^
Nope, The First Blight has records of non-Wardens killing the Archdemon. Only for it to return.
A non Warden dealing a seemingly fatal blow is not the same as actually killing the Archdemon. A "fatal" blow from a non Warden is like a freebie full restore.
And Maric knew full well as well. He is an Adult and the King, so if there is a problem with him guiding a Warden Expedition, it's on him, not the Wardens.
If someone were to invite your daughter to participate in a dangerous street race and she accepted, would you not have any misgivings then?
Unless I missed a record that established that the Order sanctioned the act and Drydan followed orders.
You missed the part where the Order appointed her into Warden Commander position. Her mistake is their responsibility.
"A non-Warden dealing a seemingly fatal blow is not the same as actually killing the Archdemon. A "fatal" blow from a non-Warden is like a full freebie restore."
No, it was an actual killing blow. But despite The Archdemon dying, its soul jumped to the Nearest Darkspawn and returned.
"If someone were to invite your daughter to participate in a dangerous street race and she accepted, would you not have any misgivings then?"
I would be in no poison to stop her if she were a grown adult and agreed to her own accord.
"You missed the part where the Order appointed her into Warden-Commander position. Her mistake is their responsibility."
No, I know that, but it was still Drydan herself that tried a coup and did not have any sanction to do so. And it was not the Order as a whole, just a rogue band that sided with Dryden.
No, it was an actual killing blow. But despite The Archdemon dying, its soul jumped to the Nearest Darkspawn and returned.
An actual killing blow that doesn't actually kill anything. What a paradox.
I would be in no poison to stop her if she were a grown adult and agreed to her own accord.
I asked if you would have any misgiving or concern at all, not if you would stop her given the chance.
No, I know that
And that's all I needed to hear. The number of rebel Wardens, Sophia's motives and whatever else mattered little to the people of Ferelden - what matters is that they rebelled at all, and the Order was accountable for the action of one of their Commanders.
It’s not a paradox. It’s a killing blow that destroys the physical body but not the soul.
My point is that the fault is not with the Wardens that Maric went. Because Maric went of his own accord and he is an adult that can make that choice. If there is a problem then that’s on him. Just like it’s own the gore up adult daughter whether or not she decides she wants to do something that comes with risks to her life. She choose to of her own accord.
Nope the other details do matter. Since Drydan was doing something that was not sanctioned at all by the order and only supported by a small few in Ferelden, the blame is not on the Wardens but Sophia Drydan.
Not to mention that was the only attempted coup in all of Warden history and it was centuries ago. So we can be very certain that no the Wardens are not evil conspirators interested in conquering Ferelden.
@NearLawlet13 "That's no excuse. Alistair had been a Grey Warden for six months prior to the story, and it only takes ten seconds tops to say "Only Grey Wardens can kill Archdemons, but we will die doing so. Anyone else, and the Archdemon would simply be reborn through another darkspawn."
Grey warden is a military order, as any military orders not all secrets are revealed to new recruits and not all revealed to the public. Do you know all the military secrets in your country? "Oh by the way, we store nukes at your backyard"
"Doesn't matter, the darkspawn could still enter Ferelden mainland through one of several Deep Roads entrances. West Hill fell earlier than Redcliffe, even though it was situated far to the north."
No, Duncan clearly said the bulk of the horde is at Ostagar and if this bulk of the horde going to north, Ferelden will fall. Luckily Flemeth saved two Wardens, if not, then what your precious Loghain will do?
"Says the one who idolize an idiot who failed to spare ten seconds to share the most critical, need-to-know information about the Blight to his own recruits."
Look at Jory when the first secret revealed, he don't even managed to drink Darkspawn blood. And depend on your choice on how to react on second secret revealed, that Warden life is short, one of the option is bad.
Why would they want to reveal their secrets to new recruits while there are a lot of senior Wardens who are ready to give away their lives? There is no need to rush on that. Oh...they all dead at Ostagar because Loghain...
I'm saying that it is a possibility that Loghain was planning the whole thing in advance since we have concrete evidence that he did poison Eamon pre-Ostagar.
But since you seem to believe Loghain trying to convince Cailan to stay off the battlefield nullifies all the evidence against him, here are two possible explanations for it.
A) Cailan's an idiot who's not hard to predict and Loghain is anything but. He was saying what was expected of him knowing full well that Cailan would reject him. It would look rather suspicious if you have a reputation for keeping the king's bad impulses in check and suddenly you go along with every foolish idea he has.
B) Loghain was testing Cailan. If he had listened to Loghain there would have been a good chance that he might have listened on the matter of the Orlesians too and there would be no need to kill him. "But what about Eamon?", I hear you ask. If Cailan had survived Loghain could have easily blamed that on Howe or Jowan himself and still eliminated one of his biggest political rivals who was friendly with the Orlesians.
And yes, I know that it is only speculation. It is all that we will ever have when trying to discern why someone said or did something. But they are two good explanations why he would say something like that while still planning Cailan's untimely demise.
Only if you look at the surface without bothering to look for deeper meaning.
Shrug. As I said, individually you can find explanations for everything (and apparently you did). Together there is not much wiggle room here because it would require every single thing I have listed to have the most favourable explanation for Loghain possible.
Major difference. Poisoning Eamon AFTER Ostagar would imply that it only became necessary after Cailan died...
Why would it become necessary at all if his intentions were pure? Eamon is his rival, not his enemy. Not at that point.
And that happened AFTER Ostagar.
Completely unknown. But we do know that Loghain A) doesn't punish Howe, which would show that he has good intentions when assuming the regency and B) doesn't seem terribly broken up over Howe's death.
And his declaration wouldn't be necessary if he didn't have to explain Cailan's stupid death...
If it was a strategic retreat that declaration shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Everyone knew the king was reckless and liked to take unnecessary risks.
Becoming a regent has nothing to do with claim or whatever.
You still can't just declare yourself regent just because there is no king. Bob the Farmer can't walk into Denerim and say "I am your regent now, you must all follow me". Anora at that point hasn't been affirmed by the Landsmeet and it's not her who declares him a regent anyway. Loghain lets the king die, then marches into the capital and says "I rule you now". Of course not everyone will go "seems legit" and follow suit. If he wanted to make himself look suspicious, that was the way to do it.
For all we know, Uldred might be bluffing,
He just happens to implicate the man who does exactly that kind of stuff all over Ferelden at that moment. If Uldred was the only one who claimed Loghain was in any way shady... sure. Together with all the other stuff however, his claim is pretty plausible.
In some instances, perhaps, but not at every turn. He acknowledged that the darkspawn horde was too dangerous for Cailan to be playing hero on the frontline, and he eventually admitted that the Blight was real when confronted in the Landsmeet.
So he downplays and exaggerates the Blight depending on his political needs in the situation and that doesn't seem suspicious? Fight from the front - it's too big. Let Orlesians help - not that big. Convenient retreat - too big to beat. Need everyone to follow your rule - major threat. Need to fight a civil war - not that big of a threat. Political pressure from the Landsmeet - yes, okay, maaaaybeeee it's a Blight.
His inconsistency on the matter doesn't really support your take.
Gee, I wonder why.
That's... not much of a question and I never argued that he should've just trusted them. Can we not shift goalposts here? Your claim was that Loghain might have acted differently if he knew the information that the Wardens withheld. I said that someone you are already suspicious of, divulging "secret information" that conveniently make them indispensable wouldn't really convince anyone.
This came from the same person who once dismissed that codex about the Fifth Blight being larger than any previous Blights as weak because it's the only reference we have.
Again, it has to do with source reliability. A single source can absolutely be unreliable. It can also be reliable. If someone tells you that Monday comes before Tuesday that's pretty reliable, because that's common knowledge, easy to verify and no one has a reason to lie about that. If someone some 20 years ago made some claims about things he saw, that is definitely not reliable on it's own. When we were talking about that codex I gave your reasons why the author of that codex may have lied and I gave you reasons how he could have told the truth in a way that did not support your claims. All you have to give about Ser Donell are meta reasons that apply no matter when he claimed Arl Eamon was poisoned.
A) Cailan's an idiot who's not hard to predict and Loghain is anything but. He was saying what was expected of him knowing full well that Cailan would reject him. It would look rather suspicious if you have a reputation for keeping the king's bad impulses in check and suddenly you go along with ever foolish idea he has.
A little far fetched, but I'll grant you that it's possible.
B) Loghain was testing Cailan. If he had listened to Loghain there would have been a good chance that he might have listened on the matter of the Orlesians too and there would be no need to kill him. "But what about Eamon?", I hear you ask. If Cailan had survived Loghain could have easily blamed that on Howe or Jowan himself and still eliminated one of his biggest political rivals who was friendly with the Orlesians.
Too many random factors in this explanation. Just because Cailan listened to Loghain about the Orlesian does not mean he might approve Eamon's assassination. Those are two completely different issues. He might try to shift the blame to someone else, but Jowan and Isolde's testimony would still cast suspicion on him; and I expect Howe, the snake he was, would have prepared some measures just in case Loghain betrayed him.
Shrug. As I said, individually you can find explanations for everything (and apparently you did). Together there is not much wiggle room here because it would require every single thing I have listed to have the most favourable explanation for Loghain possible.
And why should it be all or nothing? Loghain being responsible for one crime does not preclude his innocence of the other, and vice versa.
Why would it become necessary at all if his intentions were pure?
Because he knew Eamon, for all his merits, is a conservative man who would never see the daughter of a freeholder, however gifted, in power; and he knew Eamon held enough influence to rally the other disgruntled nobles against him and Anora.
If it was a strategic retreat that declaration shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Everyone knew the king was reckless and liked to take unnecessary risks.
It was necessary because not every nobles were present at Ostagar, and not everyone possessed Loghain's tactical prowess.
And no, Teagan outright rejected the idea that Cailan died in the pursuit of glory, even though that was exactly what happened.
You still can't just declare yourself regent just because there is no king. Bob the Farmer can't walk into Denerim and say "I am your regent now, you must all follow me".
Bob the Farmer can't, but a national hero whose daughter is the Queen? Why the bloody hell not?
Anora has the strongest claim to the throne before the revelation of Alistair, and her rule was acknowledged even by Teagan who challenged her father's authority (he called her by royal title).
He just happens to implicate the man who does exactly that kind of stuff all over Ferelden at that moment.
I didn't know Redcliffe and Denerim constitute as all of Ferelden.
Together with all the other stuff however, his claim is pretty plausible.
Sure, if you ignore the part where Uldred was found guilty of secretly goading the mages to rebel.
So he downplays and exaggerates the Blight depending on his political needs in the situation and that doesn't seem suspicious? Fight from the front - it's too big. Let Orlesians help - not that big. Convenient retreat - too big to beat. Need everyone to follow your rule - major threat. Need to fight a civil war - not that big of a threat. Political pressure from the Landsmeet - yes, okay, maaaaybeeee it's a Blight.
His inconsistency on the matter doesn't really support your take.
Or you could go with the Occam's razor.
He acknowledged the darkspawn incursion as a major threat, but he didn't believe it was a Blight - at least not until the Landsmeet.
I said that someone you are already suspicious of, divulging "secret information" that conveniently make them indispensable wouldn't really convince anyone.
Who's to say it wouldn't give Loghain pause before he decided to antagonize the Wardens? If I were him, I would keep the secret information in mind, at least - as the cost of ignoring it is far too great.
If I accepted the Ultimate Sacrifice and it turned out to be a lie, then shame on me for being tricked and that's that.
But if I ignored it and it turned out to be true, my mistake would doom the entire country.
If someone some 20 years ago made some claims about things he saw, that is definitely not reliable on it's own.
On its own? Maybe. But we found that tablet right above a great chasm filled to the brim with darkspawn, so it definitely wasn't an empty claim.
And why should it be all or nothing? Loghain being responsible for one crime does not preclude his innocence of the other, and vice versa.
I already only included his crimes/actions that I consider connected. Hence I didn't bring back his assassination attempt on the Wardens or selling elves into slavery. I only included what I consider indicative of him making a grab for power.
Because he knew Eamon, for all his merits, is a conservative man who would never see the daughter of a freeholder, however gifted, in power; and he knew Eamon held enough influence to rally the other disgruntled nobles against him and Anora.
He wouldn't need to worry about that unless he made a grab for power. If he called a Landsmeet instead of declaring himself regent it would have gone a long way in presenting his actions in a different light. He assumes regencey based on urgency and dismisses the Landsmeet as a waste of time, but takes no action against the Darkspawn whatsoever. He speaks of needing to restore the army, but instead weakens Ferelden by attacking Banns who won't follow him just because he told them to. That's what most of my argument comes down to: innocent people don't act like that. Cailan's death, Loghain declaring himself regent in his abscence, the removal of Eamon and the Couslands at a convenient time, using the Wardens as scapegoats for something that should be as straight forward as a battle that did not go according to plan, attacking nobles who don't fall in line, dismissing the Landsmeet, aligning himself with someone who kidnaps and tortures other nobles or their relatives in order to keep them in line and the complete abscence of any actions against the Darkspawn. If you want to apply Occam's Razor apply it here. Of course it could be a long string of unfortunate coincidences and political blunders. Or it's a simple power grab by a paranoid old general who sees his former enemies as a bigger threat than the Darkspawn already overrunning the country he claims to protect with his actions.
And all of this is only to determine whether he had ulterior motives or not. It changes nothing about the original question, whether or not be betrayed Cailan. The answer to that is still: he did. Literally. His motives don't change what he did. It's like calling into question whether Anders blew up the Chantry or Corypheus opened the Breach.
He made Cailan believe that he would come to his aid and then didn't. That's all that is relevant to make it treason. He may have had the best intentions. He may have done the right thing in doing it. None of it makes it not treason.
Had Loghain retreated and called a Landsmeet to determine who should become the next king or queen, or at least name a regent to command the army. And focus on the Darkspawn pouring up from the south, then Loghain’s retreat would actually be considered something tactical and a smart choice.
But instead he retreated, declared himself Anora’s Regent, allow Howe to be his right hand, blocked the military aid Cailan had requested for, had Eamon poisoned via an apostate that Templars where hunting, allowed city elves be sold into slavery, and may have been working with circle rebels to free them from Chantry Rule.
For a man that is not doing wrong he is building up quite the rap sheet.
Loghain keep on and on about Orlesian invasion, but Orlesian didn't invade Ferelden like...ever...Orlesian invasion is just Loghain's fake news.
It is clear that it just an excuse to topple the king and gain power, but he make a mistake because he plan it all during The Blight. He really underestimate the situation.
What do you think?