ARGHH! Take that back ! We weren't late ! he turned his troops and abondoned the battelfield then framed the warden for the death of the king !!
He was also confirmed by Word of God to have withdrawn because he didn't think he could win
In addition to his suspicions about Cailan and the Orlesians being completely justified
I killed Zevran and Anders after their respective betrayals.
I killed Merrill because i sided with the templars. (Crazy blood mage never liked her anyway)
I let Eamon execute Jowan for using blood magic.
I killed Loghain (Dude was cray)
I killed the blood mage in the tower for being a blood mage.
I let Sten live, because he seemed legitimately remorseful, and like he said, he just panicked in the moment.
confirmed by what ?? And framing the warden...how you gonna spin that one ?
Do we really want to turn this into a Loghain thread?
Eh, it's a thread about the fact the Wardens companions are a collection of misfits who of which 90% have done some capital offense or another.
The exception being Alistair.
And...
Uh...
Actually, just Alistair.
No wait, Dog!
Leliana is a former assassin.
Bethany is an apostate
Wynne is an abomination
Zevran is Zevran
Morrigan is the Diet Coke of Flemeth
Sten is a mass murderer
Shale is a murderer
Isabela is Zevran with some Zevran added
Merrill is a blood mage
Fenris killed all the Fog Warriors
Anders is Anders
We could go on.
confirmed by what ?? And framing the warden...how you gonna spin that one ?
Word of God, TwitterCanon, Dev Statements, it goes by many anmes
and framing the Warden was a short term way to try and get the blame shifted from himself. Furthermore he doesn't blame THE warden, but wardens in general with filling Cailan's head with fantasies (which is true). When you meet him in Denerim he doesn't publicly charge you with abandoning the King, instead he says something along the lines of "well glad you didn't have anything to do with that"
Loghain is guilty.
There's no doubt about that.
The question is whether he's so guilty he's less useful alive than dead.
An eye for an eye leaves a lot of people blind in Thedas.
I killed Zevran. Someone tries to kill me, I have to return the favor, except I succeeded where he failed.
I always kill Anders. I like to kill Merrill as well, but one of them has to live for some reason.
Jowan gets executed.
Loghain dies more than half the time.
Loghain is guilty.
There's no doubt about that.
The question is whether he's so guilty he's less useful alive than dead.
guilty of what?
Abandoning a hopeless battle? Trying to hold Ferelden together while the Bannorn causes problems?
Meh Loghain's usefulness is limited to being archdemon chow in my games.
Well that and me getting rich taking his ****.
Velanna got a pass simply because I wanted to throw her might and fury at the darkspawn like a pissed off nuke.
Merrill and her mirror didn't bother me one bit. At least she was thinking outside the box and attempting to make some real progress for her people. If I would get on her about anything it would be her choice of nail polish color and how gross I think it looks.
My Hawke and Isabella were birds of a feather so the Arishok got nothing but a couple of daggers between the ribs, through the gut, and across the throat.
companions get priority for saving because they have content in the story, a lot of npcs dont. Anders however did not affect the story in da2 because he dies near the end of the game. I tend to overlook them because they will always affect the story more so than an npc.
guilty of what?
Abandoning a hopeless battle? Trying to hold Ferelden together while the Bannorn causes problems?
Trying to poison Arl Eamon
Plotting insurrection in the Circle
Putting Arl Howe in place
Ignoring the elves being sold into slavery.
A justification is not justified.
Loghain made a bunch of mistakes and compounded them with many immoral acts. Some of which I sympathized with like his handling of mages.
However, he SUCKS at politics.
Word of God, TwitterCanon, Dev Statements, it goes by many anmes
and framing the Warden was a short term way to try and get the blame shifted from himself. Furthermore he doesn't blame THE warden, but wardens in general with filling Cailan's head with fantasies (which is true). When you meet him in Denerim he doesn't publicly charge you with abandoning the King, instead he says something along the lines of "well glad you didn't have anything to do with that"
Lothering says otherwise.
Trying to poison Arl Eamon
Plotting insurrection in the Circle
Putting Arl Howe in place
Ignoring the elves being sold into slavery.
A justification is not justified.Loghain made a bunch of mistakes and compounded them with many immoral acts. Some of which I sympathized with like his handling of mages.
However, he SUCKS at politics.
Poisoning a political rival, who we saw then made open war on him?
He made an agreement to potentially give the Circle more autonomy in exchange for their support, the monster?
He is not guilty of Arl Howe's crimes
That one isn't justifiable, but it is understandable
Lothering says otherwise.
soldiers way down on the Totem Pole compared to what the man actually says?
That one isn't justifiable, but it is understandable
You're arguing with someone who spared him.
I wanted to give him a chance at redemption.
soldiers way down on the Totem Pole compared to what the man actually says?
Implying that Loghain wasn't simply lying considering he was in Eamon's home?
There's also the :
poisoning of Eamon
hiring of Zevran
Selling of elves
Also, bluntly, what Anora objects to.
That her father assumed command of the nation to begin with since he had no right whatsoever to the throne.
And it's idiocy that Anora needed a regent.
technically Anora should have no right to the throne either,being married to the old king doesn't give you special privilege
well lots of people killed Anders
I pretty much always spare him.
technically Anora should have no right to the throne either,being married to the old king doesn't give you special privilege
Which is why the Landsmeet needed to be called.
Loghain had good reasons for most of his actions but he had an appalling sense of public perception.
It LOOKED like a coup to outsiders.
This is something I aways notice when it comes to the DA fandom. That players many times will overlook our companions crimes and mistakes mostly just because they are our companions. Because let's face it, if they were mere NPCs rather then our companions, most players wouldn't think twice before throwing an knife to their faces for their wrong doings. And in some cases they will even try to justify them.
So I wonder, if in Inquisition one of our companions were to do something that normally we would find outrageous, would you punish them for it just like you would for anyone else, or would you let them get away with it because they are one of your companions?
Who is this "we"? For the most part, I don't "punish" my friends in real life for doing things I find outrageous. Granted, my friends in real life aren't assassins and thieves, but I'm also not trying to save the world from a disaster of epic proportions. Nor are my friends constantly under threat of OTHER people killing THEM. So I'd have to say that even my personal reactions to borderline behavior would probably be substantially different in those conditions.
That being said, I executed Anders for blowing up the Chantry. His actions were unconscionable and he showed every sign of having become dangerously insane. Yes, mages are oppressed. Yes, the Chantry is in large part responsible for that viewpoint (although the mages themselves have done a fair job of encouraging that belief all on their own). But doing EXACTLY what you're oppressed FOR doing in retaliation to that oppression is hardly the way to convince anyone that mages should be left alone. "Oh, you don't want us to blow people up? I'll show you how wrong you are! BY BLOWING PEOPLE UP!!!" Yeah, no.
However, for a contrasting example, I did rescue Sten from the cage and even went so far as to track down his sword for him so he could go home. Yes, he was a brutal murderer, and that's not the kind of thing you can come back from by just saying "whoops, my bad". I have serious reservations about anyone who could even stand to live with themselves after doing something like that. But that's the thing--he was TRYING to die. He did everything in his power (other than actually slitting his own throat) to see to it that somebody had the opportunity to take his life for his crimes. He even tells you to leave him be. The only thing that perks him up is the idea that by coming with you, he might actually get a chance to fight some darkspawn and die with a little more dignity and some semblance of honor (by the standard of a Qunari soldier, anyway). Yeah, I turned out to be a badass and that whole death thing didn't happen, but I figured, he at least earned a second chance for himself by then, so I said goodbye to him in a hopeful frame of mind, if not without some reservations.
So, long story short: "It depends". Morals don't exist in a vacuum--you have to *think* to apply them to a given situation and take in the *whole* context of that situation. You don't just plug a few descriptors such as "murder" into a mathematical equation and get a "how you should respond" answer out.
I think someone already said this, but it blows my mind that some of you think that what Loghain did at Ostagar was justified. I don't even like elves, but even i wouldn't let them be forced into slavery. The poisoning of Eamon was also foul play.
Loghain deserved to die.
I think someone already said this, but it blows my mind that some of you think that what Loghain did at Ostagar was justified. I don't even like elves, but even i wouldn't let them be forced into slavery. The poisoning of Eamon was also foul play.
Loghain deserved to die.
I would have retreated at Ostagar too.
One King is not worth thousands of soldiers' lives.
It's everything else he did thereafter which is condemned.
Retour en haut