230 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

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.

 

Okay, let me try to make this clear. I'll requote what you said, then I'll try and make my position a little stronger.

 

Although I had this exact same discussion with Sylvanaeraie in another thread so my first response was me thinking it was to her in that thread.

 

 

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.

 

Okay, so your overall point is that military sense dictates you don't invite someone into camp to watch your back if they are unloyal and untrustworthy, and then proceeded to explain WHY Loghain cannot be trusted.

 

My response was then to ask about other untrustworthy characters, because based on that logic then it would be a military sense not to have Oghren, Shale, Sten, Zevran and maybe Leliana even join the party.

 

At the time we meet them we have nothing over them either. Leliana comes across as crazy so it's logical to question if she is or is not mentally stable enough to watch your back. Later, we discover she's an Orlesian bard and she claims she put that life behind her. The thing is we have no way to verify what she says. For all we know in-game as characters and without using metagame knowledge, she came to spy on Ferelden and took a chance to spy on the Wardens. 

 

Zevran is an Antivan Crow hired specifically to kill us. He may swear an oath of loyalty, but other than a desire not to die you have nothing over him. Morrigan says it well, we should check our food and drink more carefully and for all we know he could be lying in wait to stab us in the back. He is an assassin. There is nothing we have over him. It can turn out to be accurate in the end if his friendship with the Warden isn't strong enough as he WILL try to kill us near the end of the game with Tallesan if his approval isn't high enough. 

 

Oghren is a loose cannon, plain and simple. He goes berserk and into a rage when he fights, and he lost his honor as a warrior killing a noble in a duel to first blood, and his justification is "what good are weapons if you're not going to kill with them," is not reassuring. 

 

I can go through the list of untrustworthy companions besides Loghain, that if you remove Meta-game knowledge, are a risk to take into the party. The Warden has nothing over any of them to bind their loyalty to him/her. So, by the logic you employed about it being military sense not to take people in to watch your back if you can't trust them or have anything over them then the entire party in Origins would be cut down by half, or in the case of KOTOR 2, completely non-existent as that game does not have a single party member, save Bao-Dur, who can be trusted in any way. 

[ShadowLordXII]

Okay, let me try to make this clear. I'll requote what you said, then I'll try and make my position a little stronger.

 

Although I had this exact same discussion with Sylvanaeraie in another thread so my first response was me thinking it was to her in that thread.

 

 

 

Okay, so your overall point is that military sense dictates you don't invite someone into camp to watch your back if they are unloyal and untrustworthy, and then proceeded to explain WHY Loghain cannot be trusted.

 

My response was then to ask about other untrustworthy characters, because based on that logic then it would be a military sense not to have Oghren, Shale, Sten, Zevran and maybe Leliana even join the party.

 

At the time we meet them we have nothing over them either. Leliana comes across as crazy so it's logical to question if she is or is not mentally stable enough to watch your back. Later, we discover she's an Orlesian bard and she claims she put that life behind her. The thing is we have no way to verify what she says. For all we know in-game as characters and without using metagame knowledge, she came to spy on Ferelden and took a chance to spy on the Wardens. 

 

Zevran is an Antivan Crow hired specifically to kill us. He may swear an oath of loyalty, but other than a desire not to die you have nothing over him. Morrigan says it well, we should check our food and drink more carefully and for all we know he could be lying in wait to stab us in the back. He is an assassin. There is nothing we have over him. It can turn out to be accurate in the end if his friendship with the Warden isn't strong enough as he WILL try to kill us near the end of the game with Tallesan if his approval isn't high enough. 

 

Oghren is a loose cannon, plain and simple. He goes berserk and into a rage when he fights, and he lost his honor as a warrior killing a noble in a duel to first blood, and his justification is "what good are weapons if you're not going to kill with them," is not reassuring. 

 

I can go through the list of untrustworthy companions besides Loghain, that if you remove Meta-game knowledge, are a risk to take into the party. The Warden has nothing over any of them to bind their loyalty to him/her. So, by the logic you employed about it being military sense not to take people in to watch your back if you can't trust them or have anything over them then the entire party in Origins would be cut down by half, or in the case of KOTOR 2, completely non-existent as that game does not have a single party member, save Bao-Dur, who can be trusted in any way. 

 

Except that I was specifically talking about Loghain trusting, empowering and promoting Howe. That's far more stupid and illogical than recruiting certain individuals, but at least in the later case the risks don't outweigh the benefits especially with your current situation.

 

And you do have something over your companions...ie, you can kill them if they turn against you. You've already proven that you can beat Zevran at his own game, therefore having him betray you again is just the classic definition of stupidity. (If it didn't work the first time, why do it again in nearly the exact same way?) Once again, its up to the player to make the best of their decision and ensure that these risky individuals don't bite you in the butt and that's what the influence system is in place for.

 

Loghain didn't have anything like that for Howe and look what happened.

[Natureguy85]

Okay, let me try to make this clear. I'll requote what you said, then I'll try and make my position a little stronger.

 

Although I had this exact same discussion with Sylvanaeraie in another thread so my first response was me thinking it was to her in that thread.

 

 

 

Okay, so your overall point is that military sense dictates you don't invite someone into camp to watch your back if they are unloyal and untrustworthy, and then proceeded to explain WHY Loghain cannot be trusted.

 

My response was then to ask about other untrustworthy characters, because based on that logic then it would be a military sense not to have Oghren, Shale, Sten, Zevran and maybe Leliana even join the party.

 

At the time we meet them we have nothing over them either. Leliana comes across as crazy so it's logical to question if she is or is not mentally stable enough to watch your back. Later, we discover she's an Orlesian bard and she claims she put that life behind her. The thing is we have no way to verify what she says. For all we know in-game as characters and without using metagame knowledge, she came to spy on Ferelden and took a chance to spy on the Wardens. 

 

Zevran is an Antivan Crow hired specifically to kill us. He may swear an oath of loyalty, but other than a desire not to die you have nothing over him. Morrigan says it well, we should check our food and drink more carefully and for all we know he could be lying in wait to stab us in the back. He is an assassin. There is nothing we have over him. It can turn out to be accurate in the end if his friendship with the Warden isn't strong enough as he WILL try to kill us near the end of the game with Tallesan if his approval isn't high enough. 

 

Oghren is a loose cannon, plain and simple. He goes berserk and into a rage when he fights, and he lost his honor as a warrior killing a noble in a duel to first blood, and his justification is "what good are weapons if you're not going to kill with them," is not reassuring. 

 

I can go through the list of untrustworthy companions besides Loghain, that if you remove Meta-game knowledge, are a risk to take into the party. The Warden has nothing over any of them to bind their loyalty to him/her. So, by the logic you employed about it being military sense not to take people in to watch your back if you can't trust them or have anything over them then the entire party in Origins would be cut down by half, or in the case of KOTOR 2, completely non-existent as that game does not have a single party member, save Bao-Dur, who can be trusted in any way. 

 

 

You're not wrong, but only Zevran is on the level of Loghain as specifically being untrustworthy in their relationship to you personally. The others are all seedy characters, but this is a "need all the help I can get" situation.

 

http://www.giantitp....s/oots0540.html

[sylvanaerie]

You're not wrong, but only Zevran is on the level of Loghain as specifically being untrustworthy in their relationship to you personally. The others are all seedy characters, but this is a "need all the help I can get" situation.

 

http://www.giantitp....s/oots0540.html

 

The others are as untrustworthy as Zevran, although the degree is varying, but untrustworthy is still untrustworthy, even if it's for different reasons.  At the time of recruitment without metagaming, Zevran's an assassin actually hired to kill you, so, admittedly that does put him at the top of the list.  Sten admits to the slaughter of a helpless family, children included, without explanation.  Oghren is a drunken berserker who goes nuts in battle, swinging at anything moving, Leliana is nucking futs, Morrigan is a socially stunted witch of the wilds who kills templars (and possibly Chasind) for sport, Shale murdered her owner and doesn't even remember why except that he's a complete douchenozzle.  Loghain has spent the last year actively trying to kill you.

 

After recruitment you learn Sten went cookoo for Cocoa Puffs because he lost his sword--like that's any kind of viable excuse in any reality--and Leliana, on top of being looney toons, is a former Orlesian bard who enjoyed the game of playing with her kills.  Oghren murdered a man in the heat of berserker rage in the Provings in a 'first blood' duel.  Zevran admits that he finds the 'art' of murder appealing, and decides to go into business for himself instead of being a slave to the Crows.  Even Wynne, who is a dedicated healer, harbors a fade spirit.  That it seems mostly benign and helpful still doesn't detract from the potential risk of keeping her around.

 

Granted, you can RP it's a 'take whatever help you can', but in reality, you don't need any of them to complete the game.  If left to my own devices, without metagaming or even assuming "I need all the help I can get" I would still recruit only Wynne and Dog (since you get Alistair by default).  Since you need only 1 grey warden and the 4 armies you gather.  Since I don't believe the potential risk of killing off the last two wardens in Ferelden is outweighed by the additional manpower 5 bodies offers, I'd still pass on recruiting loose cannons like Sten or Oghren.

 

*Edit* And this from someone who generally likes most of the companions with the exceptions of Loghain and Sten.

[Aren]

i just think that with some companions people are trying too hard to find reasons to distrust them  but maybe that's just me

 Now they will come and say that Sandal is untrustwothy because he is a dwarf that can make enchantment and is weird,

 

Honestly i don't understand as for why some companions should be seen as untrustowrthy....

 

-Wynne should be seen as untrustworthy just because she harbor a spirit of faith?

Benevolent spirits are not a danger but of course in order to know that the warden should be at least intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know something about spirits , also she join out of gratitude and duty over Ferelden after that the warden does her an huge favor with the cirlce now she want to repay that debt.

but of course that old hag must be plotting something behind my back!

 

-Leliana should be seen as untrustworthy because she had a dream about the Maker?OK! At best i can see her as lunatic not as untrustworthy.

She had a friendship with the revered mother of lothering and she reveal that once she was a bard,it was her past,but after literally a year spent in that cloister how one can think that she was plotting something against Ferelden into a remote cloister of Lothering....ok it would require a lot of mental gymnastic for me

 

Oghren is a drunk,so what?

Why he should be seen as untrustworthy just because he adopt the berserker mode in battle or killed someone during his life at Orzammar?

After the Caridin quest he is just a failure who lost everything in Orzammar and want to find a new purpose new friends

But of course he is plotting something even do he helped me to kill his former wife....and demonstrated his loyalty in that case

 

 

-Shale why she should be seen as untrustworthy?

Because she killed a master who treated her like a servant for decades and ultimately used her for her own ends like a slave?

She join the warden with the purpose to try to find more answers about her past so she do not have any motive to be a menace provided that the warden will not be like her former master who wanted to enslave her.

 

 

 

But they are all untrustworthy right?OK!

Of course if i roleplay a super paranoid warden 

 

Sten,Loghain,Zevran and Morrigan can be seen as untrustworthy to me given the way in which they are recruited

even if in Morrigan case is more about her  behavior through the course of the game more than anything else since i may as well expect that she would have gladly killed me for power...

[Qun00]

[font=tahoma]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.

And these things will continue to be invoked, as they should. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Motivation is far from being the deciding factor in how an action should be judged.

[TEWR]

 

 

Oghren is a drunk,so what?

 

Drunks tend to make poor choices and can't be depended on. Would you want to follow into battle someone who was knee-deep in his cups? Would you trust someone whose depth perception was altered and whose judgment is lessened?

 

It's not that he's planning on betraying us that makes him untrustworthy. No one was arguing that. It's that the question of how reliable a drunkard is, who can't hold back in battle, is what makes him untrustworthy.

 

 

Wynne should be seen as untrustworthy just because she harbor a spirit of faith?

Benevolent spirits are not a danger

 

Anders says hi.

 

Granted that was due to Anders' own skewed perceptions of what justice is corrupting Justice into Vengeance, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking benevolent spirits are harmless.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

And these things will continue to be invoked, as they should. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Motivation is far from being the deciding factor in how an action should be judged.

 

Great timing, the detailed analysis stuff you couldn't be bothered with is over. Welcome back! 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I would quite easily recruit the likes of Sten to my party, by the way. That's exactly the type I would seek out, actually, while Alistair IMO never belonged. Being nice and polite is not an asset at all in an aggressive/violent scenario like combat. Being vicious and nasty is.

[dragonflight288]

I would quite easily recruit the likes of Sten to my party, by the way. That's exactly the type I would seek out, actually, while Alistair IMO never belonged. Being nice and polite is not an asset at all in an aggressive/violent scenario like combat. Being vicious and nasty is.

But could you trust him to not go berserk if he loses his weapon in battle?

[The Baconer]

I wouldn't really describe Sten as "vicious" and "nasty". The Warden's first impression of him would likely be... superficially calm, but dangerously volatile. Possibly a sociopath (due to a lack of knowledge regarding the Qunari).  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I wouldn't really describe Sten as "vicious" and "nasty".

 

Actually I wasn't singling out Sten, just saying that his is the like of which I look for. Shale, Loghain, Oghren fit the mold too. I want to go to war with bad mofo's, not boy/girl scouts. In some ways, it is a good sign to be a little worried about them; your companions need to be dangerous in their own right.

 

The Warden's first impression of him would likely be... superficially calm, but dangerously volatile. Possibly a sociopath (due to a lack of knowledge regarding the Qunari).

He killed children. I think it's a fair assumption that his disposition belies his attitude a bit (lol).

[sylvanaerie]

 I would quite easily recruit the likes of Sten to my party, by the way. That's exactly the type I would seek out, actually, while Alistair IMO never belonged. Being nice and polite is not an asset at all in an aggressive/violent scenario like combat. Being vicious and nasty is.

 

Alistair at least knows what an enemy is and what a non-threat is.  I believe the ability to discern an actual threat on the battlefield vs a cowering, helpless child is far more important than just swinging my blade 'viciously or nastily' and hoping I hit an enemy with it.

 

The goal of defeating the darkspawn at least encompasses leaving enough of the populace alive to be able to rebuild the nation after the Blight.

[Aren]

Drunks tend to make poor choices and can't be depended on. Would you want to follow into battle someone who was knee-deep in his cups? Would you trust someone whose depth perception was altered and whose judgment is lessened?

 

It's not that he's planning on betraying us that makes him untrustworthy. No one was arguing that. It's that the question of how reliable a drunkard is, who can't hold back in battle, is what makes him untrustworthy.

 

 

Anders says hi.

 

Granted that was due to Anders' own skewed perceptions of what justice is corrupting Justice into Vengeance, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking benevolent spirits are harmless.

I completely disagree.

 

Oghren is a soldier not a counselor(ala Woolsey or Varel) he is not there to give advices or to make choices but to follow orders and he is more than trustworthy on this aspect since regardless of his own judgments on situations he always follow the chains of command.

Exactly like when he was ready to kill Branka his wife under the Warden's order.

Is addiction never undermined this aspect as far as i'm concerned.

(unless you want to bring up the low approval situations which pretty much force every companion to leave unless they are plot critical like Alistair or Loghain)

 

More likely let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it was the spirit and not Anders.

First a spirit of justice is different than a spirit of faith,second it was the will of a man that twisted the spirit original purpose and transformed it into a demon of vengeance,so using the spirit inside of Wynne to label her as untrustworthy it doesn't make sense because is the host not the spirit to be the danger,compare Anders and  Wynne and use as a common base the spirits inside them is a moot point.

Spirits are creatures made of simplicity who possess only one purpose they aren't disloyal or untrustworthy it is their host who alter them

Had Wynne committed something questionable it would have been her fault not of the spirit of faith.

[Aren]

Alistair at least knows what an enemy is and what a non-threat is. 

Did he knew that the archdemon was one of the enemies of the blight?

Did he knew that the blight was a threat?

If so why he left?

[sylvanaerie]

 

Did he knew that the archdemon was one of the enemies of the blight?

Did he knew that the blight was a threat?

If so why he left?

 

He never left in my playthroughs and doggedly assisted in the ending of the archdemon, if he left, that's on your watch.

[Aren]

He never left in my playthroughs and doggedly assisted in the ending of the archdemon, if he left, that's on your watch.

Which doesn't really change the inner core of his character since if he does not get his way he is unable to stand by his formal duty which clearly demonstrate a severe lack of discipline.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Alistair at least knows what an enemy is and what a non-threat is.  I believe the ability to discern an actual threat on the battlefield vs a cowering, helpless child is far more important than just swinging my blade 'viciously or nastily' and hoping I hit an enemy with it.

Part of being a leader is risk-taking. I took a chance on Sten, and it worked out well enough. I would not have taken a chance on JAnders. I'd have knifed him on the damn spot when the demon took over, but he was a forced recruit. I was right about that one, and I was even drinking the "free mages"-koolaid back then. I do not take Velanna as a non-Dalish Warden. I do not take Cole or IB in DA:I when role-playing the Inq with my POV.
 

The goal of defeating the darkspawn at least encompasses leaving enough of the populace alive to be able to rebuild the nation after the Blight.

On the flip side, if you cannot defeat the Darkspawn (a much more real possibility than accidentally killing all or most of the populace, lol) due in any part to your team lacking the physical- or mental-toughness to do so (Alistair says up-front that he finds the Darkspawn frightening) then it does not really matter how nice and careful your party was -- everyone is dead, and the land is tainted.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

He never left in my playthroughs and doggedly assisted in the ending of the archdemon, if he left, that's on your watch.

 

lol. Xil-logic strikes again!!

[sylvanaerie]

lol. Xil-logic strikes again!!

Wow, insults and name calling.  How original for an internet discussion.

 

One suggestion. It might help if your target actually understands to what you're referring, otherwise it doesn't mean much.  I can only tell what you intend by the general tone of your post, which adds nothing to the conversation going on in the first place.  Do you really wish to drop this to grade school level immaturity and have name calling altercations over the internet? 

 

No one wins in that scenario, and I really don't feel like obliging you so how's about we keep this civil?

[sniper_arrow]

Which doesn't really change the inner core of his character since if he does not get his way he is unable to stand by his formal duty which clearly demonstrate a severe lack of discipline.

 

I view it as Alistair not seeing the bigger picture (needing more experienced fighters to battle the Blight and setting aside his hatred).

[Aren]

I view it as Alistair not seeing the bigger picture (needing more experienced fighters to battle the Blight and setting aside his hatred).

Is more a form of indiscipline since up to that point he didn't had any plot critical reaction against the warden on far worse situations and decisions.

[sylvanaerie]

Which doesn't really change the inner core of his character since if he does not get his way he is unable to stand by his formal duty which clearly demonstrate a severe lack of discipline.

 

Yet, until that point (which is the result of something the player does), even at -100 approval, he remains committed to the fight, recognizing the darkspawn are a greater threat to the nation than even your warden.  Even pissed off at your choice, his first instinct is just to walk away, not attack you on the spot.

 

The same cannot be said for other companions who will attack you even if they aren't 'hostile' to you.

Sten in Haven if he has low approval, Zevran in Denerim if he has low approval, Leliana and Wynne at the Temple of Sacred Ashes if you spoil them, Wynne at the Circle (top), Wynne doesn't physically attack you, but will verbally attack you after the Temple if she wasn't with you, by saying something to the effect "I hope the darkspawn take you" before walking away in disgust, Shale in the Deep Roads (if you choose to fight Caridin).  I've even seen a Utube (though never figured out how to trigger it) low approval Oghren attacking the Warden in camp.

 

All of these are triggered by player actions (or in Zevran's case, lack thereof).  I acknowledged in the other thread in which this debate started, all the companions, if you get to know them and/or do their personal quests, become trustworthy and are committed to your ultimate goal of ending the Blight. And, yes, I was including Loghain as well in that statement since he proves a loyal grey warden and does his best to the cause.  I only single Alistair out because Seival said he was unsuitable for the job (he obviously isn't  unsuitable since Duncan recruited him, and he's survived several battles) and because (unlike the other companions) he can be at max hatred for you and still remain committed till you trigger his 'crisis point'.  His departure then is the player's doing, just as it is with any of the other companions, not indicative of the overall characterization of the character, which you seem to perceive as 'undisciplined traitor'.

 

Haven't you ever been so pissed off at someone you just reached that breaking point where you just can't take anymore? If you haven't then you're pretty damn lucky, because I know how that feels, and I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one on these boards who does.

[Aren]

Yet, until that point (which is the result of something the player does), even at -100 approval, he remains committed to the fight, recognizing the darkspawn are a greater threat to the nation than even your warden.  Even pissed off at your choice, his first instinct is just to walk away, not attack you on the spot.

 

The same cannot be said for other companions who will attack you even if they aren't 'hostile' to you.

Sten in Haven if he has low approval, Zevran in Denerim if he has low approval, Leliana and Wynne at the Temple of Sacred Ashes if you spoil them, Wynne at the Circle (top), Wynne doesn't physically attack you, but will verbally attack you after the Temple if she wasn't with you, by saying something to the effect "I hope the darkspawn take you" before walking away in disgust, Shale in the Deep Roads (if you choose Caridin).  I've even seen a Utube (though never figured out how to trigger it) low approval Oghren attacking the Warden in camp.

 

All of these are triggered by player actions (or in Zevran's case, lack thereof).  I acknowledged in the other thread in which this debate started, all the companions, if you get to know them and/or do their personal quests, become trustworthy and are committed to your ultimate goal of ending the Blight. And, yes, I was including Loghain as well in that statement since he proves a loyal grey warden and does his best to the cause.  I only single Alistair out because Seival said he was unsuitable for the job (he obviously isn't  unsuitable since Duncan recruited him, and he's survived several battles) and because (unlike the other companions) he can be at max hatred for you and still remain committed till you trigger his 'crisis point'.  His departure then is the player's doing, just as it is with any of the other companions, not indicative of the overall characterization of the character, which you seem to perceive as 'undisciplined traitor'.

 

Haven't you ever been so pissed off at someone you just reached that breaking point where you just can't take anymore? If you haven't then you're pretty damn lucky, because I know how that feels, and I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one on these boards who does.

I may as well speculate that he do not leave the side of the warden despite the approval status due to him being absolutely plot critical up to the landsmeet ,so gameplay reasons more than anything since his absence does indeed equate to the inability to call for the landsmeet.

Gameplay reasons aside, if we wish to see him remaining at the side of the warden  because of in-character reasons(being dutiful over the cause) than him quitting for Loghain is even  more illogical.

Alistair was formally trained and educated since his childhood under the mental discipline of templars meaning that he is someone who was ready to perform his duties regardless of his opinions, in banter he clearly said that he liked the discipline of the order.

This is also one of the reason that convinced Duncan to recruit him ,for the discipline he acquired as a  templar recruit that obviously increased the chance of  his survival to the joining,however he saw that as an act of pity but it wasn't since Duncan is not a man of compassion.

At the Landsmeet he is demanding someone death when this could be avoided,no other companion aside from Morrigan request the death of others.

 

I already know how the others companions behave to some decisions and most of them to me are blameless, not because they aren't grey wardens so they are not tied to an oath but for the whole set up of their critical condition which is generated by a morally questionable  if not an outright evil warden:

 

 

-Sten is one of the few characters that can't leave due to approval status because he always fulfill his oaths as it is to expect from a Qunari

He do not attack the warden with the purpose to kill him/her but with the purpose to see and understand if the leader still retain strength and lucidity

(go on the search of an urn on the top of a mountain during a blight seem to be a little trivial at first and not wise, in fact i dislike that part of the plot because it seem detached from the game) if he win nothing bad happens.

I see that as a good moment in which one of the companions has the strengths to test the protagonist without undermining the quest.

 

 

-Shale is committed to help the warden with the sole reason to try to find more insight about herself is kinda like a mutual partnership.

What we know about the character is that she despise slavery since she was forced ino being one by her former master and she was paralyzed for thirty years.

A warden who is willing to kill his friend(in front of her) thus deprive her of a reliable source of information with the sole purpose to promote slavery via the anvil of the void and trust Branka  (the same woman who killed them all as baits for the traps) should expect this reaction.

However i will admit that her leaving the warden at camp does not make sense because she couldn't possibly know or remember Caridin.

 

 

-In order to force Oghren to start a fight at camp the warden should bash him with several insults since those are the dialogues that trigger the great disapprovals and the fight,so it is clearly an  evil  warden that wanted that fight in the first place to the point that Oghren will comment that the protagonist is no better than the archdemon and should die along with him.

 

 

-Wynne harbor a spirit of faith that saved her while unharden Leliana is very faithful,faith is an important aspect for them both.

A Warden who is unwilling to respect others belief and dessacreate historical relics in front of believers clearly demonstrate a lack of compassion,especially if all of this is done  to absolve the task of someone who tried to kill them all like Kolgrim.

Not only their reaction is more than predictable but i  do not understand as for why they should not stand against a warden who destroyed a piece of history harbored in sorrow for a thousands of years.

 

-On Zevran i already said that he can be seen as untrustworthy from the start,even if most of his disapproval are built upon the decision of an evil warden (being willing to kill all the mages and the children,being will to enslave all the elves,or betray the Dalish ecc..)

 

 

Point is that spare Loghain thus save a life is not in itself an evil action,thus make Alistair condition different from all the others companions,since it is him who is advocating to a death resolution despite a senior warden is against it.

 

[sylvanaerie]

 

I may as well speculate that he do not leave the side of the warden despite the approval status due to him being absolutely plot critical up to the landsmeet ,so gameplay reasons more than anything since his absence does indeed equate to the inability to call for the landsmeet.

Gameplay reasons aside, if we wish to see him remaining at the side of the warden  because of in-character reasons(being dutiful over the cause) than him quitting for Loghain is even  more illogical.

Alistair was formally trained and educated since his childhood under the mental discipline of templars meaning that he is someone who was ready to perform his duties regardless of his opinions, in banter he clearly said that he liked the discipline of the order.

This is also one of the reason that convinced Duncan to recruit him ,for the discipline he acquired as a  templar recruit that obviously increased the chance of  his survival to the joining,however he saw that as an act of pity but it wasn't since Duncan is not a man of compassion.

At the Landsmeet he is demanding someone death when this could be avoided,no other companion aside from Morrigan request the death of others.

 

I already know how the others companions behave to some decisions and most of them to me are blameless, not because they aren't grey wardens so they are not tied to an oath but for the whole set up of their critical condition which is generated by a morally questionable  if not an outright evil warden:

 

 

-Sten is one of the few characters that can't leave due to approval status because he always fulfill his oaths as it is to expect from a Qunari

He do not attack the warden with the purpose to kill him/her but with the purpose to see and understand if the leader still retain strength and lucidity

(go on the search of an urn on the top of a mountain during a blight seem to be a little trivial at first and not wise, in fact i dislike that part of the plot because it seem detached from the game) if he win nothing bad happens.

I see that as a good moment in which one of the companions has the strengths to test the protagonist without undermining the quest.

 

 

-Shale is committed to help the warden with the sole reason to try to find more insight about herself is kinda like a mutual partnership.

What we know about the character is that she despise slavery since she was forced ino being one by her former master and she was paralyzed for thirty years.

A warden who is willing to kill his friend(in front of her) thus deprive her of a reliable source of information with the sole purpose to promote slavery via the anvil of the void and trust Branka  (the same woman who killed them all as baits for the traps) should expect this reaction.

However i will admit that her leaving the warden at camp does not make sense because she couldn't possibly know or remember Caridin.

 

 

-In order to force Oghren to start a fight at camp the warden should bash him with several insults since those are the dialogues that trigger the great disapprovals and the fight,so it is clearly an  evil  warden that wanted that fight in the first place to the point that Oghren will comment that the protagonist is no better than the archdemon and should die along with him.

 

 

-Wynne harbor a spirit of faith that saved her while unharden Leliana is very faithful,faith is an important aspect for them both.

A Warden who is unwilling to respect others belief and dessacreate historical relics in front of believers clearly demonstrate a lack of compassion,especially if all of this is done  to absolve the task of someone who tried to kill them all like Kolgrim.

Not only their reaction is more than predictable but i  do not understand as for why they should not stand against a warden who destroyed a piece of history harbored in sorrow for a thousands of years.

 

-On Zevran i already said that he can be seen as untrustworthy from the start,even if most of his disapproval are built upon the decision of an evil warden (being willing to kill all the mages and the children,being will to enslave all the elves,or betray the Dalish ecc..)

 

 

Point is that spare Loghain thus save a life is not in itself an evil action,thus make Alistair condition different from all the others companions,since it is him who is advocating to a death resolution despite a senior warden is against it.

 

 

 

For some, the sparing of Loghain may be seen as an 'evil' act.  It depends on your morality regarding capitol punishment (something practiced quite often in medieval times), and whether or not you perceive his actions as warranting a death penalty.  It can't be said that executing him for multiple crimes is an 'evil' act, nor would I say it's a 'good' one, but I wouldn't demonize the warden doing either.  And saying "I recruit him to toss him under the archdemon" is using metagame knowledge since, at the time of the landsmeet, the warden is unaware of what happens when the archdemon is slain.

 

You site Alistair's -100 approval score as simply 'a game mechanic' or 'plot relevant', but in roleplay terms it can be equated in the game as "He hates your guts yet he's doggedly committed to the extermination of the darkspawn till you push his button".  I brought up the other companions because they all have breaking points in which they do more than just walk away they actually attack you.  All the other companions you apply excuses for their behavior, but Alistair doesn't rate a break in your book because he protests the one thing you want to do (recruit Loghain) which you have even said in multiple threads across this forum you do all the time since you prefer the Redemption ending. 

 

Because of this your argument smacks of 'double standards' and makes it very hard for me to credit much veracity to it.

 

You don't need to be evil to get Zevran to turn on you.  Just park him in camp, never talk to him.  In game terms: Never get his approval above 25.  He will join Taliesen in Denerim to try to kill you.  Understandable since you gave him no reason to trust you would help him, but it still doesn't take an "evil" warden to do so.  Just a neglectful one.  Same with Sten.  Take him to Haven at less than (in game terms) 25 approval and he throws a hissy fit and drops group and attacks you.  At which point my "try to kick out as many companions as I could" toon told him take a hike.  And he never returned.  Wynne and Leliana turn on you at the temple, I won't argue that defiling someone's final resting place isn't an evil act because in my mind it is and is one of the few things I've not been able to do in the game. However, Wynne turning on you at the top of the Circle tower if you side with Cullen, doesn't require an 'evil' warden, just one who doesn't trust that Irving and the other enchanters haven't been turned.  Shale turning on you in the deep roads doesn't require an 'evil' warden though either as you may be a warden--in particular a dwarven one--who has been fighting darkspawn so long, you see how desperately the dwarves need the anvil. Insulting Oghren might be petty, but doesn't require you to be evil either.  You might simply not like him, or find his drunkenness off-putting.

 

All ways a non-evil warden can invoke their wrath, understandable as it may be, (the warden never earned Zevran's trust, Sten fails to see the larger picture and protests your traipsing on fool's errands all over the countryside, Wynne doesn't want to see the Circle annulled, Shale doesn't want you to kill her old friend, Oghren still has some pride left even if it's been bruised by his circumstance), but still doesn't require morally questionable or down and outright dirty methods to achieve.

 

Player actions and bias determines the course of the game you play.  If you only play one way which causes that companion's trigger, you are going to get a pretty one sided opinion of the character in question.  Admittedly, I am a bit biased toward Sten because of his dialogues with my female Surana, but it doesn't stop me from recruiting him on other wardens who would do so.  Just because I proposed in one thread who I felt was untrustworthy strictly without metagaming, doesn't mean I never bothered to play with them at all in my group.

 

*edit* Do I like Alistair's hissy fit in the Landsmeet?  Of course not, who would?  His attitude has little to do with why I usually kill Loghain there.  My warden has his/her own reasons for doing so.  I don't demonize him (or any of the companions for their actions for that matter, they are just characters reacting as they are programmed to do so).  I appreciate the complexities of writing that went into each of them and the differences they bring to my game, even the ones I dislike.  It's taken me forever to reach that state with Loghain himself, but I doubt he'll ever get recruited beyond the one time I did so since I have moved beyond enjoying playing Origins.