510 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Fourth, David Gaider said that Loghain did not seek to poison Eammon to death, but rather incapacitate him until the situation is handled, then provide him the cure. The proof in-game is that even when the demon is killed, Eammon still lives, which show that the demon was lying she wwasn't saving Eammon. 

Moot point. Whether or not Eamon dies, he's effectively removed from the picture.

Until the situation is handled, yes. Eammon was a bad influence on Cailan (at least in Loghain's mind) and as we find out in RTO, it seems he was even pushing Cailan to marry Empress Celene I, which is the single dumbest political move an idiot like Cailan could ever do.
So it's perfectly justified in my books.

Where in RTO does Eamon's letter say this? Because in the version I own the letter says nothing of the kind. ALL it says is that Cailan should consider putting Anora aside because she hasn't produced an heir, and that's it. There's no suggest of exactly WHO he should take at all. The only way one can get that is if one also reads the last letter and ASSUMES that the Empress is talking about a marriage alliance.

[errant_knight]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Well, I personally think that if you have sworn allegience to a king and you fail to follow that king's orders, abandoning him, you've commited treason, no matter how sensible it may seem at the time. It's possible for him to be correct, although that's not the argument I'm making, and deserving of execution at the same time.

Of course, it is valid position to execute Loghain solely because he is legally a traitor.
But that only has the weight of the law and nothing else.

"Treason" is a legal charge. Whether that act of treason is ethical / justified or not, or derserving of execution is another thing.
Technically, Maric committed treason against the puppet regime that Orlais put in place. Napoleon committed treason. Caesar committed treason. Claus von Stauffenberg committed treason. Heck, even Jesus committed treason. Wether their act of treason is justified or not (and most of them were) and whether they deserve to be executed for that is another question.

Plus, as I said before, Loghain said to Maric, his king right in front of his face, that his loyalty is ultimately to Ferelden and not its king. Maric approved, or at least did not reject this. So technically, Loghain did not betray his own personal oath to Maric. He betrayed Cailan, who in his eyes, was betraying Ferelden and everything that he and his father struggled for.   

EDIT: Mind you I am not saying you are wrong.
 Sometimes one is compelled to enforce the law, even if he sympathises with the one who broke it.

I'm making an assumption here, that when Cailan took the throne, the Banns. Arls, and Teyrns would have sworn an oath of allegience as part of the ceremony, as would his troops. I have no proof of that, but it's usually how these things go.

It's also really bad precedent to let generals decide which orders they'll obey, and which they won't.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ariella wrote...

Until the situation is handled, yes. Eammon was a bad influence on Cailan (at least in Loghain's mind) and as we find out in RTO, it seems he was even pushing Cailan to marry Empress Celene I, which is the single dumbest political move an idiot like Cailan could ever do.
So it's perfectly justified in my books.

Where in RTO does Eamon's letter say this? Because in the version I own the letter says nothing of the kind. ALL it says is that Cailan should consider putting Anora aside because she hasn't produced an heir, and that's it. There's no suggest of exactly WHO he should take at all. The only way one can get that is if one also reads the last letter and ASSUMES that the Empress is talking about a marriage alliance.

We have to take the 3 letters in context.
Thje 1rst letter is written in a formal, official way between the two rulers, like it should be.
The 2nd letter had Eammon telling Cailan to leave Anora and marry someone else.
The 3rd letter had Cailan and Celene talk in a "uncharacteristically familiar tone" (as the letter in the game says) and in informal way (Rulers never talk to each other that way) and discuss a "permanent alliance". It's pretty clear that they were talking about marriage. It isn't spelled out for us, but it was most probably the case.

Did Eammon tell Cailan to marry Celene I specifically? I don't know, that's why I said "it seems that he was pushing Cailan to marry Celene". There is a chance that Eammon had no idea that Cailan was planning to marry the Empress.

Of course Loghain didn't know any of that yet. So his problem with Eammon is that he was encouraging Cailan to bring Orlesian troops (which makes his involvement with Cailan's planned marriage to Celene more likely).  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 février 2010 - 09:36 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

errant_knight wrote...
It's also really bad precedent to let generals decide which orders they'll obey, and which they won't.

It's also a bad precedent to allow an idiot to rule over a nation and follow his every command even if he will destroy the nation.

Yes, it is a bad precedent. But sometimes, it is necessary. And more often then not, leaders should listen to their generals and not really act as if they know what the hell they are doing. We have too many examples of leaders screwing up because they couldn't listen to their generals who have more experience in war.  

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
It's also really bad precedent to let generals decide which orders they'll obey, and which they won't.

It's also a bad precedent to allow an idiot to rule over a nation and follow his every command even if he will destroy the nation.

Yes, it is a bad precedent. But sometimes, it is necessary. And more often then not, leaders should listen to their generals and not really act as if they know what the hell they are doing. We have too many examples of leaders screwing up because they couldn't listen to their generals who have more experience in war.  

To errant_knight's point, yes it's a bad precedent but, even though I'm not in the military, there comes a point in a battle when you have to trust your general's instincts. I am of the opinion that Loghain would have saved Cailan if he thought he could be reached. When your king is surrounded and unreachable, then you have to make a tactical decision. Whether or not Loghain had a limited view of the battlefield, it's unreasonable to think he couldn't see the numbers of darkspawn himself or at least have scouts reporting back with numbers. And as one of the developers stated, the horde was much larger than expected.

To Knight's point, we have too many examples of the opposite, too. History decides who is right.

[kshocker]

I personally have never let Loghain live, though while I'm going back and getting the 'traveller' or whatever achievement I might. My reasons are that Loghain did betray a direct order, when the beacon is lite, Loghain will send in his troops. I don't really care what his suspicions were, he used his position and the marriage of his daughter to seize power.



Now, did he think that Calin was dumb... probably. He reminded me of a 20 year old who hasn't gotten rid of the 'Invisibility' thought process yet. He wanted glory, and there is no glory to be had in a blight except by the Grey Warden who slays the Archdemon. You can win battles, but in the end you can't kill that Old God without the taint.



This whole thing could be seen as an underestimation of the darkspawn threat, as there was no sign of a dragon at that point, and righteous vengeance for Calin for thinking about leaving his daughter. It makes for a deep story, which many have viewed and expressed here, nevertheless... betraying the king should result in death. Whether it is a martyrs death or a traitors death, it is what Loghain deserves.



There was a chance that his troops could have saved the king, and no civil war would have erupted that weakened the nation, and if they didn't... then there wouldn't have been civil war. Loghain retreated the field and only his men survived to tell the tale, that makes anyone suspicious. Moreover, almost none of his men were injured (could be that none of them were on the field of battle) which makes it where one could almost assume that he pulled a Howe. (Though, that wasn't public knowledge I'm sure).



Basically, I'm saying Loghain made the smart choice... but ultimately a choice he knew could carry death. If somehow Calin had survived, he would be dead in a very public, very humiliating execution. Who should I be to deny him that death, and at least he dies with honor if you execute him. I just don't know about having him live on to fight the archdemon and the praise he gets for it let alone letting him live beyond that. As I said, I'm going to give him another shot at the end of this current playthrough that I'm doing to finish up the achievements in the game, but he will have to really win me over if he doesn't want to end up dying again to the archdemon.

[Gabey5]

im not. he needs to die and remain dead. his time has come and gone.

[Vespasian 91]

Loghain also seems to think that Cailan was going to marry Celene I.



(RTO with with Loghain video)



I myself could not care i think that we may just have to wait for DA;O 2 to fined out.

[errant_knight]

Monica21 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
It's also really bad precedent to let generals decide which orders they'll obey, and which they won't.

It's also a bad precedent to allow an idiot to rule over a nation and follow his every command even if he will destroy the nation.

Yes, it is a bad precedent. But sometimes, it is necessary. And more often then not, leaders should listen to their generals and not really act as if they know what the hell they are doing. We have too many examples of leaders screwing up because they couldn't listen to their generals who have more experience in war.  

To errant_knight's point, yes it's a bad precedent but, even though I'm not in the military, there comes a point in a battle when you have to trust your general's instincts. I am of the opinion that Loghain would have saved Cailan if he thought he could be reached. When your king is surrounded and unreachable, then you have to make a tactical decision. Whether or not Loghain had a limited view of the battlefield, it's unreasonable to think he couldn't see the numbers of darkspawn himself or at least have scouts reporting back with numbers. And as one of the developers stated, the horde was much larger than expected.

To Knight's point, we have too many examples of the opposite, too. History decides who is right.

I disagree entirely about Cailan's alleged idiocy, but we have a multi page thread about that, so I won't go into it here.

Cailan didn't order Loghain to do what he thought best, he ordered him to enter the battle. Loghain isn't the king, it's not his decision. Now, he can do otherwise, as he did, at which point seizing power and killing anyone who knows what happened is the best option for survival. But it can't surprise him, or anyone else, when he gets very dead when his coup fails.

[MuseMajora]

Me too! I can't wait to see Loghains head hanging from a giant pitchfork....you know, since I chopped his head off and all. Alistair for the win.



But in defense I have never let him live in any of my playthroughs yet, so I should probably give him a chance.

[KnightofPhoenix]

errant_knight wrote...
But it can't surprise him, or anyone else, when he gets very dead when his coup fails.

Never said that it can. In fact, he isn't surprised at all if you choose to kill him.

The difference is, I don't think he deserves such a fate. You think he does. Both positions are equally valid.

[Vicious]

I don't think Cailan was a fool, but to think that he could ever possibly outplay Empress Celene in a million years is a complete joke.



Loghain did him a favor, IMO. If Cailan truly WAS going to marry Celene, then he would have singlehandedly destroyed Ferelden.



No noble in Ferelden would bend knee to the Orlesians, because damn near ALL the Arls, Banns, and Teryns, FOUGHT against Orlesians and lost friends and family.





So... Yeah. Loghain did a bad thing, but if [and it's an IF] Cailan was truly going to marry Celene as implied... Loghain may well have saved Ferelden, after all.



It's all very interesting.

[CalJones]

Woot, more Loghain arguing!



Yes I'm very much looking forward to his cameo in Awakening. I'll have at least a couple of games where he's alive (one where my bad boy blood mage was romancing Morrigan, and another where Loggy will end up as father in lore to my Cousland - that's my current playthrough actually). In the others I carry over he'll be the sacrifice - I feel that's the most fitting ending to him actually. I'm not carrying over any playthroughs where he's been executed because I hate that outcome.



I like Alistair well enough - he's sort of sweet and adorable like a puppy - but he's not worth killing Loghain for. I'm with you, spotty - I'd romance him in a heartbeat (I'm 42 though, so the older man thing doesn't bother me. After all my previous Bioware crush was Canderous, and he's in his 50s. Rawr).

[zaim298]

I want both of them to live!!! I would love to have a pal like Alistair. And Loghain is the kind of men that you just must respect, a man among men.



The best way I can do this is by having Alistair as a king (sorry buddy) and recruit Loghain and do the Dark Ritual...in fact this is my plan for my 4th playthrough lol...

[errant_knight]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
But it can't surprise him, or anyone else, when he gets very dead when his coup fails.

Never said that it can. In fact, he isn't surprised at all if you choose to kill him.

The difference is, I don't think he deserves such a fate. You think he does. Both positions are equally valid.

Wow, a line of character debate that's come to a natural conclusion without acrimony, and with a certain mutual understanding! That doesn't happen much around here.

[Alandros]

I'm looking forward to calling him father-in-law some more on one of my characters. It's simultaneously creepy and funny.

[_Aine_]

Wow, I like both Loghain and Alistair, for vastly different reasons. I guess i can only come in threads like this and provide shock and confused stares since i can't adamantly argue that the other side is totally and completely insane. Darn it.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

The revelations at RTO are pretty nebulous and raise more questions than answer them. One could easily see the letters as saying two different things. About the only thing the letters confirmed for me is that foiling Eamons plans gives me even more satisfaction now than before.

[TotoroTori]

Is he going to come back a zombie?

[dunachar]

I don't understand, was it stated hes making a cameo ?



I really hope not, because i killed him every time......

[errant_knight]

dunachar wrote...

I don't understand, was it stated hes making a cameo ?

I really hope not, because i killed him every time......

I believe it was, but like Alistair--and possibly Anora, that will only be if he's alive. No revenant!Loghain.

Modifié par errant_knight, 23 février 2010 - 12:57 .

[elearon1]

Behindyounow wrote...

I kinda wished you could make him king at the end of DA. I hated Alistair and Anora.

I never would have made the guy king ... that is what got us into this problem in the first place ... but I didn't mind having him as a Warden - he was the one guy in the party I could throw down with and actually have his opinion of my improve ... it was fun having him around.

[Vicious]

I think Eamon was a scumbag, personally, and I hate working with him.

[Wishpig]

dunachar wrote...

I don't understand, was it stated hes making a cameo ?

I really hope not, because i killed him every time......

Yes, in the official FAQ it says he makes a cameo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vicious wrote...

I think Eamon was a scumbag, personally, and I hate working with him.

Though I don't think of him that badly, I definately do not think he is innocent like he wants us to believe. He is quite crafty and I give him credit for that. He had his way with Cailan to a certain extent and he wants Alistair on the throne to gain more power for himself and his family. A part of him wanting a king of Therein blood is for what he percieves to be the greater good, but another part is, imo, self serving.

There is an interesting contrast between him and Loghain. When Loghain is defeated at the Landsmeet, he challenges the vote via a duel, which by Ferelden law is his right. But he never asked his men to start a general onslaught.
What does Eammon do when he loses the Landsmeet? He calls his men to fight and resist arrest, disregarding the vote of the Landsmeet and effectively seeking to orchastrate a coup d'etat and renew the civil war.

Loghain's asking for a duel was his right. And he yields and dies with honor and dignity. Eammon's call for general onslaught against the Landsmeet is a direct violation of the very "freedom" and "tradition" that he was pretending to care about. 
By this action, Eammon showed himself to be a hypocrit of the greatest degree. Babling about freedom and tradition, until they are against him.   

I don't blame him really. But I am not fooled by him. I know what he seeks and my PC was delighted to deprive him of his goals.