Well this goes back to what I said to the first response: unless you or any of the detractors for that matter can name the alternatives that would have been better which he refused or never considered, then it's fruitless to get hung up over the morality or end results of what he did choose.
That is, saying what he did was immoral or ineffectual only means something if it can be argued convincingly that it could have been done better.
Okay, that is actually really easy. I'll start with the Battle of Ostagar:
- Now, I have never blamed Loghain for how the battle went or for pulling back, but if he had, say, assembled a smaller force of men to try and break through to Cailan and give him a path to retreat, it would have helped his case later. If they can save the king, great. If they can't, then people cant convincingly say he did nothing. The number of casualties on the field would probably amount to less than the total dead due to the civil war. We can say this is hindsight, sure, but I believe that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider at the time for any loyal lord.
- Next is in how he initially handles the Bannorn. He never actually tries to tell the truth in regards to Ostagar, even when it would be beneficial. It's always "Cailan died because of his own foolishness" instead of "Cailan died because we greatly underestimated the numbers of the Darkspawn". Of course, he's already shot himself in the foot regarding the latter quote by insisting it's not a real Blight. So, his flight from the battlefield only looks more like a power play in turn. Then there is, again, the painfully obvious usurpation of power, as he furiously seizes control of every aspect of governance in spite of his own daughter being the queen.
- Trying to pin Ostagar on the Wardens, so he can say the Wardens betrayed Cailan at Ostagar. Really, how is this stupidity at all necessary? It only gives reason to question his decision to retreat, as once again, the truth behind the battle is ignored when it shouldn't be.
- On reinforcement by Orlais and more Wardens: just let them in. Loghain's rationale for denying them entry is that he doesn't want Ferelden to suffer enslavement and Orlais' brutality once again. Unfortunately, Loghain and his crony Howe have already beat the Orlesians to it. At the very least, he could grant his people the courtesy of helping them survive the Blight.
- The Circle... How could anyone think turning the mages against the Templars and the Chantry would go well? In context, it literally does not make sense. If Ferelden is in dire need of forces to field against the Darkspawn, why would the Ferelden Circle turn him down? What does he have to lose by going through official channels? Sure, Wynne will return from Ostagar and raise a fuss, but what would that matter when they need to fight for survival? Oh... but it's not a "real" Blight. Sooo much for that.
- Poisoning Eamon. Yeah. I don't think anything really needs to be said. Actually, this act does confirm that Loghain was making a power play, so there's that.
Also, the source of the argument being the same person who did it does not make the argument less valid. Biased? Yes, obviously, but truth is truth. The courts do not write-off a defendant's testimony as useless if they try to argue legal justification just because they've admitted to some wrongdoing. I guarantee you will not find any source who can claim they would have handled the same situation Loghain was in more competently -- none exists.
In this context, yes, I will disregard Loghain's argument. As demonstrated, none of it was the "truth".
Retour en haut
Personally I never interpreted his actions as a power play (though I can see the perspective of others who do see it that way). I always interpreted it as his ego not accepting that anyone else could possibly handle the situation. He even says "I tried to protect you" to Anora. She's not a little girl, but he had trouble seeing it.
