510 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubidox]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
If indeed Cailan was planing to marry an Orlesian noblewoman, then Celene had no reason to write to him in such a familiar tone. If Celene wanted Cailan to marry an Orlesian princess, she would still address him as "King Cailan" like she did in the first letter. But she is talking familiarly with him. That means that she is planing for him to marry her and not anyone else. Otherwise, a ruler never addresses another by first name.

Cailan marrying an Orlesian noblewoman wouldn't be as disastrous (although Celene's genius can turn anything into a threat). But the letters in RTO strongly imply that the marriage being planned was between himself and Celene, for the reaon stated above.

I see your reasoning, no doubt about that.  I guess what makes me look for other explainations is this:

Was Cailan really THAT dumb?  Dumb enough not to see what that kind of marriage would mean for his country?  No matter the persuasive powers of Celene I find it hard to believe that anyone with any understanding of the very basics of Monarchy would entertain the idea unless he had an unbelievable level of stupidity.

I mean we see in the game that he is a pretty "familiar" ruler.  I personally find it more believeable that the familiarity of the letter means that maybe he confided in Celene that he was looking for another wife and she played matchmaker?  Maybe he likes his possible "to-be" mother in law?  Would those explainations for the letters tone still paint him as a pretty naieve and basically stupid person? Yes, but IMO it's a much more believable level of dumb than him actually entartaining marrying Celene...

Without knowing a little more of Cailan's character I guess I'll just have to wait and see how the writers handle it, if they ever do. 

Without a doubt this thread has piqued my interest in Loghain, and I'm looking forward to my next playthrough where I had already planned to recruit him.  He's definitely a very polarizing character whose pathos increases the more you get to know him.

@Default137
I'm trying to decide if you're trolling or not tbh but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say:

This is how I see the difference:

1. A killing done in a moment of fear and confusion where the perpetrator gives himself up to face justice and fully accepts the consequences of.

2.  Willfully selling people into slavery to a foreign power to pay for a civil war that he had a big part in instigating?(this is if I accept that all his other actions were justified as you do)

That's what I mean when saying I think Loghain is a hero who snowballed into a villain.  His actions became darker and darker shades of grey until he passed what I personally define as the point in which it might as well be black.  Sten could have gone the same way and say, fought the Templars who came to arrest him, gone on a killing spree across Fereldan to find his sword, and committed more and more "evil" acts on his quest to find/protect something that he saw as part of his very soul, something that without which he can never return home.  He didn't though, and whatever his reasons I respect him for his actions.

That is an interesting point though, that there are similarities, and it made me think.  I guess I just have more trouble empathizing with Loghain because I'm a firm believer that some means cannot be justified by any ends.

Modifié par Dubidox, 24 février 2010 - 06:24 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Default137 wrote...

Mage Tower - He says he didn't do it, and Wynne agrees it was all Uldred here, not much more I can say.

Incorrect. Loghain absolutely cut a deal with Uldred to gain control of the Mage Tower. It was said directly. This plan was foiled by Wynne returning and telling what really happened at Ostagar. Thats when it all went to hell. No the whole abomination madness that followed wasn't likely in his plan. But nearly every plan of Loghain's went to hell in a handbasket. So nothing new there.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I won't bother responding to the "newcomers", as pretty much all their arguments have been addressed before.

About slavery. It's very easy to stick to morals now, but when your country is being ravaged, I am not so sure you will even remember any of your ideals.

Loghain did what was necessary. He needed money to save his country. What was the easiest, fastest way to get money? Sell elves. Simple. Logical.
About the people saying it's so horrible by Ferelden standards. Keep in mind that Loghain can still win in the Landsmeet even if you reveal his deal with slavers. So while they may think it's bad, they won't stand against Loghain just because of that.

What I will attempt to do is explain his act first, then justify it.

Explanation:
Loghain needed money and fast. That much is clear. In fact, even the redcliff emmissary in our camp tells us that they need money to buy decent equipment. 
Ferelden isn't rich. Ferelden doesn't seem to have any kind of special ressources. Lyrium trade is controlled by the Chantry only. Many Banns rebelled, so taxation money would have pummelled down. IT's a general civil war, so you get the picture. The state treasury is ruined.
So you have the elves. Second class citizens that no one really cares about. Elves who are too weak and insignificant to be of any use. They can't fight properly. And they can't even stand for their own rights. Naturally, that makes them an easy target.
Now before someone accuses me of saying "their weakness justifies the act", I will tell you that's not what I am saying. The weakness of a victim doesn't justify any act, it rather explains it, which is what I am trying to do in this section.
So selling elves is the fastest and easiest way to make fast money. And before any of you say "the harder path is better", I will say that no one would risk their nation by tking the harder path simply because it makes him feel good. That's in fact selfish.

On to the justification:
Before I justify Loghain's act, let me tell you what imo wouldn't be justified.:
- if Loghain was doing this to get money for his own personal luxury, it wouldn't be justified.
- If Loghain was doing this because of some racist ideology which believes that elves are animals, this wouldn't be justified.
- if Loghain was doing this in times pf peace, it wouldn't be justified.

So why is Loghain's act justified imo?
We have to take several factors into consideration.

Intention: His intentions are clear. He wanted money to save his nation. If a few elves have to be sacrificed for the good of all, then so be it. Ruthless maybe, but efficient and understandable. He wasn't doing this for his own personal luxury. And he wasn't doing this out of hatred towards the elves. Because not once did he say anything bad about the elves as a race. And is in fact willing to follow an elf Warden, or praise him / her before being killed. And if he had a small contempt of the elves, then you must blame all of Ferelden for this, for he wouldn't be the only one.

Context: It was civil war. As explained before hand, the state treasury was empty. So money is desperatly needed. In addition, it was in a context of urgency. Loghain needed money fast. There was no real alternatives. If you have an alternative, then please share. It's very easy to judge someone when you are not leading a nation and when you are not confronted with the same circumstances. Furthermore, as stated before, even though slavery was illegal, the people of Ferelden held the elves in contempt and never treated them as equals. Loghain was born in that environement. So if you want to blame someone, blame the whole culture. And as I said beforhand, the landsmeet can still support Loghain even after they find out he is selling elves.

Results in theory: Money is acquired fast. Money used to hire mercenaries and buy equipments. The army gets stronger and has a better chance to end the civil war and confront the blight. Would he have won? We don't know. Probably not. But it would have increased his chances.

All of these points taken into consideration, I say that, in my opinion, Loghain's dealing with slavery is justified. You can of course choose to call him a sociopath or evil or whatever names you can come up with. It will not change my opinion. Nor do I expect to change yours. Ethics is afterall a matter of opinion. 

What I would ask however is that people try not to say things like "There is no justification", "You can't justify"..etc. Because clearly, I can.

About poisoning Eammon, I already said, it was not his intention to kill him. The proof? Eammon doesn't die when the demon is destroyed, showing that the poison never meant to kill him. this isn't the most ruthless thing he could have done. Infact, I am surprised that he didn't try to kill him outright.

EDIT: Oh and before anyone tells me "but what if you are beign sold?".
The answer is simple. I would become partial and subjective should this happen to me. So I will of course protect my freedom.
However, there is something called "impartiality" and "objectivity". It is a state of mind where you look at acts and judge them impartially, using reason. So while I will certainly defend my freedom, I could still think in an impartial way and see that what they are doing may be justified. I still won't allow it. But I would understand it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 février 2010 - 05:04 .

[goofygoff]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Infact, I am surprised that he didn't try to kill him outright.

If he'd read Eamon's letter to Cailan sooner, he might have done just that. 

[Vicious]

One thing I find fascinating in this thread is that people say Loghain was evil for selling slaves to Tevinter, completely ignoring that:

* Elves are already basically one step away from being slaves in Ferelden.

* They ARE used as slaves in other countries, such as Tevinter [obvious] and Orlais. [Anora's servant is an escaped orlesian slave.]

* Bring it up at the Landsmeet and it doesn't do much. certainly not the outrage provoked at him for allowing Howe to do the nasty things he did, or setting a Blood Mage loose.



It's the most common argument against Loghain, and IMO the one that holds the least water - Applying real world ideals to fantasy world ideals. The fact is that in Thedas, Elves are second class citizens. Everyone except Elves are perfectly OK and happy with that. Only elf PCs can realistically be OUTRAGED by it. Hell, if that's the only proof you bring, you'll lose the Landsmeet each and every time.


Anyway I definetly enjoy this thread, posts that say something more than 'lol i killed him in every game and i've played the game 30 times.' which I quite frankly find sad... to play a game over and over and do the exact same thing... over and over... yuck.

Modifié par Vicious, 24 février 2010 - 05:05 .

[Curlain]

I'm afraid that doesn't really act as proof for Loghain not intending to kill Eamon. By the time you destroy the demon, it had,it seemed, saved Eamon and stabilized his condition, there is no reason to think he would die once the demon was gone, Jowan or the Mage Circle don't seem concerned unduly by the possibility of Eamon's death when the demon was destroyed. So nope, ingame you are left with the reason Eamon survived is because the demon saved his life, only with Gaider's posts can you go back and look at it differently, but nothing ingame caused this idea to occur at all.

As for the elves being weak or not a great fighting resource, the troops needed to stop the riots suggests they are hardly pushovers as a group, and Loghain of all people knows how good troops (particularly as skirmishers and scouts) they make, since such an elven force was a vital element of his own troops during the Orlesian war, so he knows they can be drawn upon to make an effective part of Ferelden forces. More likely explanation is that he couldn't rely on their loyalty.

As for my own opinion, Loghain is a dangerous person as leader, fine as general but terrible as a leader, his willingness to subject any part of his people to slavery to gain money for a civil war isn't justified imo, it's the view of a general, not a leader sworn (and who has a duty of protection as the feudal leader of Ferelden) to all people, That kind of ruthlessness becomes (and has been in history) a justification for to many horrific acts, and it nearly never actually is when looked at objectively.

And as far as the situation ingame goes, our own Warden's actions are very much the proof that Loghain's actions were unnecessary, extreme and horrific

Modifié par Curlain, 24 février 2010 - 05:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Curlain wrote...

I'm afraid that doesn't really act as proof for Loghain not intending to kill Eamon. By the time you destroy the demon, it had,it seemed, saved Eamon and stabilized his condition, there is no reason to think he would die once the demon was gone, Jowan or the Mage Circle don't seem concerned unduly by the possibility of Eamon's death when the demon was destroyed. So nope, ingame you are left with the reason Eamon survived is because the demon saved his life, only with Gaider's posts can you go back and look at it differently, but nothing ingame caused this idea to occur at all.

The demon tells you that if she dies, Eammon dies. So no, she didn't cure him. She pretended to keep him alive.

Curlain wrote...
And as far as the situation ingame goes, our own Warden's actions are very much the proof that Loghain's actions were unnecessary, extreme and horrific

Your warden wasn't leading a nation, nor supervising a treasury, nor confronted with a civil war. The two situations are incomparable.
And obviously the warden *has* to win. He could win even if he kills most of his companions. So that's not really an argument. Whatever the warden does, he can still win. But he isn't confroted with what Loghain is confronted.

[Phantom_1]

While i agree there is freedom of opinion its democracy after all i have feeling that some ppl just look this game throught tunel vision without considering all facts and deeper contects.

Fact we know :

- Nobody presumed there will be Blight only wardens could sense that nobody else, so was logical that time to have half army stationed on boarders with former occupators Orlais and half at Ostagar

- Someone mentioned that war against of Orlais was generations ago, that cant hold water if ppl from that time are still live healthy protagonist.
If we where on place on Loghain and witnessed what Orlasian did, and if our family was butchered on same way Loghains was i think we would understand Loghain actions better and would act defensively against Orlais.

- Loghain thinking was that kings place aint on frontline , he tried to reason with him but Cailan was to much of idealist and beleived to much in Duncans fairytales.

- In time of when Loghain should march in with his troops there was ( as i think it was ) some indicator that battle was lost, he couldnt save Cailan anymore , and decided that he will not sacrifise lives of his troops for nothing , and on function he was he couldnt let himself to be emotional bout his decisioun since he was responsible for lives of the army and for future safety of Feralden.

- He sold the elves which never did stand for themself and where second grade citizens , without all rights of other citizens in country which had tradition of elf servants , in time of war where the economy budget was desperately in need of money for the purpose of financing army for Feralden sake .
He didnt sold em in time of piece or to becomme personaly reacher as Knight stated above.

Modifié par Phantom_1, 24 février 2010 - 05:47 .

[goofygoff]

Phantom_1 wrote...

- Loghain thinking was that kings place aint on frontline , he tried to reason with him but Cailan was to much of idealist and beleived to much in Duncans fairytales.

Which, at the very least, blows the whole "he planned to leave Cailan to die all along" theory out of the water.  He not only tries to reason with him in front of you, the Warden, but when talking to others, it's mentioned that they'd been arguing about it for days. 

[Vicious]

Fun Fact: Conspiracy Theorists do not regard anything that goes against their beliefs as proof.

[shedevil3001]

yes but if you've read the stolen throne then you'd know that even just with a few men a war could still be won and loghain knew that too as was proven with a handful of knights and rowen he turned his back on cailan because he was arrogant and thought only he could defeat the darkspawn plain and simple

[Ke11iente]

Loghain's problem has always been that he's never been able to see anything from any perspective other than his own. He felt selling elves as slaves was justified, for all the reasons Knight of Phoenix stated, and probably more. That doesn't mean it was the right option for protecting the country.



Even if you ignore the morality question completely, there were better options he could have pursued, such as promising citizenship or greater rights to elves that would fight or work for him. Then you not only have free labor (you promise them rights instead of payment, a promise you can either keep or revoke later when your position is more secure) you don't have to deal with even more internal unrest (such as that which was created by the slaving) and you don't have to invite dangerous foreign elements into your capital city. You could also publicly gain the political and martial support of elves and elf sympathizers (while telling elf-haters behind doors that you're just manipulating the knife-ears into free labor and won't really give them the rights you've promised). This public approval and support would have benefited Loghain greatly since he seemed to do nothing but systematically ****** everyone off from the moment he took control. (He needed to hire a better PR person than Rendon Howe.)



The fact that Loghain couldn't find better options than selling his own subjects into slavery is proof he wasn't cut out to rule. He created more problems for himself for the sake of coin-- a very short-sighted endeavor, exemplary of every one of his "ruling" decisions. His ham-fisted myopia ensured that everything fell apart around him, right from the get-go.

He was always meant to be second in command-- a brilliant general-- but never a ruler.

[Kantarath]

Okay so I'm the sorta person who doesn't really have any morals. If I were in loghain's shoes I would have done all the same things (**** the welfare elves) but I can just never bring myself to let Loghain live. I always just think that from a RP perspective I should be too pissed off about all his attempts to kill me. Which is a shame because he really is my kind of person.



Even when I tried to play a good guy (which sucked because it kinda feels like being a ****) I felt that I couldn't allow him to get away with all his horrible (from a good guy POV) deeds.

[Tikkidew]

- In time of when Loghain should march in with his troops there was ( as i think it was ) some indicator that battle was lost, he couldnt save Cailan anymore , and decided that he will not sacrifise lives of his troops for nothing , and on function he was he couldnt let himself to be emotional bout his decisioun since he was responsible for lives of the army and for future safety of Feralden..

That's a really poor argument. If he was so concerned about his troops he wouldn't have even shown up to Ostagar in the first place. Even if he did show up to Ostagar with intentions of fighting then changed his mind, why would he wait till the battle started, more so, when they lit the beacon.

So ya .. whatever. All this Loghain love is hilarious. So many posts justifing this guys actions is hilarious. Not saying he wasn't a good man at one time. But seriously ...

[shedevil3001]

that was my point lol

[Curlain]

Vicious wrote...

Fun Fact: Conspiracy Theorists do not regard anything that goes against their beliefs as proof.

This is a fictional character we are discussing, not anybody real, so there is really no need to get heavy on people voicing other opinions or getting something different from the game, it doesn't make it a 'conspiracy theory.  And if it is, who cares, their allowed to voice it, it's hardly smearing the reputation of a real person, just giving their take on a fictional work (which happens in literary criticism all the time).

So no need to attempt to paint the person giving an argument as irrational, or just generalising their arguments, this in the end is, or at least should be a fun discussion of fans of the game/story about a fictional game character (so it really doesn't matter in the end is someone says Loghain was behind the Blight and is originally one of the Magisters that assaulted the Golden City, or is the Maker in disguise come to bring the end of the world) if you think their position is wrong then just argue why it's wrong.  But remember this should be just fun in the end, not that serious.

@ Knight - I remember the demon saying that, but at that point I felt she was simply saying what she wished to stay in control of Connor.  Again before I read that post nothing caused me to think she hadn't prevented Eamon's death, nor did any NPC see it as odd he survived.  Clearly with that post from Gaider it now appears to be the case, but for many ingame it was treated and reacted to throughout as a murder attempt so it does seem odd.

Modifié par Curlain, 24 février 2010 - 06:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ke11iente wrote...
Even if you ignore the morality question completely, there were better options he could have pursued, such as promising citizenship or greater rights to elves that would fight or work for him. Then you not only have free labor (you promise them rights instead of payment, a promise you can either keep or revoke later when your position is more secure) you don't have to deal with even more internal unrest (such as that which was created by the slaving) and you don't have to invite dangerous foreign elements into your capital city. You could also publicly gain the political and martial support of elves and elf sympathizers (while telling elf-haters behind doors that you're just manipulating the knife-ears into free labor and won't really give them the rights you've promised). This public approval and support would have benefited Loghain greatly since he seemed to do nothing but systematically ****** everyone off from the moment he took control. (He needed to hire a better PR person than Rendon Howe.)

He doesn't need labor (and for what presicely?), he needs money now. Something that the elves cannot provide him. What you say might be good for the long run. But we are talking about immediate benefits that Loghain needs. Your plan doesn't provide immediate benefits that could afford better equipments and more mercs.

And you are assumign that the elves would be fooled and that they would work for "rights". But history has shown us that people are more concerned about food and money than about rights. They are not going to give their labor freely, while they are living in poverty. Enlisting the elves seems more costly than its worth.

EDIT: Bhelen's plan with the castless worked because, while he provided them with rights, he also provided them with economic benefits because he can afford it. Loghain couldn't at that point in time. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 février 2010 - 06:44 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tikkidew wrote...
So ya .. whatever. All this Loghain love is hilarious. So many posts justifing this guys actions is hilarious. Not saying he wasn't a good man at one time. But seriously ...

Yes, people using rational arguments while daring to have an opinion different from yours is so hilarious. lawl

[goofygoff]

Kantarath wrote...

I always just think that from a RP perspective I should be too pissed off about all his attempts to kill me. Which is a shame because he really is my kind of person.

I can understand that. But from my POV, I let Zevran live and he attempted to kill me, so I can't use that as justification against Loghain. In both cases, a Godfather quote comes to mind: "It isn't personal. It's strictly business."

Which is why I don't understand why some people think Loghain will stab you in the back as soon as you make him a GW. He may be a lot of things, but I could never see him doing something like that -purely- out of petty vengeance. Especially since he's not all that particularly butthurt when you beat him in the Landsmeet. Quite the opposite, actually.

[john1022]

Hopefully I won't be seeing him again since I had Alistair decapitate him after I beat him into submission.. How could anyone let that traitor live, especially after he blamed the King's death on the Grey Wardens and tried to have me killed??

[shedevil3001]

thats exactly what i said in a thread lol

[Default137]

[quote]Tikkidew wrote...

[quote]So ya .. whatever. All this Loghain love is hilarious. So many posts justifing this guys actions is hilarious. Not saying he wasn't a good man at one time. But seriously ...[/quote]

Oh no, people have looked beyond cutscenes and saw that the actual character is well developed and nowhere near as bad as he is made out to be, and is trying to point that out to people who refuse to believe cutscenes can lie to them over several pages of a thread in a reasoned orderly debate!

HOW OFFENSIVE.

[Kantarath]

Im amazed no on else thinks slavery, assasination and king slaying are alright even without justification.

[Ultenth]

Lots of interesting back and forth in this thread, and it seems most people are sticking to their guns and not being persueded no matter what the other says. Loghain seems to be a very polarizing character, you either understand and like him, or you hate him. It's obvious that the writer loves him, which is why all the going back to post things that were in no way represented in game in order to put him in a better light. What's strange to me is that my char (in fact most chars I play and my usual outlook) is avery ruthless, willing to do whatever it takes type.



Yet in no way was there any wiggle rom for me that Loghain was the villian, a man blinded with his obsession to protect the country, and intent on choosing the most ruthless and wrong ways to do it. He's very much like Saren from ME, someone who feels that they are protecting something, but not willing to find a better solution, there are ALWAYS better solutions, if you're not lazy or just plain stupid. But he doesn't bother to do that, he just picks whatever is the first thought, acting on instinct without regarding fully the consequences. No matter what his intentions, the truth is that most of his actions cause the deaths of thousands of his own citizens, from redcliff to the mage tower to Ostragar, to outlying cities ravages by the blight to the people of his very own city itself.



His ineptitude and ego are the greatest threat to the country, not Cailans. At least Cailan was headed in the right direction before he was left to die, trying to defend his land against the blight. I can understand that Loghain did not have the gift of forsight, but he also equally lacked the gift of trust in anyone other than himself, believing he had all the answers when clearly he did not. All his actions were predicated on a lot of wrong-headed perceptions of what he thought would save his country, but the nature of evil is often people doing what they think is the right thing. Because they are unwilling to see the big picture and step back and realize what they are doing to what they are trying to protect, in the name of trying to protect it. Or to realize that thier "people" an fake idea drawn by boundry lines, are not the only ones with a right to live, all the people they sacrifice are people just like himself, and he is doing to others what was done to him, creating more monsters and broken people just like himself.



I guess people that simply like him though are going to defend his actions no matter what, but just because someone has good intentions or is trying to protect their people doesn't make them right, or good. Some of the worlds greatest sins on a large level were done for what the sinner thought to be "the right reasons". Unfortunately the "enemies" they slaughtered and the citizens at home they brutalized would probably disagree.



Lastly, this is the definition of evil:

e·vil   /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled[ee-vuhl] Show IPA

–adjective

1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.

3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.

5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

–noun

6.that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.

7.the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.

8.the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.

9.harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.

10.anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.

11.a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.

12.a disease, as king's evil.



Most of the definition revolves around bringing harm to others, and so by the very defintion of the word, a great many of Loghains actions, which do cause great harm, are easily regarded as evil, thus he is an "Evil Man".

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ultenth. The concept of "good" and "evil", as philosophical ideas, had many philosophies and thinkers attempt to define them. And the debate still rages on as to what those concepts mean, and if they even exist.

To copy paste the definitions of evil, while a ncie try, is very pointless and simplistic. You may like to use this very vague definition as your guide sure. But it's not going to cut it for me.
There is no definition of "good" and "evil" that can be  presented as fact like you are trying to do.

My religion believes intentions are very important for instance. You don't think they are.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 février 2010 - 07:29 .