That is precisely what I am judging him for; Ostagar itself was just a wash.
Regarding Uldred: why is Loghain making promises he knows he cannot keep, under pretenses that are most-likely false? Even in the event that Uldred does not stage a rebellion, Loghain is creating problems that should not even exist.
Does Loghain really care what the Chantry, and extension of the Orlesian Empire, thinks?
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.
You think that those in the Usurper-camp that called his withdrawal "convenient" would eat up his claim that he tried to save the king but failed?
Come on, now.
- 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".
He never said that to the Bannorn, only to Anora behind closed-doors. At the second Landsmeet he decries Cailan's death pretty emotionally. He did not handle the Bannorn well but he did not handle them badly, either. His opponents were clearly on their own bent from the get-go.
Of course, he's already shot himself in the foot regarding the latter quote by insisting it's not a real Blight.
There was nothing to support the notion the Darkspawn were part of a Blight, no, but that does not mean he wrote of the Darkspawn threat itself, or ruled out the possibility of it being a Blight. Loghain says pretty explicitly in the meeting before the Ostagar battle that their scouts spotted no dragons (Archdemon), which then gives one pause about throwing so many soldiers at the enemy. 'Pretty sure his first order of business was to regroup, and even if he "just" had Orlais in mind, it serves the same purpose if the Darkspawn threat do turn out to be severe.
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.
I think it's quite obvious that part of it was a power-play, but I think it was motivated less by a lust for power and more out of hopelessness over Cailan's rulership, as well as his love for the country.
Every aspect of governance? Did I miss something? I never got that impression, myself. In fact, to me it appears his focus was squarely on military matters.
If anyone seized control of governance from Anora, it would be Howe (trusting whom, I will admit, was a pretty big blunder on Loghain's part).
- 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.
I don't remember this one that clearly, I thought he simply claimed that they failed and he wanted no part of them.
Why was it necessary. I think he assumed that the Grey Wardens would hate him for what he did and try to bring him to justice, and he turned out to be right -- Alistair and the HoF bring him to justice, one way or another, and if he is conscripted, he reports being hated by his peers.
- 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.
His estimation was correct in the end, though. Fereldan did not require foreign aid to stop the Blight. Gotta wonder how much of his support base would turn back on him in the already-divided Bannorn if he went back on something that significant.
- 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.
Because the Fereldans were clearly not treating it that way, themselves. This is not merely a Loghain issue.
- 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.
Eh, not necessarily. He may have felt like his disagreement with Cailan stemmed from the influence of Eamon and wanted to see if taking him out of the picture would bring the king to his senses. It did not work, of course, as Cailan and Loghain's disagreement continued into Ostagar without Eamon around, so Loghain decided to hell with the king (literally lol).
In this context, yes, I will disregard Loghain's argument. As demonstrated, none of it was the "truth".
Not so fast, John Kerry.
The claim that Loghain had no choice when it comes to his several questionable decisions also requires evidence and I don't see you providing it.
Two can play your game.
Yes but there was no point in me making a big, long, elaborate post about it before necessary as doing so would have just been a time waste.
But now I just did in reply to The Baconer, while you still have not backed up your claims, so...
And much of his efforts into preparing for an imaginary war with the Orlesians were simply pointless.
False. The Darkspawn threat was real, whether they were part of a Blight or not (DA:A demonstrates that they can be a threat without a true Blight), so preparing for war with Orlesians doubles as preparation against the Darkspawn.
Of course not. But "not always" doesn't imply "never". It's just something that can be said about anything.
Yeah. Okay, guy. I do not need the painfully-obvious technicalities of my own posts pointed out to me every time.
If you are aware of them, then, I probably am too. =\
Trying to do homework now so I can't reply in depth. I'll stick with this one for now
The Circle... How could anyone think turning the mages against the Templars and the Chantry would go well?
Loghain only wanted Uldred to get the Circle on his side. The Chantry had shown itself to be incompetent in that regard, fearing the mages more then the Darkspawn -- note that only seven were sent to Ostagar, 8 if we're a Mage. Loghain merely told Uldred that if he got the Circle on his side, then when the dust had settled after the Darkspawn were dealt with Loghain would lobby for the mages to get more rights under the Chantry (or even total autonomy). He never once told him to fight the Templars to get the Mages on his side.
The reason the Mages and Templars started fighting each other was because Uldred was a brain-dead moron whose arrogance was exceedingly high and when Wynne started yapping her mouth, Uldred launched a coup (one he'd probably been planning for years, given that there's also the heavy implication that he's teaching apprentices blood magic and then ratting some of them out to increase his own standing in the Circle and he had a coordinated assault plan figured out for if **** went down).
If anyone seized control of governance from Anora, it would be Howe (trusting whom, I will admit, was a pretty big blunder on Loghain's part).
To be fair, Loghain never really trusted Howe. Even Anora will point this out to us, saying that trust is too strong a word. Loghain merely worked with Howe because Howe posed a significant political/military threat if antagonized and the lands under his despot-rule provide valuable supply lines and resources for the army and also helps ensure Loghain's forces have control of the Amaranthine Ocean/Waking Sea -- at least until Gwaren fell to the Darkspawn.
Trying to do homework now so I can't reply in depth. I'll stick with this one for now
Loghain only wanted Uldred to get the Circle on his side. The Chantry had shown itself to be incompetent in that regard, fearing the mages more then the Darkspawn -- note that only seven were sent to Ostagar, 8 if we're a Mage. Loghain merely told Uldred that if he got the Circle on his side, then when the dust had settled after the Darkspawn were dealt with Loghain would lobby for the mages to get more rights under the Chantry (or even total autonomy). He never once told him to fight the Templars to get the Mages on his side.
The reason the Mages and Templars started fighting each other was because Uldred was a brain-dead moron whose arrogance was exceedingly high and when Wynne started yapping her mouth, Uldred launched a coup (one he'd probably been planning for years, given that there's also the heavy implication that he's teaching apprentices blood magic and then ratting some of them out to increase his own standing in the Circle and he had a coordinated assault plan figured out for if **** went down).
How are the mages supposed to bolster his forces without instigating some kind of conflict with the Templars and the Chantry? If the Chantry is the biggest roadblock here, let's not pretend that appealing to the Mages with promises of autonomy has any chance of being resolved without bloodshed.
The general premise seems to be "Get Irving to agree to side with Loghain and fight the Darkspawn. From there Irving and Greagoir will discuss the matter themselves, and since they respect each other greatly, can come to an understanding in the wake of what happened at Ostagar."
I think Ostagar would be the selling point for the Knight-Commander.
But then, Wynne happened.
The general premise seems to be "Get Irving to agree to side with Loghain and fight the Darkspawn. From there Irving and Greagoir will discuss the matter themselves, and since they respect each other greatly, can come to an understanding in the wake of what happened at Ostagar."
I think Ostagar would be the selling point for the Knight-Commander.
You think that those in the Usurper-camp that called his withdrawal "convenient" would eat up his claim that he tried to save the king but failed?
Come on, now.
He never said that to the Bannorn, only to Anora behind closed-doors. At the second Landsmeet he decries Cailan's death pretty emotionally. He did not handle the Bannorn well but he did not handle them badly, either. His opponents were clearly on their own bent from the get-go.
There was nothing to support the notion the Darkspawn were part of a Blight, no, but that does not mean he wrote of the Darkspawn threat itself, or ruled out the possibility of it being a Blight. Loghain says pretty explicitly in the meeting before the Ostagar battle that their scouts spotted no dragons (Archdemon), which then gives one pause about throwing so many soldiers at the enemy. 'Pretty sure his first order of business was to regroup, and even if he "just" had Orlais in mind, it serves the same purpose if the Darkspawn threat do turn out to be severe.
I think it's quite obvious that part of it was a power-play, but I think it was motivated less by a lust for power and more out of hopelessness over Cailan's rulership, as well as his love for the country.
Every aspect of governance? Did I miss something? I never got that impression, myself. In fact, to me it appears his focus was squarely on military matters.
I don't remember this one that clearly, I thought he simply claimed that they failed and he wanted no part of them.
Why was it necessary. I think he assumed that the Grey Wardens would hate him for what he did and try to bring him to justice, and he turned out to be right -- Alistair and the HoF bring him to justice, one way or another, and if he is conscripted, he reports being hated by his peers.
His estimation was correct in the end, though. Fereldan did not require foreign aid to stop the Blight. Gotta wonder how much of his support base would turn back on him in the already-divided Bannorn if he went back on something that significant.
Because the Fereldans were clearly not treating it that way, themselves. This is not merely a Loghain issue.
Eh, not necessarily. He may have felt like his disagreement with Cailan stemmed from the influence of Eamon and wanted to see if taking him out of the picture would bring the king to his senses. It did not work, of course, as Cailan and Loghain's disagreement continued into Ostagar without Eamon around, so Loghain decided to hell with the king (literally lol).
Not so fast, John Kerry.
How much of the bad politics being implemented in Ferelden since Loghain became regent was Howe's doing and how much was Loghain's?
If he can be considered guilty of anything, it's of choosing his politicals allies poorly and leaving the national policy in the hands of a selfish, ruthless, homicidal inept man. After all, selling elves does sound like something Arl backstabbing Howe would come up with. The fact Loghain was losing the civil war and thus felt backed into a corner - especially financially - made him promptly accept Howe's suggestion.
Even though he knew it was wrong in every way, Loghain is and always will be a pragmatist. Between doing what is right and risking both defeat and getting those who depend on him killed and doing something wrong, but ensuring some measure of victory, Loghain will always go for the second choice.
So Loghain fought for Ferelden's interests - his intention was true and honest -, but used inappropriate means with near catastrophic political and social consequences to achieve his ends. The true personification of how following the philosophical directive of "the ends justifies the means" can destroy the very ends you strive so hard to achieve.
We do not see Howe making any suggestion as to the selling of elves. The only scene we see Howe having a hand in actually is the hiring of Zevran. And even then he seeks permission from Loghain before sending Zevran out. Now we do find out Howe was stealing from the treasury (during the Slim Coudry quests), but speaking to Caladrius, it's Loghain behind the elven slavery thing. It's Loghain's name on the papers, Loghain who rants and raves to Caladrius about the Warden. If Loghain wasn't the brain behind that little idea, he certainly had blood on his hands because he was aware and complicit.
Just as I won't condemn Loghain for the Cousland massacre (something we see no evidence in game of being truth beyond his acceptance of Howe afterward) I won't condemn Howe for something we can only speculate happened. Both are great for head canon if you want to achieve some roleplaying aspect, but there isn't any hard evidence in game for it.
The only other place we do see Howe offering advice, he is advising Loghain to address the darkspawn sweeping over the nation and Loghain would rather continue fighting the bannorn than address the issue. He may be pragmatic, but he has serious blinders on when it comes to Orlais and his pride. Had he never usurped Anora, he could have been the military commander, let her deal with the bannorn. She's trained for it, it's something she's good at. But his pride wouldn't let him accept help from anyone, even his own daughter. I wonder how much of his pride is wrapped up in his patriotism, and casts a different light on his actions.
It makes for an interesting and complex villain. He has motives we can all understand and relate to, possibly even pity or sympathize with him, but his methods "ends justify the means" doesn't make him a "true or honest" person, although it does make him a very "Grey Warden" kind of person. If nothing else, this advertises the wisdom of making him a warden, since you know he will do whatever it takes to stop the Archdemon. I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't clasp an asp to my bosom, I get a big stick and smash it.
That is precisely what I am judging him for; Ostagar itself was just a wash.
Regarding Uldred: why is Loghain making promises he knows he cannot keep, under pretenses that are most-likely false? Even in the event that Uldred does not stage a rebellion, Loghain is creating problems that should not even exist.
Cannot keep? He most certainly can keep them. The Chantry was only a hair away from being kicked out of Ferelden after Loghain and Maric drove Orlais out because they were supporting the Orleisans during the occupation in The Stolen Throne, and they only started helping out Fereldens when it became clear that Loghain and the Fereldens could win.
And Loghain doesn't create the problems. The problems for the most part are already there. The bannorn already has a reputation for going to war with each other over trees. The majority of them that rebelled against Anora and Loghain weren't doing it for Teagan's stated reasons of the withdrawal being fortuitious, not that Teagan would know how the battle went as he wasn't there, he was just projecting a motivation on Loghain for his withdrawal; the bannorn for the most part were rebelling because they wanted to take advantage of a power vacuum. Only a few cared about what happened at Ostagar.
Uldred was already well into planning his coup and had already laid the foundation for it. The Promises of Pride notes we pick up from abominations show that the planning had been going on for awhile, and Irving's mistake shows he was relying on Uldred to help discover blood mages.
The situation with Connor is so convoluted that if you take any of the issues that led up to the tragedy in Redcliff that it may not have been as bad.
1. Isolde kept Connor's magic a secret from her husband because she didn't want to lose her son and Connor would no longer be able to inherit if it was discovered he was a mage, plus it would be humiliating to her to have a mage son. So she seeks out an apostate.
2. The apostate she hires is the ever incompetent Jowan, who had been hired by Loghain to poison Eamon. Jowan, having no reason to disbelieve Loghain does so. This is the extent of Loghain's involvement.
3. Jowan kept books he told Connor not to look at in a place Connor could get to them, granted he was being tortured by Isolde so he couldn't really get to them.
4. Connor tried to help his father, not knowing the dangers of the Fade and ended up possessed.
5. Before he was possessed Isolde sent almost all the knights away leaving Redcliff practically defenseless.
So, had Isolde decided to obey the Chantry law she is so proud to be a part of, she would have had no reason to accept aid from Loghain. Had she told Eamon about Connor's magic rather than try to keep it secret, he would've sent Connor to the Circle. This action makes bringing in an apostate unnecessary. But she does bring one in. It's true Loghain sends Jowan from the prison in Denerim with the purpose of poisoning Eamon and that is his fault.
But sending in Jowan does not change the actions of Isolde before and after. After the poisoning she decides to leave the village and the castle defenseless, and has absolutely no remorse for the lives lost so long as she keeps her son alive, which makes me think she's a high-functioning sociopath. Even when the truth is discovered she is trying to save Connor no matter the cost.
It's a convoluted position, and Loghain does have a share of blame there, more than at the Circle at any rate.
He has no real blame at Orzammar except that he sent an idiot determined to call him King Loghain to the dwarves, and that's probably meant to give him more legitimacy to the Assembly.
He bears full responsibility over the situation with the elves. No Loghain defender defends that act. But it goes to show how much the nobles really care about it when used compared to using Bann Sighurd's son or Alfstanna's brother. It is worth noting that Howe was embezzling money from the warchest as we see in the Slim Couldry missions with the silver bars so Loghain had less money to fight the rebellion than he otherwise would have.
That's not justification for what he did but it is worth stating to add context.
It's also worth noting that the numbers of Orlesians that were coming are different when given by Riordin and Loghain. At the landsmeet Loghain says that the Orlesians offered to send four legions of chevaliers. If I go by Roman Legion numbers, that is 12,000 chevaliers. Riordin outright says that he and 400 wardens were accompanied by 12 divisions of cavalry. A division can be anything from 1,000 soldiers to 5,000. If filled to capacity, the number of soldiers Orlais was sending could be 60,000 chevaliers. If I take that and add the precedent of the third blight, where Orlais sent soldiers to help out Nevarra against the Blight and then just refuse to leave and occupy the country, I'd say that Loghain's concerns are quite legitimate. Even soldiers at Ostagar are nervous about that happening in background dialogue.
Turns out that that tactics Orlais and Celene were taking were different than what Loghain was expecting, but there was a plan to essentially take control of Ferelden through marriage. And what do you think would have happened to Anora? Would Celene let her live after Cailan divorced her?
The way I see it Loghain's withdrawal from Ostagar was the right thing to do, he is no politician when talking to the Landsmeet and a bunch of them decide to take advantage of the power vacuum and betray their standing queen, Anora. A few decide they know what happaned at Ostagar despite not being their, like Teagan, and oppose Loghain on those grounds. Loghain is forced to fight them and not the darkspawn because they would fight him first. He sends a spy to poison Eamon and when the war chest is empty he starts selling elves into slavery.
Poisoning a noble and slavery are really the full extent of his crimes. Deplorable things and I'm not making them smaller than they are, but I feel many gamers view Loghain from the lens of Alistair and Teagan, who are hardly unbiased sources, and apply more blame than he actually has done.
Leliana, Zevran, Fenris and Anders each are worse by comparison and the things they've done.
We do not see Howe making any suggestion as to the selling of elves. The only scene we see Howe having a hand in actually is the hiring of Zevran. And even then he seeks permission from Loghain before sending Zevran out. Now we do find out Howe was stealing from the treasury (during the Slim Coudry quests), but speaking to Caladrius, it's Loghain behind the elven slavery thing. It's Loghain's name on the papers, Loghain who rants and raves to Caladrius about the Warden. If Loghain wasn't the brain behind that little idea, he certainly had blood on his hands because he was aware and complicit.
I look at it more as Howe stealing the money is what forced Loghain to do what he did and it was obviously not something he would have done if they had money. He's not completely against elves, and he called my City Elf pretty, but they would be the lesser ones in his eyes when it came to who would be sold.
Cannot keep? He most certainly can keep them. The Chantry was only a hair away from being kicked out of Ferelden after Loghain and Maric drove Orlais out because they were supporting the Orleisans during the occupation in The Stolen Throne, and they only started helping out Fereldens when it became clear that Loghain and the Fereldens could win.
No, he couldn't. I don't imagine the people would opt to rally behind the guy who set the mages free over the Chantry anyhow. Just look at the reaction when it's revealed that Loghain sent a Templar to Howe's torture palace (another big issue that's only been mentioned just now).
And Loghain doesn't create the problems. The problems for the most part are already there. The bannorn already has a reputation for going to war with each other over trees. The majority of them that rebelled against Anora and Loghain weren't doing it for Teagan's stated reasons of the withdrawal being fortuitious, not that Teagan would know how the battle went as he wasn't there, he was just projecting a motivation on Loghain for his withdrawal; the bannorn for the most part were rebelling because they wanted to take advantage of a power vacuum. Only a few cared about what happened at Ostagar.
Nobody rebelled against Anora, because there was nothing to rebel against. She had been totally benched by her own father, who made no real attempt to disguise his usurpation, or even deny that Cailan's death was fortuitous for him.
Uldred was already well into planning his coup and had already laid the foundation for it. The Promises of Pride notes we pick up from abominations show that the planning had been going on for awhile, and Irving's mistake shows he was relying on Uldred to help discover blood mages.
This is just discrediting Loghain's backroom dealing even more, I wasn't expecting you to do my work for me.
The situation with Connor is so convoluted that if you take any of the issues that led up to the tragedy in Redcliff that it may not have been as bad.
I have literally never said Loghain was responsible for Connor's possession and everything that developed because of that. My focus has always been on Loghain trying to give Eamon the old Litvinenko treatment, which is undeniably criminal, ill-advised, and nefarious.
It's also worth noting that the numbers of Orlesians that were coming are different when given by Riordin and Loghain. At the landsmeet Loghain says that the Orlesians offered to send four legions of chevaliers. If I go by Roman Legion numbers, that is 12,000 chevaliers. Riordin outright says that he and 400 wardens were accompanied by 12 divisions of cavalry. A division can be anything from 1,000 soldiers to 5,000. If filled to capacity, the number of soldiers Orlais was sending could be 60,000 chevaliers. If I take that and add the precedent of the third blight, where Orlais sent soldiers to help out Nevarra against the Blight and then just refuse to leave and occupy the country, I'd say that Loghain's concerns are quite legitimate. Even soldiers at Ostagar are nervous about that happening in background dialogue.
The point is that Loghain and Howe's men were already brutalizing and enslaving Ferelden's people, so I can't really care about Loghain's reasoning for keeping Orlais' forces out. At least they could live to rebel again.
The way I see it Loghain's withdrawal from Ostagar was the right thing to do, he is no politician when talking to the Landsmeet and a bunch of them decide to take advantage of the power vacuum and betray their standing queen, Anora. A few decide they know what happaned at Ostagar despite not being their, like Teagan, and oppose Loghain on those grounds. Loghain is forced to fight them and not the darkspawn because they would fight him first. He sends a spy to poison Eamon and when the war chest is empty he starts selling elves into slavery.
Right, he's no politician, so he should have never played king, since it almost killed everyone. All references to Anora are completely irrelevant, as she was ousted (and not by the Bannorn).
Leliana, Zevran, Fenris and Anders each are worse by comparison and the things they've done.
Barring Anders, no, not at all. As a person who doesn't even like Fenris, that claim is absolutely laughable, and completely untenable. Don't even try to rationalize that one.
It's about depriving them of the ammunition they need to make their grievances relevant. The other political maneuvering would have been in the interest of getting them to, at the very least, mobilize in preparation for the Darkspawn.
When he is first asked about Cailan directly, he sidesteps the question reeeeaaallly badly. And then, yes, the later comment to his daughter, the queen. Not a good showing on either front.
Loghain's detractors are mostly opposed to him on principle, not for what he did: he's breaking tradition. It matters not to them if he can justify everything with impenetrable logic. They do not want him there and will ignore/make up facts to undermine him.
Only at the Landsmeet can the Warden get people to oppose him for what he's actually been doing.
Well, aside from the unprecedented numbers at Ostagar, and southern Ferelden being swallowed by Darkspawn...
From a precedent of 0, sure, but DA:A proves that Darkspawn on the surface and wrecking **** does not always mean there's a Blight.
He seemed quite comfortable taking charge of diplomatic (Orzammar, Orlais) and economic (Elves are a liquid asset!) matters.
Not sure what you're referring to with the first two, but it sounds to me like Howe came up with the elf trade, and it's hard to argue with the state going bankrupt.
"Oh, I bet they're gonna hate me, so I better slander them and brand them outlaws."
"What? They hate me because I slandered them and branded them outlaws??" It was not a necessity, it was self-fulling prophecy.
You forgot "and for pulling out of the 'field, as I was well within my rights to."
That, of course, would imply they were not going to like him from the start.
It's an issue he aggrandized by insisting it was not a real Blight.
He never insisted it. Once again, he said behind closed-doors that he was not sure if this was a real Blight, for which the evidence was indeed weak at best.
So, yeah, a power play.
Uh, sure, if it pleases you. I already said there was power-play involved, but not simply for the lust of it.
Loghain's detractors are mostly opposed to him on principle, not for what he did: he's breaking tradition. It matters not to them if he can justify everything with impenetrable logic. They do not want him there and will ignore/make up facts to undermine him.
Only at the Landsmeet can the Warden get people to oppose him for what he's actually been doing.
Breaking tradition by crowning himself regent, overriding both the Bannorn and the still-living queen, and that anyone who questions him is gonna share Cailan's fate. Those are some damn good principles to oppose him by. The Warden just gets to prove for certain why opposing him was a good idea. Frosting.
From a precedent of 0, sure, but DA:A proves that Darkspawn on the surface and wrecking **** does not always mean there's a Blight.
DA:A was a massive outlier, and notable that it could have actually turned worse than a conventional Blight.
Not sure what you're referring to with the first two, but it sounds to me like Howe came up with the elf trade, and it's hard to argue with the state going bankrupt.
Loghain sending emissaries to Orzammar, and also declaring that he is the only one who can decide whether or not Ferelden receives aid from Orlais. As for the elves, it sounds like nothing of that sort. Howe is mentioned literally nowhere regarding the deals with Tevinter.
It's hard to argue when Ferelden didn't even need to be scraping the barrel like that. He keeps Orlais out on the claim that will lead to another invasion, with the people of Ferelden suffering under the harsh treatment of the Orlesians. But he's already sold his people out, to a fate even worse than the debauchery of Orlais. He has no legitimate claim to be acting in defense of the Ferelden people. If he really wanted to come across as a pragmatist, he should have accepted the aid that Ferelden was offered.
You forgot "and for pulling out of the 'field, as I was well within my rights to."
That, of course, would imply they were not going to like him from the start.
Here's the thing: if Ostagar was truly hopeless, and it was well within his right to retreat, why the f*** would anyone care about some rando Wardens having a beef? In a realistic situation, would he actually have a reason to be worried about two dudes trekking across the country to try and bring him to justice? The narrative forces this dilemma when Howe tells Loghain about surviving Wardens, and when Alistair rages about Loghain's retreat to the PC. In reality, the Grey Wardens would have absolutely no reason to pursue Loghain, with or without Alistair's personal vendetta, and Loghain should likewise not be taking the time out of his day to worry about 2 Grey Wardens. But no, Loghain decides to be a ****ing idiot and force the issue, in order to contextualize the main quest of DA:O. Again, self-fulfilling prophecy.
He never insisted it. Once again, he said behind closed-doors that he was not sure if this was a real Blight, for which the evidence was indeed weak at best.
Right, at best we only had the unprecedented number of Darkspawn that ended in a disastrous battle that killed the king, that creeping black stain on the map to remind us we were technically on the clock (as the Blight was swarming over southern Ferelden), Arl f***ing Howe trying to take up the voice of reason by reminding Loghain that he should be more concerned with the advancing horde.
But don't you start goin' to treat this like a real Blight, now!
Uh, sure, if it pleases you. I already said there was power-play involved, but not simply for the lust of it.
Because that difference mattered. What a relief.
We do not see Howe making any suggestion as to the selling of elves. The only scene we see Howe having a hand in actually is the hiring of Zevran. And even then he seeks permission from Loghain before sending Zevran out. Now we do find out Howe was stealing from the treasury (during the Slim Coudry quests), but speaking to Caladrius, it's Loghain behind the elven slavery thing. It's Loghain's name on the papers, Loghain who rants and raves to Caladrius about the Warden. If Loghain wasn't the brain behind that little idea, he certainly had blood on his hands because he was aware and complicit.
Just as I won't condemn Loghain for the Cousland massacre (something we see no evidence in game of being truth beyond his acceptance of Howe afterward) I won't condemn Howe for something we can only speculate happened. Both are great for head canon if you want to achieve some roleplaying aspect, but there isn't any hard evidence in game for it.
The only other place we do see Howe offering advice, he is advising Loghain to address the darkspawn sweeping over the nation and Loghain would rather continue fighting the bannorn than address the issue. He may be pragmatic, but he has serious blinders on when it comes to Orlais and his pride. Had he never usurped Anora, he could have been the military commander, let her deal with the bannorn. She's trained for it, it's something she's good at. But his pride wouldn't let him accept help from anyone, even his own daughter. I wonder how much of his pride is wrapped up in his patriotism, and casts a different light on his actions.
It makes for an interesting and complex villain. He has motives we can all understand and relate to, possibly even pity or sympathize with him, but his methods "ends justify the means" doesn't make him a "true or honest" person, although it does make him a very "Grey Warden" kind of person. If nothing else, this advertises the wisdom of making him a warden, since you know he will do whatever it takes to stop the Archdemon. I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't clasp an asp to my bosom, I get a big stick and smash it.
I believe that any major commercial business or trade made between two nations has to be authorized by the higher authority of each of them. Loghain was the regent of Ferelden at the time, so Caladrius needed his signature in all legal documents referring to the selling of elves. Which is why it's his name and not Howe's that's everywhere in those papers. Should Loghain have died in Ostagar, then the signature would have to be Anora's, just to illustrate.
I agree with your points. The way Loghain chose to act was the problem. Maybe he could've steered Ferelden safely through the crisis. If only he had better help than Howe in governing the country...Also, I agree with how he made a very convincing Warden in Inquisition. He does look more "Wardenly" than Alistair IMO. More serious, more dutiful, readier to make sacrifices for the greater good. But then again, that's Loghain in a nutshell, isn't it? After all, he sacrificed everything to drive the Orlesian nobles out of Ferelden and to see Maric rise to power...
In the text below, I try to gather a bit of what is known about Loghain's character from the most important bits of his history and use them to interpret his actions after Ostagar in an attempt to shed some light on the matter:
True, Origins doesn't show Howe suggesting the idea of selling elves to Loghain. However, there's a lot that's implied in the game's narrative and the way the relationship between Loghain and Howe works. The writers won't spell out everything to us, since their goal is to instigate the players' intelligence and allow us to guess what's truly behind the main events in the story. They have to be clear without being obvious.
So what can be inferred from the DA lore and the game's storyline?
We know for a fact that Loghain is an honorable man, a soldier, as he likes to define himself, and a Fereldan soldier, no less. I'm stressing the Fereldan for a reason that'll be clear in a moment. It's highly unlikely that he would consider doing something as morally wrong as selling people as though they were property since this is the most anti-Fereldan thing anyone could do.
Remember, Loghain is a symbol to the people. He is the Hero of River Dane. He was fundamental in keeping Maric safe and seeing that he Orlesians were driven out from Ferelden so that the rightful king could sit on the throne. His military strategies won victories for Maric. Without Loghain, there would be no Ferelden, and that we know for a fact, not just because Ser Cauthrien says so.
He represents the self-made man, the commoner who rose to power through his own merit. Such a man would hardly betray the core principles of his nation's moral system by his own initiative. Even when he abandoned Cailan in Ostagar, he was thinking about Ferelden. As Solas tells us in Inquisition, he saw a general who gazed upon the battlefield and realised the battle was lost. So he spared his soldiers from an early death to fight a longer anad harder battle in the near future. He was thinking about the good of the country in the long term. And when you do that, you need to make sacrifices in the short term, something that most people simply won't understand and will readily comdemn you for that.
Again, the only reason I see as a player for Loghain, a hardcore patriot, to betray such highly-held principles is his willingness to make hard choices and sacrifice almost everything to do what is necessary. This personality trait is evident in both books where his character appears: Stolen Throne and the Calling.
And after Cailan's spectacular defeat at Ostagar, he felt it was necessary to make sure Ferelden survived the crisis. But that can't be done unless the chevaliers are pushed back away from Ferelden's borders and the darkspawn horde is defeated. And the only way both can be done is if the Bannorn realises the need to join forces against the chevaliers in the North and the darkspawn in the South.
But because the Wardens kept secrecy about the necessity for a Warden to be the one to kill the Archdemon and the fact the GW had betrayed King Maric in the past to an Orlesian mage, Rémille, with expansionist ambitions (The Calling), Loghain cared very little for the fate of the Wardens and preferred to rely on Ferelden's own military might and his uncanny ability with war strategy. And because of his retreat from Ostagar and his gross attempt to remove power from Ferelden's rightful ruler, Anora, some in the Bannorn interpreted his actions at Ostagar as treacherous, saw his attempt of naming himself regent in order to lead the country safely out of the current crisis, in spite of Anora being queen, as a grab for the throne and decided to antagonize him.
As for the Banns, they didn't antagonize him necessarily for the right reasons. Some Banns were honest in their fight against Loghain, like Teagan, but as someone stated before in the thread, some would use the Landsmeet to take advantage from the vacuum of power. Most never saw the need for unity simply because they refused to recognise the severity of the crisis going on under their noses. Take for instance the example of two Banns, who only banded together against Loghain AFTER the Warden showed them proof of crimes associated with Loghain (Alfstanna's brother, the tortured noble, Caladius' documents, etc).
And what about Eamon trying to take power from Anora and force Alistair, a commoner and a bastard, to become king? And even worse, a Warden, someone incapable of producing an heir? Does anyone truly believe Eamon was concerned with the welfare of Ferelden by deposing the rightful queen? He complains about Loghain taking power from Anora, but is ready to do the same in order to place a boy on the throne that he can easily manipulate, just as he did Cailan? Out with the regent and his daughter, in with the naive young man who recognises him as family and will listen to his every advice once he sits on the throne? How convenient.
If you watch the Landsmeet carefully and the events leading up to it, it slowly dawns on you that Loghain isn't quite the one with a hidden agenda after all...but it's easier to paint Loghain as the evil villain because of his harsh and inconsequential methods, and due to his association with a man of questionable character and ruthless disposition. Such is the way of things.
If you watch the Landsmeet carefully and the events leading up to it, it slowly dawns on you that Loghain isn't quite the one with a hidden agenda after all...but it's easier to paint Loghain as the evil villain because of his harsh and inconsequential methods, and due to his association with a man of questionable character and ruthless disposition. Such is the way of things.
Those are very good reasons to view Loghain as such. The "doing whatever it takes" approach is dependent on results, the manifestation of the ends that allegedly justify the means, in order to maintain a state of moral ambiguity. "Harsh and inconsequential" makes all the difference here: it renders it nothing more than criminal barbarity with nothing to show for it.
I mean, really. Seizing a Templar who was in the middle of capturing an escaped Blood Mage, sending said Templar to experience the hospitality of Arl Howe, and then putting the maleficar on a mission to fatally poison one of his political rivals. This is base hidden-agenda-villainry, among the most prominent in the game no less.
Breaking tradition by crowning himself regent, overriding both the Bannorn and the still-living queen, and that anyone who questions him is gonna share Cailan's fate. Those are some damn good principles to oppose him by. The Warden just gets to prove for certain why opposing him was a good idea. Frosting.
No, it's just because of bloodlines. The same Bannorn is perfectly content with an idiot like Cailan (whom NOBODY, not even his wife, will deny is a "fool" when you as the Warden call him that) or Alistair, so it is a little late for them to get up-in-arms about an idiot (quite easily less of one) taking the throne (which, by the way, Flemeth laughs at Alistair for being dismayed about doing violently, telling him not to be naiive and realize that this is anything but rare for the times).
As for sharing Cailan's fate... they are not exactly giving him a choice by warring with him.
DA:A was a massive outlier, and notable that it could have actually turned worse than a conventional Blight.
If it is a real Blight, then why throw their army at it repeatedly and continuously as they have been doing when (as per Loghain's words) nobody has spotted the Archdemon?
I would say it makes a certain kind of sense to hold back until the primary objective presents itself.
Loghain sending emissaries to Orzammar, and also declaring that he is the only one who can decide whether or not Ferelden receives aid from Orlais.
Well he had the right idea, then. Orzammar provides valuable aid. Orlais was not required.
As for the elves, it sounds like nothing of that sort. Howe is mentioned literally nowhere regarding the deals with Tevinter.
No, but it is implied. Howe is the one repeatedly giving him advice on political matters because Loghain is a fish-out-of-water as a politician.
He has no legitimate claim to be acting in defense of the Ferelden people. If he really wanted to come across as a pragmatist, he should have accepted the aid that Ferelden was offered.
Sure he does. He is the reason Fereldan is a country. If not for him, they would not be.
Breaking away from an empire like Orlais means accepting less strength/security in exchange for living freer.
Here's the thing: if Ostagar was truly hopeless, and it was well within his right to retreat, why the f*** would anyone care about some rando Wardens having a beef? In a realistic situation, would he actually have a reason to be worried about two dudes trekking across the country to try and bring him to justice?
Well, I dunno. Everyone else is acting like an idiot. It's only fair to assume the same of them (in the two Wardens' case, Loghain is always at least half right).
Right, at best we only had the unprecedented number of Darkspawn that ended in a disastrous battle that killed the king, that creeping black stain on the map to remind us we were technically on the clock (as the Blight was swarming over southern Ferelden), Arl f***ing Howe trying to take up the voice of reason by reminding Loghain that he should be more concerned with the advancing horde.
Unprecedented, where the precedent is 0? 
Kinda hard to do when you have this Civil War on your hands (which indicates that nobody else cares about the Blight either).
Because that difference mattered. What a relief.
Yup! 
I notice Qun00 beat feet once detailed arguments were required. Ahaha...
It makes for an interesting and complex villain. He has motives we can all understand and relate to, possibly even pity or sympathize with him, but his methods "ends justify the means" doesn't make him a "true or honest" person, although it does make him a very "Grey Warden" kind of person. If nothing else, this advertises the wisdom of making him a warden, since you know he will do whatever it takes to stop the Archdemon. I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't clasp an asp to my bosom, I get a big stick and smash it.
Actually, Loghain might very well be a warning against "ends justify the means" extremism.
Loghain was willing to do any dirty deed to save his country and not only did it make the ditch deeper, it also betrayed every single principle that Ferelden stood for. He tragically became no better than the very Orlesians who'd occupied and terrorized Ferelden decades earlier. And it would have all been for nothing if not for the Warden's intervention.
This serves as an RP moment of development for the Warden. Does the Warden end up as a more successful version of what Loghain was trying to be (and by extension end up morally worst than Loghain)? Does the Warden tread the line between pragmatism and upholding good morals/ethics? Or does the Warden throw out Utilitarianism entirely and stick to Kantian Ethics for personal or logical reasons?
To further the debate, here are the words Teagan uses to refer to the Inquisitor: someone who acts as though he/she is the solution to every problem.
Those are the same words Alistair uses to refer to Loghain and Anora.
So in the end, no matter how good the players' intentions are, he ends up being labelled a bully, with no care for the rules. That is to say, the player got to be the hero, the goody two-shoes in Origins and in the beginning of Inquisition only to see his status slowly evolve to that of a villain in Trespasser in the eyes of some people. And why does that happen?
Because he arose to a position of power. He meddled in the interests of third parties, also in power. In essence, it's what Loghain did after naming himself regent. (Although Loghain did do questionable things, such as lie about the Wardens betrayal to the king. But then again, he had to be portrayed as the villain so your Warden would have a personal reason to hate him and do his best to trounce him in the Landsmeet. It was also the excuse he needed to justify his retreat in Ostagar.)
Sub-Par Example considering that the Exalted Council part of Tresspasser was the weakest aspect of that DLC. But the point remains a valid one.
Alistair's description of Anora and Loghain would seem more valid. After all, Loghain messed up badly and yet he still refuses to see that what he's doing is destroying the very country that he vowed to save. And even after a year of ineptitude and letting Howe/her father walk all over her with Ferelden suffering the consequences, Anora still insists that she'll be a worthy queen despite having nothing to show for it.
The saying that "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" is something that's an inherent paradox. It's as if to say that anyone in a position of power is bound to abuse that power and its absolutist tone leaves no room for debate even though there's plenty of examples in history which contradict this notion. (Right off the top of my head: JFK, FDR, Holy Roman's Joseph II, Lincoln) It seems to be more accurate to say that Power inflames the shadows in men's heart. And while all men have shadows in their heart, some shadows are darker and bigger than others.
The Grey Wardens weren't in power in Ferelden, they barely had more than 2 dozen in their numbers. Loghain needlessly antagonized them because of his paranoia for Orlais. He also refused much needed reinforcements which essentially left his country as a death trap for it's people unless they could find a boat. Loghain made his choices of his own free will, let's not use meta-argumentation to try and absolve him. Also, whether or not the Warden comes off as bad as Loghain or not depends on player choice anyway.
No, it's just because of bloodlines. The same Bannorn is perfectly content with an idiot like Cailan (whom NOBODY, not even his wife, will deny is a "fool" when you as the Warden call him that) or Alistair, so it is a little late for them to get up-in-arms about an idiot (quite easily less of one) taking the throne (which, by the way, Flemeth laughs at Alistair for being dismayed about doing violently, telling him not to be naiive and realize that this is anything but rare for the times).
As for sharing Cailan's fate... they are not exactly giving him a choice by warring with him.
It seems they prefer Cailan's brand of idiocy over the kind that aids blood mages in escaping the Circle, the kind that would have you sold to Tevinter as livestock, or the kind that would make your family disappear overnight, while their holdings become an extension of Howe's estate.
Of course Loghain had a choice; he could have never usurped the Queen in the first place. "I only strangled her because she started screaming! All she had to do was stay quiet! I didn't have a choice!"
If it is a real Blight, then why throw their army at it repeatedly and continuously as they have been doing when (as per Loghain's words) nobody has spotted the Archdemon?
Where has it been stated that Ferelden should have thrown their army repeatedly at the Darkspawn? This is a strawman.
Well he had the right idea, then. Orzammar provides valuable aid. Orlais was not required.
Orzammar was preoccupied. Unless Loghain was willing to start a search for a legendary Dwarven artifact in the Deep Roads, the aid would have been needed from somewhere else.
No, but it is implied. Howe is the one repeatedly giving him advice on political matters because Loghain is a fish-out-of-water as a politician.
Another reason why Loghain shouldn't be working above his station.
Sure he does. He is the reason Fereldan is a country. If not for him, they would not be.
Breaking away from an empire like Orlais means accepting less strength/security in exchange for living freer.
Well, I dunno. Everyone else is acting like an idiot. It's only fair to assume the same of them (in the two Wardens' case, Loghain is always at least half right).
It's in spite of Loghain that it still exists today. Thanks to the Warden, he didn't break even.
Thanks to the efforts of Loghain, Ferelden's people got the combo-pack of less strength, with a bonus of literal chattel slavery!
It's fair to assume because of the Morally Complex™ writing at work. One can hardly perceive the ambiguity of framing the Wardens for Cailan's murder, and denying further reinforcement!
Unprecedented, where the precedent is 0?
Kinda hard to do when you have this Civil War on your hands (which indicates that nobody else cares about the Blight either).
The precedent being a number that could be reasonably routed by the army fielded at Ostagar. A number derived from earlier battles against the Darkspawn (earlier as in, immediately preceding Ostagar, not earlier in history). There's no point in being a cheeky twerp.
There was no need for a Civil War, until Loghain elected Loghain to be Ferelden's supreme leader.
Sub-Par Example considering that the Exalted Council part of Tresspasser was the weakest aspect of that DLC. But the point remains a valid one.
Alistair's description of Anora and Loghain would seem more valid. After all, Loghain messed up badly and yet he still refuses to see that what he's doing is destroying the very country that he vowed to save. And even after a year of ineptitude and letting Howe/her father walk all over her with Ferelden suffering the consequences, Anora still insists that she'll be a worthy queen despite having nothing to show for it.
The saying that "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" is something that's an inherent paradox. It's as if to say that anyone in a position of power is bound to abuse that power and its absolutist tone leaves no room for debate even though there's plenty of examples in history which contradict this notion. (Right off the top of my head: JFK, FDR, Holy Roman's Joseph II, Lincoln) It seems to be more accurate to say that Power inflames the shadows in men's heart. And while all men have shadows in their heart, some shadows are darker and bigger than others.
The Grey Wardens weren't in power in Ferelden, they barely had more than 2 dozen in their numbers. Loghain needlessly antagonized them because of his paranoia for Orlais. He also refused much needed reinforcements which essentially left his country as a death trap for it's people unless they could find a boat. Loghain made his choices of his own free will, let's not use meta-argumentation to try and absolve him. Also, whether or not the Warden comes off as bad as Loghain or not depends on player choice anyway.
Hm. I find myself forced to disagree with you on that particular subject. That's how I used to think after playing Origins. But once I read The Calling, I finally understood the full reason behind Loghain's deep-seated mistrust of the Wardens. And I'm sorry to say he was right not to trust them. And that Maric would have died because of the Wardens' actions had Loghain not rushed to the king's rescue.
I strongly recommend you read it, too. If you thought Clarel was stupid in trusting a Magister and using blood magic to summon a demon army, then you'll be surprised to discover just what the Wardens were willing to do in the book for the sake of ending the Blights...
Hm. I find myself forced to disagree with you on that particular subject. That's how I used to think after playing Origins. But once I read The Calling, I finally understood the full reason behind Loghain's deep-seated mistrust of the Wardens. And I'm sorry to say he was right not to trust them. And that Maric would have died because of the Wardens' actions had Loghain not rushed to the king's rescue.
I strongly recommend you read it, too. If you thought Clarel was stupid in trusting a Magister and using blood magic to summon a demon army, then you'll be surprised to discover just what the Wardens were willing to do in the book for the sake of ending the Blights...
A Warden also saved Maric's life (ie Duncan) and not only did Loghain leave Duncan and his team to die, he also defamed them. Knowing Loghain's background doesn't excuse or absolve him of anything, it merely clarifies the reasons behind his paranoia and distrust of Orlais and the Wardens. Great for deepening the character, but you're pushing it if this makes what he did to the Wardens okay. Nor does it excuse him from letting his paranoia nearly destroy his country. If it were any other enemy, this wouldn't be quite so absolute. But considering that this is the Blight and it did ravage half of Ferelden because of Loghain's actions, there's no defense really possible.
Also, only a handful of Wardens (Utha; Bregan and Geneviere to be exact) joined the Architect in that book. That and Clarel's case are rare exceptions to the rule of "Wardens protecting Thedas through any means necessary and succeeding". Far less than sufficient to justify Loghain's actions.
It seems they prefer Cailan's brand of idiocy over the kind that aids blood mages in escaping the Circle, the kind that would have you sold to Tevinter as livestock, or the kind that would make your family disappear overnight, while their holdings become an extension of Howe's estate.
Hehe... I love how you keep invoking things like "aided (a) blood mages!" and "sold slaves!" as if those were things he did for the want of them.
Just goes to show what they knew, though. You can revile Loghain all day long for putting Fereldan at risk by turning away allies. At least he was doing what he thought was in the nation's best interest. Cailan was all set to sell them out to Orlais, for his own selfish dreams of grandeur.
But dat bloodline, doe!
Of course Loghain had a choice; he could have never usurped the Queen in the first place. "I only strangled her because she started screaming! All she had to do was stay quiet! I didn't have a choice!"
The Queen isn't military or a strategist. He took that role from her because that was the sensible thing to do.
It was, again, Howe that got in the way of things politically. And yes, that was a bad call. We established as much.
The rest though, he had reason to do because of the situation around him. Desperate times call for desperate acts.
Where has it been stated that Ferelden should have thrown their army repeatedly at the Darkspawn? This is a strawman.
You said they should have been fighting the Blight. What would you have had them do in the meantime before the Archdemon showed up?
Oh, I know: ally with Orlais and throw them at the horde, am I right?
Fat chance they join up to be Fereldan's cannon-fodder. The opposite, in fact, was a more likely outcome of their involvement.
Orzammar was preoccupied. Unless Loghain was willing to start a search for a legendary Dwarven artifact in the Deep Roads, the aid would have been needed from somewhere else.
It was anything but ideal for the Warden to do so, either, but video-game logic strikes again.
Sten sums it up aptly, ~The Darkspawn are taking the surface, and we're going underground!
Thanks to the efforts of Loghain, Ferelden's people got the combo-pack of less strength, with a bonus of literal chattel slavery!
*sigh* ... once again, the slavery thing was born of wartime necessity. There was no intention expressed in keeping that going permanently.
I mean, they could not have even if they wanted to; they needed to get rid of it at soon as possible.
The precedent being a number that could be reasonably routed by the army fielded at Ostagar. A number derived from earlier battles against the Darkspawn (earlier as in, immediately preceding Ostagar, not earlier in history). There's no point in being a cheeky twerp.
Well, again, what would you have had them do? If it was a true Blight, there was an Archdemon to be slain.
It makes a certain kind of sense to hold back until it shows itself. If you keep fighting them, you'll just be shorthanded trying to deal with the real threat arrives.
There was no need for a Civil War, until Loghain elected Loghain to be Ferelden's supreme leader.
Well therein lies the crux of the whole issue, my good man!!
You say that Loghain should have put his fears about Orlais aside to work with them toward defeating the greater evil, the Blight/Darkspawn. Well what about the leadership that opposed him? Your argument would hold that they should have put Loghain's coup aside and worked with him to defeat the Darkspawn before dealing with political issues, because, of course, Loghain's rulership would not matter either way if the Darkspawn took them all.
Well that did not happen. And, if they had, it would not have caused the kind of strain on the 'state that led Loghain & Co. to take desperate measures to keep it afloat and thus equipped to take on the Darkspawn or Orlesians later. None of those things would have been necessary if they had done what you insist Loghain should have done with Orlais.
Of course, Loghain would have become (even more) popular among the populace if he saved the country again, and the Bannorn would have had a harder time going back to their precious bloodline that only exists because of Loghain in the first place. We can't have that! So, of course, they had to undermine him from the start and turn around with "I told you so"-s when he acted out of the desperation they placed him in. Never mind that, in doing so, they put the nation at risk in a much bigger way than Loghain ever did. It may or may not have been possible for them to stop the Darkspawn without Orlais (in hindsight, we know it was), but it was certainly not possible for them to stop the Darkspawn without... themselves.
You want to blame the Bannorn's mistrust and ill-advised priorities on Loghain for doing the only thing he believed he could (after endlessly trying to talk Cailan out of charging off) to save the country? Then maybe we should excuse Loghain's refusal to ally with the Orlesians on Orlais being frivolous, gleefully continuing to be, and doing horrible things to the Fereldan people enough to make him hate and mistrust them. Loghain at least had admirable intentions.
Retour en haut