510 réponses à ce sujet

[Witcha]

I don't know. Being the stubborn self-righteous type I think he would at least be adamant about getting to the bottom of the rape issue with the Arl's son. I expect he was prevented from physically entering the alienage on 'security' grounds, considering they were believed to be centres of crime and rebellion.



Still, neither Anora nor Loghain gave any indication they knew(or if they did, cared) about what went on in the alienages, so they were even less effective than Cailan in that regard.

[Ahisgewaya]

If you can keep a king out for "security" reasons you pretty much have that king in your thrall.

[Ahisgewaya]

And I also doubt Loghain or Anora cared even slightly about the alienage. The thing is though they never claimed to. Wanting to do good is not the same thing as having the balls to do what must be done.
If I was in a world with things as bad as they are in Dragon Age then to make it right I would be uttterly ruthless. Especially if I was an elf, considering where the elven people are (either in alienages or vagabonds in their own land).
This is also why I can't hate Loghain or even fault him for what he did. The one thing which is most important to him is his people, and he would and as you can see did just about anything to protect them.

Don't forget that in real life there is no "save" option.

As the actor for Loghain said in Baldur's Gate 2 as Jon Irenicus:
"You will do what you must, become what you must. Or others will pay for your cowardice."

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 27 février 2010 - 09:45 .

[Morroian]

goofygoff wrote...

Regarding the latter, I took Alistair and Wynne on my first RtO playthrough, and pretty much came to the same conclusion as Loghain. In fact, I was surprised no one in that group had anything to say about the matter, other than Alistair's, "Yippee Orlesians…Cailan was full of awesome!"  While it's not iron-clad proof that Cailan was intending to marry Celene, I believe the evidence strongly points that way.  But it was left vague enough that anyone can be right.
.

Strongly? At most its an interpretation. Its no stronger than maybe a marriage to another Orlesian. And I don't buy the familiarity in tone argument. Celene and Cailan could be on friendly terms without a marriage being involved.

As for those hoping for more Loghain in Awakenings I'll say it again given that he was killed a large number of players he will be nothing more than a cameo.

[Masticetobbacco]

loghain is a stubborn crackhole



I want to see him again so I can have the satisfaction of killing him again

[Phantom_1]

Morroian wrote...

Strongly? At most its an interpretation. Its no stronger than maybe a marriage to another Orlesian. And I don't buy the familiarity in tone argument. Celene and Cailan could be on friendly terms without a marriage being involved.

As for those hoping for more Loghain in Awakenings I'll say it again given that he was killed a large number of players he will be nothing more than a cameo.

First of all you cant know certain facts how many ppl killd Loghain in game based on fact of few posters in this forum,   since many ppl can have more characters and based on fact that there are also many which dont even post on this forum.
Should be also added that Loghain as character is much more complex and interesting than Alistair with also novels bout him,  so i think there is huge space open for possible content bout him.

I expect that he will play same role as Alistair in game for those ppl who dont have him.
Anything less than that would be  dissapointment for me.

[shedevil3001]

well unless you made alistair king then the role wont be quite the same

[totertot]

I liked Loghain more after RtO. His reactions to stuff there were great.

[totertot]

Morroian wrote...

Strongly? At most its an interpretation. Its no stronger than maybe a marriage to another Orlesian. And I don't buy the familiarity in tone argument. Celene and Cailan could be on friendly terms without a marriage being involved.

As for those hoping for more Loghain in Awakenings I'll say it again given that he was killed a large number of players he will be nothing more than a cameo.

I think I remember reading that this is explored more in Awakenings? 

[shedevil3001]

i wonder if its still explained in awakening even if you killed loghain or i'm knackered as i slaughtered that traitor after he rewarded arl howe even though he killed my hfn family

[Elanareon]

Loghain is a good man, i would've been able to forgive with all that excuses and motivations. But the fool sent assassins to kill me and put on bounty for Wardens. That's a big effing NO in my book!



The guy was arrogant! He thinks he can conquer all, which led to disastrous outcomes. Say what you will about his skills, talents, motivations. He made a mistake, a big mistake that could lead Ferelden to destruction. And i say that is worth his head. For the good of ferelden!



He was awesome at The Stolen Throne, but as history proved alot of men came tumbling down because of his arrogance.

[Elanareon]

And i still can't understand why he looks alot younger than Eamon. He should really die already or at least bed ridden, of old age if not beheading...

[Morroian]

Phantom_1 wrote...

First of all you cant know certain facts how many ppl killd Loghain in game based on fact of few posters in this forum,   since many ppl can have more characters and based on fact that there are also many which dont even post on this forum.

Sure I can. Its also based on what happens in the game, the fact that Loghain tries to kill you at every turn, the fact that you lose Alistair......... Its far more lilely that the majority of players killed Loghain than the opposite.

[nos_astra]

Morroian wrote...

Phantom_1 wrote...

First of all you cant know certain facts how many ppl killd Loghain in game based on fact of few posters in this forum,   since many ppl can have more characters and based on fact that there are also many which dont even post on this forum.

Sure I can. Its also based on what happens in the game, the fact that Loghain tries to kill you at every turn, the fact that you lose Alistair......... Its far more lilely that the majority of players killed Loghain than the opposite.

He may not live through the majority of first playthroughs but I think he may live through a great deal of subsequent playthroughs. Even if you don't buy the "good intentions combined with arrogance and ignorance make even the worst actions redeemable" approach you may want to see what he has to say at least once. Even I plan to spare him even though I'm an Alistair fangirl and just can't go against his wishes.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 février 2010 - 11:33 .

[Morroian]

klarabella wrote...
He may not live through the majority of first playthroughs but I think he may live through a great deal of subsequent playthroughs. Even if you don't buy the "good intentions combined with arrogance and ignorance make even the worst actions redeemable" approach you may want to see what he has to say at least once. Even I plan to spare him even though I'm an Alistair fangirl and just can't go against his wishes.

I have spared him in 1 play through as well just to see what he has to say. But otherwise you're pretty much confirming what I have to say. They simply can't have Loghain be much of a character in Awakenings for the same reasons they've given for not bringing back the characters we played through most of DAO with.

[Ahisgewaya]

Even if he's dead doesn't mean he can't make an appearance as a ghost.

[Witcha]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
...I agree to disagree when it comes to ethics. This isn't ethics.

Sovereignity and cultural identity. Those were what the Fereldans valued, and so long as the new imperial line of Orlais(which incidentally would be the same Theirin line the Banns swore fealty to) were tolerant rulers and gave them these freedoms they shouldn't have had too many problem with being part of a new united kingdoms.

I have no idea what you mean by that 'ethics' but if you have a problem with my views you're in tough luck because your 'intellectual' posts aren't going to change them. Either way I've had enough of this argument.  As far as I'm concerned Loghain was wrong and that's it. Have a nice day.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
We are talking about what Loghain could see and know. Loghain never talked to Riordan and all he has is the bad history of the wardens and an Orlesian army marching with them to Ferelden. I am pretty sure he knows that theere are Wardens in the imeprial court or the wArdens in the Anderfels.
Quite frankly, if he didn't suspect, he would be an idiot. But he isn't. He was right to suspect.

You're doing a complete U-turn here. That was my original point(that Loghain's paranoia was overdone) and you were the one arguing that he may have been right and the Orlesian Wardens really did serve political agendas. But since we agree here, fine.

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]Witcha wrote...

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
...I agree to disagree when it comes to ethics. This isn't ethics. [/quote]

Sovereignity and cultural identity. Those were what the Fereldans valued, and so long as the new imperial line of Orlais(which incidentally would be the same Theirin line the Banns swore fealty to) were tolerant rulers and gave them these freedoms they shouldn't have had too many problem with being part of a new united kingdoms.

I have no idea what you mean by that 'ethics' but if you have a problem with my views you're in tough luck because your 'intellectual' posts aren't going to change them. Either way I've had enough of this argument.  As far as I'm concerned Loghain was wrong and that's it. Have a nice day.[/quote]

And you expect a superpower to give that freedom to a backward nation?
Do you even know what sovereignity means? Sovereignity means having the complete freedom and capacity to make decisions, regardless of foereign pressures.
By being annexed by Orlais, that sovereignity vanishes by default. Because the crown is going to be centralised in Orlais, the much more powerful and wealthier nation. 
The banns swore fealty to the Thereins as they were the spearhead of Ferelden unification and later on indepedence. But they will not swear fealty to this line if it's going to forsake thir indepedence and sovereignity.

Their cultural identity can only strive with indepedence. Orlais is culturally much more sophisticated and should Ferelden be annexed, then Orlais' cultural influence would increase. It's axiomatic. Orlais would dominate trade, which influences culture. Orlais already dominates the Chantry, a very powerful cultural force. And with time, it can dominate demographically on Ferelden soil because it has a much larger population.

And I love this "shouldn't". Yes, that's how we base our decisions in politics. We pray that the strong is kind enough not to devour us weaklings while we join in what will hopefully be a union and not an annexation. I never thought political decision making was so easy. Now I wonder why in real life things like that never happen.

To better illustrate my point, I am going to resort to your Mughal example, one of the rare tolerant empires and show you how even that meant that the Rajputs, even though they benefited, lost their sovereignity and indepedence and some would say their honor.

The Mughal Empire by John F. Richards:
"Submission to the Timurid dynasty did not violate the Rajput dharma or inherited for moral code of conduct as set out in the bardic literature of the time....
 The brotherhood and the clan (Rajputs) rose in prestige and power as warriors in the Muhgal service......
For many thakurs, notably the Rana of Mewar, supplying Rajput noblewomen for the Emperor or princes was seen as disgraceful submission.  Those houses who offered brides had made the critical gesture of subordination......
In accepting Akbar's service, Rajput thakurs thereby accepted him as a Muslim Rajput who possessed far greater power and sovereignity than even the greatest Rajput masters...."  

So here you have it.
Even if Ferelden would benefit, it would be asymetrical compared to how much Orlais benefits. Nations are not interested in absolute gains (how much they get). They are rather interested in relative gains (as in how much they gain compared to others). This is especially the case with Ferelden as no nation threatens its security more than Orlais (for historical and geographical reasons). In addition to being much weaker than Orlais.

"Ethics" is the philosophy that deals about morals or what "ought to be". This is where everyone is entitled to their opinion, as there is no opinion that is false.

This issue on the otherhand is political. And as politics became a science, we study this hypothetical situation and come up with the conclusions. This is not about opinion, this is about logic and understanding how political systems, wether domestic, regional or global, work. Only in the realms of political theory could you talk abotu what "ough to be".
There is not a single paradigm, whether classical realism, neo-realism, neo-classical realism, liberalism , neo-liberalism, constructivists...etc that would argue that the "union" between Orlais and Ferelden wouldn't mean the loss of Fereldan's indepedence and sovereignity. Even the liberals, as idealist as they are, would promote trade agreements between the two nations and not a "union" / annexation.  

So I am sorry, but agreeing to disagree means, for me, that I consider your views on this particular subject valid. I don't.

That's the problem with many people. Cognitive dissonance and circular logic. They come in a discussion with a premise in mind (Loghain is wrong) and then they try to fit all the facts into this premise, without even trying to contemplate change, because "intellectual arguments" aren't good enough for them it would seem.
Not that it's relevent to me.

[quote]Witcha wrote...
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
We are talking about what Loghain could see and know. Loghain never talked to Riordan and all he has is the bad history of the wardens and an Orlesian army marching with them to Ferelden. I am pretty sure he knows that theere are Wardens in the imeprial court or the wArdens in the Anderfels.
Quite frankly, if he didn't suspect, he would be an idiot. But he isn't. He was right to suspect.
[/quote]You're doing a complete U-turn here. That was my original point(that Loghain's paranoia was overdone) and you were the one arguing that he may have been right and the Orlesian Wardens really did serve political agendas. But since we agree here, fine.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I didn't. SInce the beginning I was talking about Loghain's pov.
I said Loghain was right to suspect and that the Wardens could have been what he thought, because history shows it. He turned out to be incorrect at the very end, but that's politics. It's better to suspect and be wrong rather than to ignore a potential threat and be wrong about it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 février 2010 - 05:47 .

[LadyDamodred]

Witcha wrote...
Sovereignity and cultural identity. Those were what the Fereldans valued, and so long as the new imperial line of Orlais(which incidentally would be the same Theirin line the Banns swore fealty to) were tolerant rulers and gave them these freedoms they shouldn't have had too many problem with being part of a new united kingdoms.

Yeah, no.  While I may disagree with KoP on some of the conclusions he draws, I am in complete agreement about this.  What new imperial line in Orlais?  Orlais is a powrful empire.  There is absolutely no reason for them to replace their royal line with Ferelden's.  Even if the next ruler were a Therirn, what do you think they would be culturally?  Which parent do you think they're going to trace their royal lineage through?

Culturally, Ferelden and Orlais are completely different, with Orlesians seeing Fereldens as little more than masses of unwashed barbarians.  Do you really see the ruling nobles of Orlais not attempting to re-expand their influence?  Or bowing and truly respecting the barbarian king of their enemies?  Since Ferelden and Orlais are basically the DA counterparts to England and France, try picturing this happening with those two countries.  What do you think would have happened had a king like Richard I married a French queen like Eleanor of Aquitaine? An absent king more concerned with glory in battle than truly running his country and a strong, intelligent woman who could and did lead?  Which of those is going to hold true power?  (I realize not the greatest analogy since he did spend most of his time in France, but he was considered a true English king by his people)

In time, it would have led to a situation like the Hundred Years where England was seen as a vassal to the French.  That is what Ferelden would have become.

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 28 février 2010 - 05:46 .

[Vicious]

Yeah, no. While I may disagree with KoP on some of the conclusions he draws, I am in complete agreement about this. What new imperial line in Orlais? Orlais is a powrful empire. There is absolutely no reason for them to replace their royal line with Ferelden's. Even if the next ruler were a Therirn, what do you think they would be culturally? Which parent do you think they're going to trace their royal lineage through?



Culturally, Ferelden and Orlais are completely different, with Orlesians seeing Fereldens as little more than masses of unwashed barbarians. Do you really see the ruling nobles of Orlais not attempting to re-expand their influence? Or bowing and truly respecting the barbarian king of their enemies? Since Ferelden and Orlais are basically the DA counterparts to England and France, try picturing this happening with those two countries. What do you think would have happened had a king like Richard I married a French queen like Eleanor of Aquitaine? An absent king more concerned with glory in battle than truly running his country and a strong, intelligent woman who could and did lead? Which of those is going to hold true power? (I realize not the greatest analogy since he did spend most of his time in France, but he was considered a true English king by his people)



In time, it would have led to a situation like the Hundred Years where England was seen as a vassal to the French. That is what Ferelden would have become.

THANK YOU.

[LadyDamodred]

Thank you, Vicious.

And if I can expand on my thought to hammer the point home, where are these heirs to the throne(s) going to be educated? Val Royeaux. And where you are educated and by whom is what determines how you think. Those children would be Orlesian not Ferelden. And then whichever child 'ruled' in Ferelden would be seen as an Orlesian, not as an heir to the Therin bloodline.

Look at Americans and the English. Despite how close we are, children are educated very differently about what happened during the Revolutionary War. While it doesn't affect how we are now in a modern society, look at how it influenced the early 19th century. In a society like DA, things like occupation and generations of war tend to leave a lasting mark on a people.

Also, we Americans still hate France!  And there's no reason to!  They helped us win indepence from the English and we still carry that English grudge of hating France!  XD

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 28 février 2010 - 05:57 .

[BitterSweetAddiction]

Masticetobbacco wrote...

loghain is a stubborn crackhole

I want to see him again so I can have the satisfaction of killing him again

Amen. Killed him with every character I made.

[Dethanos]

Cultural identity? Nationalism?



These things justify placing a bounty on innocent men? They justify selling elves into slavery? Hiring assassins? Conspiring with murderers? Poisoning a sitting government official? Kidnapping a Templar in the performance of his duties? ...



Loghain was motivated by pride, nationalist pride as well as personal pride. He fought for abstract concepts and rationalizations with no regard for those he harmed along the way. He was a villain in every sense of the word.



The good he did in the past is irrelevant. You don't forgive a violent criminal just because he's a good man when he isn't hurting people.



The crimes committed by others in the story are irrelevant. They don't mitigate Loghain's crimes.



Yes, Loghain deserved to die, and I hope he burns in hell.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Dethanos, Taking into account his intentions, the context he was in, the circumstances he was faced with, and the fact that he is aware of how much he is sacrificing; then I say yes, his actions were all justified and understandable in my opinion. I have already argued and explained my position in more detail before, so I am not going to do that again.

But at least I stress it's only my opinion. I wish others would do the same.

[Morroian]

Dethanos wrote...
Cultural identity? Nationalism?

These things justify placing a bounty on innocent men? They justify selling elves into slavery? Hiring assassins? Conspiring with murderers? Poisoning a sitting government official? Kidnapping a Templar in the performance of his duties? ...

Nope they don't which is why the patriotism quote ia relevant. Yes its a cliche but cliche's are cliches precisely because they have their roots in truth.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Dethanos, Taking into account his intentions, the context he was in, the circumstances he was faced with, and the fact that he is aware of how much he is sacrificing; then I say yes, his actions were all justified and understandable in my opinion.

Given he had other options no they aren't. His actions demonstrably led to more strife, conflict and deaths than would otherwise have happened. He hid behind patriotism to wallow in his paranoia and endangered Ferelden to a greater extent than was necessary.