510 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

Default137 wrote...

I'm going to be heavily amused if Alistar knocks up Anora, meaning it was Cailan who was shooting blanks.

I'll also be amused if Orlais does attack, and try to retake over which seems VERY likely at this point, because it will mean Loghain was right all along, then, also if Alistar or unhardened Alistar proves to be a Harrowmount choice, I think I'd be even more amused >_>

Then again, I'm a terrible person.

Why don't they have a word in English for taking pleasure in other peoples pain? Alastair being a bad ruler would make sense due to his extreme non-leadership during the campaign and his reluctance to rule.

Having a child of Celeste's claiming the throne as the heir of Cailan would be awesome.

[Vicious]

If Loghain knew what Cailan likely had planned, he would have killed Cailan himself.



If Loghain lives or dies is irrelevant to Ferelden's future however. If he klives, it is as a Grey Warden who will not last long before the Calling.



That said, many signs point to DA2 taking place in Orlais. Should be interesting.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ speedingpullet
Your entire argument can be summed up in 3 words: Cailan is king.

Yea, so what?
I said it time and time again, for Loghain and for Maric, it was clear. Loghain's loyalty is ultimately to Ferelden. Loghain was never afraid to say that to his King Maric, despite being his best friend.

So in the eyes of Loghain, it's clear. If a King is leading Ferelden to ruin, then that king must be stopped.
Yea sure, legally he is a trator. So what?
Maric was a traitor. Von Stauffenberg was a trator. Napoleon was a traitor. Caesar was a traitor. They all legally betrayed the regime that was ruling. So what?

I have already argued that "treason" has only the weight of the law. But you can't expect me to think bad of someone just because he is a traitor. I have to analyse the context, the intentions and details surrounding this act of treason to judge whether I deem it justified or not. Loghain's act was justified in my books.
Furthermore, he didn't want Cailan to die. Many times he told him not to fight in the frontlines, but Cailan refused. Many times did he tell him not to fight as Ostagar, and he refused. His death was his own doing.

Cutlass Jack wrote...
The problem with this, is that Loghain was proven to be utterly and completely wrong concerning the Darkspawn. If it had been up to him they never would have any troops at Ostregar at all. Also, the King did trust his General to follow the very plan he created for him. That plan was not Cailans, so you can see exactly how listening to his general worked out so well. Had Cailan followed his own instincts they would have waited til they had more forces.

Yes, he was wrong about the darkspawn. But it's noit his fault. He doesn't know how and why the Grey Wardens are necessary. He doesn't know that a Grey Warden can feel when a blight is coming. Why doesn't he know? Because the Grey Wardens never tell anyone. So can he truly be blamed for his ignorance?
Granted, it was an ignorance that could have cost him his country. But he wasn't responsable for it. Nor are the Wardens, their secret must remain a secret.

Loghain didn't want to fight at Ostagar, it was Cailan. Cailan's instincts was to bring Orlesian forces, and marry Celene (a smart move by Celene. Her marriage to Cailan would be better accepted if it was Orlais who saved Ferelden from the darkspawn). Thankfully that never happened. But we can clearly see that Cailan refused to wait for reinforcements from Redcliff. So no, your argument is wrong. Cailan wanted to fight.

Cutlass Jack wrote...

So yes, listening to your experienced generals is a good idea. Provided those generals aren't so blinded by old hatreds they ignore the threat right in front of them.

He isn't. His instincts proved correct. Orlais was planing something, but not a military invasion as he thought.
Had Loghain asked Cailan to invade Orlais for instance, then I would have agreed Loghain was blinded by hatred. But all that Loghain wanted was to protect his land out of love, more than out of hatred.

And don't dismiss Loghain's feelings towards Orlais as "old". The things that happened to him at the hands of the Oorlesians can scar a man to life. But despite this, he never wanted revenge.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2010 - 03:40 .

[L33tuberpwner]

I dumped Wahlistair and joined up with Broghain.

Since I married Anora and made Broghain take the ''Offer''.

I want to be able to call him Dad:wizard:

Modifié par L33tuberpwner, 23 février 2010 - 04:10 .

[speedingpullet]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ speedingpullet
Your entire argument can be summed up in 3 words: Cailan is king.

Yea, so what?
I said it time and time again, for Loghain and for Maric, it was clear. Loghain's loyalty is ultimately to Ferelden. Loghain was never afraid to say that to his King Maric, despite being his best friend.

So in the eyes of Loghain, it's clear. If a King is leading Ferelden to ruin, then that king must be stopped.
Yea sure, legally he is a trator. So what?
Maric was a traitor. Von Stauffenberg was a trator. Napoleon was a traitor. Caesar was a traitor. They all legally betrayed the regime that was ruling. So what?

I have already argued that "treason" has only the weight of the law. But you can't expect me to think bad of someone just because he is a traitor. I have to analyse the context, the intentions and details surrounding this act of treason to judge whether I deem it justified or not. Loghain's act was justified in my books.
Furthermore, he didn't want Cailan to die. Many times he told him not to fight in the frontlines, but Cailan refused. Many times did he tell him not to fight as Ostagar, and he refused. His death was his own doing.

Well, I don't have the benefit of having read the books so I only have the game, codex and RtO to go on.

'Kay, so let's start with 'Loghain's loyalty is ultimately to Ferelden' - what, exactly is Ferelden?
For the people that live in that world - the King is Ferelden. He's the embodiment of all the country is.

You can tell what a powerful symbol he is by the reactions of people just after Ostagar, when the rumor that the Grey Wardens had killed Cailen is still spreading. No one says 'ah, you guys must have had your reasons for killing the king...." - course not.
They either don't believe the rumor (at best) or want to run you through with a sword (at worst).
What's to make you think that people's reaction would have been any different if they already knew Loghain had done it?


I'm assuming from what I've read about Thedas that Ferelden was based on an Anglo-Saxon England circa 1300 or so. With Orlais being France, Antiva being and amalgem of Southern France/Spain/Italy and the Qunari being the precusors to the Moorish Empire.

In which case you're dealing with a Feudal world.....Feudalism is a power structure, not just a word for backward and old fashioned.
The Feudal world revolved around pledging loyalty - "fealty" in the language of the time.

Everyone - from the lowest knight, to the Earls and Viscounts (mixing my titles here, but you know what I mean) swore an oath of loyalty to the king and his hiers. For this loyalty, they were allowed to keep thier lands, holdings, servants and serfs to work their land. Land was power, as well as wealth.

In return, they were asked to provide a certain number of men, furnish them with equipment/horses/food/shelter/etc... for the king during times of war, should the king ask it. A knight would furnish maybe 5 or 6 other knights, a Baron more, all the way up the food chain...

Anyway, I digress - though suffice it to say I did one of the few Art Degrees in the world that required 3 years of Heraldry as a Core Course... ;-)
It was a cruel, undemocratic and inflexible system by modern standards - but it survived all over Europe for several hundred years - because it worked when people maintained loyalty.

So, anyway, my point being that to the people who lived in that society - the King was Ferelden. He was the embodiment of the country, he was the symbol they pledged their loyalty to, both as a ruler and as a national symbol. Much, much more so than today, the King was a symbol first and a human being second. Especially to the many people who would never meet him in person, which would be most....

To allow him to fall, or to leave him to his fate at his hour of need, no matter how pig-headed and cussed you might think he is - will be viewed as treason by 99% of the population of Ferelden.
No wonder Loghain tried to implicate the Wardens.....

Look, its obvious you like the guy - and I'm not going try and dissuade you from that.
But its interesting that all the seditious Generals you list all came to grief in the end, when their hubris and overreaching got the better of them. None of them ultimately succeeded in replacing the titular head they ousted.....

Despite the fact that I disagree with you - I'm really happy I've the chance to argue it with you in a civilized and respectful manner.

You've certainly made me think twice about Loghain, but ultimately I still need to have him dead, for a whole bunch of reasons...

[Cutlass Jack]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

So yes, listening to your experienced generals is a good idea. Provided those generals aren't so blinded by old hatreds they ignore the threat right in front of them.

He isn't. His instincts proved correct. Orlais was planing something, but not a military invasion as he thought.
Had Loghain asked Cailan to invade Orlais for instance, then I would have agreed Loghain was blinded by hatred. But all that Loghain wanted was to protect his land out of love, more than out of hatred.

And don't dismiss Loghain's feelings towards Orlais as "old". The things that happened to him at the hands of the Oorlesians can scar a man to life. But despite this, he never wanted revenge.

I think you missed what I'm saying. He was completely and utterly wrong about the battle that was directly in front of him. That had absolutely nothing to do with Orlais. Kings should listen to their generals in times of war, its true. But Kings decide which wars the country fights, not generals. While its true Cailan should not have been directly in that battle, its also true that he did trust his general's plan for it. So that trust was misplaced.

And you're making huge assumptions about the contents of those letters. There was nothing to indicate that Cailan was planning to leave his wife and marry Celene but assumptions. What we do know is that he wanted to see peace between those two countries.

I don't buy into the marrying Celene thing at all. Cailan loved Anora. And Celene loved Anora too, Proclaiming her "A solitary rose among brambles." Any diplomacy between Feralden and Orlais seemed as much Anora's work as anyones.

Eamon's concerns about his marriage likely fell on deaf ears. Cailan once said "My uncle Eamon is a man everyone thinks well of, when they remember to think of him at all." Hardly sounds to me like someone who's council he doted on. 

Edit: For the record, I do agree completely of your assessment of Loghain and his motivations. What makes his story so compelling is precisely how someone doing something for all the right reasons can fall so far.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 23 février 2010 - 04:58 .

[Suilebhain]

I hated Loghain and cannot wait for my city elf to get to the point where she does him in, right in front of that lying biotche Anora.

So far I spared him and let Alistair kill him. Next time, he goes down at my hand.

Death to the Shems! Heheh.

Modifié par Suilebhain, 23 février 2010 - 05:09 .

[Dansayshi]

I hate him too lol. Hes done good things in the past, but then for no reason he does what he did at the start. At the time I thought that he'd collaborated with the darkspawn in order to lead them up the tower and began to speculate that he may be succuming to the darkspawn taint and turning into 1 or something. Turns out hes just a dick.

[Sovereign 666]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He didn't feed his own people to the darkspawn. Rather, he was unable to bring order to the kingdom after the civil war, which led to many deaths. The banns who rebelled are to blame as well as Loghain. In fact, what were they thinking?
At least Loghain had a plan, what did the banns who rebelled have in mind?
If Ferelden didn't have the PC as hero, then Loghain was the only chance it had. He might have lost, but there was no alternatives other than the PC.

As for Alistair. He willingly abandons the fight against the blight if we don't agree with him. So he and Loghain are even. At least Loghain retreated due to strategic considerations. Alistair abandonned us because of his arrogance and foolishness.

Did you play the same game as me? Logain purposely abandoned the field leaving his king an thousands of soldiers to their death in a battle they would have won had he acted. He also set up his betrayal of the king well ahead of that battle with events that happened elsewhere. Howe's attack on Highever and poisoning Eamon were set up to remove two the king's most powerful supporters while keeping their forces relatively intact.

He thought those combined moves would be enough to avert Civil War. He was wrong.  Instead he caused the country to be split when it most needed to be united. Loghain had no actual plan concerning the Darkspawn. He refused to believe the blight was a greater threat than the Orlesians til it was far too late.

If you actually talked to him, you'd find out that  he left because he didn't have enough troops to win. You saw the horde the darkspawn had, do you really think loghain's group of 1-2000 could have turned the tide after the beacon activated 20 minutes late? Instead of throwing his life/ the lives of his men, he decided to retreat and try to find a way to protect his country.

[Cutlass Jack]

Sovereign 666 wrote...

If you actually talked to him, you'd find out that  he left because he didn't have enough troops to win. You saw the horde the darkspawn had, do you really think loghain's group of 1-2000 could have turned the tide after the beacon activated 20 minutes late? Instead of throwing his life/ the lives of his men, he decided to retreat and try to find a way to protect his country.

He knew this how at the time? The whole reason he needed the beacon was because his forces were hidden out of sight of the battle. There was no specific timing of when the beacon should be activated. You had to wait til the Darkspawn attacked and were in the trap. Might have been 20 minutes, might have been six hours. Without actually looking for himself how would he know if he had enough troops or not?

Loghain creatively recolors much of what he says during the landsmeet.

[Dansayshi]

Then he should of handled it differently, ie, not simply leave them to die, blame it on some1 else, be responsible for nearly causing a civil war, and attempting a powerplay onto a throne thats still warm.

He really was just a **** lol.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ speedingpullet
Again, your entire argument is: the King is Ferelden.

I strongly disagree and Loghain would strongly disagree. Ferelden is a people. A nation. Furthermore, this is in the Ferlden political structure, much like Britain after Magna Carta. It's a bottom-up monarchy and not a top-down one. The King was not Britain. Britain was much more than that. Same with Ferelden.
It's not an absolutist Monarchy. Only the French king could have said: "L'Etat, c'est moi".
And I would argue that Feudalism was a reciporcal arrangment between the king and his nobles. The absolutist monarchy came into being only at the 17th century.

But you missed my point. Yes, Loghain betrayed the king. Again, I ask, so what?
The people might think he betrayed his nation. But I do not. Even Maric knew better and did not reject what Loghain told him.

You are arguing from a purely "legal / tradition" point of view. You are entitled to of course. That doesn't mean at all that I have to consider Loghain's act of betrayal towards the king as an act of betrayal towards his nation. Nor do I have to agree that his act of betrayal was a crime.
I do not think it was a crime, nor do I think it was an act of betrayal against his nation. He betrayed Cailan only. Full stop. And by I, I mean myself as a person, but also my PC, taking RPying into account.

Perhaps you think too much black and white and for you, treason is an automatic wrong. But that would mean you have to consider Von Stauffenberg wrong, now don't you? Afterall, he was planing to assassinate the Chancellor that was democratically elected.

EDIT: and keep in mind that Loghain was a Teyrn. Teyrns have a certain amount of autonomy and are not bossed around by the king. It's a right given to him by Maric. If Loghain saw the king damaging Ferelden, it was in his right to stop him.
Cailan once listened to him, but now he didn't.

Cutlass Jack wrote...
I think you missed what I'm saying. He was completely and utterly wrong about the battle that was directly in front of him. That had absolutely nothing to do with Orlais. Kings should listen to their generals in times of war, its true. But Kings decide which wars the country fights, not generals. While its true Cailan should not have been directly in that battle, its also true that he did trust his general's plan for it. So that trust was misplaced.

Of course it has everything to do with Orlais. A battle has strategic implications that could affect the whole nation. Had Ferelden lost at Ostagar, which is what RTO hints at, it would have been easy pickins for Orlais. 
Loghain is not a tool to do what the king wants him to do if he doesn't believe it is for the good of his nation. Furthermore, Loghain was a Teyrn, as in the second most powerufl man in Ferelden. He isn't a tool to be bossed around by Cailan. This is in the Ferelden political structure.
He deemed what cailan was doing will lead to the ruination of Ferelden, so he reacted. Cailan was betrayed yes. Ferleden wasn't.

Cutlass Jack wrote...
And you're making huge assumptions about the contents of those letters. There was nothing to indicate that Cailan was planning to leave his wife and marry Celene but assumptions. What we do know is that he wanted to see peace between those two countries.

I don't buy into the marrying Celene thing at all. Cailan loved Anora. And Celene loved Anora too, Proclaiming her "A solitary rose among brambles." Any diplomacy between Feralden and Orlais seemed as much Anora's work as anyones.

Eamon's concerns about his marriage likely fell on deaf ears. Cailan once said "My uncle Eamon is a man everyone thinks well of, when they remember to think of him at all." Hardly sounds to me like someone who's council he doted on. 

They are not huge.

First of all, the developpers said that we will discover "Cailan's secret political agenda". That shows that Cailan is directly involved and that he has soemthign planned. If it isn't marriage, then prey tell me what it was.

Second, the letter with Celene is written in an "uncharateristically familiar tone" (rulers never talk to each other that way). And Celene talked about a "permanent alliance", which Cailan already knew about and had discussed with her.
If you choose to ignore the evidence right in front of you, then do so. But for me, it's pretty clear. The only thing missing is Celene saying "Marry me".

The letter was not written in an official or formal way. It was clearly only between Celene and Cailan. Anora didn't know aouot it. If this "permanent alliance" was not marriage, then why say it in an unofficial letter?

It's pretty clear. and if you refuse to believe the evidence right in front of you, then I am sorry but you would be very naive.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2010 - 05:54 .

[speedingpullet]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ speedingpullet
Again, your entire argument is: the King is Ferelden.

I strongly disagree and Loghain would strongly disagree. Ferelden is a people. A nation. Furthermore, this is in the Ferlden political structure, much like Britain after Magna Carta. It's a bottom-up monarchy and not a top-down one. The King was not Britain. Britain was much more than that. Same with Ferelden.
It's not an absolutist Monarchy. Only the French king could have said: "L'Etat, c'est moi".

OK, I don't want to dissuade you from your love of Loghain, but I'd just like to point out that the political structure after the Magna Carta was still Feudal... 
Plus, for the record - 'Britain' is, and has never been, a country.
You mean England.
I understand that you are not English, so I'll give you the point.
Just be careful conflating England with Britian, coz you're likely to get punched in the throat by an English person.
Just sayin.... 

And, to confuse matters even further - the French and English crowns at that point were actually the same. One of the reasons the Magna Carta was signed was because John managed to lose significant land and power in France, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory so to speak - and ceding land that been in Royal hands since Wililam invaded Hastings a hundred and so years earlier. 

[LadyDamodred]

Been reading a lot, but wanted to throw my two cents in.



Loghain is, to my friends and me, the perfect example of a tragic character. Having played through with all the endings, talking to him, reading the books, etc... I really do like his character. However, my PC also really hates him. I may have to leave him alive in one playthrough just to see him in Awakenings.



My favorite playthrough is of a HNF, so I'll discuss from that angle. In Ostagar, she was super psyched to meet Loghain. Here is this man who fought with her father, who is the Hero of Fereldan, who is why she can exist and live a happy life as the daughter of a teryn. Meeting him was an honor and she thought incredibly highly of him. Seeing the arguments between he and Cailan worried her, but in her mind, he is the best general we could have, so she trusts all will go well.



And then Ostagar happens.



Had Loghain come out of that and said, "Listen, the battle did not go as planned. I truly regret what happened both to our King and your Grey Wardens, but as the leader of the Fereldan army, I could not lead my troops into a battle where they would be slaughtered. What we need to do now is rebuild and make sure their sacrifices were not in vain." my character probably would have stood by him. She's not stupid. She understands stuff like that. But that's not what he did. Instead, as soon as he got out, he placed the blame squarely on the Grey Wardens, put a price on my head and sent his men to kill me.



Bwah?!



To say my character felt betrayed was a bit of an understatement. To her, it is completely bewildering, especially since with her background, he could have convinced her so very easily. And then the story progresses, and at every turn she sees Loghain doing things that, to her eyes, are completely insane. He is doing all the things he professed to hate and fought against Orlais for doing. By the time the Landsmeet comes, I think Cauthrien sums it up best. "His hatred of Orlais has driven him to madness." "Stop him before he betrays everything he once was." (I can't remember that exact line.)



He may have had solid reasoning for doing what he did originally, but it's like a terribly spiral into Hell. One bad decision led to another and another. No matter what he did, things kept getting worse and he couldn't back out. When Howe hires the Crows, Loghain is clearly not happy, but at that point, what else can he do? He is damned to follow the path he has placed himself on, no matter how much he might regret what is now happening. At the Landsmeet, my character allows Alistair to duel and kill him. Not only allows, but approves. To her, Loghain betrayed Fereldan, her King, her family, her fellow Grey Wardens and herself. A worse betrayal than even what Cailan might have done BECAUSE of who Loghain was. (And after RtO my character was incredibly angry with Cailan *if* everything was true.) Was it a tragic end for a man like that? Yes, and she was sad that he met an end like that. If she could have, she probably would have preferred a private execution to that of a public one at the Landsmeet, but it wasn't an option. But she mourned more the loss of Fereldan's Hero than the man he was at that moment.



As for Alistair's reaction if you let Loghain live, I understand completely. I look at it as if our positions had been reversed. Let's say I had been following Alistair around for a year, doing all sorts of insane things trying to save our country, falling in love with each other, etc... And right before we finally unite everything, he turns to me and says, "Oh, we're gonna make Howe a Grey Warden and he's going fight shoulder to shoulder with us to defeat the Blight." (I know Howe and Loghain are not the same, but as purely an emotional reaction, since Alistair's main beef was Loghain's betrayal murder of the man he saw as a father.) If Alistair had done that, I would have been done. I would have been out. I had lost everything. Everything! And I slowly pieced my life back together, finding a new purpose, finding a new family. And then the person I love more than anything else in the world stabs me in the back to put the person, who took everything from me in the first place, in a position of honor at my side?



No. Uh-uh. Not a chance. If that happened, I am done at that point. Maybe it is turning my back on my country and my duty. So be it. There is only so much betrayal and pain one can take before one breaks, and that would have been my breaking point. So I totally agree with Alistair's reaction because it makes complete sense for his character. Can my HNF see how having Loghain alive would be useful? Maker, of course she can. But you know, Templars, Werewolves and Golems are also useful, yet she didn't take them. Because she is not going to win by betraying her beliefs. She will not do what was done to her and betray the man she loves because doing that is betrayal. In the end, she will not do what Loghain did.

[KnightofPhoenix]

speedingpullet wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ speedingpullet
Again, your entire argument is: the King is Ferelden.

I strongly disagree and Loghain would strongly disagree. Ferelden is a people. A nation. Furthermore, this is in the Ferlden political structure, much like Britain after Magna Carta. It's a bottom-up monarchy and not a top-down one. The King was not Britain. Britain was much more than that. Same with Ferelden.
It's not an absolutist Monarchy. Only the French king could have said: "L'Etat, c'est moi".

OK, I don't want to dissuade you from your love of Loghain, but I'd just like to point out that the political structure after the Magna Carta was still Feudal... 
Plus, for the record - 'Britain' is, and has never been, a country.
You mean England.
I understand that you are not English, so I'll give you the point.
Just be careful conflating England with Britian, coz you're likely to get punched in the throat by an English person.
Just sayin.... 

Yes sorry, got confused there. I meant England.

Feudalism is not like absolutist monarchies though. In essence, it was almost a federation. And it was reciprocal, especially in England. In essence, the king was supposed to be "first amongst equals".
If the king did something completely against English interests, it was within the rights of the nobility and then the parliament, to oust him. That's what happened in the so called "Glorious revolution".

The concept of "The King is the nation" was only born during the rise of Absolutism, which is in the 17th century. And it was born in France.
The Feudal structure was not like that entirely.

But I never argued that Loghain betrayed the king.
And de Jure, perhaps he betrayed his nation. Let's assume.
But de facto, did he? I think not.

[Cutlass Jack]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Of course it has everything to do with Orlais. A battle has strategic implications that could affect the whole nation. Had Ferelden lost at Ostagar, which is what RTO hints at, it would have been easy pickins for Orlais. 
Loghain is not a tool to do what the king wants him to do if he doesn't believe it is for the good of his nation. Furthermore, Loghain was a Teyrn, as in the second most powerufl man in Ferelden. He isn't a tool to be bossed around by Cailan. This is in the Ferelden political structure.
He deemed what cailan was doing will lead to the ruination of Ferelden, so he reacted. Cailan was betrayed yes. Ferleden wasn't.

So we agree Cailan was betrayed by him, yes? I don't think his motivations for doing so were ever in question to me. Onward, since it seems we're on the same page.

They are not huge.

First of all, the developpers said that we will discover "Cailan's secret political agenda". That shows that Cailan is directly involved and that he has soemthign planned. If it isn't marriage, then prey tell me what it was.

Second, the letter with Celene is written in an "uncharateristically familiar tone" (rulers never talk to each other that way). And Celene talked about a "permanent alliance", which Cailan already knew about and had discussed with her.
If you refuse to ignore the evidence right in front of you, then do so. But for me, it's pretty clear. The only thing missing is Celene saying "Marry me".

The letter was not written in an official or formal way. It was clearly only between Celene and Cailan. Anora didn't know aouot it. If this "permanent alliance" was not marriage, then why say it in an unofficial letter?

It's pretty clear. and if you refuse to believe the eivdence right in front of you, then I am sorry but you would be very naive.

Just putting it out there, but Cailan spoke to me in an  "uncharateristically familiar tone"  in nearly every playthrough I've had. I'm pretty certain he didn't want to marry me. Its nearly impossible to talk to the man on a formal level in a personal conversation.

I think you're naive to believe a marriage between two rulers is the only way two countries can have an alliance. That's like the least likely method, not the most likely. If Celene had a daughter, that would be a much more likely scenario.

It remains to be seen what Cailan's 'secret political agenda' was. Until then we're really making huge assumptions. It wouldn't surprise me at all that Cailan had more on the ball than people gave him credit for.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 23 février 2010 - 06:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

So we agree Cailan was betrayed by him, yes? I don't think his motivations for doing so were ever in question to me.

Yes. But it was Cailan's doing that led to Loghain's betrayal.

Cutlass Jack wrote...
Just putting it out there, but Cailan spoke to me in an  "uncharateristically familiar tone"  in nearly every playthrough I've had. I'm pretty certain he didn't want to marry me. Its nearly impossible to talk to the man on a formal level in a personal conversation.

I think you're naive to believe a marriage between two rulers is the only way two countries can have an alliance. That's like the least likely method, not the most likely. If Celene had a daughter, that would be a much more likely scenario.

It remains to be seen what Cailan's 'secret political agenda' was. Until then we're really making huge assumptions. It wouldn't surprise me at all that Cailan had more on the ball than people gave him credit for.

First, we are talking about rulers of kingdoms that have been at war talking to each other in a familiar tone. That's normal?

Second, it was written from Celene to Cailan in a familiar tone. Here is the letter:
"(This letter appears to have been crumpled then carefully smoothed out and folded again)

Cailan,
The visit to Ferelden will be postponed indefinitely, due to the darkspawn problem. You understand, of course? The darkspawn have odd timing, don't they? Let us deal with them first. Once that is done we can further discuss a permanent alliance between Orlais and Ferelden.
-- "A note written in an uncharacteristally familiar tone from Empress Celene to King Cailan" "

The first letter, Celene did not talk that way. It was an official letter. The second letter was about Eammnon telling Cailan to marry someone else. The third letter is this.
It's pretty obvious what is going on here. Denying this is just hanging at straws. The evidence is clear.

RTO was supposed to reveal this secret agenda and it did: marriage. So it doesn't remain to be seen. It has already been revealed.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2010 - 06:17 .

[Cutlass Jack]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

First, we are talking about rulers of kingdoms that have been at war talking to each other in a familiar tone. That's normal?

Second, it was written from Celene to Cailan in a familiar tone. Here is the letter:
"(This letter appears to have been crumpled then carefully smoothed out and folded again)

Cailan,
The visit to Ferelden will be postponed indefinitely, due to the darkspawn problem. You understand, of course? The darkspawn have odd timing, don't they? Let us deal with them first. Once that is done we can further discuss a permanent alliance between Orlais and Ferelden.
-- "A note written in an uncharacteristally familiar tone from Empress Celene to King Cailan" "

The first letter, Celene did not talk taht way. It was an official letter. The second letter was about Eammnon telling Cailan to marry someone else. The third letter is this.
It's pretty obvious what is going on here. Denying this is just hanging at straws. The evidence is clear.

RTO was supposed to reveal this secret agenda and it did: marriage. So it doesn't remain to be seen. It has already been revealed.

It reveals they were discussing a permanent alliance. The word marriage does not appear at any point during that letter. What the letter says to me is that Cailan's 'secret agenda' was a permanent alliance. You are reading what's not actually said and treating it as gospel.

[goofygoff]

CalJones wrote...

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).

And here I thought I was all alone in my Candyman love! 

I, too, wish that my PC could have had some quality tent time with Loghain.  Yeah, Alistair was a nice boy, but my saucy mage needs a MAN. 


I love the fact that Loghain can inspire such debate between players.  Even though I usually stay out of it, I do enjoy reading others' (informed) reasoning for having him executed.  Especially because it's something I've been unable to do since my first playthrough.  Both from an in-game and metagaming perspective.

He's definitely my favorite character in the game, as well as one of the most complex, and I can't wait to see him again in Awakening.  *fangirl squee*

[KnightofPhoenix]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

First, we are talking about rulers of kingdoms that have been at war talking to each other in a familiar tone. That's normal?

Second, it was written from Celene to Cailan in a familiar tone. Here is the letter:
"(This letter appears to have been crumpled then carefully smoothed out and folded again)

Cailan,
The visit to Ferelden will be postponed indefinitely, due to the darkspawn problem. You understand, of course? The darkspawn have odd timing, don't they? Let us deal with them first. Once that is done we can further discuss a permanent alliance between Orlais and Ferelden.
-- "A note written in an uncharacteristally familiar tone from Empress Celene to King Cailan" "

The first letter, Celene did not talk taht way. It was an official letter. The second letter was about Eammnon telling Cailan to marry someone else. The third letter is this.
It's pretty obvious what is going on here. Denying this is just hanging at straws. The evidence is clear.

RTO was supposed to reveal this secret agenda and it did: marriage. So it doesn't remain to be seen. It has already been revealed.

It reveals they were discussing a permanent alliance. The word marriage does not appear at any point during that letter. What the letter says to me is that Cailan's 'secret agenda' was a permanent alliance. You are reading what's not actually said and treating it as gospel.

It doesn't say it outright. But it is implied. Otherwise, there is no reason for Celene to talk in a familiar tone. Rulers never talk that way to each other, as the first letter showed. 
And if this "permanent alliance" was not marriage, then why wasn't it written in an official formal letter? Why was it secretive?

It is implied and strongly hinted at. If you need the game to spell it out for you (which it kind of does. It goes out of its way to stress that it's "uncharacteristally familiar"), then ok what can I do.
But for me, it's pretty clear. The whole point of the DLC is to show us this and reveal Cailan's agenda. Which it did.

If you want, ask a developper or a writer.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2010 - 06:30 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Loghain's love for country turned lethal and destructive. I kill him in just about every playthrough except one or two. As a character, however, I do not hate him. He was a complete and utter fool, but in the purest sense of the word, I don't believe he was a "traitor". In his mind, now matter how low he sank, he was doing his bit for Ferelden, and depending on your perspective, some of his motives were quite justifiable.



It's debatable whether or not Cailan actually planned on dumping Anora and marrying Celene. the letters could be taken that way. It could also be that Cailan was flirting with and playing idiot king to lull Celene and wrap her around his finger. (doubtful it would have succeeded, since Celene seems far to cunning and ruthless a **** to ever fall for a ploy, but maybe Cailan at least thought he'd give it a shot. maybe he thought he was Rico Suave). In Eamon's letter, he seemed so pissed off at the idea of dumping Anora that he would not talk to his uncle for a year.



The implications of the letters could be taken either way, if you take other things into consideration. What would have been more confirming and damning/absolving was to see Cailan himself's response to said letters. Celene's familiar tone could have been an attempt on her part to try and butter him up and convince him to marry. We see precious little of Cailan's actual character and inner person to really say what his intentions were, or how strong a person he was. He did let Anora rule as far as administration and policy making goes, but it doesn't necessarily make him a complete tool. He could have done so because he wanted to focus on other things, and her way of doing business satisfied him enough.



He could have been alot more cunning than he is given credit for, playing the happy go-lucky glory hound with little common sense because he was playing the game from a very different field. Or, he really could have been a complete idiot. I think Cailan is one of those characters that the developers left enough room to make the arguement swing either way.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
It's debatable whether or not Cailan actually planned on dumping Anora and marrying Celene. the letters could be taken that way. It could also be that Cailan was flirting with and playing idiot king to lull Celene and wrap her around his finger. (doubtful it would have succeeded, since Celene seems far to cunning and ruthless a **** to ever fall for a ploy, but maybe Cailan at least thought he'd give it a shot. maybe he thought he was Rico Suave). In Eamon's letter, he seemed so pissed off at the idea of dumping Anora that he would not talk to his uncle for a year.

The implications of the letters could be taken either way, if you take other things into consideration. What would have been more confirming and damning/absolving was to see Cailan himself's response to said letters. Celene's familiar tone could have been an attempt on her part to try and butter him up and convince him to marry. We see precious little of Cailan's actual character and inner person to really say what his intentions were, or how strong a person he was. He did let Anora rule as far as administration and policy making goes, but it doesn't necessarily make him a complete tool. He could have done so because he wanted to focus on other things, and her way of doing business satisfied him enough.

He could have been alot more cunning than he is given credit for, playing the happy go-lucky glory hound with little common sense because he was playing the game from a very different field. Or, he really could have been a complete idiot. I think Cailan is one of those characters that the developers left enough room to make the arguement swing either way.

Eammon, Anora and then Loghain told us that Anora was the one controlling Cailan. There is little reason to think Cailan actually thought he is capable of manipulating Celene, a politcal masterminhd that makes Anora look like a child playing politics. And even if he did think that, he would have been even more of an idiot. Celene would have played him like a toy. 
He was pissed off at Eammon a year before his correspondance with Celene. A year can change a man alot.

As for Cailan's response to Celen' letter. Celene said "so we can further discuss a permanent alliance".
Thats' evidence that Cailan already talked about this and did not reject it. In fact, it hints that he approved.

I think the writers went out of their way to tell us what Cailan really is. Cailan, literraly, means "child". That's what he is. 
There is very little reason to think that he is a genius playing idiot. He could be, but the likelyhood of such a thing is very very very low.  
But this is mostly irrelevent. The guy is dead and whatever he (or Celene) was planning is dead with him. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2010 - 06:47 .

[speedingpullet]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes sorry, got confused there. I meant England.

No probs, mate. No harm done.
Its just a particular bug-bear of mine, which I try and rectify any time I hear it (which, here in America, is about twice a day)

Feudalism is not like absolutist monarchies though. In essence, it was almost a federation. And it was reciprocal, especially in England. In essence, the king was supposed to be "first amongst equals".

Absolutely true - especially amongst Nobility - who had a passing chance of being a king or the parent of a royal spouse/king.
Also true that the concept of 'nationhood' was less important than 'loyalty to the king' in Feudal times. Hence my scoffing at Loghain using the 'loyal to my country' gambit, and my insistance that his betrayal of his Liege was treasonable and deserved death.

If the king did something completely against English interests, it was within the rights of the nobility and then the parliament, to oust him.

 
Again, completely true - especially after John signed the Magna Carta, which gave nobles more autonomy from the throne.
But it would have been decided in the Feudal equivalent of a Landsmeet, not on the fly in the field of battle.
I'm guessing that the majority of the Nobles would have felt the same way, had they been aware of what actually went on oat Ostagar.

The concept of "The King is the nation" was only born during the rise of Absolutism, which is in the 17th century.

Different political structure, and different country by then.
But don't think that the Sun King was the only despot around... ;-)

Anyway, my point is the opposite - 'The Nation is the King' - its a small difference in the grand scheme of things, but its still a difference.

Modifié par speedingpullet, 23 février 2010 - 06:49 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

He could have been alot more cunning than he is given credit for, playing the happy go-lucky glory hound with little common sense because he was playing the game from a very different field. Or, he really could have been a complete idiot. I think Cailan is one of those characters that the developers left enough room to make the arguement swing either way.

Very well said. And you're correct that the Devs left quite a bit of room for interpretation on both characters. Purposely so.

For my own opinion, Cailain was a romantic idealist, but he wasn't the fool everyone thought he was. This became utterly clear for me on my second playthrough (The one where you catch more details because you have context of things you find out later). When he sends you to the tower to light a torch. What seems like the stupidest uneccesary duty in the whole battle ("See? Glory for everyone!") is actually a ploy to protect the bloodline in case the worst happens. Thats why he calls you into the meeting and not Alistair. He make's Al's inclusion seem like a casual thing, when in fact its the entire point. But watch his expressions carefully.

Off topic, but its why I almost always put Alistair on the throne (in various ways). I see it as the King's dying wish.

[KnightofPhoenix]

speedingpullet wrote...
Also true that the concept of 'nationhood' was less important than 'loyalty to the king' in Feudal times. Hence my scoffing at Loghain using the 'loyal to my country' gambit, and my insistance that his betrayal of his Liege was treasonable and deserved death.

 

Perhaps Loghain was ahead of his time and was a patriot. Perhaps the law at his time won't accept his state of mind (Maric did though). But I as an individual accept it.
Had Cailan been a respectable king, I would have rejected Loghains' actions. But Cailan had no redeeming quality to me, so I see no problem.

Of course, it will always be a matter of opinion. You think he deserves death for his betrayal of Cailan. I don't. We are both right.

speedingpullet wrote...
Different political structure, and different country by then.
But don't think that the Sun King was the only despot around... ;-)

Anyway, my point is the opposite - 'The Nation is the King' - its a small difference in the grand scheme of things, but its still a difference.

Louix XIV wasn't the only despot, but he was a new kind of despot. An absolutist monarch.

If indeed "The Nation is the King", then if that King is leading his nation to ruin, he should be removed. That's what Loghain thought.