37 réponses à ce sujet

[OBakaSama]

Counterfactual was probably the wrong word, though i did have reason for it but I forgot. My bad. But what you did was go beyond what I claimed. You're within your rights to do so, but it doesn't change what Arl Eamon said at that time. The actual words said do not preclude the possibility of Anora ruling with Alistair. What he said later may well indicate he wants Alistair to rule alone, but that's in addition to the sentence I quoted off the top of my head. I never denied that Arl Eamon may have wanted Alistair to rule alone, but then it was not something I brought up.

If someone was to say "that chair is blue", it does not exclude that there is another chair that is red. It may be inferred that the person who said it believes there is a chair and that chair is blue, but it can't be inferred from that there are no other chairs, if you see what I mean. If that person then says "there are no other chairs", then it can be inferred that the person believes there is only one chair and that chair is blue. I was just pointing out that Arl Eamon's announcement that Alistair is to take his father's throne does not exclude Anora's ruling beside him. I never claimed that Arl Eamon wanted Anora on the throne at any point, though it seems that is what you seem to think I was claiming. You argue that Arl Eamon wanted Alistair to rule alone by using later dialogue. (Just to be clear, I think you're right on that matter. But that was not something I was claiming to begin with. If you thought I was, then you were arguing against something where no claim was made on my part.) Further dialogue may suggest that Arl Eamon wants Alistair to rule alone but not from that sentence which was what I was noting. Logically taking my Arl Eamon quote as A: if A then A. But you seem to go from if A then not-B, which to me is a non sequitur. You need the additional premise of B somewhere to reach the conclusion you wish to draw. (Apologies but my logic is rusty.) The additional premise would be the further dialogue of Arl Eamon's, which I have said I agree with you. But A alone does not give you the conclusion that not-B, and that was all I was observing. To draw the conclusion that he doesn't want Anora to be Queen requires that additional dialogue; dialogue that is not included in the sentence "So it's decided then, Alistair will take his father's throne." Where in that sentence does it read that Anora is to step aside? It doesn't. That was my observation of that sentence. What you argue for doesn't actually change what is said by Arl Eamon, to which we could go onto semantics and syntax. I think this is where the confusion between you and I lie. You're arguing semantically, whereas I'm arguing syntactically. They both stand. Syntactically there's nothing in that sentence which excludes Anora ruling with Alistair. Semantically, drawing from later dialogue, he may have meant something like "Alistair takes his father's throne and will rule alone". Does that clarify things?

Oh, and the conditions thing again. I've done that before and didn't get that dialogue, or at least I don't remember it. Does Alistair have to fight Loghain? You play on PC I gather, so I'm starting to think 'bug' on my 360 version. Either that or it was half a dozen playthroughs ago and I've forgotten. I'm going to have to find an old save file to confirm.

Gee, and the box says "quick reply"....

Modifié par OBakaSama, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:14 .

[saruman85]

Gotta agree on this one - always wondered why Eamon yammers on about Theirin blood (the phrase he uses on Alistair marrying Anora pre-Landsmeet is "they can present the most united front possible to Ferelden" or something) then suddenly only wants Alistair on the throne when you take Loghain out.

His obstinance is pissing me off ATM actually - I'm at the Landsmeet now as an HMN, I've hardened Alistair and convinced Anora to marry me, but right after Alistair kills Loghain, Eamon just pipes up and the dialogue above in Sarah1281's post plays without letting me butt in and become king. Any ideas why? I wanna be king, dammit! [/whine]

OBakaSama wrote...

Oh, and the conditions thing again. I've done that before
and didn't get that dialogue, or at least I don't remember it. Does
Alistair have to fight Loghain? You play on PC I gather, so I'm starting
to think 'bug' on my 360 version. Either that or it was half a dozen
playthroughs ago and I've forgotten. I'm going to have to find an old
save file to confirm.

And MY problem is that the same dialogue never stops playing...wanna exchange games?

Modifié par saruman85, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[OBakaSama]

Because you've hardened Alistair? A hardened Alistair is more receptive to be king.

No to the exchange, thanks. I'll keep my crappy version.

Modifié par OBakaSama, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:23 .

[Sarah1281]

I suppose if you take the one sentence and ignore the two sentences that IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW it without you getting a chance to chip in, then it doesn't preclude it. However, if Alistair says yes it goes:

Eamon: So it is decided. Alistair will take his father's throne.

Alistair: I accept this decision. I will be king, if the Landsmeet will have me.

Eamon: Anora, the Landsmeet has decided against you. You must now swear fealty to our king, and relinquish all claim to the throne for yourself and your heirs.

Alistair agrees to take the throne, Eamon says Anora needs to give up her claim. No possibility here for them to rule together.

If Alistair says no:

Eamon: So it is decided. Alistair will take his father's throne.

Alistair: Wait, what? No! When did this get decided? Nobody's decided that, have they?

Anora: So much for our plan to rule together. If Alistair would rather not have the throne, I am more than willing to take it.

Eamon: I hardly think you're the appropriate person to mediate this, Anora. Warden, will you help us?

Eamon clearly sees it as an either-or at this point and Anora even references the deal Eamon's trying to get out of.



I don't feel I was arguing semantics (for once) but rather looking at more than just one sentence. This is even in the same conversation. Well, until this post, I guess...



I also disagree with your 'there can be a red chair and a blue chair' analogy. I think it would be more accurate to say that there was one chair and we were trying to decide what color to paint it. Loghain is yellow, Alistair is blue, and Anora is red. Eamon says 'Okay, we spilled the bucket of yellow paint so that means that we're painting it blue.' No one is going to assume that what he really means is 'Okay, so we're going to paint it purple by combining red and blue.'



In the same way, Alistair agreeing that he will rule leads to Eamon immediately saying that Anora won't. It's very clear he just wants a pure-blue chair.



Finally, I've done the Alistair agreeing to take the throne on the XBox.



The conditions are, again:

1) Harden Alistair

2) Do not arrange for Alistair and Anora to marry beforehand

3) Have Alistair duel Loghain



I didn't do this with a character that romanced him and so I'm uncertain how that plays into it. I've heard that if he's in a romance at all he won't take it, someone else said this was only the case if he was romacing a HNF...it's just easier to not be in a romance at all at this point. It's been awhile but I think the time I did it I had a non-HNF romancing him to get his breakup speech post-Landsmeet and when I tried to trigger Alistair stepping forward it didn't happen so I reloaded, broke up with him, did the Landsmeet again doing the exact same thing and he did accept Eamon's decision.

[Sarah1281]

Gotta agree on this one - always wondered why Eamon yammers on about Theirin blood (the phrase he uses on Alistair marrying Anora pre-Landsmeet is "they can present the most united front possible to Ferelden" or something) then suddenly only wants Alistair on the throne when you take Loghain out.



His obstinance is pissing me off ATM actually - I'm at the Landsmeet now as an HMN, I've hardened Alistair and convinced Anora to marry me, but right after Alistair kills Loghain, Eamon just pipes up and the dialogue above in Sarah1281's post plays without letting me butt in and become king. Any ideas why? I wanna be king, dammit! [/whine]

Actually, he says it will present the most united front to the Landsmeet so he's just referring to 'Look at Anora and Alistair both agreeing that Loghain needs to go down' and once they agree - or are forced because you pull a coup - and Loghain is dead then he ceases to be an option and so even if the only reason the Landsmeet sided against Loghain was to see the pair co-rule it's a little late to change their mind. Eamon just stopped needing Anora and therefore felt free to try and make Alistair King just by declaring it and when that fails expects you (as a supposedly neutral party) to back up his decision.



See, if a hardened Alistair kills Loghain and is not romancing you or engaged to Anora then he'll always accept the throne. Just the same, Anora won't marry you if you kill her father. Since it's a little late to unharden him I think the easiest thing to do is go back pre-talk to Anora and convince her and Alistair to marry instead. This way when he kills Loghain he'll turn down being solo King and if you had the persuasion to convince Anora before you'll have enough to convince her to marry you on the spot.

[flagondotcom]

saruman85 wrote...
His obstinance is pissing me off ATM actually - I'm at the Landsmeet now as an HMN, I've hardened Alistair and convinced Anora to marry me, but right after Alistair kills Loghain, Eamon just pipes up and the dialogue above in Sarah1281's post plays without letting me butt in and become king. Any ideas why? I wanna be king, dammit! [/whine]

From the Wikia:
"If a "hardened" Alistair is chosen as the champion to fight Loghain at The Landsmeet and has not agreed to marry Anora, then  Alistair will assume the throne without further input from The Warden."

In other words, if you're a HNM, and you want to be king, either don't harden Alistair, or don't let him fight Loghain.

Remember that you can fight Loghain, spare him, and still marry Anora.  If you want Loghain to be killed  *and*  your HNM to end up as king, I think you have to have a non-hardened Alistair duel and kill him.  At least that's what I plan to do on that playthrough I never finished...

Modifié par flagondotcom, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:45 .

[Costin_Razvan]

To have a hardened Alistair not take the Crown after he kills Loghain you MUST tell him that you are planning on siding with Anora.

[saruman85]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

To have a hardened Alistair not take the Crown after he kills Loghain you MUST tell him that you are planning on siding with Anora.

I did. He said okay, disapproved -10 - and then took the throne anyway. By this point I was so pissed with him that I had him executed and married Anora. Maybe my game's just glitching...Sad, too, I actually liked the guy.

Sarah1281 wrote...

Since it's a little late to unharden him I think the easiest thing to do is go back pre-talk to Anora and convince her and Alistair to marry instead. This way when he kills Loghain he'll turn down being solo King and if you had the
persuasion to convince Anora before you'll have enough to convince her to marry you on the spot.

You, m'lady, are a genius. Thanks for the help guys. Screw the wiki - next time I need help I'll just come here first.

Modifié par saruman85, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:58 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

To add on Sarah's point, Eamon has reason, whether justified or not, to not want Anora to rule with Alistair. Remember the letters he sent to Cailan.

@ Kryy. Indeed, being Teyrna of Gwaren presents a great opportunity to the Couslands. In addition, I strongly believe that Ferelden's future lies at the sea. The Couslands control two litoral Teyrnirs (Highever and Gwaren), and if Consort, have large influence over Amaranthine and Denerim. That's al the Coastline.

Astute players will also remember that the Ferelden Civil War opposed the Coastline (Highever, Amaranthine, Denerim and Gwaren) to the hinterland (Bannorn). For obvious economic reasons, described as "old grudges" by Ignacio. So the Couslands will have to tread carefully and not give the impression that the Coastline are more important than the hinterland too much.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 juillet 2010 - 07:59 .

[OBakaSama]

To Sarah1281: The chair thing wasn't an analogy on my part, I was just trying to elucidate the form of the argument you appear to be using. I can see that we won't reach an agreement because you still don't seem to understand the point I wish to make. What you claim is correct. I didn't deny that and never claimed anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that the one sentence before the ones you use, cannot itself give you the conclusion you wish to draw, which you yourself have acknowledged. (You said you're not looking at the one sentence, but I am. I've been very explicit about that.) Your argument will go through once you accept the rest of the dialogue, but only after accepting the rest of it. I see no problem to be honest.



Oh, on that later dialogue concerning Alistair that would explain things. I didn't have him duel Loghain. I'll give that a try with my next human female noble run. (My female Cousland's going to be queen!) Thanks.

[Sarah1281]

I understand exactly what you're saying. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to argue that Eamon is not trying to put Alistair on the throne without Anora because his first sentence does not specifically say 'and Anora can go **** herself' when it's implied that he means that and his very next sentence explicitly spells out that he means just Alistiar.

[OBakaSama]

Righty oh. You say you understand what I'm saying, so there shouldn't be a problem at all. But you come back to this point suggests to me you still see a problem. I profess I don't understand why. I am not arguing for the interpetation that Arl Eamon wants Anora on the throne. I am not arguing for Arl Eamon not wanting Anora on the throne. I am arguing that that specific sentence, with no appeal to any other piece of dialogue, does not exclude the possibility that Anora may rule beside Alistair. (I have read that sentence syntactically as it were.)

If you accept standard logical argument, you will recognize that given A, given B and given C, it is possible to deduce that C. That is the form of argument you use. In each case that you reply, you appeal to B and C. That is my point which I understand you as claiming to understand. Your justification that given A, therefore C; or your apparent want to do so can't be made that way. At least not according to logical argument; it is, as I say, a non sequitur. That you appeal to later dialogue has also shown that it is not possible to present the argument that given A therefore C would only validate my point. As Samuel Johson is allegedly to have said about two women arguing 'they'll never come to agreement because they're arguing from different premises.' My premise is A; yours are A, B and C. What conclusion we want to draw are both valid given the way we are arguing. Your argument does not invalidate mine, and mine does not invalidate yours.

What you have offered is an interpretation of what Arl Eamon said, as is what I offered. Your strategy is to then use B and C to retrospectively read A as meaning what you mean. My strategy is just reading A with no further knowledge cannot give that interpretation, but it can if we take B and C into consideration. What you claim and what I claim do not conflict. There is no problem. I do not see a problem. I do feel however, that you don't really understand what I am getting at because you should realize that we do not have an argument between us. I've said that before and I'll say it again. The argument you present has tacitly implied that my point stands.

Something new: I will offer another interpretation of the immediate fallout of what Arl Eamon said though when Alistair says "Wait, what? No! When did this get decided? Nobody's decided that, have they?" as Alistair being reluctant to take the throne. Although what Alistair says is true as that decision hasn't been made, because all they've done is made the case for Loghain not being regent at the Landsmeet. (Though depending on how you play the game of course. I am assuming you get the 'perfect score' of everyone, except for that idiot Bann Coerlic, siding with the Warden.)

Anora then saying "So much for our plan to rule together. If Alistair would rather not have the throne, I am more than willing to take it." is pretty much as it seems. Anora would take it to mean Alistair is reneging on what had been agreed previously, and if so, she's willing to continue as Queen alone without him. Which if Alistair does refuse only seems fair.

When Arl Eamon says "I hardly think you're the appropriate person to mediate this, Anora. Warden, will you help us?" may represent an either/or, but I'm not so sure if it's between two choices as you suggest, that is between Alistair and Anora, but perhaps three (Alistair and Anora marrying as intended). (I don't think as a female Cousland you can then suggest marrying Alistair. I'm not certain on that, but I remember one playthrough as a female Cousland where that option didn't come up. I did try as a human female mage though, but they wouldn't let me. Bah.)

As is the way of forums I do believe we've been sidetracked from the actual purpose of this thread. (Given that there's a propensity for topics to end up back on Loghain probably means this is a nice difference.)

But back on topic though. I read somewhere that Anora and the Warden getting married ushers in a new golden age for Ferelden if there isn't a power struggle. Is that right? So suppose you play as the male Cousland, marry Anora and ask for title and riches...well, I think you can see where this is going. The Couslands become more 'powerful' but does that precipitate the power struggle? I think I'll have to give that a try....(Bye bye Alistair....)

Actually, marrying Alistair as female Cousland and not being in love with him.....

Oh dear....

[Sarah1281]

And I just said that I understood EXACTLY that. I just don't see why it matters that one sentence doesn't technically outright state that Anora can't rule too when it's implied and the next sentence makes it clear that that's what it means.

If this were an argument about whether or not Eamon likes/doesn't like Anora or whether he's trying to steal the throne out from under her despite the agreement to let the two rule together so he can give it to Alistair then I could understand that. What I don't get is what's the point in arguing over the semantics of one sentence when you seem to agree with me on Eamon's position.

I can not grasp the point of it and yet still somehow understand your argument, you know.

Edit: I mean, seriously?
Me: I don't think Eamon wants Anora on the throne and he's why.
You: I agree that he doesn't want her there but you can't conclusively prove it based on the one vaguely ambiguous sentence I'm going to present as evidence and ignore the part where he makes it clear he doesn't want her on the throne.
Me: Yeah, that's great. Why should I care? It's one sentence and he keeps talking.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:36 .