310 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

Sorry, but that's just your interpretation of Howe character.

 

None of us can say what Howe would or should say, and none of us can say how Bioware should do their job. They don't say it bluntly, because they never do that in the game. Which is why their games are so great. But there are quite a few hints that they cooperated from the beginning.

 

And the petty revenge and hate of Couslands may be Howe's reasons for doing it. It still doesn't change the fact that his forces were supposed to go to Ostagar, but never got there and that Loghain didn't seem surprised when he heard about Couslands or that he didn't react in any way besides saying he was sure Cailan intended to fulfil his promise.

 

In other words, why Howe did it and how he achieved it are two different things.

 

It's actually not interpretation. Your view is the interpretation of events. If there is no evidence then you can't simply presume that something happened. That's not how the burden of proof works. You and others are making the accusation so it's up to you to present the evidence. If there's not a single line of dialogue or a single codex entry or a note or letter or even anything in the cellars of Amaranthine from Howe's soldiers, then you're doing nothing more than working from presumption.

 

You may think things look odd or strange, or that there's no way Loghain would have gotten away with it unless he was working with Howe to massacre the Couslands, but you can't offer anything but an odd look and some odd behavior.

 

What you call "my interpretation" is actually the facts of the game. Your interpretation is where things get fuzzy.

[Xetykins]

Your interpretation is the ultimate fact? Just because there's no written record about their deeds does not mean your interpretation is better than ours. And in the absence of those written records there are still damning cutscenes and that howe would never dare sack the Couslands if he did not know he will get away with it. And to do that the king and the other influential nobles has to be disposed. And thats exactly what happened, well 80% anyway cuz Eamon and Fergus lived, because of the pesky warden. And who actually disposed them? Loghain, who is pretty much the highest powers now that the rest are disposed and who is his best bud.

So forgive us for concluding things differently.

[Althix]

I don't see how saying that Loghain had better motives is trying to absolve him. Just because Isabela's arguably worse doesn't mean he gets a pass.

indeed. i fail to see why this absolution thing popped up. i wasn't trying to to absolve his sins, he is guilty. Useful though.

 

as a remark - people who died at Ostagar were soldiers, when people who died in Kirkwall were civilians for the most part.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

as a remark - people who died at Ostagar were soldiers, when people who died in Kirkwall were civilians for the most part.

Yeah, but there's always the slavery thing, which is in fact my main problem with Loghain since he can give a legitimate reason for what he did at Ostagar. Since it was done in a district where all weapons are banned, populated by a minority that society is basically designed to completely screw over, I imagine all the victims were civilians.

[Althix]

yes. however this is more of the narative thing. as you  mentioned it was designed to screw him over. just like this forced drama with Duncan and... what was his name... Cailan guy.

More to that - a video about how battle begins? There is a guy who falters, and sergeant(or whoever that was) behind this coward-guy encouraging him to stay in line. That was also aimed to create some sort of the atmosphere.

 

This is what i don't really like about DAO - some decisions or points of view are forced on the player, when in DA2 most of it was left for player to make conclusions.*

 

*although you can't judge clearly about Orsino and Meredith, unless you have meta game experience.

[Chashan]

btw

 

i have a question to ask - will you guys consider it valid, to place equal sign between Loghain and Isabela, or is it correct to draw a parallel between these two?

 

Parallel? Not quite.

 

Key difference to me, motives already mentioned aside, is this:

 

Loghain, while he poses as the opponent to the player, can eventually be made to come around and expresses genuine remorse as well as a desire to redeem himself (which can be granted or not, depending on whether the Dark Ritual is carried out or not).

 

'bella, on the other hand, quite literally stabs one in the back towards the end of DA2's act II. One can build up genuine trust in her, and how does she repay it? By betraying that trust, and acting as utterly irresponsibly as she does. To let this slide without consequence, as Fenris puts it, isn't quite well acceptable indeed.

While I will probably keep the DA2-state as default in the Keep where my Hawke-miss duels the Arishok for her, her being her lover, I do so with quite a bitter aftertaste.

 

('course, trouble with handing her over is the throwaway-line about how she escapes not just by herself, but with the tome as well...is there some recording of how this is reflected by Varric in DA:I around?)
 

[Althix]

look if i was about to judge Loghain, as example, from a perspective of the injured party, i would execute him on the Landsmeet floor in instant, and by doing so i would lower myself to a level of Alistair(which is so damn low). It would be nice to see situation a little bit broader than that.

 

My point was that both of these characters are responsible for many, many, many deaths.

[springacres]

Yeah, but there's always the slavery thing, which is in fact my main problem with Loghain since he can give a legitimate reason for what he did at Ostagar. Since it was done in a district where all weapons are banned, populated by a minority that society is basically designed to completely screw over, I imagine all the victims were civilians.

This has been the sticking point for both my Wardens who reached the Landsmeet.  They were both elves, one had lived in the Alienage before being sent to the Circle, so in the end neither were able to forgive him enough to let him live.  Though my mage Warden did struggle with it when he saw how much Anora loved her father.

[Althix]

why are you using this word 'forgiveness'?

[springacres]

why are you using this word 'forgiveness'?

Because it's really the only concept that comes to mind for me in a situation like this.

[Monica21]

Your interpretation is the ultimate fact? Just because there's no written record about their deeds does not mean your interpretation is better than ours. And in the absence of those written records there are still damning cutscenes and that howe would never dare sack the Couslands if he did not know he will get away with it. And to do that the king and the other influential nobles has to be disposed. And thats exactly what happened, well 80% anyway cuz Eamon and Fergus lived, because of the pesky warden. And who actually disposed them? Loghain, who is pretty much the highest powers now that the rest are disposed and who is his best bud.

So forgive us for concluding things differently.

 

Again, that's not how burden of proof works. As the one making the accusation, it's your responsibility to provide evidence and not theory.

[nbberm2]

Burden of proof goes both ways unfortunately. It's the same arguement I have with theists repeatedly. "You prove it", "no you prove it."

It comes down to what we see in this case. Maybe howe and loghain weren't in cahoots prior to the massacre of the Couslands, but they were after. That to me is damning enough. There's a good chance that Howe decided the battle in Ostagar was enough of a distraction to get away with what he planned to do. Lucky for him, Loghain left the one man with the power to do something about it to die. In doing so, he created the need for a powerful ally who had no room to question his decision... Convenient yes, but possibly not premeditated

[Xetykins]

Again, that's not how burden of proof works. As the one making the accusation, it's your responsibility to provide evidence and not theory.

So in the absence of evidence, yours automatically becomes absolute facts? Because your facts are really pretty weak if you look at the cut scenes and how the game went. Your "facts of the game" claim is actually just another interpretation. Just like what the rest of us are doing.

[Althix]

 Just like what the rest of us are doing.

yes. argument from ignorance.

[Xetykins]

yes. argument from ignorance.

I guess at least half of the players are ignorant? Gerrof yer high horse.

[TEWR]

 

Again, pure speculation there, but it also makes it odd that upon returning to Denerim, he joins up with Howe and even gives him additional titles.

 

Loghain didn't give Howe any titles. Howe took them for himself while Loghain was at Ostagar and before Loghain arrived in Denerim. Basic common sense when you conquer new areas is putting people loyal to you in positions of authority. Howe now has the greater part of the Coastlands under his heel and presents a significant threat if antagonized, and so Loghain is forced to do nothing about Howe's actions in order to keep the man on his side (the Coastlands have manpower, supply routes, etc. and if made an enemy opens up another front to fight on.

 

 

Loghain appears to have a smirk on his face

 

More of a sneer or scowl, if anything.

 

Loghain's a perpetual frowner.

[Monica21]

I guess at least half of the players are ignorant? Gerrof yer high horse.

 

Don't confuse "ignorant" with "stupid." An argument from ignorance is the presumption that a view is correct in the absence of fact, like trying to prove a negative. I can't prove Loghain and Howe weren't in cahoots prior to Ostagar because nothing says they weren't. The only evidence I have is that nothing in the game says that they were, and if Bioware wanted you to believe that they were, then there would be evidence. Anyone can try to say that it's just really subtle writing, but please. Bioware is not subtle in cases like this. Not only is there no evidence that they were, the writers have stated that Loghain knew nothing about it. There was zero intention on the part of the writers to conflate these two events.

 

Also, Argument from Ignorance.

[Xetykins]

Don't confuse "ignorant" with "stupid." An argument from ignorance is the presumption that a view is correct in the absence of fact, like trying to prove a negative. I can't prove Loghain and Howe weren't in cahoots prior to Ostagar because nothing says they weren't. The only evidence I have is that nothing in the game says that they were, and if Bioware wanted you to believe that they were, then there would be evidence. Anyone can try to say that it's just really subtle writing, but please. Bioware is not subtle in cases like this. Not only is there no evidence that they were, the writers have stated that Loghain knew nothing about it. There was zero intention on the part of the writers to conflate these two events.
 
Also, Argument from Ignorance.

Yes yes so you are still basically saying that your own argument is the absolute truth. I wonder why people are still arguing about it. If Bioware did not want us to believe then they wont have shown them two as best buddies right after Ostagar. C'mon, connection that deep did not just hatch within months. People just dont develop that kind of trust that fast. Specially for the kinds of things they got up to. Again i will point out the fact in game, yes in game that loghain still did not react when the Cousland met him and howe first time. Writers might say something else but their portrayal of their intentions in game says differently.
By the way as much as you are trying to sound all smart by trying to make me look stupid ie: attacking my punctuations and trying to polish my vocabulary by pasting webpages, I'll have you know that it's pretty low and does not win the argument for you.

[Althix]

Yes yes so you are still basically saying that your own argument is the absolute truth. 

no. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Xetykins]

no. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Right so...

 
What you call "my interpretation" is actually the facts of the game. Your interpretation is where things get fuzzy.

Just trying to understand these game facts. That's aĺl.

[Monica21]

Yes yes so you are still basically saying that your own argument is the absolute truth. I wonder why people are still arguing about it. If Bioware did not want us to believe then they wont have shown them two as best buddies right after Ostagar. C'mon, connection that deep did not just hatch within months. People just dont develop that kind of trust that fast. Specially for the kinds of things they got up to. Again i will point out the fact in game, yes in game that loghain still did not react when the Cousland met him and howe first time. Writers might say something else but their portrayal of their intentions in game says differently.
By the way as much as you are trying to sound all smart by trying to make me look stupid ie: attacking my punctuations and trying to polish my vocabulary by pasting webpages, I'll have you know that it's pretty low and does not win the argument for you.

 

People argue about it because they don't like Loghain? I'm just guessing.

 

And really, I apologize that you're taking things personally, but I was pointing out that an Argument from Ignorance is a logical fallacy. It's one of many logical fallacies that exist, including Appeal to Pity or Appeal to Consequences. Saying that something is an Argument from Ignorance and then explaining what it is was not meant to be a personal attack.

 

no. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Well, I actually am arguing that, if only from a meta perspective. The writers have said that Loghain didn't know, therefore Loghain didn't know. People can RP their game however they want, but that doesn't negate the writers' intentions.

[Althix]

i really wouldn't rely on that.

DAO is full of plot holes and logical flaws. Also the manner of which events unfolding before us is really one sided.

 

As example why Riordan is no using right of conscription on Loghain without asking Alistair or HoF for permission? He is a senior GW after all.

 

So i wouldn't call writters as solid argument.

[Monica21]

i really wouldn't rely on that.

DAO is full of plot holes and logical flaws. Also the manner of which events unfolding before us is really one sided.

 

As example why Riordan is no using right of conscription on Loghain without asking Alistair or HoF for permission? He is a senior GW after all.

 

So i wouldn't call writters as solid argument.

 

Well, yes, there are plot holes and logical flaws. That doesn't make the writers' intent any less valid.

[Althix]

if to follow such logic - i should pity Duncan and let Alistair execute Loghain. Because this s how narrative of the game flows.

[JonasTheBloodMage]

I personally did not like Loghain for letting the king die off (including Duncan and many others) it just allowed the darkspawn to take full control of the battlefeild and just lost Ostagar totally. I had Alistar fight him then end him off which I was proud of him to get a bit of revenge for Cailan and Duncan. Loghain sold elfs off to the tevinter imperium like thats a moster and we don't know how many elf's were shipped off. I'm glad I ended his life.