124 réponses à ce sujet

[melkathi]

grieferbastard wrote...

So Loghain is the first person to ever, what, make an agreement with the Darkspawn? That's just silly. I get the feeling that Loghain is there, watching the battle, realizing that this is not something he's sure he can win but he's already committed....

but then the time for the beacon being lit comes and goes. What happened? Is there a problem? That sudden window of a way out. If the beacon isn't lit then he can just.... not... charge. The battle is looking worse and worse and the idea of dying fighting Darkspawn in a battle he feels isn't even a true Blight for a boy-king who clearly doesn't realize what's best for Ferelden?

For me it feels like that emergency exit for sanity so to speak. That delay on lighting the beacon lets him consider, justify to himself, retreating to 'save his soldiers' and be rid of a boy-king who he fears will just deliver Ferelden back into Orlesian hands. So when the beacon does light there's this sudden moment of 'it's too late'. That's why he waited for it. If he intended to betray Cailen before the battle, why wait for the beacon?

No, I think he was there on the hill in a fight he found oddly beneath him and was poorly considered in the company of people he didn't respect following the orders of a king he was realizing he could not trust. So he justifies to himself, standing on the hill watching the battle unfold, just why he shouldn't charge. He was ripe soil for that bastard Howe when he got back to Denerim and would have hated the Couslands (sympathizers!) anyway.

Much of Loghains depth is never truly spoken. His voice acting is excellent and you feel all the way through like he struggles with some of these choices. Yet in the end he's more of a Grey Warden than Alistair ever was. Victory at any cost. He's like an anti-Warden - his enemy of focus is the Orlesians and thus to him the Darkspawn are a secondary concern. Whatever damage they do is unimportant compared to the danger of being enslaved by the Orlesians again.

I have no doubt, no question that Duncan would kill anyone, betray anyone, lie to anyone, sell Ferelden into slavery to the Orlesians or elves to the Tevinter for that matter if it was required to defeat the Blight. He may regret it later but everything else is secondary to victory. Loghain embodied that mentality just with a different enemy. Perhaps that's why Alistair hates Loghain so much. He's like a dark reflection of Duncan in a lot of ways.

For me though he just about always dies. Especially with human noble. I think of Howes final words about my nephews corpse, the death of my parents and that Loghain let him get away with it.... and POW. Right or wrong, justified or not he needs to die.

You are making excuses for Loghain there. He wanted to be in control of the beacon so he could choose not to light it. David Gaider has said that clearly.
He was just not jet commited to truly abandon Rowan's son until the beacon was lit. That moment he had to either abandon Cailan and the army or join them.

And Mary Kirby has already explained that Loghain could not tell, from his position when the proper time was for the beacon to be lit. If he could, then there would have been no need for the beacon. The player's delay in lighting the beacon is irrelevant to Loghain's decission. If it did anything, it gave him more time to agonize over what he'd do and to justify to himself abandoning the battlefield.

But from there on, I mostly agree with what you have said. Loghain is the better warden. Though it's not hard, seeing as Alistair must be the worst warden ever.
I am not as sure as you just to what lengths Duncan would go though. Sell elves into slavery? Extremley doubtful.

[grieferbastard]

Sabriana wrote...

I agree with you in many points, grieferbastard. But in my games, at the end, he's a fallen hero, but still a hero. Without him Ferelden would still have the Orlesian boot stuffed up its throat. He deserves to redeem himself, he earned that right with blood, sweat and tears. He's not a pure criminal, although his actions make him appear so. He has Ferelden in his mind, and he will die for it. Gladly.

Personally I don't disagree. I find him a rich and excellent character. A human noble however who holds him in part responsible for the ruthless murder of his whole family though? Who swore vengeance to his mother and father before being forced to leave them to die? Perhaps not quite so generous. Top that off with having dealt with the people he sold into slavery? 

I've got two playthroughs with characters who'd probably spare him instead of Alistair but I haven't finished either. One is a mage, one a rogue and I admit neither concept entertains me as much as warriors do. Oddly it's the Broken Circle quest that tires me of characters. While I find the Fade, Chantry vs Circle and associated politics to be one of my absolute favorte aspects of Dragon Age the dream section has started to feel like a run-and-grind. Was one of my favorite parts on my first playthrough and now my least favorite on replay. It's the shapechanging thing I suspect. Do this here, do that there, go back to the place you went before and use your new shape to find the thingy, etc.

Segue aside. I really like Loghain as a character, especially as an enemy. He truly is that which Wardens aspire to be in so many ways and every bit as effective as a Grey Warden would like to be - he's just not on your side. Competent, respected, ruthless and absolutely believes the end justifies the means.

Just like you're supposed to be. I like the feel that gives.

[grieferbastard]

melkathi wrote...
You are making excuses for Loghain there. He wanted to be in control of the beacon so he could choose not to light it. David Gaider has said that clearly.
He was just not jet commited to truly abandon Rowan's son until the beacon was lit. That moment he had to either abandon Cailan and the army or join them.

And Mary Kirby has already explained that Loghain could not tell, from his position when the proper time was for the beacon to be lit. If he could, then there would have been no need for the beacon. The player's delay in lighting the beacon is irrelevant to Loghain's decission. If it did anything, it gave him more time to agonize over what he'd do and to justify to himself abandoning the battlefield.

But from there on, I mostly agree with what you have said. Loghain is the better warden. Though it's not hard, seeing as Alistair must be the worst warden ever.
I am not as sure as you just to what lengths Duncan would go though. Sell elves into slavery? Extremley doubtful.

I hadn't seen those comments but it makes sense. He wanted his men there, but still. Until the beacon lit up he hadn't decided.

As to Duncan and selling elves to slavery.... suppose he needed X from the Tevinter in order to win. Without it his odds were slim if not 'none'. They wanted him to give them permission to enslave some elves - a hundred, maybe two hundred and they'd make sure the Blight was stopped. Would he do it? Yep. He'd hate it, but he'd do it. He's lied to everyone who's joined the Wardens. Killed how many in cold blood in the process? All but blackmails a dying man with the life and safety of his wife and child in return for releasing his son to the Wardens.

He'd do it. He'd do whatever he had to do to win. That's why he was in charge of the Wardens in Ferelden. He respected the stakes and was willing to make terrible choices.

Just like Loghain.

[mousestalker]

Sure and my city elf always sees to it that the guy who tried to sell her father into slavery dies for it. "To understand all is to forgive all" is utter nonsense.



And to indulge in a bit of Loghain bashing, it's one thing to ask others to sacrifice all for Ferelden, it's another to do it yourself. Up until he gets defeated in the Landsmeet Loghain sees himself as indispensable. He has a moment of clarity after he loses and realizes that he screwed up in that regard.



This song pretty much sums Teyrn Loghain Mac Tyr up.

[melkathi]

grieferbastard wrote...

 All but blackmails a dying man with the life and safety of his wife and child in return for releasing his son to the Wardens.

I went through that again yesterday. When Alistair starts talking about Duncan my HFN will want to punch him in the face.

Yes, Duncan can be a right bastard.

[Solica]

David Gaider wrote...

Solica wrote...
Loghain's men found the tunnels underneath, and they made the hole in the floor. The tunnel entrance is in the darkspawns way of advance (play RtO). At this point it's absolutely certain that the darkspawn will send scouting forces into the tunnel, when they come. Of course they will. There cannot be any doubt or any "That was unexpected" about that.

Err... no. The darkspawn burst up through the floor (via the ogre). Loghain did not dig a tunnel in order to flood the tower with darkspawn. You may think otherwise, but you'd be wrong.

I'm afraid that explains your comments more than it explains what we experience in the game. But there are still problems with the concept of "unexpected", even in your explanation..

If I try to enter the tower when I arrive at Ostagar, I'm stopped by a guard who says:

"The Tower of Ishal is off-limits. The men stationed inside are securing it now."

(private thought - how exactly are they "securing" it?)
If i insist on asking why the Tower is off-limits:

"By orders of Teyr Loghain. The tower is being secured by his men to be used during battle. I'm told they discovered some lower chambers, and they don't know how far down they go, so for now, everyone's to stay out."

(private thought - exactly who is "everyone" ? Well, we find out... )
...If we ask about the chambers:

"I didn't see anything like that when I was there, but who knows."

Well, obviously the guard there is not *in on it*, whatever "it" is.

But there are plenty of implications, beside the hugely obvious fact: - That the vulnerabibility of the tower is not unexpected. The guard is told things, to say, by "Loghain's men". We have no guarantees about these statements, other than that this is what Loghain intended people to know, wether it be true or not. But it still carries a strong implication that the entrance into the tunnel is discovered from the tower. So where is that entrance, if Loghain's men didn't make the hole? Sure, I mean, maybe your Ogre made it bigger, but...

And they have still days to plug the tunnels. The game-play fact is that they never "secured" the tower. And why did this claimed "securing" have to be done by a few of Loghain's selects? With no insight from anone else? Why is not a good portion of men mobilized to plug the tunnel?

And no, I never thought Loghain dug the tunnel. For one thing, he obviously doesn't have time enough, even less so with the few men he reserves access to the tower for. But I agree - if I'd thought that, I'd be wrong.

Modifié par Solica, 20 février 2010 - 12:38 .

[Solica]

grieferbastard wrote...
As to Duncan and selling elves to slavery.... suppose he needed X from the Tevinter in order to win. Without it his odds were slim if not 'none'. They wanted him to give them permission to enslave some elves - a hundred, maybe two hundred and they'd make sure the Blight was stopped. Would he do it? Yep. He'd hate it, but he'd do it.

- Except that Duncan didn't!

I must say that I grossly dislikes when arguments and justifications are built like this. Speculations about what you or I or person A, would do in some situation, is totally irrelevant for the guilt of those who really have done some despicable things.
In Loghain we have a villain we asked for, one who feels real. And obviously any real villain is a human, behind their twisted ways, with human perceptions, delusions, reasoning and motives.

And no, I don't think Loghain and Duncan are alike. And I think mistaking real characters, like that, would be dangerous.
I could make some historical parallels here, but I fear the consequences of doing so, so I won't.

I'll say this instead: Loghain's perceptions of reality and himself are twisted. He doesn't see the real Ferelden. He has his own personal concept (artistic, if you like), an idea he himself doesn't bother to try to understand, of what Ferelden is. So he's able to wreck havoc on Ferelden without second thought. All while he tells himself that he does it for the good of Ferelden. That, which he destroys, tortures and kills, is not his Ferelden, not his idea of what Ferelden is.
Likewise, his mind about what he shall do is maybe not, but his mind about 'facts' is made up far in advance and he never once question those. He lacks due diligence. He never does his homework, instead he's set on stubbornly smashing his actions and his beliefs upon the world, as if that would make them real.

Duncan's much different.

Modifié par Solica, 20 février 2010 - 01:21 .

[Highdragonslayer]

To be fair most of that army was demolished by the time the signal fire was lit.

[melkathi]

Highdragonslayer wrote...

To be fair most of that army was demolished by the time the signal fire was lit.

So no harm no foul?

[Solica]

Highdragonslayer wrote...

To be fair most of that army was demolished by the time the signal fire was lit.

Says who?
I've replayed that section of the game twice before posting this answer, just to check, and the video sequences contravenes that notion. The fighting is going well until the ogre emerges. The king is killed long after Loghain has marched off with his massive army. The Wardens are overwhelmed and massacred some time after the king is dead.

Edit: Then there are also the conversations with Morrigan and Flemeth after, which also strongly hint that the battle disaster occured after Loghain had abandoned the field.

Modifié par Solica, 21 février 2010 - 11:03 .

[CalJones]

There's a lot of blanks that we have to fill in ourselves regarding the battle, so there's a heck of a lot that is open to our own interpretations.



As for Duncan, I see him and Loghain as different sides of the same coin. Both are ruthless - we know what Duncan is capable of when we see him gut Ser Jory. He also keeps secret the joining ritual and its longterm effects, and yes, the way he recruits the human noble is not all that ethical (after all, the HN may well be the only surviving Cousland at that point - we don't know if Fergus made it or not - but Duncan doesn't seem to care about ensuring the Cousland lineage survives). He does this because he believes it's for the greater good. So does Loghain. They're both about the end justifying the means, even if the means are distasteful. I don't see them as being much different in that regard.

[Sabriana]

Everyone sees the battle different, or so it seems. To me, it looks as if it is going badly at the time the beacon is finally lit. What Morrigan says is hear-say or assumption, she wasn't there. Flemeth doesn't go into details, unless I missed a conversation option.



*****RtO spoilerish, watch out*******



If you watch/play RtO, you get a somewhat more conclusive answer from Elric, and what he says does not support the assumption that the battle went all that well.





****End of the spoilerish stuff*********



And indeed, my HNFs all had to be conscripted, they wanted to stay and defend their parents. They intensely dislike Duncan for black-mailing their dying father, for all but nixing their ability to bear a child, the nightmares, and the 30 years followed by the Deep Road.

My mage wanted to stay and take the consequences of her action. I guess she was still in shock to see herself betrayed by her good friend. She gets over it, and even understands it eventually, but right then and there she had to be forced into the GWs as well.

[Solica]

CalJones wrote...

As for Duncan, I see him and Loghain as different sides of the same coin. Both are ruthless - we know what Duncan is capable of when we see him gut Ser Jory. He also keeps secret the joining ritual and its longterm effects, and yes, the way he recruits the human noble is not all that ethical (after all, the HN may well be the only surviving Cousland at that point - we don't know if Fergus made it or not - but Duncan doesn't seem to care about ensuring the Cousland lineage survives). He does this because he believes it's for the greater good. So does Loghain. They're both about the end justifying the means, even if the means are distasteful. I don't see them as being much different in that regard.

They are much different. I've already gone into that, but obviously I failed to make an impression. Still, just grouping people under an "End Justifies the Means" -label doesn't make them the same.

In that particular context there is at least:

A - 'Due diligence'  vs laziness and wishful thinking.
B - Need vs convenience.
C - Does the end really justify the means?
(In Loghains case, there isn't any end that justifies his means. It's all just in his head.)
Edit: D - And the most damning of all: Did the end justify the means?

Modifié par Solica, 21 février 2010 - 02:56 .

[Sabriana]

There are much different for *you*. Others have different ideas. Neither yours nor their opinions are right or wrong.

The Loghain affair has been much discussed, and many different opinions were given. There is even a 50 page thread here somewhere, solely about Loghain. I think it's called "The complete defense of Loghain". Lots to read, but worth it to see the many, many opinions of others. Including quite a few posts by the creator of the character, David Gaider.

Everything is debatable, simply because there is no clear answer given. No one has clear facts. What you call 'justified' someone will call 'unjustified'. Your 'need' may not be theirs.

Again, if you watch/play RtO some answers might be forthcoming. Things might not be all in Loghain's head only.

It's still all rather nebulous though, that's the reason that no one can say "It is this way, because it is a given fact."

All anyone can say is "*I believe* it is this way, because *I think* this is what happened by the way *I* read the clues."

[CalJones]

This thread: http://social.biowar...83297/18#591250

(goes straight to the page with DG's comments on it, but there's a lot of discussion previous to that). It's a good read although you won't find any definitive answers. The game leaves us to draw our own conclusions and make our own decisions based on those. That's why it's so awesome.

[Solica]

Sabriana wrote...

If you watch/play RtO, you get a somewhat more conclusive answer from Elric, and what he says does not support the assumption that the battle went all that well.

Wrong. What he specifically says doesn't support that the battle would have gone well. But it's worth noting that he doesn't desert until after Loghain has left. It doesn't say anything about the situation when Loghain leaves. Only thing we know about that is that Eric found an opportunity to desert.
Otherwise, his rationalization and what he says is exactly what a deserter would say, whatever. So there's zilch 'conclusive' about it. Objectively.
But I'm quite sure though, that the late intention of the developers, with Eric's lines, is quite to put the notion into our heads that the battle maybe wasn't winnable. I don't doubt that.

Even should that be so, it's only relevant if Loghain knew this. All original experiencable evidence in the game, hints otherwise. Further, Loghain basically doesn't know anything at all, throughout the game. He lives in his Orlesia-paranoia inside his head. So why would he then suddenly know this? And look at how Cauthrien reacts, and how Loghain treats her. Is that a commander with a good conscience, confident with his decision? - Nope!

Modifié par Solica, 21 février 2010 - 01:23 .

[Solica]

CalJones wrote...

This thread: http://social.biowar...83297/18#591250
(goes straight to the page with DG's comments on it, but there's a lot of discussion previous to that). It's a good read although you won't find any definitive answers.

Thankyou. But of course I was here during that thread.

The game leaves us to draw our own conclusions and make our own decisions based on those. That's why it's so awesome.

And I made exactly that point somewhere, don't know if it was in that thread or some other.
What I'm doing here now, is discussing observable facts, and commenting on how they support or fail to support various notions.

[Solica]

Sabriana wrote...
What you call 'justified' someone will call 'unjustified'. Your 'need' may not be theirs.

Doesn't matter. Of course we need to put ourselves into our fellowman's perspective now and then. That's why we can build a society. But at the end of the day one still has to evaluate, make a judgement.

[Sabriana]

Semantics. Nothing but semantics and conjecture wrapped up in you personal opinion so it can be presented as fact. There are no facts. How you view what Elric says and how I view it are two different ways.

You have dug yourself into your position, and you will go to great lengths to defend it, such as throwing out words that are pointless, useless, and can be shrugged off as simple semantics. What you think, and what others think are assumptions, not facts.

I'm done with this. I swore to never touch another Loghain thread, but I guess I can be suckered in too easily, especially when someone starts pushing her/his assumptions and pov as pure facts.

See ya. Have fun slicing and dicing Loghain.

[soteria]

Semantics. Nothing but semantics and conjecture wrapped up in you personal opinion so it can be presented as fact. There are no facts. How you view what Elric says and how I view it are two different ways.

Actually, the fact that Elric is a deserter does put his testimony about the battle in question. Is it not in his best interest to argue that it was a losing fight and everyone was going to die anyway? That's not semantics at all. Desertion in time of war is punishable by death in any army of the world, even today.

[mousestalker]

As a side note, this game is written (and well written) to create as much doubt and uncertainty about issues like this as the writers think they can get away with. Great fodder for discussion, but no one will ever prove anything.

[melkathi]

soteria wrote...

Semantics. Nothing but semantics and conjecture wrapped up in you personal opinion so it can be presented as fact. There are no facts. How you view what Elric says and how I view it are two different ways.

Actually, the fact that Elric is a deserter does put his testimony about the battle in question. Is it not in his best interest to argue that it was a losing fight and everyone was going to die anyway? That's not semantics at all. Desertion in time of war is punishable by death in any army of the world, even today.

Same goes for anything Loghain says once you get him in the team. A lot of people will tell you how many insights you gain through talking to him. Truth is though, he has been feeding himself lies for a year by that time. And all of a sudden he stops because what, you gave him a Map of Ferelden and a Map of the Tervinter Imperium to keep him busy during the evening at camp? Now he is Mr. Reasonable who is completly cured of all his failings?
Funny though how anything that is taken as indication that bandoning the field was wrong, is missinformed and based on evidence that is not conclusive, while every testimony in favour of the other side is gosspel truth :innocent:

[Solica]

Sabriana wrote...

Semantics. Nothing but semantics and conjecture wrapped up in you personal opinion so it can be presented as fact. There are no facts. How you view what Elric says and how I view it are two different ways.
You have dug yourself into your position, and you will go to great lengths to defend it, such as throwing out words that are pointless, useless, and can be shrugged off as simple semantics. What you think, and what others think are assumptions, not facts.
I'm done with this. I swore to never touch another Loghain thread, but I guess I can be suckered in too easily, especially when someone starts pushing her/his assumptions and pov as pure facts.
See ya. Have fun slicing and dicing Loghain.

At least I'm being specific. You just stir the pot, hoping to make it gray. Semantics indeed.
But you do seem to read a lot into what I'm posting. You assume I have a position and am arguing this here?
No, I'm scrutinizing other's assumptions, and their possible foundations.
You see, from my perspective somebody suddenly says: "this and this!".  I go: "? really? - no you can't know that."

As I've obviously already stated, I have thoughts about which directions the developers intend to push these questions in further expansions etc. So those will quite likely 'prove' some people (other than I)  right. That doesn't matter for the comments on observable details in the game, sofar, I make here. (Nor does it matter for the more general comments on ethics and guilt I have also made).

[Sabriana]

Agreed, mousestalker, That's why this is the absolute last post I will dedicate to this.

Soteria, you see him as a deserter, and your back-ground allows you to see it in the army's point of view.

I see it as a dying declaration, and courts all over the lands have allowed that as evidence. He's dying. He's got nothing left to lose.

See? This is why threads like this will go nowhere. Simply because there are no facts, and everything can be seen with a different view-point. Which in turn depends on feelings, what was learned, up-bringing, socio-cultural aspects, religion, etc.

[Solica]

Sabriana wrote...

I see it as a dying declaration, and courts all over the lands have allowed that as evidence. He's dying. He's got nothing left to lose.

No he's got nothing materially left to lose. (I think a lot of people do care about how they are remembered). Still, lets say it's his conviction. But you think that his conviction must be true? Well, apart from that this is the conviction which some men, statistically speaking, will always have in such a large group as this army, regardless if it's reality or not, and that specifically this conviction would drive them to desertion (meaning his opinion is 'cherry picked') there's still the obvious possibility that this is just something he has convinced himself of, as self justification.

I'm sorry.  Regardless if it's true or not. It's still, just as I've already said, exactly what a deserter would always say.

See? This is why threads like this will go nowhere. Simply because there are no facts, and everything can be seen with a different view-point. Which in turn depends on feelings, what was learned, up-bringing, socio-cultural aspects, religion, etc.

And this feeling is called 'prejudice'. And personally, I like to scrutinize 'facts', rather than just cling to a feeling and go slapping my ears "lalala, ...can't hear you! this is what I want to believe." And even if we don't know, I'm still interested in specifically what we don't know.
And I'd rather go do something else (like play the game, for instance) than try to devalue or terminate a thread that makes me uncomfortable.

(infuriating, ain't I.  Sorry 'bout that.)

Modifié par Solica, 21 février 2010 - 02:50 .