that Elves are allowed to work their own forges, work with weapons, and all that... it seems the ban on weapons is a Denerim thing. No wonder, given that the city has long had a history of purges every few years.
Well, in my point of vue the banns were trying to defend themselves and their values when they refused Loghain's regency. I mean, that's something Logain should have expected, no? You said yourself that his demand to unite under his banner flies straight in the face of Ferelden's custom so, what was his backup plan? Reunite the bannorn anyway, by force? Wouldn't that have been easier if, instead of that he had tried, I don't know, diplomacy? Apparently the Landsmeet works so, perhaps he should have been the one who reunited the banns (instead of Eamon) and tried to convince them of his good intentions / the dangers of the Blight, etc.
Thing is, values are all well and good but in a time of war you have to put that aside, particularly when your decisions impact more people then just you. I'm no Mass Effect person (don't have the games) but the character Javik did say something that I think is very true.
"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."
He's always been a blunt and direct man, which in turn negatively impacts his choice in people to speak up for him (Uldred's a vocal libertarian, which aligned well with Loghain's promise towards him regarding the Circle, but Loghain didn't know him well enough to gauge his true character). Look at Imrek. The man is far too blunt and direct. Moreover, Imrek doesn't care about proper diplomacy towards the Dwarves and is actually really disrespectful towards their ways.
His hope was that the Bannorn would unite immediately under him and they could properly deal with the Darkspawn. Do you know how long diplomacy would have taken? Weeks, if not months, of constant playing the field. And that would've resulted in who knows how many lives lost to the Darkspawn.
I'm not saying his approach was the best. Politically speaking, it was a disaster. There are a great deal of things I would have done differently were I in his shoes, but at the same time I see where he's coming from and think he was in the right.
Sometimes, you have to throw custom and tradition out the window.
Yeah, but "honour" <> "values". I mean in this context, "values" can be assimilated to the laws and the culture of Ferelden. And the changing was so abrupt that it could have been perceived as a threat by the bannorn.
Also, on another subject, I think that honour matters, but that depends of the context and the opponent. For exemple, it's futile to try to act honorably with mindless Darkspawn.
I would have agreed that the nobles acted foolishly if Logain had given me the impression that he, at least, took the Blight's threat seriously. Uptil now, only the grey warden were able to stop a blight/ an archdemon, I wonder why he thought he could succeed were others country have failed before?
I don't know how long diplomacy would have taken but the Landsmeet happen either way in DAO. Frankly that didn't seemed to take much time to reunite everybody, what made you think it took too much time? In case of I wasn't clear enough before, what I meant is : after logain realised that some nobles would rather fight him than join him, he should have adapted his strategy and tried diplomacy or throw a Landsmeet.
While he didn't believe it was a Blight, he DID believe that the Darkspawn needed to be dealt with immediately, swiftly, and sensibly. It's in that scene we see. I'd say that's taking things seriously. Especially when he attempts to forge an alliance between Ferelden, the Circle, and Orzammar to deal with such a threat and accepts aid from the Free Marches.
I wonder why he thought he could succeed were others country have failed before?
To be fair, Hafter led the people against the Darkspawn during the Second Blight and soundly defeated them. This was before Ferelden became a nation mind you, where the clans were prone to fighting each other constantly. So it's rather impressive in that regard.
That said, the Second Blight wasn't directed at Ferelden, so it's not quite the same thing.
Mainly though? Arrogance. Flemeth brought it up. He thinks the Darkspawn are just another foe he can defeat easily by outmaneuvering them. But he doesn't know the real reason Blights need to be ended.
And to be fair, the Wardens didn't tell him. Had he known, things would've been different.
Though I definitely think he could've done a lot of damage to the Darkspawn had the nation united under his banner.
don't know how long diplomacy would have taken but the Landsmeet happen either way in DAO. Frankly that didn't seemed to take much time to reunite everybody,
Well yeah, because by that time people don't really like Loghain and you just throw a bunch of his crimes out in the open to turn the tables, to say nothing of Anora being a crucial figure in deciding that.
Understanding that at this point in time the Bannorn just want a quick end to this when the Darkspawn are invading their homes and destroying everything is essential. This Landsmeet takes a fairly short amount of time because of how they're just kinda... seriously pissed at Loghain. So you can't use this Landsmeet to say how long the other one would have taken.
However it's known that the monarchs have to work to get the support of the banns to gain the crown. So it stands to reason that would also apply for the Darkspawn. Without a centralized chain of command, most Banns would prioritize their own lands rather then contribute to the needed war effort.
Perhaps had Loghain been more approachable, they would have understood, but the nature of Ostagar is something many had their doubts about so I doubt it would have made much difference. Even despite the fact that Loghain explained in great detail Ostagar's reasons for being a failure. Like how Cailan was a glory-seeking hound, which Teagan doesn't accept despite it being true, or how they were seriously outnumbered.
Of course he also says the Wardens were to blame for Cailan's death (which from his PoV they were, and from an objective PoV they share in the blame of the battle... as does Loghain, Cailan, the Chantry, Howe, and even Bioware itself for failing to write it in a proper manner).
Regardless of how he would've approached him, I doubt the nobility would've done much different. Teagan probably would've still talked of Ostagar, riling the Bannorn. And thus it would be imperative to get the nobles to see reason, which would still take time.
hat made you think it took too much time? In case of I wasn't clear enough before, what I meant is : after logain realised that some nobles would rather fight him than join him, he should have adapted his strategy and tried diplomacy or throw a Landsmeet.
A Landsmeet's an annual thing. Generally speaking, it only happens once a year. There are times when they won't happen because of a Blight or other such things, but calling for a second Landsmeet so soon after the first probably wouldn't have worked. You have to understand that many nobles would spend days if not a couple weeks on the road traveling to Denerim, then spend some weeks there, before heading out again.
The course of DAO takes place over one year. We see two Landsmeets go on, both separated by that year.
As for why I think it would take a lot of time, it's because of the very nature of people. So-and-so would have a problem with fighting to protect this noble's lands, because of an old feud, for example. The thing about Ferelden is that because it isn't united, you have to work really hard to gain the support of a lot of people without causing the others to go out the door. You have to understand the minds of the people.
Some kingdoms ridigly define the rights of vassals and their duty to their liege. In Ferelden, a relatively new kingdom, the arls and arlessas theoretically command their arlings' banns and lords. In practice, those lessers often zealously maintain their independence.
Some Fereldan vassals must be goaded instead of ordered--swayed, not ruled. Vassals owe military obligations to their liege, yet often deny even sworn oaths and signed contracts. In contrast, the vassals expect their liege's protection despite provocation otherwise. A successful Fereldan liege applies force, persuasion, and duplicity in equal measure.
--From A Guide to Statecraft, published anonymously
Vassals and their Liege codex. That's only part of understand Fereldan culture.
And besides, Loghain calling a Landsmeet wouldn't work because he's not a politician. He's a horrible politician. He'd fail at it. And with Howe at his side, any attempt at politics wouldn't work because Howe doesn't entertain diplomacy. He just tries to satisfy his own overreaching ambition and greed.
Had Anora been his political advisor, things would be different. But it'd still take time.
Of course, a couple of months is still preferable to a whole year.
I'm no political expert to be honest, but I do happen to know more then most of the people on the BSN whose arguments in the past tended to ignore the nature of people and expect everything to be so goody-two-shoes and pure and honorable. I know enough about military and politics to know that it can't be reduced to simplistic extremes.
So to put it simply, you are telling me that it would have been more difficult to call for a Landsmeet than to win the civil war? So the civil war was a better /quicker/ safer option? Given the choice, I thought that the nobles would have rather prefered to travel again to Denerim instead of sending their troups to die on a battlefield.
Also, Logain seemed quite eloquent during the Landsmeet in DAO, convincing the bannorn is not an easy task for the warden,every dialogue option must be chosen carefully and depending on Anora's support, the public's favor can be won by Logain.
So to put it simply, you are telling me that it would have been more difficult to call for a Landsmeet than to win the civil war? So the civil war was a better /quicker/ safer option? Given the choice, I thought that the nobles would have rather prefered to travel again to Denerim instead of sending their troups to die on a battlefield.
Also, Logain seemed quite eloquent during the Landsmeet in DAO, convincing the bannorn is not an easy task for the warden,every dialogue option must be chosen carefully and depending on Anora's support, the public's favor can be won by Logain.
Also consider that had Loghain called a Landsmeet instead of embarking on a war against the people of Ferelden, he wouldn't have had to face the opposition or arguments of either Eamon (in a coma) and the Warden (off gathering armies). Alistair's claim (or not, depending on your opinion of that) would not have even been raised.
Under those circumstances, even I'll concede he is likely to have prevailed. (And doomed Ferelden in the process.)
Well, maybe Ferelden wouldn't have been doomed. Even if Loghain had succeeded (in a hypothetical scenario) in reuniting the bannorn under his command, that is still not a reason enough for the warden to stop his task (because Loghain is supposed to underestimate the dangers of the Blight and that's the original reason why the warden gathers an army aside).
But soon or later a problem would have occured, I guess the key element here is Riordan. Or more specifically, the information he's got about the final blow on the archdemon.
But it's still possible that, in a way or another, this information reach the warden just in time. For exemple :
- If Riordan succeed to escape alone from Howe's castel.
- If for some reason, the warden still needs to go in Howe's castel (in DAO the warden goes there to free Anora then, there, he/she meets Riordan). Frankly, I don't see why the warden would need to go there if Anora is not emprisoned but, maybe a Cousland would want to pay a small visit to Howe? Who knows?
- If Riordan talks about his secret to his jailers, in theory this information should be considered sufficiently important to be repeted to Howe and Loghain (and to other guardians probably, then maybe to other people?).
Well, maybe Ferelden wouldn't have been doomed. Even if Loghain had succeeded (in a hypothetical scenario) in reuniting the bannorn under his command, that is still not a reason enough for the warden to stop his task (because Loghain is supposed to underestimate the dangers of the Blight and that's the original reason why the warden gathers an army aside).
But soon or later a problem would have occured, I guess the key element here is Riordan. Or more specifically, the information he's got about the final blow on the archdemon.
But it's still possible that, in a way or another, this information reach the warden just in time. For exemple :
- If Riordan succeed to escape alone from Howe's castel.
- If for some reason, the warden still needs to go in Howe's castel (in DAO the warden goes there to free Anora then, there, he/she meets Riordan). Frankly, I don't see why the warden would need to go there if Anora is not emprisoned but, maybe a Cousland would want to pay a small visit to Howe? Who knows?
- If Riordan talks about his secret to his jailers, in theory this information should be considered sufficiently important to be repeted to Howe and Loghain (and to other guardians probably, then maybe to other people?).
Had Loghain united the bannorn under his command, he almost certainly would have used that vast army to eliminate the (imaginary) threat of the last two Wardens. Without them to save the day, Ferelden would be wholly consumed by the Blight. (And whether they'd have an excuse to rescue Riordan is immaterial, IMO, since they wouldn't have any reason to go to Denerim at all, and many reasons to avoid the place.)
No, but I went into the game spoiled (knew the Landsmeet outcomes and choice after defeating him) and quickly saw that this was the guy I wanted on my side.
Retour en haut