151 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Fighting a partisan campaign against the Blight is an abominably stupid idea. Darkspawn spread the Blight. The Blight destroys the earth. It poisons the water. It kills crops. It kills villagers, when it doesn't turn them outright into ghouls. It's not like the Orlesians, who would try to maintain outposts and keep order and make sure that Ferelden's government, society, and economy were functioning. There is no civilian morale to target, no ways in which the darkspawn could be made "uncomfortable". Splitting up the army into a bunch of tiny raiding groups would only divide forces and make them easy prey for the horde. Partisan warfare against the darkspawn would accomplish nothing.
 

 

I think I would have shortened it to 'it's hard to raise partisans from an area after genocide has wiped out all the would-be recruits,' but pretty much. The destruction of all life-sustaining resources pretty much renders guerilla warfare moot as well- even the sort that wouldn't rely on public support (which is pretty much all of them).

 

Sometimes I roll my eyes and laugh a little when I see Bioware try and use 'guerilla warfare' and the like as awesomely effective forms of resistance. It was amusing in Mass Effect, when 'hit and run tactics' against the Reapers meant 'running away as the Reapers ate the important planets', but in the context of the Blight? Prolonged engagement and proximity to the Blight means more ghouls and potential brood mothers to strengthen the blight. Ignoring how poor insurgency warfare is at military attrition in the abstract, it would be downright counterproductive against a force which can force you to change sides from prolonged proximity.

[Merle McClure II]

Monica, as I believe I've mentioned beforehand, "The Writers" opinions (And it's my understanding that the only Writer who has opined on this is Mr. Retcon himself, Gaider.) only matter if said opinions actually made it into the game, which means "Loghain didn't REALLY mean to hurt Eamon, just poison him a little." in addition to being completely loony tunes doesn't matter unless you can point to in-game evidence of it being true. (To my memory the spy/scout only mentions that his mission is to keep an eye on what is going on in Redcliffe and to report back as necessary, nothing more or less.) --- Besides, hiring Jowan to administer a "sleeping potion" to Eamon, without killing him, without so much as giving your spy the necessary antidote relies on far more "everything must go just perfect" then simply taking advantage of Howe's ambition and the Darkspawn attack to remove the biggest potential rival to the throne while trying to poison the second largest, 

 

Besides, if we are going to assume that Howe could've gotten away with seizing Highever without Loghain's support and that Loghain poisoning Eamon (fatally or not) was merely meant to keep a powerful and respected Royalist out of the way "Just in case" then we have to ask why he didn't also do something to put Bryce on ice? (Hint, I think he did, namely Howe.)

 

Also something to consider is that him trying to talk the Child King away from the front lines would have probably placed the King in the "safety" of forces that are loyal to Loghain, and since I don't think ANYONE is claiming that Loghain "lost" Ostagar on purpose it makes sense to want the King you are considering having killed "where you can reach him" makes more sense then hoping a random Darkspawn will do it for you on the battlefield.

    

 

----

 

 

As for the "The Origins are merely there to get you to Ostagar", I disagree, if that were the case then they might as well have been handled via a generic "You are the newest Grey Warden Recruit" cut scene. Instead we get to play through the Origins which at least to me seem to have been designed to tie the Warden into the world/plot at large. 

[Monica21]

I'm just gonna quote myself.

 

Honestly, the writers are not that subtle. If Howe's plot included Loghain, then it would be explicitly stated somewhere. Not to mention (again) that the writers have explicitly stated that Loghain did not know.

 

If the writers wanted Loghain and Howe to be in cahoots over the Cousland massacre, then yes, it would be explicit in-game. Follow your own rules. If you're telling me that I have to just presume that Loghain wanted Eamon dead because there's no explicit evidence against it in-game, then you can't presume that Loghain wanted the Couslands dead, and worked with Howe to accomplish that, if there is no in-game evidence for it.

 

There are plenty of justifiable reasons to dislike Loghain and off him at the Landsmeet. There's no need to actually make stuff up.

[Merle McClure II]

I'd argue that Loghain and Howe suddenly being "besties" throughout the game is evidence in and of itself. Besides, if Loghain wasn't involved or at the very least aware then we need to explain why he is taking some rather .... involved steps to remove a respected Royalist BUT didn't take similar steps against the more powerful rival in Highever.

 

 

As for "my rules", basically they boil down to ignoring OOC "Word of God" nonsense and trying to keep things in-character with what we are shown in-game. I don't believe I've ever asked for the explicit, just in-game evidence. 

 

Like it or not Howe and Loghain are shown to be allies, and from a common sense standpoint NOT giving the scout/spy the antidote doesn't make a lot of sense if keeping Eamon alive was a priority. 

[BioWareM0d13]

I'm just gonna quote myself.

 

 

If the writers wanted Loghain and Howe to be in cahoots over the Cousland massacre, then yes, it would be explicit in-game. Follow your own rules. If you're telling me that I have to just presume that Loghain wanted Eamon dead because there's no explicit evidence against it in-game, then you can't presume that Loghain wanted the Couslands dead, and worked with Howe to accomplish that, if there is no in-game evidence for it.

 

There are plenty of justifiable reasons to dislike Loghain and off him at the Landsmeet. There's no need to actually make stuff up.

 

The problem is that Howe's actions do not make a lick of sense unless he had foreknowledge of Loghain planning to abandon Cailan at Ostagar. Without Cailain dying, Loghain becoming de facto ruler of Ferelden, and assurances of an alliance with Loghain, Howe cannot expect any reward except the headsman's axe for killing the Couslands. If Cailain survives Ostagar he would have been certain to strip Howe of all rank and title and declare him an outlaw and a traitor to the realm. Howe's actions only make sense if Howe can expect not only to avoid punishment, but to be rewarded with being granted the Teyrnir of Highever. That can't happen if Cailan lives.

 

Also it is awfully convenient that just before Cailan is betrayed by Loghain, Howe takes care of the noble family that was the Theirin dynasty's staunchest and most powerful supporters. The Couslands alive would be a powerful and dangerous enemy for Loghain post-Ostagar, and Howe makes them disappear. That is reason alone to question whether Loghain had foreknowledge of the attack on the Couslands as well. He benefits from it just as much as Howe does.

 

I'm aware that Gaider has made some statements post-DA:O that shifted a lot of the blame away from Loghain to Howe, but Gaider has no qualms about retconning content. And I'm not sure that isn't what is at work here, as there really no indiciation in DA:O that Cailain's murder wasn't pre-planned. He also didn't write Loghain in DA:O. And quite frankly, if Gaider's statements about what went down at Ostagar and before are taken as absolute canon it renders much of what happened in DA:O completely nonsensical. Rather than making Loghain or Howe more interesting characters, it also makes them less interesting...since they now seem a pair of fools who planned little and just got a bit lucky.

[Merle McClure II]

Although I happen to agree that Dragon Age's story doesn't make a lot of sense if Loghain wasn't involved or at least aware of the slaughter of Highever, I'm personally skeptical on whether or not he "pre-planned" his Ostagar withdraw. To me it's clear that he made the decision on the spot when the Signal Fire was too late, otherwise why wait as long as he did? 

 

 

On one hand; scouts and even Duncan did foreshadow how big the hoard had gotten by that time, and the entire Anvil/Hammer is destined to be a disaster without both parts. However, there were survivors of Ostagar and if we believe that Loghain was a fairly smart albeit flawed man I'm not sure I buy him trusting a random Darkspawn to kill the Child King. -- Also he did at least make the appearance of trying to get Calian off the front lines ... and I tend to believe that attempt was sincere since Loghain isn't shown to be all that savvy in his manipulations. -- Now granted, him not wanting Calian on the front isn't the same thing as him wanting Calian safe or even alive.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'd argue that Loghain and Howe suddenly being "besties" throughout the game is evidence in and of itself. Besides, if Loghain wasn't involved or at the very least aware then we need to explain why he is taking some rather .... involved steps to remove a respected Royalist BUT didn't take similar steps against the more powerful rival in Highever.

Loghain not wanting to alienate Howe isn't all that good as evidence that Loghain approved the Cousland massacre, since there's a very credible reason for him to do so in a version of the setting where he didn't approve the massacre: namely, that Howe has made himself too dangerous to confront while there's a Civil War, a darkspawn incursion large enough that many believe it to be a Blight, and (as Loghain believes) an Orlesian reoccupation plot simultaneously threatening Ferelden. The second bit is better evidence, but largely circumstantial. (The other bit is circumstantial too, but I had a better argument for that.)

[Merle McClure II]

Sure, no matter which side you fall on in this discussion we are going to be looking at circumstantial evidence at best, which in my opinion at least should be viewed as a success on the writer's part.

 

 

With that said I might be tempted to agree with the theory that Loghain merely didn't want to alienate Howe if we weren't shown Howe and Loghain working together as allies throughout the rest of the story, including Loghain hiring the Crows to kill the Warden. Loghain may be many things, but he isn't shown to be weak willed OR willing to "go along to get along" with people.

 

 

Besides, even if I were to agree with the idea that Loghain wasn't involved with Highever; we still need to look at the rather large plot hole of Loghain poisoning Eamon beforehand but not doing anything against the family who actually would have been the greatest threat to him. 

[Monica21]

I feel like I should point out that much of this discussion revolves around a supposed "retcon" by Gaider and Mary Kirby, who actually wrote Loghain. In fact, all of this came out of the very first "In Defense of Loghain" thread on the old forums literally just weeks after it was released. Berwick's role at Redcliffe was either not explicitly stated because of cut content or because it was overlooked, and Gaider seemed surprised that people thought Loghain was involved in Howe's plot against the Couslands.

 

At the time, these were a couple of writers clarifying specific roles. These were not random twitter comments made several years later. There are plot holes throughout the storyline, or at least plot inconsistencies. The most glaring of which is why was Alistair at Ostagar if he didn't know why Wardens were needed to kill the Archdemon? The answer, of course, is that they needed it at the endgame.

 

My point is that if you want to believe that Loghain was involved with Howe in plotting against the Couslands, then fine. I'm not going to say anything that will change your mind. The only thing I will say, is that Gaider's statement is old news.

[Merle McClure II]

Sure, and the fact that even after all of these years the subject is still unsettled is largely because the actual narrative that did make it into the game doesn't support Gaidar's "clarification", in fact as "Han shot First" points out, if we take Gadiar seriously then Dragon Age Origins goes from being a "relatively" solid story to belonging in a bad Muppet Movie as far as plots goes.

 

Then there's the "minor" problem that Gaidar's excuse for all of his retcons goes something like; "We didn't have the resources to show it, but we wanted to, honest!" Even in cases where they DID have the resources to show the opporsite as being true. (I'm looking at Alistair never taking Lyrium to power his Templar powers at the moment.)

 

 

 

----

 

EDIT:

 

 

Also I personally don't consider no-one bothering to tell Alistair about why Grey Wardens are needed as being a plot hole; Duncan was a fairly lousy Warden Commander, more concerned with "speaking monk" and not making waves then actually getting the job done. Besides, I seem to remember Alistair's status as the bastard half-brother to the King as almost being an open secret to everyone in power at Ostagar, even had the King not requested Wardens to light the signal fire I don't believe that anyone would have allowed Alistair anywhere close to actual danger.

[Monica21]

Sure, and the fact that even after all of these years the subject is still unsettled is largely because the actual narrative that did make it into the game doesn't support Gaidar's "clarification"

 

It's actually not "largely unsettled." It's settled. The writers did it five years ago. There do continue to be people who don't care what the writers said and instead want to create their own canon.

[Merle McClure II]

Of course, that tends to happen when writers attempt to claim something out of whole cloth and are unable to back their claims up with the story as it actually appears in game.

 

IF they could point at the actual story to show that Loghain "really" wasn't working with Howe then the issue really would have been settled but of course they are unable to do so anymore then you can.

[Monica21]

So you're saying that you don't accept the answer because you don't like they way the writers gave it to you?

[Merle McClure II]

No, I'm saying that when someone pulls a theory out of thin air and can't point at the in-game events, lore, or even common sense to back said theory it doesn't matter whether they are a "writer" or not, they're wrong about what happens in the game that they helped write for.  "Writers" are hardly infallible and it's my understanding that like most video games, Dragon Age was written by a team.

[Jouni S]

It's actually not "largely unsettled." It's settled. The writers did it five years ago. There do continue to be people who don't care what the writers said and instead want to create their own canon.

The writers were just expressing their personal opinions that had nothing to do with the canon. Had they wanted to clarify or change the canon, they would have released a patch to the game.

Once you release a story to the general public, it's no longer yours. The story exists independently of you, and your interpretation of it is no more valid than any other person's.

[Merle McClure II]

Just to add to that, when they did release the RtO DLC they had the perfect chance to readdress the Canon at that time ... and they did indeed use the DLC to soften Loghain some and to explain that he wasn't actually aware of exactly how close the Child King was to divorcing Anora for the Empress. I do believe that it's shown that he did at least SUSPECT, but probably didn't want to believe the extent of the King's plans.

[Monica21]

No, I'm saying that when someone pulls a theory out of thin air and can't point at the in-game events, lore, or even common sense to back said theory it doesn't matter whether they are a "writer" or not, they're wrong about what happens in the game that they helped write for.  "Writers" are hardly infallible and it's my understanding that like most video games, Dragon Age was written by a team.

 

The problem is that your theory is different from my theory. Purely from a military perspective, Loghain needed numbers and needed Amaranthine's men for the civil war. That's when he allied himself with Howe. There's nothing in-game to support him doing so beforehand, and poisoning Eamon is not evidence of a similar plot against the Couslands, other than circumstantial evidence and a general dislike of Loghain. (I mean, you'd think Loghain would at least show some surprise at your arrival at Ostagar if he had expected you to be dead. Instead it's just, "I think I recognize you. Whatever, you're another Warden.") And yes, they had RtO to either prove or disprove this, and they didn't do either. So I guess both of our opinions are equally correct.

 

This is like asking Tolstoy why the curtains are blue in X scene in whatever book. The curtains are probably blue because they're blue, and the simplest answer is usually the correct one. What's the easiest way to force a young noble into the service of an iffy organization? Kill off said noble's family. And that's how the young noble gets to Ostagar. Plot device.

[Merle McClure II]

I happen to agree that part of the reasoning Loghain allied with Howe is because having Highever's support would be extremely important if Loghain wanted to actually hold the country together, but part of the problem with the theory that Loghain wasn't working with Howe before Ostagar is that we need to address why Loghain would poison Eamon "just in case" he needed to remove a powerful royalist rival BUT apparently didn't feel the need to remove the far more dangerous rival royalist Bryce.

 

 

 

 

So, under your theory what was Loghain planning on doing in order to keep Bryce out of the way since he's shown as being perfectly willing to do so to Eamon?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I do believe that it's shown that he did at least SUSPECT, but probably didn't want to believe the extent of the King's plans.

Really? Because I interpreted his tone when he read the letters as "caught flatfooted."

[Merle McClure II]

I heard it more as outrage over being slapped in the face with the letters; there's a difference between "knowing" that your spouse is cheating on you and catching them in the act. Also am I misremembering again or didn't he basically flatly tell Wynne that she didn't know what she was talking about when she tried to defend the Child King's memory in that instance?

 

 

Either way, Loghain and the King were screaming at each other over something involving the Queen at Ostagar ... did I miss that argument being explained somewhere? 

[Lady Artifice]

The book was what i meant too :-) Maric the king and a grown man insisted he go with the wardens to the deep roads to investigate the on goings. Yes some of the wardens got glamoured in the end but theyre but a few.

 

Loghain has never had a very high opinion of Maric's personal judgement. Blaming the Wardens for presenting the option to him is right up his alley. It might have been Maric's decision, but he never would have had the option to make that decision if it weren't for the Wardens. 

[Monica21]

So, under your theory what was Loghain planning on doing in order to keep Bryce out of the way since he's shown as being perfectly willing to do so to Eamon?

 

You know, there's a perfectly good answer, but fine. You win. I'm not bothering to argue a moot point. If you persist in failing to take all the facts into account (yes, even the outgame facts) then any argument is pointless.

[Xetykins]

Iirc the wardens only informed maric of their business in deep roads not actually even gave him the option to join them. Since the entrance theyre planning to enter is in the ferelden soil, and theyre orlesians. I could be wrong.

[Lady Artifice]

Iirc the wardens only informed maric of their business in deep roads not actually even gave him the option to join them. Since the entrance theyre planning to enter is in the ferelden soil, and theyre orlesians. I could be wrong.

 

 

The Wardens approached them to ask Loghain to go into the deep roads and show them the way. Loghain wasn't having any of it. Maric then informed them that he would go with them, putting them in the awkward position of not being able to say no to the King, and also not wanting to put his life in danger.

 

I'm not claiming Loghain blaming them is rational (I rarely credit Loghain with rationality), but It also isn't the only reason he distrusts the Wardens.

[Merle McClure II]

That's a shame, because if you actually have a "perfectly good answer" that is based on in-game evidence I'd love to hear it.