230 réponses à ce sujet

[sylvanaerie]

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...

 I tried to read it.  I just couldn't get into it.  David Gaider may be able to write interesting characters for a game (some of his are my favorite characters) but his style of prose writing just isn't my cup of tea.

 

It may also be that I just am not that interested in reading about Loghain, Duncan or Maric, so it could be the characters featured in it.  But I haven't read any comics either and those feature my favorite character in the genre.   

[The Baconer]

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!

 

Because they are things he did, and multiple claims of acting in Ferelden's best interests doesn't change or even mitigate that. Good intentions without application are worthless. 

 

 

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.

 

He took the duties of monarch the minute he returned from Ostagar. That he had fallen in with Howe was a consequence of his initial coup. 

 

 

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.

 

In the basest terms, I imagine they would receive Orlais' forces and the Grey Wardens, and then assess what their next move should be. 

 

If you want, you can take that as "ally with Orlais and throw them at the horde". You seem to have fun attacking these straw men, and I don't want to get in the way of that. 

 

 

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!

 

I know. Not having to waste time on that would have been preferable, obviously, but thanks to Loghain we cannot receive sufficient aid in lieu of the Dwarves. 

 

 

*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.

 

I'm sure that would comfort the victims, or the people who knew that Loghain might consign them to a fate worse than the Orlesians ever would. But theirs was a sacrifice he was prepared to make... rendered a necessity by his own brash idiocy. 

 

 

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.

 

Re-mobilize and find a point to stem the horde moving northward, until the Archdemon is spotted. It is important not to throw one's forces recklessly at the Darkspawn, but it is also not advantageous to be constantly ceding ground to the Blight. 

 

 

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.

 

It's not my argument that people are logical beings, it is rather the opposite. It probably would have been more prudent to fall in line, and then rebel against Loghain after the Blight was attended to, but at the same time, one cannot reasonably expect that to develop as a consensus when you come at them like Loghain did. Loghain is the progenitor of the major dilemma, the initial bout of nonsensical thinking that would beget nonsensical thinking in turn. When faced with unruly subjects, Loghain made more nonsensical choices that would retroactively justify the resistance in turn. 

 

 

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.

 

No. Intention without application is worthless. It's the entire gambit behind "doing whatever it takes", that what it takes will eventually bear fruit, even if the methods are questionable. If you can't make a return, you cannot claim any high ground after the fact, especially in Loghain's case where a large part of his platform was based in ideals: The ideal that Ferelden should remain free from the brutality of Orlais. But he would then inflict the same (or worse) brutality upon his own people, making that argument completely void. 

[ThePhoenixKing]

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.

 

Exactly. Knowing his backstory is handy for informing his decisions and worldview, but I don't necessarily think they justify it. It's the same thing with Fenris or Solas, really.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

(I'm just going to skip to the end because it is pretty clear this is an ideological impasse more than anything else).

 

 

No. Intention without application is worthless. It's the entire gambit behind "doing whatever it takes", that what it takes will eventually bear fruit, even if the methods are questionable. If you can't make a return, you cannot claim any high ground after the fact, especially in Loghain's case where a large part of his platform was based in ideals: The ideal that Ferelden should remain free from the brutality of Orlais. But he would then inflict the same (or worse) brutality upon his own people, making that argument completely void. 

 

Nope, not at all. A sound plan/strategy can be done in by outside factors beyond the planner's control. That is largely what happened to Loghain.

 

On one hand, you assert Loghain should have accepted an imperialist ally that already enslaved it once before to focus on the big bad, but then the Bannorn can be excused for rejecting outright the man to whom the nation owes its statehood before he ever even got started... and then turn around and use the things that he did as a consequence of the circumstances they unnecessarily put him in. How is this remotely reasonable?

 

What he did still made sense and was justifiable in the context of military-necessity. I mean, this is the story's antagonist we're talking about; the plot demands that he fail one way or another. But that failure need not imply Loghain was in the wrong. The argument that the results prove his methods were flawed is a textbook example of causation-fallacy. Refusing to ally with the Orlesians is not why he could not stop the Darkspawn, for example; it's because his hands were tied with the civil-war. And the list goes on with every charge (do not even get me started on the "tell that to the victims" argument)...

 

And with that said, I think I'm done here.

[The Baconer]

(I'm just going to skip to the end because it is pretty clear this is an ideological impasse more than anything else).



Nope, not at all. A sound plan/strategy can be done in by outside factors beyond the planner's control. That is largely what happened to Loghain.

On one hand, you assert Loghain should have accepted an imperialist ally that already enslaved it once before to focus on the big bad, but then the Bannorn can be excused for rejecting outright the man to whom the nation owes its statehood before he ever even got started... and then turn around and use the things that he did as a consequence of the circumstances they unnecessarily put him in. How is this remotely reasonable?

What he did still made sense and was justifiable in the context of military-necessity. I mean, this is the story's antagonist we're talking about; the plot demands that he fail one way or another. But that failure need not imply Loghain was in the wrong. The argument that the results prove his methods were flawed is a textbook example of causation-fallacy. Refusing to ally with the Orlesians is not why he could not stop the Darkspawn, for example; it's because his hands were tied with the civil-war. And the list goes on with every charge (do not even get me started on the "tell that to the victims" argument)...

And with that said, I think I'm done here.

They weren't beyond his control, at least before his first decision. This being to unapologetically usurp the government of a kingdom that loves to tout itself as a country of free men, where the powers of the monarch are balanced by those of the land owning nobility (as Loghain himself should know well enough). Pulling the coup in the first place wasn't anywhere near reasonable. When the Bannorn predictably reacted with hostility and skepticism, he doubled-down, selling out on his own ideals because he was too stubborn and arrogant to work any other way, and Ferelden was nearly destroyed because of it.

[dragonflight288]

They weren't beyond his control, at least before his first decision. This being to unapologetically usurp the government of a kingdom that loves to tout itself as a country of free men, where the powers of the monarch are balanced by those of the land owning nobility (as Loghain himself should know well enough). Pulling the coup in the first place wasn't anywhere near reasonable. When the Bannorn predictably reacted with hostility and skepticism, he doubled-down, selling out on his own ideals because he was too stubborn and arrogant to work any other way, and Ferelden was nearly destroyed because of it.

 

The bannorn reacts with hostility over trees. They've gone to war with each other over them in the lore. 

 

The Bannorn were not at Ostagar, and nearly everyone who was says Loghain saved the day. The only people who don't are Alistair, who has survivor's guilt and is blaming Loghain for the death of Duncan while barely mentioning Cailan, and possibly the Warden. 

 

He doubled down on defending Ferelden. His first acts as Regent is to make sure a foreign and quite likely hostile force doesn't enter and then urges the bannorn to unite and stand against the darkspawn. Teagan questions him and Loghain shows why he is not a politician. 

 

His doubling down was the right thing to do because he IS Ferelden's best general and they face an IMMEDIATE crises. 

 

It was Teagan and the Bannorn that decided civil war is the best thing to do in the middle of a darkspawn incursion/blight because honor/ambition. Once they started the war then Loghain's hands were tied. 

 

He can't march his army down to face the darkspawn because the revolting banns and arls would be able to hit him from the rear and attack his supply lines. He can't abandon Howe because Howe has control of the entire northern coastlands, thus access to all the trade routes with the mountain paths closed off, and possibly one of the largest military forces in the country as his men never went to Ostagar. 

 

Loghain HAS to bring them in line just to fight the darkspawn. Since they're too busy fighting him he has to defend himself and break their will to fight him.

 

It's also important to note that he was appealing to the dwarves for aid and he had an alliance with Uldred and DA2 shows he was accepting supplies from Lord Herriman from Kirkwall. He was not trying to have Ferelden stand and face the darkspawn on their own. He was actively seeking allies, supplies and manpower. He just didn't want it coming from Orlais, and after the precedent of the third blight, with good reason. 

 

After the battle of Ostagar, the only crimes that can be directly linked to him are poisoning Eamon and selling elves into slavery. Both of which may be worth execution. But people have been conscripted into the Wardens for worse things, or things just as bad. 

 

Duncan was a murderer who was conscripted and the person conscripting him hoped he'd die in the Joining is one example. Our Warden may be guilty of fratricide, murder of a noble, breaking every law regarding us fighting or even conspiring with a blood mage/conspiring to see a chantry initiate punished.

[ShadowLordXII]

The bannorn reacts with hostility over trees. They've gone to war with each other over them in the lore. 

 

The Bannorn were not at Ostagar, and nearly everyone who was says Loghain saved the day. The only people who don't are Alistair, who has survivor's guilt and is blaming Loghain for the death of Duncan while barely mentioning Cailan, and possibly the Warden. 

 

He doubled down on defending Ferelden. His first acts as Regent is to make sure a foreign and quite likely hostile force doesn't enter and then urges the bannorn to unite and stand against the darkspawn. Teagan questions him and Loghain shows why he is not a politician. 

 

His doubling down was the right thing to do because he IS Ferelden's best general and they face an IMMEDIATE crises. 

 

It was Teagan and the Bannorn that decided civil war is the best thing to do in the middle of a darkspawn incursion/blight because honor/ambition. Once they started the war then Loghain's hands were tied. 

 

He can't march his army down to face the darkspawn because the revolting banns and arls would be able to hit him from the rear and attack his supply lines. He can't abandon Howe because Howe has control of the entire northern coastlands, thus access to all the trade routes with the mountain paths closed off, and possibly one of the largest military forces in the country as his men never went to Ostagar. 

 

Loghain HAS to bring them in line just to fight the darkspawn. Since they're too busy fighting him he has to defend himself and break their will to fight him.

 

It's also important to note that he was appealing to the dwarves for aid and he had an alliance with Uldred and DA2 shows he was accepting supplies from Lord Herriman from Kirkwall. He was not trying to have Ferelden stand and face the darkspawn on their own. He was actively seeking allies, supplies and manpower. He just didn't want it coming from Orlais, and after the precedent of the third blight, with good reason. 

 

After the battle of Ostagar, the only crimes that can be directly linked to him are poisoning Eamon and selling elves into slavery. Both of which may be worth execution. But people have been conscripted into the Wardens for worse things, or things just as bad. 

 

Duncan was a murderer who was conscripted and the person conscripting him hoped he'd die in the Joining is one example. Our Warden may be guilty of fratricide, murder of a noble, breaking every law regarding us fighting or even conspiring with a blood mage/conspiring to see a chantry initiate punished.

 

By empowering and enabling Howe, he became a direct and knowing accomplice to him. That makes Loghain partially guilty to everything that Howe does.

 

Also, it should be noted that Loghain is the one who escalated tension with the Bannorn by seizing land and attacking banns and freeholders who refused to go along with his seizure of power. All of which would have been avoided if a Landsmeet were called after Ostagar and Anora was officially acknowledged as ruling queen. Then she can elect Loghain as head general and deal with the politics.

 

Instead...

 

[The Baconer]

The bannorn reacts with hostility over trees. They've gone to war with each other over them in the lore. 

 

The Bannorn were not at Ostagar, and nearly everyone who was says Loghain saved the day. The only people who don't are Alistair, who has survivor's guilt and is blaming Loghain for the death of Duncan while barely mentioning Cailan, and possibly the Warden. 

 

Then one familiar with their nature should know what to expect when the Bannorn is confronted with a military takeover and veiled threats. 

 

When those who weren't at Ostagar question Loghain about his decisions on the field, he makes no attempt at explaining the conditions that necessitated his retreat. Instead, his retort amounts to "Cailan died at Ostagar because I disagreed with him. If you disagree with me, you will also die." And then he goes further in claiming that the king was betrayed by the Wardens. Loghain's conduct regarding Ostagar only works to damage his legitimacy in the eyes of lords like Teagan. 

 

 

He doubled down on defending Ferelden. His first acts as Regent is to make sure a foreign and quite likely hostile force doesn't enter and then urges the bannorn to unite and stand against the darkspawn. Teagan questions him and Loghain shows why he is not a politician. 

 

Then, again, he should have considered not claiming a position that is beyond his station. 

 

 

His doubling down was the right thing to do because he IS Ferelden's best general and they face an IMMEDIATE crises. 

 

It was Teagan and the Bannorn that decided civil war is the best thing to do in the middle of a darkspawn incursion/blight because honor/ambition. Once they started the war then Loghain's hands were tied. 

 

He can't march his army down to face the darkspawn because the revolting banns and arls would be able to hit him from the rear and attack his supply lines. He can't abandon Howe because Howe has control of the entire northern coastlands, thus access to all the trade routes with the mountain paths closed off, and possibly one of the largest military forces in the country as his men never went to Ostagar. 

 

Loghain HAS to bring them in line just to fight the darkspawn. Since they're too busy fighting him he has to defend himself and break their will to fight him.

 

Then it is clear that trying to impose his regime upon the landed nobility was a regretful and harmful move. Nobody forced him to supplant the queen. By his own words, Anora would act as Ferelden's liege, and Loghain would lead its armies. He has no one but himself to blame for the consequences of trying to go beyond that. 

 

 

It's also important to note that he was appealing to the dwarves for aid and he had an alliance with Uldred and DA2 shows he was accepting supplies from Lord Herriman from Kirkwall. He was not trying to have Ferelden stand and face the darkspawn on their own. He was actively seeking allies, supplies and manpower. He just didn't want it coming from Orlais, and after the precedent of the third blight, with good reason. 

 

In the case of Orzammar and Harriman, ineffectual (though not by his own faults), and in the case of the Circle, downright destructive. 

 

 

After the battle of Ostagar, the only crimes that can be directly linked to him are poisoning Eamon and selling elves into slavery. 

 

Usurpation of the crown. Aiding and abetting maleficar. Obstruction of a Templar's duties, followed by the kidnapping and internment of said Templar. Inciting rebellion in the Circle. Letting a cancerous growth like Howe run rampant is bad enough, especially for one acting as de-facto ruler. Yeah Loghain was forced yadda-yadda, but it is telling when his actions lead to Howe being the best kind of company Loghain can muster. 

[dragonflight288]

By empowering and enabling Howe, he became a direct and knowing accomplice to him. That makes Loghain partially guilty to everything that Howe does.

 

Also, it should be noted that Loghain is the one who escalated tension with the Bannorn by seizing land and attacking banns and freeholders who refused to go along with his seizure of power. All of which would have been avoided if a Landsmeet were called after Ostagar and Anora was officially acknowledged as ruling queen. Then she can elect Loghain as head general and deal with the politics.

 

Instead...

 

 

Politically it is stupid and wrong to ally with Howe.

 

Militarily, however, it s the right thing to do. 

 

Imagine if you will this scenario. Howe has just seized Highever, he already controls Amaranthine and he's offering you assistance. He is in control of the entire northern coastlands, which is one of the only way in and out of the country at present since the mountain paths are closed. You have roughly half the bannorn to the south of you taking up arms and preparing their forces to fight you despite the fact that a blight is building and invading to the south of them. 

 

You then turn away Howe because he is a snake. His crimes now no longer are affiliated with you. But he then decides to go to war with you as well. 

 

Now you have to face the bannorn to the south, the bannorn to the north, all supply routes are in Howe's control. Even if you declare Howe a traitor, with roughly half the country refusing to recognize your authority as regent and fighting you, many of whom want to seize power for themselves, it will mean nothing.

 

Had Loghain turned Howe out, he would be facing an army to the south and to the north and would have no supply lines. 

 

To quote your own video. As far as the military goes, such an action would be madness and stupidity.

 

It's a sad state of affairs, but the civil war forced Loghain's hand and he NEEDED Howe, despite the fact that Howe is a snake. It is always best to avoid fighting a war on two fronts if at all possible.

 

But this goes to show that Loghain is no politician. He's not thinking about playing with words to convince people to help him here, or play the game of plying influence there. Hes a military man. He sees a problem that needs to be addressed and tries to go about solving it in the most efficient way.

 

It just so happens that that attitude alienates some of the bannorn and makes him come across as a tyrant and forces him into an alliance with the most crooked noble in the country.

[dragonflight288]

Then one familiar with their nature should know what to expect when the Bannorn is confronted with a military takeover and veiled threats. 

 

When those who weren't at Ostagar question Loghain about his decisions on the field, he makes no attempt at explaining the conditions that necessitated his retreat. Instead, his retort amounts to "Cailan died at Ostagar because I disagreed with him. If you disagree with me, you will also die." And then he goes further in claiming that the king was betrayed by the Wardens. Loghain's conduct regarding Ostagar only works to damage his legitimacy in the eyes of lords like Teagan. 

 

 

 

Then, again, he should have considered not claiming a position that is beyond his station. 

 

 

 

Then it is clear that trying to impose his regime upon the landed nobility was a regretful and harmful move. Nobody forced him to supplant the queen. By his own words, Anora would act as Ferelden's liege, and Loghain would lead its armies. He has no one but himself to blame for the consequences of trying to go beyond that. 

 

 

 

In the case of Orzammar and Harriman, ineffectual (though not by his own faults), and in the case of the Circle, downright destructive. 

 

 

 

Usurpation of the crown. Aiding and abetting maleficar. Obstruction of a Templar's duties, followed by the kidnapping and internment of said Templar. Inciting rebellion in the Circle. Letting a cancerous growth like Howe run rampant is bad enough, especially for one acting as de-facto ruler. Yeah Loghain was forced yadda-yadda, but it is telling when his actions lead to Howe being the best kind of company Loghain can muster. 

 

1. He's no politician. He was hoping everyone would see the threat of the darkspawn and react to it. They didn't. He most certainly could have handled that better though.

 

2. No, he never says Cailan died because I disagreed with him. He says Cailan's death was his own doing. And it was. Loghain tried again and again to convince him not to fight on the front line. He says repeatedly the front line was too dangerous for Cailan to be playing hero and all Cailan saw was the glory.

 

He never wavers from that line. Go back to Ostagar with Loghain in the party he'll ask Wynne why she didn't save the king and it boils down to she couldn't get to him and Loghain says he couldn't either. He does and is explaining to people that Ostagar couldn't be won. 

 

Most of his critics in-game ignore that and say he is seizing power and use Ostagar as a crutch to fall back on.

 

Considering in The Calling that Loghain personally saw Wardens make a deal with Darkspawn, specifically the Architect, to blight everyone on the surface I'd say he has good reason to distrust the Wardens.  If we add in the late beacon with the lines already cracking, no attempt whatsoever to explain why they thought it was a blight and a host of Wardens coming in with Orlais and the overly paranoid general fears that the Wardens will aid Orlais in seizing Ferelden. It's not without precedent as Orlais did just that in the third blight. 

 

This is a fault with Loghain, I'll be one of the first to admit it. He sees a bigger threat from Orlais than he does the darkspawn and his paranoia makes him see an Orlesian plot infiltrated into a raw recruit barely going through the joining.

 

One of the biggest shows of his paranoia overriding his sense is him asking the Warden how much Celene is offering to betray Ferelden. His fear is such that even the newest recruit is involved in the conspiracy he thinks is there. 

 

3. He had the support of the Queen who is still very much the ruler of Ferelden. To rebel against him as her regent is to also rebel against Anora.

 

4. He accepts full responsibility for everything he does. He does not play the blame-game, he doesn't point fingers and say "he made me do it." He yields in the duel and accepts whatever fate the Warden gives him without complaint. When recruited he offers explanations when asked about what happened but he does not justify what he does as the right thing to do.

 

5. He is not responsible for what happened at the Circle. That was entirely Uldred's doing and Uldred's alone. 

 

6. Or it is telling that the bannorn choosing to fight Loghain rather than the darkspawn forced Loghain into a position where Howe is the best kind of ally available because it is militarily stupid to fight a war on two fronts, which is exactly what would have happened had he turned Howe away.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

They weren't beyond his control, at least before his first decision. This being to unapologetically usurp the government of a kingdom that loves to tout itself as a country of free men, where the powers of the monarch are balanced by those of the land owning nobility (as Loghain himself should know well enough).

Okay, so let the record show your position is: Loghain was wrong not to ally with an imperialist power that enslaved his country within his lifetime and did not take the Darkspawn seriously enough, but the Bannorn was right to deny cooperation with their chief (to whom they owe their freedom from said imperialist power) and play petty politics while faced with the Darkspawn horde because... he was not apologetic about himself.

No clear bias/double-standard there or anything...

 

Pulling the coup in the first place wasn't anywhere near reasonable.

Yes, it was, and we know that for a cold, hard FACT.

Loghain withdrew and took power because it was the only option he had left. He tried to warn Cailan from charging off until he was blue in the face. If Cailan agreed, there is no reason to believe Loghain would have taken power over him.

In the end, Loghain did what he did because he believed Cailan's policies would lead to Orlais taking back Fereldan, and guess what?? HE WAS RIGHT!! The only difference between what Loghain believed and the reality is that he thought Cailan was unwittingly going to give away Fereldan out of stupidity, when in reality Cailan was knowingly going to sell them out out of vain ambition.

Sometimes the best decisions are the ones not made. Would Loghain have stopped the Darkspawn with the Bannorn's support? We will never know. Would Cailan have stopped it? Again, we cannot know, but we do know the Bannorn all would have regretted what came next if he did. Loghain was win-or-lose. Cailan was lose-or-lose.
 

When the Bannorn predictably reacted with hostility and skepticism, he doubled-down, selling out on his own ideals because he was too stubborn and arrogant to work any other way, and Ferelden was nearly destroyed because of it.

 

No, he did not work any other way because no "other way" of value existed.

We covered this already. I asked you to tell me what better alternatives he should have taken. Apart from the cop-out you have given from time to time of "he should not have taken power in the first place" (which, again, means Fereldan gets annexed by Orlais *at best* and does not demonstrate that any better ways existed), all you came up with boils down to non-actions or solutions that would better fit in a Mary Poppins narrative than a political/military conflict. Or, you left various charges unanswered -- the elf trade stands out. You just handwave it as "selling out" while not naming any other way to achieve the same objective ends of raising funds (other than your cop-out).

If your ideals put your long-term freedom/survival at risk, your ideals suck.

[The Baconer]

1. He's no politician. He was hoping everyone would see the threat of the darkspawn and react to it. They didn't. He most certainly could have handled that better though.

 

2. No, he never says Cailan died because I disagreed with him. He says Cailan's death was his own doing. And it was. Loghain tried again and again to convince him not to fight on the front line. He says repeatedly the front line was too dangerous for Cailan to be playing hero and all Cailan saw was the glory.

 

He never wavers from that line. Go back to Ostagar with Loghain in the party he'll ask Wynne why she didn't save the king and it boils down to she couldn't get to him and Loghain says he couldn't either. He does and is explaining to people that Ostagar couldn't be won. 

 

1. Then he should stop trying to play king. How many times does it need to be said? 

 

2. When Loghain is questioned about Ostagar at the first Landsmeet, his response is "Everything I have done is to secure Ferelden's independence (politics: Cailan is dead because I disagreed with his policies). I have not shirked my duty to the throne, and neither will any of you (If any of you disagree, you will also be killed). Then he tries the No, it was the Wardens! angle. 

 

He never makes any appeal to logic on what happened during the battle (to his fellow nobles), only thinly veiled threats and clumsy lies. How is that supposed to inspire unity among the Bannorn?

 

 

Considering in The Calling that Loghain personally saw Wardens make a deal with Darkspawn, specifically the Architect, to blight everyone on the surface I'd say he has good reason to distrust the Wardens.  If we add in the late beacon with the lines already cracking, no attempt whatsoever to explain why they thought it was a blight and a host of Wardens coming in with Orlais and the overly paranoid general fears that the Wardens will aid Orlais in seizing Ferelden. It's not without precedent as Orlais did just that in the third blight. 

 

So the Wardens' entire Ferelden garrison dying at Ostagar was actually part of their big gambit to help Orlais conquer the country! 

 

 

3. He had the support of the Queen who is still very much the ruler of Ferelden. To rebel against him as her regent is to also rebel against Anora.

 

No he didn't. That Anora's true opinions didn't matter a fig is probably the most poorly-kept secret of his regime. 

 

 

4. He accepts full responsibility for everything he does. He does not play the blame-game, he doesn't point fingers and say "he made me do it." He yields in the duel and accepts whatever fate the Warden gives him without complaint. When recruited he offers explanations when asked about what happened but he does not justify what he does as the right thing to do.

 

So now we can fully acknowledge that even Loghain will admit that Loghain was wrong and did wrong and stupid things. 

 

 

5. He is not responsible for what happened at the Circle. That was entirely Uldred's doing and Uldred's alone. 

 

He only offered them independence while being fully aware it would have been in spite of the Chantry and the Templars. There is absolutely no logical basis for believing that could be accomplished without some measure of conflict, be it from Loghain's perspective or yours. 

 

 

6. Or it is telling that the bannorn choosing to fight Loghain rather than the darkspawn forced Loghain into a position where Howe is the best kind of ally available because it is militarily stupid to fight a war on two fronts, which is exactly what would have happened had he turned Howe away.

 

Which is his own fault. 

[sylvanaerie]

1. He's no politician. He was hoping everyone would see the threat of the darkspawn and react to it. They didn't. He most certainly could have handled that better though.

 

2. No, he never says Cailan died because I disagreed with him. He says Cailan's death was his own doing. And it was. Loghain tried again and again to convince him not to fight on the front line. He says repeatedly the front line was too dangerous for Cailan to be playing hero and all Cailan saw was the glory.

 

He never wavers from that line. Go back to Ostagar with Loghain in the party he'll ask Wynne why she didn't save the king and it boils down to she couldn't get to him and Loghain says he couldn't either. He does and is explaining to people that Ostagar couldn't be won. 

 

Most of his critics in-game ignore that and say he is seizing power and use Ostagar as a crutch to fall back on.

 

Considering in The Calling that Loghain personally saw Wardens make a deal with Darkspawn, specifically the Architect, to blight everyone on the surface I'd say he has good reason to distrust the Wardens.  If we add in the late beacon with the lines already cracking, no attempt whatsoever to explain why they thought it was a blight and a host of Wardens coming in with Orlais and the overly paranoid general fears that the Wardens will aid Orlais in seizing Ferelden. It's not without precedent as Orlais did just that in the third blight. 

 

This is a fault with Loghain, I'll be one of the first to admit it. He sees a bigger threat from Orlais than he does the darkspawn and his paranoia makes him see an Orlesian plot infiltrated into a raw recruit barely going through the joining.

 

One of the biggest shows of his paranoia overriding his sense is him asking the Warden how much Celene is offering to betray Ferelden. His fear is such that even the newest recruit is involved in the conspiracy he thinks is there. 

 

3. He had the support of the Queen who is still very much the ruler of Ferelden. To rebel against him as her regent is to also rebel against Anora.

 

4. He accepts full responsibility for everything he does. He does not play the blame-game, he doesn't point fingers and say "he made me do it." He yields in the duel and accepts whatever fate the Warden gives him without complaint. When recruited he offers explanations when asked about what happened but he does not justify what he does as the right thing to do.

 

5. He is not responsible for what happened at the Circle. That was entirely Uldred's doing and Uldred's alone. 

 

6. Or it is telling that the bannorn choosing to fight Loghain rather than the darkspawn forced Loghain into a position where Howe is the best kind of ally available because it is militarily stupid to fight a war on two fronts, which is exactly what would have happened had he turned Howe away.

 

I have to disagree with number 4.  It isn't till the end of the game after he's been recruited and about to die (or even right before he gets his head lopped off in the Landsmeet) that he realizes just how much he fubared everything.  At the Landsmeet, he blames Cailan, Howe, Orlais, the wardens, the Warden, and Alistair insisting everything he did was for Ferelden, when I think there was a lot more of his stupid pride getting in the way, not able to admit he was in over his head and sinking fast in his leaky life raft.  

 

In camp afterward the only dialogues I had with him, he blamed the warden for 'stopping him' and actually taunts the city elf warden with his selling of their family to Tevinter blood mages.  Granted his disgrace and fall probably affect a lot of that hostility, but it all goes hand in hand with his hubris.

[The Baconer]

Okay, so let the record show your position is: Loghain was wrong not to ally with an imperialist power that enslaved his country within his lifetime and did not take the Darkspawn seriously enough, but the Bannorn was right to deny cooperation with their chief (to whom they owe their freedom from said imperialist power) and play petty politics while faced with the Darkspawn horde because... he was not apologetic about himself.

No clear bias/double-standard there or anything...

 

No, it's that Loghain sought to overcome petty, cutthroat politics with... more petty, cutthroat politics. He initiated with hubris and chest-pounding, and expected everyone else to facilitate his ambitions. 

 

 

Yes, it was, and we know that for a cold, hard FACT.

Loghain withdrew and took power because it was the only option he had left. He tried to warn Cailan from charging off until he was blue in the face. If Cailan agreed, there is no reason not to believe Loghain would have taken power over him.

In the end, Loghain did what he did because he believed Cailan's policies would lead to Orlais taking back Fereldan, and guess what?? HE WAS RIGHT!! The only difference between what Loghain believed and the reality is that he thought Cailan was unwittingly going to give away Fereldan out of stupidity, when in reality Cailan was knowingly going to sell them out out of vain ambition.

Sometimes the best decisions are the ones not made. Would Loghain have stopped the Darkspawn with the Bannorn's support? We will never know. Would Cailan have stopped it? Again, we cannot know, but we do know the Bannorn all would have regretted what came next if he did. Loghain was win-or-lose. Cailan was lose-or-lose.

 

What does any of that have to do with returning to Denerim to oust his own daughter? 

 

 

No, he did not work any other way because no "other way" of value existed.

 

Well, according to Loghain... who will admit he was wrong after the fact. It doesn't become true with repetition. 

 

 

We covered this already. I asked you to tell me what better alternatives he should have taken. Apart from the cop-out you have given from time to time of "he should not have taken power in the first place" (which, again, means Fereldan gets annexed by Orlais *at best* and does not demonstrate that any better ways existed)

 

Would you like to prove that Orlais would have annexed Ferelden post-Ostagar? 

 

 

all you came up with boils down to non-actions or solutions that would better fit in a Mary Poppins narrative than a political/military conflict. 

 

Yeah blah-blah strawman strawman. I thought you were leaving?

 

 

Or, you left various charges unanswered -- the elf trade stands out. You just handwave it as "selling out" while not naming any other way to achieve the same objective ends of raising funds (other than your cop-out).

 

In the event that there is no usurpation of power, and no civil war by extension... and no Howe stealing directly from the treasury in extension of that, would the slave trade still be necessary? 

 

But I like that tactical use of "cop out": you can dismiss an argument as untenable without actually refuting anything!

 

 

If your ideals put your long-term freedom/survival at risk, your ideals suck.

 

So are you agreeing with me? A Blight is a world-changing event, that could have taken Ferelden completely off the map. That's pretty f***ing long-term, if you ask me. Ensuring the actual survival of one's people, even if it means taking a gamble like receiving aid from Orlais, is preferable to possible annihilation, especially given Ferelden's position at the time. Beggars can't be choosers. 

[dragonflight288]

I have to disagree with number 4.  It isn't till the end of the game after he's been recruited and about to die (or even right before he gets his head lopped off in the Landsmeet) that he realizes just how much he fubared everything.  At the Landsmeet, he blames Cailan, Howe, Orlais, the wardens, the Warden, and Alistair insisting everything he did was for Ferelden, when I think there was a lot more of his stupid pride getting in the way, not able to admit he was in over his head and sinking fast in his leaky life raft.  

 

In camp afterward the only dialogues I had with him, he blamed the warden for 'stopping him' and actually taunts the city elf warden with his selling of their family to Tevinter blood mages.  Granted his disgrace and fall probably affect a lot of that hostility, but it all goes hand in hand with his hubris.

 

My Warden got along cordially with Loghain because my Warden answered that he needed wardens and thought Loghain's ablities as a general would be useful when Loghain asked why he was spared. They weren't friends but the relationship wasn't antagonistic. 

 

I haven't played a city elf who recruited Loghain though, so I can't speak for that dialogue option. 

 

I would like to ask a couple hypothetical questions. There is no honest way to answer these questions with absolute knowledge for anyone as we will never know, but I think it's at least worth asking and giving some critical thought. 

 

What if the Bannorn united under Loghain's banner after Ostagar without dissent or war. If this happened, would Howe still have become Loghain's right hand man?

 

If Wynne died at Ostagar, would the Circle have avoided becoming an abomination filled tower and joined the war?

[ShadowLordXII]

Politically it is stupid and wrong to ally with Howe.

 

Militarily, however, it s the right thing to do. 

 

Imagine if you will this scenario. Howe has just seized Highever, he already controls Amaranthine and he's offering you assistance. He is in control of the entire northern coastlands, which is one of the only way in and out of the country at present since the mountain paths are closed. You have roughly half the bannorn to the south of you taking up arms and preparing their forces to fight you despite the fact that a blight is building and invading to the south of them. 

 

You then turn away Howe because he is a snake. His crimes now no longer are affiliated with you. But he then decides to go to war with you as well. 

 

Now you have to face the bannorn to the south, the bannorn to the north, all supply routes are in Howe's control. Even if you declare Howe a traitor, with roughly half the country refusing to recognize your authority as regent and fighting you, many of whom want to seize power for themselves, it will mean nothing.

 

Had Loghain turned Howe out, he would be facing an army to the south and to the north and would have no supply lines. 

 

To quote your own video. As far as the military goes, such an action would be madness and stupidity.

 

It's a sad state of affairs, but the civil war forced Loghain's hand and he NEEDED Howe, despite the fact that Howe is a snake. It is always best to avoid fighting a war on two fronts if at all possible.

 

But this goes to show that Loghain is no politician. He's not thinking about playing with words to convince people to help him here, or play the game of plying influence there. Hes a military man. He sees a problem that needs to be addressed and tries to go about solving it in the most efficient way.

 

It just so happens that that attitude alienates some of the bannorn and makes him come across as a tyrant and forces him into an alliance with the most crooked noble in the country.

 

Military sense dictates that you don't trust your back to someone whose utterly unloyal and untrustworthy unless you have something over them.

 

Howe bankrupted Loghain and eventually kidnapped the Queen of Ferelden herself. His very association with Loghain only worsened Loghain's reputation considering that practically nobody liked Howe at this point. (except for blind, Bryce of course)

 

And again, Loghain could avoid fighting the bannorn by letting the Landsmeet appoint Anora rather than bluntly try to seize power and make Anora a figurehead. Then he can deal with Howe with the full support of the Bannorn behind him and aid from dissenters in Highever and Amaranthine since again, Howe is the least popular arl in Ferelden.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

No, it's that Loghain sought to overcome petty, cutthroat politics with... more petty, cutthroat politics. He initiated with hubris and chest-pounding, and expected everyone else to facilitate his ambitions.

 

Seeing as his ambition boils down to saving the nation from the Darkspawn and Orlais, they absolutely should have done so, at least until they stemmed the tide of Darkspawn and secured their borders. Then, whatever petty political matters needed to be sorted out could be sorted out (see bottom paragraph).

 

What does any of that have to do with returning to Denerim to oust his own daughter?

 

Well, nothing, seeing as his daughter was not "ousted" by any reasonable definition of the word.

 

Would you like to prove that Orlais would have annexed Ferelden post-Ostagar?

 

Post-Ostagar? No. Post-Blight? ...

 

It was explicitly stated in a letter found in RtO DLC, and confirmed in The Masked Empire.

There is no reason I can see to believe the plan would have changed.

 

Yeah blah-blah strawman strawman. I thought you were leaving?

 

I found some time this morning – lucky you.

You may not like how I summarized your ideas, but non-action and silly moralism really is the extent of them. Should I go over it for you? ~Loghain should have addressed the Bannorn better. Okay, Ms. Poppins, how does this prevent people from opposing him on the basis that only a Theirin should be in power? How does Loghain sending in a rescue team for the King into a battlefield he decided was FUBAR enough to retreat from convince anyone that he wanted to save the King?

And then of course remains all the other things you rail on but provided no alternative to.

 

In the event that there is no usurpation of power, and no civil war by extension... and no Howe stealing directly from the treasury in extension of that, would the slave trade still be necessary?

 

Once again, the usurpation of power is necessary to keep Fereldan a free nation, so we can put to rest the idea that the alternative (not to usurp) is a worthwhile option and discard it. So now we’re left with the Civil War, and Howe. I’ll give you Howe being a bad call and that hiring someone not awful would have helped. Now then, what about the Civil War?

 

But I like that tactical use of "cop out": you can dismiss an argument as untenable without actually refuting anything!

 

LOL, you mean like you're doing right now??

How is responding to "What should have been done, given [x]?" with "(negate)-[x]." not a cop-out? That's the literal definition of it.
 

 

So are you agreeing with me? A Blight is a world-changing event, that could have taken Ferelden completely off the map. That's pretty f***ing long-term, if you ask me. Ensuring the actual survival of one's people, even if it means taking a gamble like receiving aid from Orlais, is preferable to possible annihilation, especially given Ferelden's position at the time. Beggars can't be choosers.

 

How can I agree with you when your two main arguments on this topic (Loghain should have worked with Orlais, because Darkspawn // The Bannorn did not have to cooperate with Loghain, what Darkspawn?) do not even agree with each other?

 

Two things. First of all, when history judges the success of a war, it is not judged based on how each side fared in battle, but the events that follow the end of it. A lot of people are going to look back (or already are looking) at the Iraq war as a loss. It has nothing to do with how successful we were in fighting. It has to do with the instability of the region now and the rise of ISIS (people whom we armed due to short-sighted, objective-driven reasoning during the war). Allies can turn hostile. Do you see an issue here now with the idea of inviting a significant number of Chevaliers into the country?

 

Second, when people enlist, they do it with the idea that they will be fighting to protect their country as they know it. Nobody signs on to see their country become the p!ss-pot of another, bigger nation, or they may as well roll over and let the Darkspawn rape/pillage it. I will admit to having had doubts about whether Loghain’s paranoia about Orlais was truly reasonable... then Inquistion came out.

 

Giving up sovereignty for the sake of survival is a last-resort and Fereldan was not anywhere near that point when Loghain turned it away. Sure, it may have been a nice option to have later if/when they got desperate, but at that point you have basically lost already.

 

The Bannorn's worries about Loghain as Regent do not come close to Loghain's worries about the fate of the country. We are not dealing with a change that radically alters the socio-political structure of the nation, or something that will require a second revolution to fix. In all likelihood, Loghain will not even keep his position beyond the Blight and Anora will resume rulership as usual. Loghain detractors went full-retard by waging a Civil War with Darkspawn at their doorstep. It did not help resolve the conflict one iota. Guess what did resolve it? A Landsmeet! You know, that thing they could have done at any time after giving Loghain provisional support toward stopping the Darkspawn if they had an issue with the nation’s rulership.

[sylvanaerie]

My Warden got along cordially with Loghain because my Warden answered that he needed wardens and thought Loghain's ablities as a general would be useful when Loghain asked why he was spared. They weren't friends but the relationship wasn't antagonistic. 

 

I haven't played a city elf who recruited Loghain though, so I can't speak for that dialogue option. 

 

I would like to ask a couple hypothetical questions. There is no honest way to answer these questions with absolute knowledge for anyone as we will never know, but I think it's at least worth asking and giving some critical thought. 

 

What if the Bannorn united under Loghain's banner after Ostagar without dissent or war. If this happened, would Howe still have become Loghain's right hand man?

 

If Wynne died at Ostagar, would the Circle have avoided becoming an abomination filled tower and joined the war?

 

For question one, had the Bannorn decided to support Loghain instead of oppose him, I think things would have gone better since a lot of the resources he expended were spent dealing with them, but I really can't say about Howe.  He's pretty tricky.  He may have found a way to worm himself in as an adviser anyway, though I can't say if he'd done the same kind of damage he does in the original timeline since Loghain would have others helping him.  We don't really know just when he chose to have Howe as his right hand man, how much happened after that first landsmeet in regards to just what Howe orchestrated.

 

Loghain really doesn't have anyone else with the same clout as Howe who seized the northern coastline by killing Bryce.  It would have been an interesting thing to see how much influence he would have exerted on Loghain's decisions if the bannorn had been watching more closely.  But then I also wonder in this scenario if Howe would have gotten away at all with what he did to the Couslands since I doubt people like Alfstanna or Bryland would have accepted the massacre without voice.  The nobles seem a very vocal bunch who don't look the other way when something shady's going down.  Which is part of the problem with the civil war. 

 

If Wynne had died at Ostagar, the tower still would have become the abomination filled mess it would have been, except Uldred would have been more secretive about it.  Her actions kind of sparked it being revealed sooner than Uldred intended I think since from the conversation with the blood mage and Wynne herself hints of him cooking up problems long before they actually happen.  He was secretive and never took an apprentice.  He was a Libertarian long before he was revealed as an abomination and those chafe at the Circle's yoke to begin with.  It may be he was long an abomination biding his time, it may be he only fell to the demon in a devil's bargain of 'Get me the hell out of here and I'll give you a body to wreak havoc in the physical with'.  I guess it kind of hinges on when he actually struck his bargain with the pride demon.

[dragonflight288]

Military sense dictates that you don't trust your back to someone whose utterly unloyal and untrustworthy unless you have something over them.

Howe bankrupted Loghain and eventually kidnapped the Queen of Ferelden herself. His very association with Loghain only worsened Loghain's reputation considering that practically nobody liked Howe at this point. (except for blind, Bryce of course)

And again, Loghain could avoid fighting the bannorn by letting the Landsmeet appoint Anora rather than bluntly try to seize power and make Anora a figurehead. Then he can deal with Howe with the full support of the Bannorn behind him and aid from dissenters in Highever and Amaranthine since again, Howe is the least popular arl in Ferelden.

To be clear then, you support leaving Sten in the cage, abandoning Morrigan, killing Zevran and not recruiting Leliana as well?

[The Baconer]

Seeing as his ambition boils down to saving the nation from the Darkspawn and Orlais, they absolutely should have done so, at least until they stemmed the tide of Darkspawn and secured their borders. Then, whatever petty political matters needed to be sorted out could be sorted out (see bottom paragraph).

 

"Petty politics" was the core of Loghain's approach. His opening move was a power-play to make himself the most powerful individual in the country, and in spite of his own claims to unite and mobilize the kingdom, he's trying to assassinate Eamon and stir the pot at the Circle. 

 

 

Well, nothing, seeing as his daughter was not "ousted" by any reasonable definition of the word.

 

She was effectively removed from power, and then she was later imprisoned. Howe even suggested the idea of killing her to her own father, who still worked with him after that. 

 

 

Post-Ostagar? No. Post-Blight? ...

 

It was explicitly stated in a letter found in RtO DLC, and confirmed in The Masked Empire.

There is no reason I can see to believe the plan would have changed.

 

But the plan did change, literally, that much was confirmed by book. If Orlais was going to take over Ferelden through force of arms, it would have been more prudent not to help Ferelden with the Blight at all, and commit to the invasion afterward. Ferelden has consistently been a complete joke as a power ever since the Blight, and there would have been no better time to conquer it. But they didn't. 

 

 

You may not like how I summarized your ideas, but non-action and silly moralism really is the extent of them. Should I go over it for you? ~Loghain should have addressed the Bannorn better. Okay, Ms. Poppins, how does this prevent people from opposing him on the basis that only a Theirin should be in power? How does Loghain sending in a rescue team for the King into a battlefield he decided was FUBAR enough to retreat from convince anyone that he wanted to save the King?

And then of course remains all the other things you rail on but provided no alternative to.

 

I'd rather he not address the Bannorn at all, and leave that part to Anora, who he is allegedly so confident in. Then he could focus on tasks in which he is actually competent. Anora sells it to the Bannorn that Ostagar was impossible to salvage, that the Darkspawn are a threat that requires a unified and organized response. Then she handles the question of Orlesian reinforcement, and the Wardens. Loghain acts as field marshal and directs Ferelden's forces as needed. 

 

... You know, like they did in Mary Poppins or whatever. I'm sure another inane comparison will follow shortly. 

 

 

Once again, the usurpation of power is necessary to keep Fereldan a free nation, so we can put to rest the idea that the alternative (not to usurp) is a worthwhile option and discard it. So now we’re left with the Civil War, and Howe. I’ll give you Howe being a bad call and that hiring someone not awful would have helped. Now then, what about the Civil War?

 

Yes, it's necessary because we've insisted it's necessary multiple times. Yawn. 

 

 

LOL, you mean like you're doing right now??

How is responding to "What should have been done, given [x]?" with "(negate)-[x]." not a cop-out? That's the literal definition of it.

 

No, you could always try reading the post and thinking about it. 

 

In the event that there is no usurpation of power, and no civil war by extension... and no Howe stealing directly from the treasury in extension of that, would the slave trade still be necessary? 

 

Maybe read it three or four times. 

 

 

How can I agree with you when your two main arguments on this topic (Loghain should have worked with Orlais, because Darkspawn // The Bannorn did not have to cooperate with Loghain, what Darkspawn?) do not even agree with each other?

 

Two things. First of all, when history judges the success of a war, it is not judged based on how each side fared in battle, but the events that follow the end of it. A lot of people are going to look back (or already are looking) at the Iraq war as a loss. It has nothing to do with how successful we were in fighting. It has to do with the instability of the region now and the rise of ISIS (people whom we armed due to short-sighted, objective-driven reasoning during the war). Allies can turn hostile. Do you see an issue here now with the idea of inviting a significant number of Chevaliers into the country?

 

Continued existence by defeating the Archdemon is the best victory anyone could hope for in a Blight. Historians aren't so stupid as to judge the Fifth Blight a loss for Ferelden because of its affect on an entirely separate conflict. If that were the case, maybe we should consider it a loss anyway, because ten years later Ferelden can't even muster a defense against unorganized rebel offshoots of other unorganized rebels. 

 

 

Second, when people enlist, they do it with the idea that they will be fighting to protect their country as they know it. Nobody signs on to see their country become the p!ss-pot of another, bigger nation, or they may as well roll over and let the Darkspawn rape/pillage it. 

 

Isn't self-destructive spite your primary grievance with the Bannorn? 

 

 

The Bannorn's worries about Loghain as Regent do not come close to Loghain's worries about the fate of the country. We are not dealing with a change that radically alters the socio-political structure of the nation, or something that will require a second revolution to fix. In all likelihood, Loghain will not even keep his position beyond the Blight and Anora will resume rulership as usual. Loghain detractors went full-retard by waging a Civil War with Darkspawn at their doorstep. It did not help resolve the conflict one iota. Guess what did resolve it? A Landsmeet! You know, that thing they could have done at any time after giving Loghain provisional support toward stopping the Darkspawn if they had an issue with the nation’s rulership.

 

Yet, Loghain isn't so worried as to let more Wardens fight the Darkspawn? Or let his exceptionally-more capable (in politics) daughter handle the Bannorn? He admits that Anora can play the nobles like a fiddle (during the Landsmeet she basically does), so what is the point in superseding her beyond simple hubris?

[ShadowLordXII]

To be clear then, you support leaving Sten in the cage, abandoning Morrigan, killing Zevran and not recruiting Leliana as well?

 

False Equivalencies all around.

 

We're talking about Loghain, not the party members. Considering just how much dirt and filth that Howe and Loghain have on their hands, its misleading to try and compare them to Sten, Morrigan, Zevran and Leliana.

 

Leliana is the least accurate comparison since she's an ex-bard who was betrayed and disillusioned with her past life. So she left to Ferelden to start fresh and try to leave behind that life. Part of this includes risking her life to face the Blight despite facing constant risk of infection and death if not worst (think broodmother). She may be a devout Andrastian, but there's nothing here that says she can't be trusted.

 

Sten killed people unjustly in a fit of rage and makes no excuses for it. He is perfectly content to sit in that cage and die to atone for that crime and for failing his people. Letting him fight with you is a chance for him to redeem some sense of honor and to be able to return home with his restored weapon. He's a foreigner, so there would be a bit of hesitation, but considering the circumstances, trusting Sten isn't the worst thing you can do.

 

Zevran was hired to assassinate you, but it's nothing personal, he's just doing his job. Keep in mind that you can also kill Zevran if you decide that he's not worth the risk and this risk can backfire. But the pros of having an expert assassin at your side have equal pros and cons. Beside, by beating Zevran in his trap on grounds of his own choosing, you demonstrate that you can handle Zevran if he decides to betray you. Overall, trusting Zevran depends on a character-by-character basis and it only really backfires if you go out of your way to keep distant from Zevran or antagonize him.

 

Morrigan isn't applicable because she's never done anything evil. She's simply elusive, ambitious and keeps secrets close to her chest, but never malicious acts against you. She even later gives you a way to preserve your own life if you give her something as well. She may have her own agenda, but as long as she's not hurting anyone or acting against you, what's wrong with that? Essentially, there's no reason not to trust her unless your a strict anti-mage character, which is hardly a stance of unbiased judgement.

 

Howe on the other hand knowingly and willingly murdered his best friend and family out of pure spite and greed. He also kidnaps, tortures and butchers people for fun. Even some of his own direct vassals were save from Howe. He also steals money from the national treasury when he's already been granted command of another arling and terynir. And he still plots to betray the queen and teryn who benefited and empowered him.

 

So to to bring back everything full circle, whether or not I agree that leaving Sten in the cage, abandoning Morrigan, killing Zevran and not recruiting Leliana are sound decisions doesn't change the objective fact that allying with Howe was a bad move on Loghain's part. Loghain didn't even have a contingency as he has no excuse for being caught off guard if Howe betrayed him.

 

After all, Howe directly encouraged Loghain to kill his own daughter (the "Queen") and Loghain told him to screw off. That alone should be grounds for arrest and execution.

[dragonflight288]

It's not a false equivalency when someone tells me that they won't recruit Loghain because they don't trust him and for me to ask if they hold the same standard to other untrustworthy characters. Sylvanaerie made it clear that he/she doesn't hold a double standard based on companions so the discussion essentially is resolved. 

 

Sylvanaerie made a good point that we don't know Leliana is a bard at the time of recruitment, but as far as Shale, Sten and Zevran go, in-game, at the time of having them join us all we know is Zevran may very well stab us in the back because he was hired to do so, Sten offers no explanation for why he slaughtered an entire family, only that he admits it and Shale killed her former master and can't remember it.

 

Heck, Sylvanaerie ever brought up Oghren, which I hadn't, as someone who is a potential risk. 

 

So I'm not going to discuss the companions with Sylvanaerie because I now understand that there is no double-standard at play there. 

[ShadowLordXII]

It's not a false equivalency when someone tells me that they won't recruit Loghain because they don't trust him and for me to ask if they hold the same standard to other untrustworthy characters. Sylvanaerie made it clear that he/she doesn't hold a double standard based on companions so the discussion essentially is resolved. 

 

Sylvanaerie made a good point that we don't know Leliana is a bard at the time of recruitment, but as far as Shale, Sten and Zevran go, in-game, at the time of having them join us all we know is Zevran may very well stab us in the back because he was hired to do so, Sten offers no explanation for why he slaughtered an entire family, only that he admits it and Shale killed her former master and can't remember it.

 

Heck, Sylvanaerie ever brought up Oghren, which I hadn't, as someone who is a potential risk. 

 

So I'm not going to discuss the companions with Sylvanaerie because I now understand that there is no double-standard at play there. 

 

You brought this up in response to my point of how trusting Howe is stupid in every way. 

 

Whether through physical ability or building influence, the Warden has something over the recruited companions whose trust is dubious. And nothing that they've done really compares to Loghain or Howe. Zevran is a professional killer, but he's never plunged his country into civil war. Sten is a qunari commander who killed a family of innocents and that's a bucket compared to Loghain and Howe's atrocities. Shale killed his ex-master on accident and that's nothing compared to having Loghain and Howe betray, torture and murder their own people for convenience and sell alienage elves into slavery. The filth on Loghain and Howe's hands are on a way higher scale and they aren't even remorseful about it. Sten regrets what he did. Zevran knows what he is and actually wants to die as atonement. Leliana walked away from her past life. Shale is partially justified since Wilhelm basically tortured and used Shale as a tool. Morrigan has her own agenda, but she's not evil.

 

Hence the false equivalency. There's nothing logically wrong or contradicting about not trusting Howe and Loghain while also trusting certain dubious characters.

 

Also, a bit of a strawman since I wasn't talking about recruiting Loghain at this time. I'm critiquing how trusting Howe and making him his second in command was one of Loghain's greatest mistakes. A mistake that he could have avoided though there would be risk. But in the long-run it would have been objectively better for him and Ferelden if he'd hanged Howe at the first opportunity and divided his lands to more loyal and capable individuals. Just like how it would have been better to let the Landsmeet elect Anora on their own rather than assume power and demand the Bannorn's submission.

[Natureguy85]

To be clear then, you support leaving Sten in the cage, abandoning Morrigan, killing Zevran and not recruiting Leliana as well?

 

There are arguments for all of those, though I think only Zevran's issues are relevant to the plot and events of the game.

[sylvanaerie]

It's not a false equivalency when someone tells me that they won't recruit Loghain because they don't trust him and for me to ask if they hold the same standard to other untrustworthy characters. Sylvanaerie made it clear that he/she doesn't hold a double standard based on companions so the discussion essentially is resolved. 

 

Sylvanaerie made a good point that we don't know Leliana is a bard at the time of recruitment, but as far as Shale, Sten and Zevran go, in-game, at the time of having them join us all we know is Zevran may very well stab us in the back because he was hired to do so, Sten offers no explanation for why he slaughtered an entire family, only that he admits it and Shale killed her former master and can't remember it.

 

Heck, Sylvanaerie ever brought up Oghren, which I hadn't, as someone who is a potential risk. 

 

So I'm not going to discuss the companions with Sylvanaerie because I now understand that there is no double-standard at play there. 

 

I completely forgot about Shale, but no, she wouldn't be recruited either without metagaming.