151 réponses à ce sujet

[Xetykins]

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.

Then pretty much only a small amount of players who trolls bsn who knows those "facts" because the rest only sees howe and loghain in bed together throughout the game and did not see the divine proclamation. They only saw howe's comment about highever in front of loghain and not even blink. I guess their game was a lie well 11 of my friends game anyway cuz they dont come here. For me i find this fun between monthly shifts :-)

[Monica21]

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.

 

You know, I'm pretty cocky about this, and I'm also pretty sure that my "perfectly good answer" is the correct one. I'm also pretty sure that I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of "what ifs" tonight or any night, because you know what? We will still never agree. As I said, you win. You'll have to be happy with that.

[Monica21]

Then pretty much only a small amount of players who trolls bsn who knows those "facts" because the rest only sees howe and loghain in bed together throughout the game and did not see the divine proclamation. They only saw howe's comment about highever in front of loghain and not even blink. I guess their game was a lie well 11 of my friends game anyway cuz they dont come here. For me i find this fun between monthly shifts :-)

 

You know that putting the word "facts" in quotes doesn't make it not true, right?

 

Here's the thing; willful ignorance annoys me. If you come to a Loghain thread and cry a river about what a bad guy he is and quite literally ignore any opposing position because "I hate him so I kill him" then your point of view isn't worth much to me.

Modifié par Monica21, 12 décembre 2014 - 05:00 .

[Merle McClure II]

Doesn't seem any different then blindly screaming, "But the writers said so!" and then when that didn't fly having the gall to pretend to have an answer to shore up the gapping hole in your theory. 

[BioticInfiltrator]

When I first played DA:O and witnessed what Loghain had done, I was furious, I though Cailan, while somewhat goofy, and a bit of a glory hound (I more thought he was trying to grow out of his fathers shadow) he was a good king. My first playthrough I executed Loghain, no qualms about it. Then I read the books, and found some things out about Cailan, such as his alleged affair, and willingness to hand over all of Ferelden to Orlais...again. (Ostagar DLC, and information from the wiki)

 

In the book's without revealing to much, Loghain is not an honorable man, his father was more honorable then he was (imho), but he does love Ferelden, and hates Orlesian's (rightfully so after what they did). What the books did, is given him a personality, and make him seem human, rather then a crazy power hungry usuper. On my next playthrough I saved him, while I feel bad for Alistair, on not getting his so called "justice" (seriously that man needs to get over it..I like Alistair for the record) I felt like Loghain saved Ferelden's independence, by preventing Cailan from marrying Celene.

 

Do I think he went about it the right way? Absolutely not, he could have just as easily presented evidence that Cailan was in bed with Celene, and gathered the nobles to vote/usurp him off the throne, however this is more of a what if and i have digressed from my main point. Which is like Faewalker stated, the overall judgment is up to the player, do you hate him? Do you think he did what was right? Did he withdraw? Did he just want power? etc.

 

I hated Loghain for what he did, and executed him once. Then I found out more about his past, and Cailan, and decided while he is not the most honorable man, he did save Ferelden's independence, and that there are far far, worse punishments then death.

 

Lastly, on Cailan not knowing he had an heir, it is easy to infer that Cailan knew Alistair was his brother. Why is this easy? Books, that's all I am going to say.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lastly, on Cailan not knowing he had an heir, it is easy to infer that Cailan knew Alistair was his brother. Why is this easy? Books, that's all I am going to say.

I'd guess that Cailan knew because he specifically works to put Alistair in a place that Cailan believed to be relatively safe. Though if Cailan really was depending on Alistair being accepted by the Landsmeet his plan blew. That had never been done before, according to the dialogue in the Gnawed Noble. And bastards seem to be prejudiced against, judging by the fact that Ceorlic can say "better the throne go to the MacTirs than to some by-blow" and not be accused of being unfair.

[Xetykins]

You know that putting the word "facts" in quotes doesn't make it not true, right?
 
Here's the thing; willful ignorance annoys me. If you come to a Loghain thread and cry a river about what a bad guy he is and quite literally ignore any opposing position because "I hate him so I kill him" then your point of view isn't worth much to me.

Call me ignorant to your hearts desire but i was talking about the divine proclamation which is the WoG about loghain's connection on the cousland. Why so hostile btw. Im just stating that since only very few of the players trolls here the vast majority will never see those facts. They only have the game to go on.

And i have read a lot better arguments than yours like from KoP who loiters in old alistair thread. Still we have diff interpretation on things. If you call a totally different opinion from your own "ignorance" then fine. I dont even know how to comment on that. You can call it illiteracy too if you want :-)*

[Notshauna]

For the record Howe's plan was simple destroy the Couslands and leave no survivors and other than with a Cousland Warden that is exactly what happens, there is a blight going on so they chaos and the fact that Howe could make up any story he likes is fine. He could of blamed the Free Marches, a roaming band of Darkspawn or even a freak accident and in the world of Dragon Age you'd probably trust him. I mean he was Teryn Cousland's best friend and closest ally, he'd not be doubted without anyone to question him. I don't think anyone even noticed that Highever had changed hands (besides the nobles who would notice the lack of the Teyrn) so I doubt Howe would of seen justice. In terms of why I think he ended up allied with Loghain he probably mentioned something along the lines of the two Teyrns and the Queen allied with Eamon out of the picture would unify the Darkspawn as fast as possible, and truth it would. Loghain for all his faults was attempting to build a Ferelden army to stop the fight, and he underestimated the Darkspawn at first. His character faults are deep but his crimes were result of his own (rightful) paranoia, and he nearly doomed Ferelden due to it.

[Merle McClure II]

Riverdales ... I don't think Cailan really planned ahead in case of his death, I think him arranging for Alistair to go to the tower was a brotherly action as opposed to a political one. (Of course, I personally believe that Duncan would have found some excuse to keep him off the front lines if Cailan hadn't done it for him, for political reasons.)

 

 

Notshauna ...  As it has been pointed out, Duncan also thought that was basically Howe's plan (And the more I think about it, maybe it would have some merit on its own.), but to be fair he didn't realize that Loghain has already begun to get rid of potential royalist rivals. Loghain poisoning Eamon is the fly in the ointment here as Loghain had much more to fear from Bryce then he did Eamon. --- I do happen to agree that despite his faults Loghain did honestly believe that he was doing the right thing, and from a historical perspective, had the Child King been allowed to reign, he would have probably doomed Ferelden's independence. 

 

 

--EDIT--

 

Actually there are two flies in the Ointment, even if Bryce's second child died in the attack, his eldest had already left with Highever's army, so Howe would have had to have some plan of rendering him moot if Howe wanted to keep his promotion. 

[Monica21]

Doesn't seem any different then blindly screaming, "But the writers said so!" and then when that didn't fly having the gall to pretend to have an answer to shore up the gapping hole in your theory. 

 

The problem is that you're asking me to argue from a point of view that I disagree with and have no reason to even consider. It's a waste of my time. If you're the one who has a problem with that, then that's too bad for you.

[Monica21]

Call me ignorant to your hearts desire but i was talking about the divine proclamation which is the WoG about loghain's connection on the cousland. Why so hostile btw. Im just stating that since only very few of the players trolls here the vast majority will never see those facts. They only have the game to go on.

And i have read a lot better arguments than yours like from KoP who loiters in old alistair thread. Still we have diff interpretation on things. If you call a totally different opinion from your own "ignorance" then fine. I dont even know how to comment on that. You can call it illiteracy too if you want :-)*

 

KoP is much better at this, I'll certainly grant that. He always has been. And it's not "illiteracy." Clearly you can read and write.

[Merle McClure II]

Fair enough then, as I don't put any stock into metagaming arguments at all, whether it's crowning the dwarves, sparing the Architect, or deciding whether to sleep with Morrigan to save your life, just don't pretend to have an in character argument when you don't and it's all good. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Riverdales ... I don't think Cailan really planned ahead in case of his death, I think him arranging for Alistair to go to the tower was a brotherly action as opposed to a political one. (Of course, I personally believe that Duncan would have found some excuse to keep him off the front lines if Cailan hadn't done it for him, for political reasons.)

 

Actually there are two flies in the Ointment, even if Bryce's second child died in the attack, his eldest had already left with Highever's army, so Howe would have had to have some plan of rendering him moot if Howe wanted to keep his promotion. 

First paragraph: makes sense.

 

Last paragraph: true, but relative to the thing Howe's already shown he's capable of orchestrating, one death on a battlefield isn't hard to pull off. (Though on the other hand, Howe does manage to fail at it anyway.)

[Merle McClure II]

Perhaps, but the Highever Slaughter really wasn't that complex of a plan, depending mostly on Howe's belief that his men will remain loyal to him. It seems to me that trying to arrange for Fergus' death at Ostagar is actually the harder of the two. ... Then again Fergus was "out scouting" in the Wilds with an unknown number of men (I would assume that a scouting party would be relatively small by necessity.), wonder who sent him?

 

 

 

--EDIT--

 

 

I am of course, responding through the lens of my belief Loghain was involved ... if I assume for a moment that he wasn't then I honestly don't see how Howe could have hoped to kill Fergus at Ostagar since he would have had no way to actually find him sans having some of Howe's men already in Fergus' army ...

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I am of course, responding through the lens of my belief Loghain was involved ... if I assume for a moment that he wasn't then I honestly don't see how Howe could have hoped to kill Fergus at Ostagar since he would have had no way to actually find him sans having some of Howe's men already in Fergus' army ...

Again: it's not that hard even without Loghain's help. Corrupt a guy in Fergus's party, have him wait until the darkspawn attack, stab Fergus in the confusion. The assassin might even get away with it if the loyal men don't see him and the darkspawn don't kill him. Or, if he can't infiltrate Fergus's scouting party, have the guy try to get close to him during the actual battle with the same aim. That's not very reliable, of course, so send several with the same orders who are unaware of the others' presence. Between that and the battle itself, Fergus's odds don't look good even if Howe and Loghain aren't conspiring together. (Though if they were the assassin might not be needed, since according to your theory a whole bunch of deaths Howe can't really be directly tied to is already part of Loghain's plan.)

[Merle McClure II]

Creating and using a double agent (I feel that multiple blind agents would tend to stretch Howe's creditability.) would have been a fairly decent albeit hardly simple backup plan for Howe to use, sadly either he didn't consider it, felt that he didn't need it, or tried and failed.

 

 

You've lost me with the "Loghain is responsible for multiple deaths that Howe can't be tied to" under my theory, could you elaborate please?

[Monica21]

Fair enough then, as I don't put any stock into metagaming arguments at all, whether it's crowning the dwarves, sparing the Architect, or deciding whether to sleep with Morrigan to save your life, just don't pretend to have an in character argument when you don't and it's all good. 

 

Oh, ffs. I am not going to argue against a position that I think is invalid just to appease you or try to validate your opinion. That in no way presumes that I can't argue against it. Stop assuming that just because I haven't given you what you asked for that I can't give you what you asked for.

[Merle McClure II]

True, refusing to engage in an argument doesn't mean that you couldn't ... however continuing to engage just to claim that you could if you "really wanted to" does tend to very strongly imply that you are blowing smoke for whatever reason.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Creating and using a double agent (I feel that multiple blind agents would tend to stretch Howe's creditability.) would have been a fairly decent albeit hardly simple backup plan for Howe to use, sadly either he didn't consider it, felt that he didn't need it, or tried and failed.

 

 

You've lost me with the "Loghain is responsible for multiple deaths that Howe can't be tied to" under my theory, could you elaborate please?

The vision of what's going on politically is that Loghain and Howe are working together on this, correct? Under that theory, arranging Fergus's death with a reasonable degree of certainty is fairly easy. All Loghain has to do is put him in the vanguard, and they don't need to bother coming up with a way for this not to be the result of Howe trying to wipe out the Couslands since they already have a large darkspawn horde to blame it on.

 

I also think you're overestimating how hard it would be to put someone in the Highever forces. Send someone from Amaranthine to Highever, make him join the Highever army and look for any opportunity to put him near Fergus. If the Hungry Deserter got into the army, there's no reason to suspect an actual trained killer can't. The difficulty isn't in helping him blend in, it's in having him get close. And that's more the agent's problem than Howe's and much easier when the darkspawn actually attack and start causing chaos. And it's not that much harder to arrange for several than it is to arrange for one. Howe might have even done this, since Fergus apparently got a wound either before or during the battle (I don't remember which) that should have killed him.

[Monica21]

True, refusing to engage in an argument doesn't mean that you couldn't ... however continuing to engage just to claim that you could if you "really wanted to" does tend to very strongly imply that you are blowing smoke for whatever reason.

 

I've been trying to actively disengage for the last few posts, even telling you "you win." Continuing to taunt me however, only makes me dig in harder and continue to refuse to give you what you want.

 

So, no really.

 

[Merle McClure II]

Monica, perhaps my mastery of my native tongue isn't as good as I've thought but the last time I checked, "actively disengaging" doesn't even remotely resemble what you've been doing these last few posts.

 

Here, let me help you out;

 

===> Monica21, it's clear that you and I approach Game Canon in ways that simply aren't compatible for this debate. Thank you for an interesting albeit at times heated discussion. If you wish to continue at the later time, please by all means let me know.<===

 

 

<<<=====>>>

 

Riverdales

 

 

Possible, although I'm not convinced that handling multiple double agents would have been that easy. Still, it is a good point that we don't know whether Howe did so did not try to have Fergus killed while he was out scouting. 

 

 

However, something to consider is that if Loghain/Howe did have an arrangement to use the Coustland slaughter to clear a powerful potential rival of Loghain seizing the throne in all but name killing Fergus isn't really all that important to Loghain's plan or even Howe's reward (Although I'm sure that Howe would have loved to finish the job if he were able.); just as Loghain doesn't care about Bryce's youngest child becoming a Warden since up to that point Wardens had to give up their rights to nobility. --- Honestly the plan for Fergus was probably along the lines of; Place him and his men in a position to take as many loses as possible and if Fergus survives use that as the excuse to officially give Highever to Howe. --- Remember that I believe that Loghain didn't decide to actually withdraw at Ostagar until the signal fire was late, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that he was being purposefully "risky" with the lives of everyone else's men in order to emerge from Ostagar strongest and "if possible" victorious.

[DinkyD]

 

<snip>

 

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.

 

 

And this relates to what I find most objectionable about all these attempts to rehabilitate Loghain after the game's release. He's a much more interesting character if he is responsible for the death of the king and his best friend's son. And he has to live with this knowledge and the implications of it despite him doing it for what he sees are best outcomes. Loghain has become to come across as a weak man who made an absolute villian of an ally whom he lacked the strength to stand up to or shake off.

 

Here we are: too much danger of too many retcons/supposed retcons that make DA:O inconsistent nonsense. Or if not nonsense, compelling you to ask why the writers have gone out of the way to mislead; or why they undermine the power and effect of their own storytelling. It's Bioware's blasé attitude to its own creation that bothers me. I don't care how great it was in the writers' heads, it's the game I get to play I care about.

 

I don't care about little tweaks to lore – such as the templar lyrium thing, I can easily ignore that, it's when it undermines the whole character and plot narrative I start scratching my head.

 

For the sake of argument, just suppose that Ostagar was a tactical withdrawal and for some reason that they sort to illustrate that by the odd way of having Loghain watching for the beacon regardless, and then staring at it and then telling a confused, hesitant Cutherian to order a retreat. That whole scene and what follows actually moved me to yell at the TV - I thought I was witnessing a hugely dramatic moment laced with murder and betrayal not only on a personal level but that affecting hundreds; it begged a strong emotional reaction. It was a powerful cutscene and a great piece of storytelling. But apparently, according to the asumption, that was not intended, the “reality” was much less moving or meaningful. And what has been gained?

 

This is my opinion : all this drip, drip of DA:O was “not what was intended” from the devs, with its following implication they consider DA:O to be a FLAWED product is beginning to spoil the enjoyment for me. The whole Alistair parent retcon is the most glaring example of this, that even those that believe the revised Loghain can't ignore. Loghain's dialogue, Alistair's dialogue, the codex, Alistair's fade dream, Alistair's companion quest, are all “wrong” - in other words, regrettable mistakes. I'm not even sure how much I'm supposed to believe of what Alistair tells us of his past anymore. Why do this to your creation in the minds of its fans? Honestly, if DA:O was a child, it ought be taken by social workers from its abusive parents and given into the care of those that really appreciate it for who it is.......

[Monica21]

And this relates to what I find most objectionable about all these attempts to rehabilitate Loghain after the game's release. He's a much more interesting character if he is responsible for the death of the king and his best friend's son. And he has to live with this knowledge and the implications of it despite him doing it for what he sees are best outcomes. Loghain has become to come across as a weak man who made an absolute villian of an ally whom he lacked the strength to stand up to or shake off.

 

Here we are: too much danger of too many retcons/supposed retcons that make DA:O inconsistent nonsense. Or if not nonsense, compelling you to ask why the writers have gone out of the way to mislead; or why they undermine the power and effect of their own storytelling. It's Bioware's blasé attitude to its own creation that bothers me. I don't care how great it was in the writers' heads, it's the game I get to play I care about.

 

I don't care about little tweaks to lore – such as the templar lyrium thing, I can easily ignore that, it's when it undermines the whole character and plot narrative I start scratching my head.

 

For the sake of argument, just suppose that Ostagar was a tactical withdrawal and for some reason that they sort to illustrate that by the odd way of having Loghain watching for the beacon regardless, and then staring at it and then telling a confused, hesitant Cutherian to order a retreat. That whole scene and what follows actually moved me to yell at the TV - I thought I was witnessing a hugely dramatic moment laced with murder and betrayal not only on a personal level but that affecting hundreds; it begged a strong emotional reaction. It was a powerful cutscene and a great piece of storytelling. But apparently, according to the asumption, that was not intended, the “reality” was much less moving or meaningful. And what has been gained?

 

This is my opinion : all this drip, drip of DA:O was “not what was intended” from the devs, with its following implication they consider DA:O to be a FLAWED product is beginning to spoil the enjoyment for me. The whole Alistair parent retcon is the most glaring example of this, that even those that believe the revised Loghain can't ignore. Loghain's dialogue, Alistair's dialogue, the codex, Alistair's fade dream, Alistair's companion quest, are all “wrong” - in other words, regrettable mistakes. I'm not even sure how much I'm supposed to believe of what Alistair tells us of his past anymore. Why do this to your creation in the minds of its fans? Honestly, if DA:O was a child, it ought be taken by social workers from its abusive parents and given into the care of those that really appreciate it for who it is.......

 

Well, that's obviously entirely your opinion about what makes a character more or less interesting. If Loghain had planned the murder of the Couslands and planned for Cailan to die, then I would find such black and white villainy far less interesting. Instead you've got a guy who made a lot of mistakes and will readily agree with you that "this can all rightly be called my fault."

 

With Loghain you've got some paranoia about Orlais and the Wardens mixed in with doubt about his king, his best friend's son, and his son-in-law. All this leads him to tunnel vision and mistakes, which, again, is much more interesting than being a villain just for the sake of it. Flaws are what make people interesting, not outright evil intentions. That is what's boring.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

 

Riverdales

 

 

Possible, although I'm not convinced that handling multiple double agents would have been that easy. Still, it is a good point that we don't know whether Howe did so did not try to have Fergus killed while he was out scouting. 

If you need to do much in the way of "handling" them, they're not much good for this purpose. If they're not competent enough that you can say "do this," tell them a basic plan, and then let them do whatever is most likely to do what you need including outright abandoning the plan if they think some other plan will make Fergus less likely to survive.. then there's no point in sending them, since they're going to fail and possibly implicate you.

[DinkyD]

Well, that's obviously entirely your opinion about what makes a character more or less interesting. If Loghain had planned the murder of the Couslands and planned for Cailan to die, then I would find such black and white villainy far less interesting. Instead you've got a guy who made a lot of mistakes and will readily agree with you that "this can all rightly be called my fault."

 

With Loghain you've got some paranoia about Orlais and the Wardens mixed in with doubt about his king, his best friend's son, and his son-in-law. All this leads him to tunnel vision and mistakes, which, again, is much more interesting than being a villain just for the sake of it. Flaws are what make people interesting, not outright evil intentions. That is what's boring.

 

Well it's of course subjective, but yes, I find him less interesting as your pc's antagonist if he stumbled through the plot as an absolutely passive character that got unfairly blamed for a massacre and then did some irrational things in the light of the "truth" of his innocence and made some mistakes, in which the worst, the moral fallout more deservingly falls on Howe.

 

As for evil intentions and black and white villainy, I specifically said he thought he was acting for the greater good, which many people (if not myself) would defend.

 

And that's how he ties into the whole moral theme of the game, which is, "what questionable things are you prepared to do for the "greater good"?" How far are you prepared to go in making moral compromises?  In Loghain's case it's quite a lot and quite far, which is the point of his character. He's a narrative yardstick in that he represents that far end of that ethical spectrum. If you start saying he didn't do this terrible thing or that slavery thing then that narrative thrust is lost, which makes the story poorer imo. Howe can't replace him in that aspect because there's no greater good background, he's just a mental case. There's the pointless villainy.

Modifié par DinkyD, 13 décembre 2014 - 09:13 .