Isn't the army assembled to fight the Denerim battle in Darkspawn Chronicles exactly what you've described? Templars in the market, golems in the Palace District, werewolves at Fort Drakon... and yet the darkspawn win. *game set match*
Indeed. But how much easier the DLC would it be if it had no golems, templars and werewolves? And the only reason the darkspawn win is because the story is set by their perspective, just like how the warden and co aways defeat the archdemon by the end of Origins.
Isn't the army assembled to fight the Denerim battle in Darkspawn Chronicles exactly what you've described? Templars in the market, golems in the Palace District, werewolves at Fort Drakon... and yet the darkspawn win. *game set match*
Makes sense when you think about it.
Templars are only great for fighting mages or their just non-magical magical knights that are slightly better than the average warrior. Mages can employ all kinds of magical abilities like summon fire, shock people to death, healing and so on.
Werewolves are strong, but only at close-range. Which would be impractical against the endless numbers of the darkspawn. The dalish elves are passable in close quarters, but would be essential at long range with their archery.
Dwarves are a powerful force by themselves and golems would just be a neat bonus since 1 golem apparently equals the strength of 10 dwarves and the 4 steel golems at the battle are unmatched in terms of strength and durability.
Also, Darkspawn Chronicles was an alternate world where the Warden died and Alistair had to take charge.
But there is the simple fact that Loghain is failing at what he's trying to do. His methods of trying to save Ferelden were either weakening it or he was doing things that were compromising core values and ethics of Ferelden culture and law. Even with the context of his orlesian paranoia, antagonizing the wardens and not focusing on the Blight was doomed to have his country destroyed if not for The Warden.
But that brings the question, if doing something evil was the only way to achieve victory and thus save the world, would you do it? Players don't need to worry about it since plot dictates they can win even with an weak army. But what if preserving the anvil, siding with the werewolves and so forth, was the only sure way to win, would you do it? I find interesting players judge Loghain so passionately, but they don't really bother to place themselves on his shoes.
Loghain wasn't in a situation where he had to do something immoral/unethical to save the world. His delusions that propped him up to be the sole savior among other things may have convinced him this was so but it wasn't. Most people think they're right in their own minds. Do you offer them sympathy/mercy because of it? If so, we'd have very few people in prison. If you use "ends justify the means" and your ends turn out to be based on false pretenses and not truly necessary, you should face the consequences for those means.
And it bothers me to see just how if put in the right setting I can see many people on these boards stooping to tyranny, terrorism, etc. when they've convinced themselves it's "necessary." Look at how many people defend Loghain who was by the end inarguably a tyrant. I was thinking about this during the past 9/11. Were the terrorists responsible for 9/11/01 much different in mindset from those who would defend a man like Loghain or Anders? Ends justify the means, right? In the terrorists' minds killing innocents is justified if it serves the greater good as they see it. Perhaps people defend characters like Loghain because they're fictional and it isn't their real families being killed or enslaved to help keep Loghain in power.
But back to your post, if the choice is between certain extinction or compromising morals, I'm with Javik of ME3 and would do what it took to survive. That's why I lean more towards preserving the Anvil of the Void for example which has to be considered in a situation where the dwarves are going extinct without it. Yet I never defend Loghain.
But terrorists are different then darkspawn. When terrorists do something wrong, they do it for the sake of an ideal, but when we do something wrong in order to fight the darkspawn, it's for the sake of survival itself.
Of course he was. He's the antagonist. If he were correct, and the Wardens weren't necessary to defeat the darkspawn, then the Warden is just (at best) a deluded maniac prolonging the civil war, and at worst, an Orlesian shill. He'd be the hero he thinks he is, and the game would be "Dragon Age: Mac Tir Rising." At the Landsmeet, you'd be playing as Loghain, delivering stunning arguments to the nobles demonstrating Eamon's grasping perfidy, Alistair's inexperience, and the Warden's bloodlust. You'd end the civil war, unite the nation under your banner... ah, excuse me, your daughter's banner, meant to say, old habits die hard and such... go forth and kick butt. And it would work, because the writers would be writing a different game, with a different theme, about the force of determined will, spirit and love being greater than any magic.
But since that's not the game that was actually written, he's wrong, and his plan would fail.
So now that all of the Ferelden Grey Wardens are dead and the other Wardens are staying put...how will Loghain defeat the Blight?
The game's pretty clear on exactly why a warden is needed and Loghain has done nothing, but antagonize and frame them due to his own delusions based on PTSD. The simple truth is that Loghain was destroying Ferelden in his attempts to save it. Ferelden would have been lost to the Blight if not for the whims of fate (the same whim that allowed Alistair and the Warden to survive Ostagar).
Hence why he's a tragic antagonist.
So now that all of the Ferelden Grey Wardens are dead and the other Wardens are staying put...how will Loghain defeat the Blight?
The game's pretty clear on exactly why a warden is needed and Loghain has done nothing, but antagonize and frame them due to his own delusions based on PTSD. The simple truth is that Loghain was destroying Ferelden in his attempts to save it. Ferelden would have been lost to the Blight if not for the whims of fate (the same whim that allowed Alistair and the Warden to survive Ostagar).
Hence why he's a tragic antagonist.
No it's not. The warden only knows about the wardens necessity by the end of the game. Neither you, Loghain or anyone else know about the US thing. For most of the game we are led to believe we only need the taint to become immune and never become ghouls, and that's about it.
But terrorists are different then darkspawn. When terrorists do something wrong, they do it for the sake of an ideal, but when we do something wrong in order to fight the darkspawn, it's for the sake of survival itself.
Even by your view what Loghain did wasn't out of survival of Thedas. In Loghain's mind, the darkspawn weren't initially even a real threat of blight proportions. It wasn't until near the end of DA:O where he finally realized he was wrong. What Loghain did by betraying Cailan at Ostagar was in his mind... I don't really know; initially to preserve his forces I guess. Then to keep himself in power he just committed worse and worse acts. His actions are even more absurd when you consider he did them under the impression that there wasn't a blight. It was just to stay in power.
Apparently regarding Ostagar he never heard of a "do or die" situation. A battle doesn't have to be "won" to be worth trying, and there was no better place to fight the darkspawn than Ostagar. Loghain is a man of many biases though and I believe he looked down on Ostagar largely because it was Cailan's notion.
No it's not. The warden only knows about the wardens necessity by the end of the game. Neither you, Loghain or anyone else know about the US thing. For most of the game we are led to believe we only need the taint to become immune and never become ghouls, and that's about it.
That doesn't change how Loghain efforts are doomed without the wardens. Especially due to his divisive and self-destructive actions.
Retour en haut