Reading comments like "Loghain slaughtered your mentor and half the army" and "Loghain sacrified the army to kill King Cailan for political reasons" make it pretty clear alot of people in this thread don't understand Loghain.
Heck i'm not saying everyone should glorify or even accept his actions, but these are just gross oversimplifications or outright lies.
Thank god someone said before I did....again 
She was awesome. I actually earned her respect, she told my PC he was a true Lord of the Sith. Made me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.
I know right !
I played as a Light Side..and used tons of kleenex..for I wanted to save her in the end .
But she was amazing!
The most engaging villain for me personally would be someone who was at least a former ally, if not a friend. There is nothing that gets my blood boiling more than outright betrayal, and it can be gut wrenching, but if I'm being honest, betrayers make the most memorable villains particularly if you never saw it coming.
This. So much. Also, I think it would be really cool if you could become a villain kinda unintentionally by making particular choices (kinda like Loghain).
One that is sympathetic, conflicted, intelligent and rational, one who's perspective I can relate to even if I don't agree with it. No more "bwaaaa!!! I'm crazy because reasons and everyone must die!" or generic, mindless or stupid evil who's only goal is more power and destruction and to kill everyone.
And he would be voice acted and mo-capped by Benedict Cumberbatch.
Reading comments like "Loghain slaughtered your mentor and half the army" and "Loghain sacrified the army to kill King Cailan for political reasons" make it pretty clear alot of people in this thread don't understand Loghain.
Heck i'm not saying everyone should glorify or even accept his actions, but these are just gross oversimplifications or outright lies.
He did sacrifice the army for political reasons. His reasons may have been dictated by madness or inner conflict or whatever, that doesn't alter the facts. There's just nothing to justify his actions, and on top of that, he was proven wrong in the end.
He did sacrifice the army for political reasons. His reasons may have been dictated by madness or inner conflict or whatever, that doesn't alter the facts. There's just nothing to justify his actions, and on top of that, he was proven wrong in the end.
Yeah no he didn't, He sacrificed them for Millitary reasons. Your headcanon doesn't change that fact. The writers have already confirmed he didn't plan to quit the field before the signal was lit, By then the rest of the armies ranks were shattered (long before you even crossed the bridge), the enemy numbers were far more than anyone expected and he likely concluded that charging would have got the rest of the army killed. Loghain knew nothing of Cailans political plans, once again confirmed by the writers.
Like New Vegas' which means:
1-Determined by our choices.
2-Military leaders of national armies.
I'm tired of ancient horrors. DA2 tried something similar to the above and it dropped the ball in the third act. Maybe DA4 can pick it up.
Yeah no he didn't, He sacrificed them for Millitary reasons. Your headcanon doesn't change that fact. The writers have already confirmed he didn't plan to quit the field before the signal was lit, By then the rest of the armies ranks were shattered (long before you even crossed the bridge), the enemy numbers were far more than anyone expected and he likely concluded that charging would have got the rest of the army killed. Loghain knew nothing of Cailans political plans, once again confirmed by the writers.
Can you give a link to that particular interview?
Besides, two questions: Firstly, wasn't it actually Loghain's very own plan that placed Cailan and the Grey Warden's in that situation to draw the enemy there so that his own forces could smash in the Dark spawn flank? Secondly, why exactly did Howe brutally slaughter one of the leading noble families of Ferelden before the actual battle, especially since it played directly in to Loghain's actions?
EDIT: And doesn't the timeline really only work if Loghain sent the assassin to Redcliffe before the battle took place?
Lets take on a corrupt state, probably Nevarran royalty whose using their authority to create dangerous new rituals, trying to spark a war with tevinter and the south, and attempting to extract a soul from the fade to actually bring a person back from the dead, even if they must create a new weakpoint in the veil to do so.
A villain that actually does something, when I try to stop him. Cory just sat there and took it for the whole game.
Someone like Loghain would be perfect. Doesn't even have to be a powerful "boss".
Can you give a link to that particular interview?
Besides, two questions: Firstly, wasn't it actually Loghain's very own plan that placed Cailan and the Grey Warden's in that situation to draw the enemy there so that his own forces could smash in the Dark spawn flank? Secondly, why exactly did Howe brutally slaughter one of the leading noble families of Ferelden before the actual battle, especially since it played directly in to Loghain's actions?
EDIT: And doesn't the timeline really only work if Loghain sent the assassin to Redcliffe before the battle took place?
Loghain didn't order the Cousland Massacre, Howe did it with Loghain in the dark the writers also confirmed this And how exactly does that play into Loghain's plans anyway?. When Loghain returned north with the remains of the army Howe was then the most powerful man in the kingdom bar himself, with control of the capital, Highever and Amaranthine. To make an enemy of Howe at that point would be suicide.
The King participating in the battle was not part of Loghain's plans, hence why he protests in him taking part in it in the talk after your joining, his words making it clear this isn't the first such protest.
I'd suggest reading this as to the other details regarding Ostagar: http://social.biowar...308/blog/10285/
As to Eamon's poisoning, yes that did happen before the battle. Loghain did it to erode Cailan's support/power base so as to challenge Cailan and force him to forbid the 4 legions of Orlesian Chevaliers from crossing the borders and to move back north (Loghain didn't actually want to be at Ostagar, he viewed it as little more than a darkspawn raid not a blight). The poison wasn't even actually fatal, David Gaider stated he wasn't even supposed to die from it. Its likely thats the reason why they kept that elf around in redcliffe. To report if things got to bad and provid the antidote.
My source on the above Howe statement as well as about the other things confirmed by the writers were from the Leader writer David Gaider, wasn't in an interview it was from his posts on these forums back in 2010. Can't recall the exact threads but it may have been the Loghain support thread which would be in the archives now, Will be hard to find now since they switched to this new forum and alot of the old links dont work anymore but will have a look around for them
Loghain didn't order the Cousland Massacre, Howe did it with Loghain in the dark the writers also confirmed this And how exactly does that play into Loghain's plans anyway?. When Loghain returned north with the remains of the army Howe was then the most powerful man in the kingdom bar himself, with control of the capital, Highever and Amaranthine. To make an enemy of Howe at that point would be suicide.
The King participating in the battle was not part of Loghain's plans, hence why he protests in him taking part in it in the talk after your joining, his words making it clear this isn't the first such protest.
I'd suggest reading this as to the other details regarding Ostagar: http://social.biowar...308/blog/10285/
As to Eamon's poisoning, yes that did happen before the battle. We know little about it though so much would be speculation. If I were to speculate i'd say Loghain did it to erode Cailan's support/power base so as to challenge Cailan and force him to forbid the 4 legions of Orlesian Chevaliers from crossing the borders and to move back north (Loghain didn't actually want to be at Ostagar, he viewed it as little more than a darkspawn raid not a blight)
My source on the above Howe statement as well as about the other things confirmed by the writers were from the Leader writer David Gaider, wasn't in an interview it was from his posts on these forums back in 2009. Can't recall the exact threads but it may have been the Loghain support thread which would be in the archives now, Will be hard to find now since they switched to this new forum and alot of the old links dont work anymore but will have a look around for them
I am slightly torn in continuing with this, as this isn't really the thread for this discussion. Yet obviously, since I am responding, I am continuing. Partially because I find it really annoying to accuse other people twisting things in headcanon while basically offering nothing as headcanon as proof.
First, the link. It actually means nothing as it is pretty much assumptions of what was happening in the fight. Nothing in the game supports that reading of the situation over any other.
Second, you didn't provide any actual links to these dev statements, which I understand are probably difficult to find, but you can't really expect anyone to take that as evidence in this case. Especially if we are talking about something that Gaider said, if nothing else than for the frequency his statements are misquoted. Thus we need to look at what happens in the actual game.
Third, so wait, Loghain went through with a plan to poison one of the highest nobles in the land, but wasn't treasonous towards his king? And somehow doesn't make it seem like he would be okay with his political enemies being removed by questionable methods?
Fourth, the only way Howe's plan makes any sense is if he knew of Loghain's plans to betray the king at Ostagar. Otherwise the army would have returned back and found one relatively minor renegade noble just wiped out one of the big three noble families in the realm in a brutal massacre. What exactly would have been Howe's plan in this situation if not for Loghain? How was he seeing himself getting out of things? Especially since we constantly see Howe by Loghain's side during events and Loghain actively giving Howe more power?
My main issue in this discussion isn't the fact that people like Loghain, for me is that a lot of that praise overlooks a lot of the stuff he did and we saw in the actual game, such as selling citizens as slaves, while being at times, such as here, really aggressive towards others who don't see him in the similar manner. Especially since all the supporting evidence his hypothetical situations, head canon and dev statements which are often referred, but can't be linked to.
I don't dispute that Loghain did alot of morally questionable things and while I'm ultimately okay with them I can understand why others might not be, My initial dispute in all this is his quitting the field at Ostagar being for political reasons which you claimed. If this was his plan (Which as I said Gaider says it isn't, I'm still looking for the links and yes they aren't easy to find) but if this was his plan then why would he constantly try to talk Cailan out of joining in the battle, he does this in game, he says it in your prescence at the meeting after your joining and says its not the first time he's brought it up.
As to Howe, He controlled the capital and the two most powerful territories in the country. And everybody that could contest him was dead, its as Duncan says he could tell the King "Any story he wished" He didn't plan on the young Cousland escaping. He could have bs'd his way out of it and said some nonsense about how the Couslands were trying to sell out Ferelden to Orlais or w/e, If the King acted against Howe it would have been incredibly high risk. He would have to lay siege to his own capital and kill one of his own high noblemen for simply not believing him, turning his own nobility against him.
I said in my original post I don't expect people to accept or glorify his actions, but that people who make such claims as "He quit the field to kill Cailan" don't understand Loghain. Considering his loyalty to his homeland and the high risk of civil war with the heirless Kings death its out of character for him to want to kill Cailan. And there are much simpler ways of doing it than sacrificing half his army. If he was so concerned about the Orlesians why would he so willingly sacrifice troops? Why would he insist the King not get involved in the fighting if he wanted to kill him in such a manner? Why would he be so suprised about the letters in Return to Ostagar if he apparently knew about it all along?
I don't dispute that Loghain did alot of morally questionable things and while I'm ultimately okay with them I can understand why others might not be, My initial dispute in all this is his quitting the field at Ostagar being for political reasons which you claimed. If this was his plan (Which as I said Gaider says it isn't, I'm still looking for the links and yes they aren't easy to find) but if this was his plan then why would he constantly try to talk Cailan out of joining in the battle, he does this in game, he says it in your prescence at the meeting after your joining and says its not the first time he's brought it up.
As to Howe, He controlled the capital and the two most powerful territories in the country. And everybody that could contest him was dead, its as Duncan says he could tell the King "Any story he wished" He didn't plan on the young Cousland escaping. He could have bs'd his way out of it and said some nonsense about how the Couslands were trying to sell out Ferelden to Orlais or w/e, If the King acted against Howe it would have been incredibly high risk. He would have to lay siege to his own capital and kill one of his own high noblemen for simply not believing him, turning his own nobility against him.
I said in my original post I don't expect people to accept or glorify his actions, but that people who make such claims as "He quit the field to kill Cailan" don't understand Loghain. Considering his loyalty to his homeland and the high risk of civil war with the heirless Kings death its out of character for him to want to kill Cailan. And there are much simpler ways of doing it than sacrificing half his army. If he was so concerned about the Orlesians why would he so willingly sacrifice troops? Why would he insist the King not get involved in the fighting if he wanted to kill him in such a manner? Why would he be so suprised about the letters in Return to Ostagar if he apparently knew about it all along?
I do not wish to derail the discussion anymore, as the thread is about what kinds of villain are wanted, not how misunderstood or not Loghain is. I still maintain that the actions shown in the actual game support your interpretation and assume you feel differently. For the actual thread, I guess Loghain is an example of a good villain for you and not for me.
Yeah no he didn't, He sacrificed them for Millitary reasons. Your headcanon doesn't change that fact. The writers have already confirmed he didn't plan to quit the field before the signal was lit, By then the rest of the armies ranks were shattered (long before you even crossed the bridge), the enemy numbers were far more than anyone expected and he likely concluded that charging would have got the rest of the army killed. Loghain knew nothing of Cailans political plans, once again confirmed by the writers.
Bullshit alert. Where have the writers ever said that? I encourage you to replay Origins. Loghain clearly foreshadows his betrayal of Cailan. It was clearly pre-planned, as he had events in play that came to fruition immediately after seizing power, events that would have had him killed for treason had Cailan still been king. He thought Cailan was too gracious to Orlais.
Someone who's morals are reprehensible - but whos results are undeniable. All the best civilization builders in our real world - were also the worst human beings populating it.
But then again, I don't want a powerful villain. Or a villain defined by power.
I am no longer entertained by the plucky crew of outcasts saving the day from the conformist, mono-evil "popular kid". It smacks of nerd psychosis. It is true that there are stories that escape this - but too many games follow the D&D trope. In and of itself, not a bad thing, but doing it poorly just magnifies how tired it is.
In fact - I'd like the plucky outcasts to be the "evil" people for once.
Give me a group of powerful a-holes who have banned together because they think they know what's best and they've convinced vast mobs they know what's best. Put me in the role of "Mr. Status Quo" - a paragon for order, stability, growth and civilization. An enemy to bloodthirsty, mercenary vigilantism.
Let me defend a city in the north... heck, let me defend the first city to meet the Qunari invasion. Pit me against the coming of the Qun AND these imbecile adventurers who want to "make things better" by stirring up violence with the Qunari and undermining the cities true strength.
Give me a story where a bunch of outcast nobodies do what they would ACTUALLY do... and ruin everything.
Let me, for once, have the Special Snowflakes be the villain.
I would want to see a villain that I actually kind of like. Most of the time, I identify a lot more with the villains in stories than the actual heroes. Also, perhaps a "smaller" one as well, unlike Corypheus, who a monster out of legend and myth.
None of the DA villains thus far have truly captured my like or dislike, except for Meredith. I found the smaller time bosses/antagonists in DAI more interesting than Corypheus - The Nightmare, Florianne, Clarel, Envy, Alexius, etc.
A villain like Saren honestly. Someone who isn't just there to conquer or destroy the world. He actually thought he was doing the right thing to save organics, got in too deep with something he didn't truly understand, and ended up indoctrinated. But he wasn't just completely evil. He came around at the end and went out on his own terms. Almost felt sorry for him, the scene where he shot himself and fell through the glass was very well done.
As far as Loghain, I can actually concede the fact that the fight at Ostagar may have been a lost cause but it was pretty much everything that occurred after that made me unable to allow him to live in any of my many many playthroughs of DA:O. It was one and only decision that was the same in all of them. Could never roleplay a Warden that saw any reason to let him live.
Someone more scheming than Corypheus. Someone who can actually be a thorne in our collective sides. After Haven, Corypheus wasn't really that threatening and didn't accomplish much.
No Solas, no Elven Gods yet. We need at least one calm chapter before the real storm hit us.
The trouble is that whoever the villain is and whatever their agenda is, how can you ensure that the protagonist (i.e you) would be opposed to them? You are given some freedom over choice of race, gender etc in these games, and whilst Bioware occasionally try to force opinions on your character, most people stubornly (and quite rightly) reserve their right to headcanon their character's opinions on just about everything.
That usually leaves Bioware in the position of needing to have the villain outright target you (often for rather implausible reasons) and/or simply 'But thou Must' it and place you in an opposing stance, whether you agree with it or not.
Its all very well coming up with ideas for villains and their motivations etc, but given that you have near infinite lease on what your character believes and what kind of person they are, it is frequently going to seem odd that you are fighting these people. Case in point - many people agree with Loghain and approve of his actions/motivations, some people would never under any circumstances have joined Ceberus, whereas others were aggrieved that you were forced to be in opposition to them in ME3 etc etc etc. Or you get last minute (practically last second) Face/Heel turns by Orsino etc that make very little sense.
Its always going to feel artificial somewhere along the line, because of the range of opinions and personalities your characters could hold. So it always boils down to 'This person intends to blow up the world, kill everyone, insist on banning roast potatoes for Sunday Dinner' or some other line in the sand that only the most irredeemly insane character could agree with (and even then, you could still be playing such a character!)
If only there was some piece of technology that could chart such things, and provide appropriate opposition. Something new and in its infancy, but with potential to be explored and refined...
Ah well, I guess there's no chance of that. Nemesis? Isn't that the big guy from Resident Evil 3... not sure if he's still taking work, but maybe... Oh, you meant Nemesis *system*? Right... well.... sounds a bit far fetched to me. You'd never be able to make a working game out of something like that...
Psycho version of Leliana. She seizes power regardless of who is elected Divine and launches a reign or terror.
She'd be forced to step down by the Cobbler's Union. She'd abuse her power to have all kinds of free pairs of shoes sent to her.
You can only push the people so far. Take away the common man's shoes, and he'll have to take a stand... barefoot.
As long as they have a badass voice i don't care what type of villain they are.
Bullshit alert. Where have the writers ever said that? I encourage you to replay Origins. Loghain clearly foreshadows his betrayal of Cailan. It was clearly pre-planned, as he had events in play that came to fruition immediately after seizing power, events that would have had him killed for treason had Cailan still been king. He thought Cailan was too gracious to Orlais.
@Marshal Moriarty: I'd suggest they not worry about that at all.
However, if they want to worry about it - they need to "insult" the player through the villain. Here are some thoughts.
- Villain kills player's LI
- You play a mock PC, which the Villain kills in the prologue.
- The PC is allowed to try to join the villain, and the villain openly mocks and rejects the PC.
- The PC is allowed to join the villain as a servant. The villain then uses the PC in demeaning tasks, deprives the PC of earned gear, etc.
The key to an effective villain is in engaging the player behind the PC through temporary unpleasant gaming experiences which can only be alleviated by declaring the villain an enemy.
Retour en haut
