Did anyone really regret their decision to kill Loghain Mac Tir after reading the Stolen Throne? I know this thread is way overdue, but it just hit me as I was re-reading the Stolen Throne. I found that I geniunely regretted killing Loghain after reading the novel; I realized what Loghain had lost and I felt horribly. I had just killed a hero; the best friend of the most respected King of Ferelden known: Maric Theirin. After reading that book, I have never let him die even though Alistair is quite possibly my favorite character in Origins.--Sjelen Kain (talk) 01:12, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Not really. The only time I've spared Loghain is for achievements. And I have read the Stolen Throne and yes, Loghain is a sympathetic character due to the events of the novel. But any sympathy I had for him evaporated after Ostagar. Whatever was heroic in Loghain died when he left Cailan behind and left the army to die. The hero is long gone, and now there is just a man consumed by bitterness, anger, hatred who plunged a country into civil war and nearly allowed it to be destroyed by the Blight. And then there were the City Elves being sold as slaves to the Tevinters and Howe's torture of the Grey Wardens and nobles who stood against Loghain. Even if he didn't order either atrocity, he knew about them and let Howe continue on his way. No justification can actually make that right. Not to mention that regicide is a crime that warrants death (he made absolutely no effort to at least get Cailan out of the battle, regardless of Cailan being a gloryseeking moron). In the end, a man like that, and its more of a mercy to kill him at the Landsmeet. --Madasamadthing (talk) 01:44, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
That's what I used to believe too; but over time I've come to the conclusion that he really does just want to keep Fereldan safe. He did so by any means neccessary; keeping to his character with nearly exact precision. I personally think that something just snapped in him when Maric died. When you do spare him, I find him to be an infinitely interesting character compared to Sten, Shale or Zevran. (Yes, I have gotten approval to 100 with them several times. They are not that interesting.) He truly shows signs of regret and wanting to atone for his crimes, especially when he volunteers to take the final blow to the Archdemon. I know many of his actions are unforgivable, but I just can't bear to end his life after reading The Stolen Throne.--Sjelen Kain (talk) 02:02, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Loghain was the Hero of Ferelden before the Warden, sure. That's the key word. He WAS the hero! he lost his way. Without Maric as a guide, Loghain was like a lost puppy, biting and clawing his way through the slums, trying to find the little piece of light and happiness. He never did. He let himself be dragged into a darkness and refused to come out. Only a strong kick in the head like becoming a Warden would give him a chance to come back to the light, but I wasn't willing to lose Alistair for someone I(my Warden) didn't even knew. I killed Loghain and i'd do it again.--Markurion (talk) 02:24, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
After reading this, nope, not at all. GabrielleduVent (talk) 02:43, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Not really, it made for a good story in the grand scheme of things. ----Isolationistmagi 04:08, March 14, 2012 (UTC) I guess I am alone in my opinion. I mean from time to time I let Alistair kill him, but I flinch everytime.....I used to hate Loghain with a passion before reading the book. I liked Alistair, but Loghain's dry humor made me laugh harder than anything most of the other party members said. There used to be an option to keep both Alistair and Loghain alive and in your party, but sadly; it was taken out. The dialogue can be found though.--Sjelen Kain (talk) 04:32, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
I do, and I totally wish Alistair wasn't such a brat so you could convince him to spare Loghain =p. But alas, it wouldn't work for game balance due to so many warriors plus I'm sure having to make such a decision as to one or the other is done for good reason. I think Alistair is the only reason why I regrettably killed Loghain though, and I made him do it since he was so dead set for it. I think after understanding Loghain's pragmatism, in both the books and the game, I can understand his choices even if I don't agree with them and therefore I’m able to sympathize with him. He had his reasons for everything, and they weren't done out of cruelty or spite toward anyone or anything, but out of pure pragmatism to the point of not looking to hope or faith or anything like that as plausible reasoning because those concepts are not something tangibly logical to him, and therefore cannot be counted on. This is the very definition of pragmatism, he just has it to a fine point, to which his actions through that ultimately lead to his downfall. I’d point out a bunch of examples to his reasoning behind everything, which I have done in the past, including abandoning Cailan, but then I’d make another essay out of his choices. So while I dislike what he’s done and the outcome of it all, I wouldn’t condemn him to death, especially when he’s so redeemable, and it’d be a waste of resources otherwise as Riordan mentions when suggested he be conscripted. Celsis (talk) 05:46, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Never read books, spared Loghain on the very first playthrough because he seemed much more interesting than Alistair (whose temper tantrum at that point did not help his case any). Had problems not sparing him in subsequent playthroughs because he proved to be more interesting than Alistair. Dorquemada (talk) 08:18, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not at all. I was a human noble in my first playthrough and spoke to him in Ostagar where he told me that he knew what Howe did to my family. After he betrayed the king, wardens and allied himself with Howe, I couldn't help but think that he, like Howe, betrayed the king to gain power. On top of that, he put a bounty on my head when I did nothing wrong, plunged Fereldan into civil war, attempted to kill Eamon and partook in several other bad stuff. This was enough for me alone to want him dead, not to mention how my most loyal comrade, Alistair, who stood by me no matter how much he disagreed with my choices, felt about him. Even if I didn't want vengence on Loghain, I wouldn't betray Alistair to have him recruited. I understand that Loghain was really trying to save Fereldan and that his fear and hatred to Orlay is justified, but the bottom line is that he crossed me and Alistair. --R0B45 (talk) 08:41, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
I have absolutelly no regret in executing him. He's a hero who became a villain. I could give him a chance to redempiton, but had absolutelly no desire. Any of my human nobles or elves cannot forgive him. My Cousland hated only Howe more and my Mahariel ans Tabris hated Caladrius only more. He allowed willingly them both to commit their crimes. I hate him for his treachery, but not so much to his daughter with his blood in her veins. I gave his daughter and Alistair the crown.
No. My Dalish elf Warden would always kill Loghain simply because he sells elves into slavery, and even dares to try and justify it. After reading the books, if it would be possible, I would like to call him out on how f*cking stupid he is before killing him again. I mean, seriously... he helped the elves and made the best archer squad in the damn rebellion, yet suddenly the elves only worth to be slaves?! Also there is absolutely no reason for him to give up on Rowan other than “woe is me, I value my country more than my own happiness”. At that point Maric would have gotten over losing his love even without a pity f*ck from Rowan and would have become a great ruler. That said, if my Warden was told that a warden is needed for killing the archdemon at that point in the game, she might have spared him.--SunyiNyufi (talk) 14:19, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
- My Warden is also an Elf, but from the Alienage. So when he finds out about his own friends, neighbours, family being sold into slavery and then hears Loghain try to justify it he always kills him (Loghain) personally. I would've done it more slowly if the game had allowed it. EzzyD (talk) 14:31, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
No. Never. Actually, reading Stolen Throne made me hate him more, not less. Whatever Katriel had done, Loghain had no right to withhold from Maric vital information. I do not forgive such betrayals, especially because he never atoned for that. Besides, my Cousland was dead sure that Loghain orchestrated the Highever massacre as a preparation for his coup at Ostagar, and having barely recovered from the Fort Drakon experience, he very much wanted to kill Loghain with his own hands. The fact that he himself was developing a tendency to brutal pragmatism only fuelled the decision. - A little off-topic: anyone thinks that Alistair overreacted at the idea that the man who was responsible for the deaths of the only family he ever had was to be spared? Try suggesting Ned Cousland that he should spare Howe - or rather not, you don't want to see what would follow. --Ygrain (talk) 16:19, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
- I spare him not because I am symphathetic towards him,but because I see him as another body to place between the darkspawn and my King (Alistair).The fact that he now has to take orders from someone He's done his damndest to kill is just a bonus.Oso27us (talk) 21:06, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Always thought he was respectable. It's always said that he was doing what he thought that was right not caring for the cost, as if that justified it. I call it bullshit. Slavery, conspiracy, dividing the country, performing a coup d'état, mass murdering and a allowing a pscopathic mass murderer to do what he wanted is unjustifiable in ANY circunstances. You know what they say: "If that's what the world needs to be saved, perhaps it would be better that it perish".
Mandalore 22:16, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the original poster and I are either just oddballs, or perhaps we just see the bigger picture, but it seems like no one here is the type to forgive those who are willing to atone for their crimes or those who are willing to admit when they were wrong (which Loghain does both). Well, what about all those potentially and sometimes unavoidable horrible things the Warden or Hawke can or must do? Why shouldn't your Warden pay for those crimes with death if you so believe that doing horrible things justifies death? Some unavoidable difficult decisions that the Warden must make is killing either the rightful heir to the Dwarven throne or killing the former Kings favored successor when both are loved by certain people. Having to choose between saving Amaranthine or the Vigil, leading to people dying in either one regardless, to which you get blamed for not saving the other. Siding with or against the Architect, doing either leads to both good and bad consequences. How about all those quests where you have to side with the Mages or the Templars? All of the damned if you do or damned if you don't types of quests lead you to make tough choices. You can argue your justifications of your choices all you'd like, but just like Loghain, he had to make tough choices and he made the decisions that he believed was for the betterment of Ferelden, just as the Warden or Hawke had to make theirs for the betterment of whatever cause they followed. Can you safely say that either choices are entirely right or wrong? All of their actions can be considered condemnable in some way, especially to the opposing side but yet, those choices are made. It just depends upon the perspective one is looking at.
Now for some of the more optional choices you can choose, things like killing an entire elven settlement with werewolves so they can help you defeat the darkspawn? Keeping Golems as slaves to use against the darkspawn? Killing innocent mages in the Circle of Magi to stop them? What about if you chose to spare Anders, or even recruit Sten? Both killed innocent people and did it to their knowledge with little remorse, and both admit to their crimes. If any one of you posters actually chose to do those types of things, how do you explain that without thinking of whom you've just killed or that you've supported people who have killed innocents? What if those people wanted vengeance on you or wanted your death? They'd have every right to condemn you just as you do against Loghain at that point. Even if you didn't chose any of those, simply look to my first paragraph on other decisions you've had to make. All I'm saying is, put yourselves in other people's shoes for once and maybe there will be more understanding. Celsis (talk) 07:07, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Atone? Admit that he was wrong? And where does Loghain do that before the Landsmeet, of his own free will? He very reluctantly admits being in the wrong in some parts, and is willing to die to atone, but this all only after he was FORCED to step down.
- However, curious as it might seem, you are right. In certain situations, the Warden can be held culpable, and follow Loghain's fate, if the game had offered the option. And, it would be perfectly fine with me. I quite wonder if ME3 somehow incorporates the choice at the end of the Arrival DLC, where there's the equivalent of burning Amaranthine situation which cannot be avoided, and Shepard can either defend himself saying that he had no choice, or agree to submit himself to the martial court after the war. I chose the latter. Had Loghain done the same after Ostagar, instead of framing innocents of his own treason, I would have spared him.--Ygrain (talk) 10:55, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
I haven't played ME3, so I can't really compare situations regarding that game. But in any case, I can't imagine many people who would immediately turn themselves in after choosing between the screwed either way choices, like saving Amaranthine or the Vigil. They'd have to believe that since they couldn't choose to save both, they are to blame for not saving the other and must be punished first and foremost. Those types of people are few and far between, so I can't expect anyone to really do that until they are forced somehow to face the consequences of their actions, but to be honest, why should they be blamed? Something had to be done, and thus it was done, and sacrifices are made in the process because of it, if the Warden chose to do nothing, both places would have been lost. So at that point, why should Loghain have turned himself in when he believed he was needed to save his country and that he did what was for its best interest? If he was taken out of the picture, how would he have gathered the armies in Denerim? He believed he was the only one who could do it, and he had his reasons to believe that, even though we all know he was wrong, he did what he thought was best given his circumstances. Once he was proven wrong in the Landsmeet, he completely admits he was wrong and even compliments the Warden. He says, "I underestimated you, Warden, I thought you were like Cailan, a child wanting to play at war. I was wrong. There is a strength in you that I have not seen anywhere since Maric died. I yield." Now if that's not owning up and admitting you're wrong, I don't know what is, and I think it takes a strong person to admit something like that after being utterly defeated. He could have been like Howe, and cursed you even on his dying breath, but no, once he was truely proven to have been wrong, he yielded and let you take the reigns. But my point wasn't about punishing the choices that people make, so perhaps I took the wrong approach. It was about understanding that all choices are shrouded in grey, and that you really can't place any situation in a black or white perspective and thus shouldn't rashly jump into the idea that everyone has to be punished just because they let something horrible happen, because often times, there is no way around it no matter what you choose, you simply have to try and understand where the person is coming from before unleashing whatever judgement you have.
In terms of condemning Loghain for abandoning Cailan at Ostagar, my opinion of Cailan is pretty similar to Loghain's, he's a child who grew up in a time of peace and with glorious stories of heroic feats his father did, he knows nothing of the costs of war, and thus glorifies it and revels in the idea of looking gallant while fighting off the bad guys like in the story books. He knew nothing of what Maric really suffered in the war, he's only heard of the valorous stories of them glorifying the feats that Maric did, when Maric himself knows it was anything but glorious. Sure he's a nice gentleman and all, but he's a weak ruler, so much so, that his wife Anora had taken up the reigns of rulership in his stead while he's off doing whatever it is he does. Ostagar was out in the middle of nowhere, and while it's a fortress, they were bringing the fight to the darkspawn rather than defending their area in more familiar territory where it is easier to defend, which is what Loghain would have done. There is nothing to gain from defending a fortress out in the middle of nowhere and to bring it that far away from anywhere simply to stop the darkspawn. They had already fought two waves of darkspawn, their numbers were low, and since they were so out in the middle of nowhere it was difficult to get backup and probably supplies. Yet here is Cailan who kept wanting to fight there anyway, not to mention in the front lines, to which Loghain disagreed on both accounts, since it was a stupid strategy and Cailan was putting himself in danger for his "glorious battle". Loghain didn't see a way of winning at this point, since they didn't have backup and his armies numbers were low. He didn't trust the Orlesians (for his own viable reasons due to their past relationships), but even if he did they probably would never have made it on time, considering how far away they are. When it came down to the last battle, the Tower of Ishal was overrun, thus delaying the Warden and Alistair's signal, by the time they had lit the tower, even if Loghain had charged, Cailan would soon be dead along with Duncan, since their deaths happened very soon after the beacon and they had been engaged with the darkspawn for awhile already, since they were on the front lines. It takes time to rush an army from the flank, and to reach the front from there, so Loghain would not have reached them no matter what. Loghain probably realized this, and did not wish to waste more men on another pointless fight that at that point he knew they couldn't win, and thus he abandoned Cailan to save what men he could. Flemeth said every man died at Ostagar but those who had left, I do not think Loghain's charge would have truly saved the day even if the tower was lit on time and he knew this as well and thus made the tough decision to save what men he could. He knew what men he had lost at Ostagar by abandoning them, he didn't do it lightly, but Cailan essentially created his own demise by being the naive king he is. So it was either have all of his men die at Ostagar, or save what he could have, according to him.
In terms of his distrust of Grey Wardens, he really didn't have any reason to trust them. They were essentially myth for the longest of times in Ferelden, and their reputation was stained by the events with Sophia Dryden. Then, in The Calling, they come out of nowhere and expect Maric or him to risk their lives on a wild goose chase after a man who may or may not be dead based upon something they haven't fully divulged to them and expecting to be trusted. Then Maric disappears on him because of these Grey Wardens and now he has to take over for Maric and explain to his son that his father is gone plus explain to everyone else. Maric then reinstates them back into Ferelden, but they are still few in number and very secretive. He has been given no reasons to believe in them except upon faith of the goodness in humans I suppose, but he does not use faith and hope as a good indicator of choices because again, he's very pragmatic. As to why he used the Grey Wardens as a scape goat, well, sadly, he didn't believe them as a viable way to save Ferelden, for above reasons and because the Grey Wardens were known not to take on other people's causes due to their higher order, so how could he have trusted them? They had no allegiance to Ferelden or anywhere, and they were strangers who I guess he might have thought were easy to use so he could continue to try and protect Ferelden. Obviously he errored very severely on this, and is utterly proven wrong, but based upon their past, I can understand why he thought the way he did. I do not personally agree with a lot of his decisions, but I also use faith and hope as good reasoning for my decisions, like Maric does when agreeing to go with the Grey Wardens, which can be either foolish or not, but it's a decision that people must make. Celsis (talk) 07:32, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- I’ve been into Loghain’s vices a couple of times, so I’ll try to be brief. I think I understand pretty well Loghain’s reasoning, yet I cannot condone what he did and why he did. In general, he chose to take the most pragmatic, brutal and ruthless path, without giving any concern to anything and anyone. If you get in Loghain’s way, you get crushed. I do understand that there are situation where there is no good solution, not even the option of lesser evil, but my main grievance with Loghain is that he does not bother to search for any. Was selling elves the only single way to raise the funds? Was brutalizing the opposition the only way to bring Ferelden to his cause? Was there no other way to present his actions t Ostagar as justified than framing innocents? Was murdering the whole Cousland family the only possible way to eliminate Bryce? Come on.
- Among the desperate solutions, there is a certain line, very broad and blurry, that must not be crossed, and once it is, the person should be ready to accept blame, even though there may have been nothing else he could have done, which, I believe, is not Loghain’s case. For instance, if – IF – Ostagar was really unwinnable, there were still ways to go about it – for instance, incapacitate Cailan by slight food poisoning and take over the command temporarily while Cailan is busy at the toilet. Surely, the greatest strategic mind of Ferelden would come up with at least a dozen more.
- By the way: nowhere in the videos I watched or in Loghain’s dialogues I can find a profound and sincere apology for framing, hunting and possibly torturing the Warden. Does such a scene exist? --Ygrain (talk) 10:28, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've only recruited Loghain once to get the ending where he sacrifices himself, but I never remember him actually admitting that he regrets what he did. There's a big difference between accepting that someone bested you in a duel and perceiving that they'd make a good political figure, and admitting that what you did to achieve your goals was wrong. IIRC, he never does that. Of course, that would be because he believes that he didn't do anything wrong. And therein lies the problem. I agree with Ygrain here: I'm pretty sure that in several of the situations Loghain found himself in, there were other, less brutal ways to achieve what he needed, it's just that he doesn't seem to much want to look for them. For example, I'm pretty sure that selling elves into slavery was not the ONLY way to finance the war effort. Really, slavery is not justifiable, IMO, and I don't have a single Warden or Hawke who ever went down that road (just as I never kept the Anvil of the Void or slaughtered the Dalish). And if they had, yes, I'd consider them accountable. Just as I consider Loghain accountable. And that's not mentioning what was done to the Couslands, the Wardens, and sacrificing an entire army just to kill one man (Cailan), which is really a rather stupid strategic move, for someone who's supposedly a brilliant strategist. I also think that the sum of his actions weighs a LOT more heavily in the balance than those of Sten or Anders. As a sidenote, I find it funny that Isabela's never mentioned in that lot: after all, she did cause a qunari raid on Kirkwall because of greed.
That being said, I'm not a fan of summary public executions. Had Loghain expressed genuine regret, I would've rather looked for ways that he could atone rather than slit his throat, and, had there been a way of recruiting him and reasoning with Alistair, I would've done it. "You say that you'd do anything to protect Ferelden? Here ya go, I have an Archdemon on my hands, do be so kind as to take the fall." That, I consider fitting punishment. Not to mention the poetic justice of him being made a Warden. However, at that point, I'd much rather keep Alistair as an ally: silly or not, he's still more reliable.
So to sum things up: no, I don't think Loghain's actions were all inevitably necessary, and no, I don't regret his death, but I do regret the default method of achieving it. Can't have your cake and eat it, unfortunately. Nilfalasiel (talk) 11:26, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. And, concerning Sten: after committing a mass murder, he submitted himself to authorities, of his own volition, and was ready to accept whatever punishment was deemed fit. Very different from what Loghain did. --Ygrain (talk) 12:09, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
Well I have not yet gotten to that part. But I would indeed kill Loghain. The only reason I won't is for acheivments and to become Prince Regent. Loghain let's Cailan die along with Duncan let's not forget and several thousand more. Almost destroying the Grey Wardens which are meant to fight off a Blight. His heroism is gone after Ostagar.Lord Warden (talk) 13:06, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I havnt read the book 'Stolen Throne' ive only played the game and I still find Logain a great character which I always save, I think his descisions in the game are entirely justifiable when looked at objectivly. If you love him or hate him you can't deny he is an amzingly written chatacter. Also my Logain impression is swweeeeeeeet!--Kroem (talk) 15:57, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right about Isabela, Nilfalasiel, I simply didn't think of her when thinking of examples, and if I were somehow able to think of everything, I'd have a much much longer post that included Zevran in there, that would probably span a novel. But I sure hope I'm not condemned for not thinking of every single solitary example of how a companion has made morally questionable choices, because surely it's unreasonable to think that I'm able to think of everything just because that option is floating somewhere in the void. I doubt Loghain, or anyone for that matter, is immune to this apparent syndrome of not being able to find every possible solution and thus pick the "right" path, just because there might be one floating out there somewhere. Also, please try and answer the less morally optional questions that I posted in my first paragraph of my first post before the choices of the second paragraph, since those are highly more optional than the first. Such as, choosing between saving Amaranthine or the Vigil, which Dwarven King did you choose, or did you side with the Mages or the Templars? Frankly, any answer you give me I could tell you why you could be condemnable for it, because those answers are not set in black and white. Would you then, show regret for your choice? Would you sincerely apologize for making any of those choices? Or are you going to blame Bioware for not giving you the options you wanted simply because they didn’t think to give them to you?
- Now the situation with the elves at the Denerim alienage. After the riots in the Alienage there were still many buildings and things to be repaired and bodies still rotting in the streets and homes. This would take time and money to do, which they did not have, and with an incoming blight, it was near impossible to save the Alienage at that point if and when the Blight hit Denerim. Loghain saw two options here, save the Alienage elves by getting them out of there, or let them die to the incoming horde of darkspawn. The Alienage was the most indefensible place in Denerim, and he couldn't have known the Warden would swoop down and save everything, while I doubt the Alienage would have been saved if not for the Warden. Loghain does not have any prejudice against elves so that did not effect his decision. It was save the few vs the many, and he chose the many. What Loghain did was the quickest solution to getting the Alienage elves out of the line of fire, and the quickest solution to gain large funds for the war, which was brutal, I can’t deny that, but it happened for a reason.
- I would have loved to have thought of a better option, to have convinced the people of Denerim to take the Alienage citizens in their care, but sadly, I'd probably not win due to the long hard prejudice humans have against elves. So then what? I resort to,"skrew you citizens, you're taking care of these elves no matter what you object to," but that would be ruthless, as you say tough decisions are, and doing so would strain a lot of the resources that would have otherwise gone to defend the entire city against the Blight, not to mention I'd be dealing with a ton of angry people who would possibly kick me from my job, to which I couldn't save anyone then, not to mention potentially spreading diseases around just because I think elves should be treated equally. This might be something I'd do anyway, but then I'd have to face Denerim falling to the Darkspawn and getting everyone killed instead because I spread the resources too thin, or because I spread disease around and killed them off that way. Perhaps you’d say, let them take up arms for the cause and defend their home, but remember, there was a rebellion just recently in the Alienage, most humans would not trust giving a weapon to an elf. You can't kick the elves out of the city either and tell them to fend for themselves, because how could they when they have barely anything? You think anyone has time to find every Alienage elf a paying job outside of Ferelden? There is an invasion coming if you didn’t notice, I don't think you'd have time to be posting job listings across Thedas when preparing for a war. Anyone who could afford to get out of Denerim probably would have if they weren’t staying to defend their home. While I hate slavery as much as anyone, I personally can't think of an option that would be a viable "perfect solution", because there isn't one, and even if someone were to post some sort of "better" solution, can you blame me for not having thought of it myself, and can you really say it would not have it’s own consequences?
- I doubt incapacitating Cailan would have boded well for Loghain once he'd find out what happened. Then Loghain would also be accounted for treason by doing so and taking command. I think the closest thing to an apology you'll get from Loghain is him admitting he was wrong about the Warden and admitting that everything can rightly be called his fault, and that you'll gain his undying loyalty if you end the war. If you wanted a, "I'm sooooo sorry Warden for everything I've done, please forgive me," you're going to be disappointed, because that is anything but Loghain's character, and frankly, I don't need sappy apologies from him. He actually doesn't regret many of the decisions he's made, because he did his best. Loghain cared for Cailan as much as anyone did if not more, he was Maric's son, and Maric was his best friend, he was also his King, so of course he cared for Cailan. He did not leave Cailan because he wanted him personally dead, Cailan's death was his own doing and Loghain made a choice to save his men over attempting to save Cailan, which he probably couldn't do regardless. Loghain did not want his men to pay for Cailan's mistakes, so he took what he could out of the field to save them. Cailan's death was an unfortunate happening, Loghain had argued constantly with Cailan against creating his own demise, yet it happened because Cailan was stubborn and foolish, and Loghain came to terms with that.
- If you'd still like me to address some of those other issues you have with Loghain, perhaps I'll do it another time, it’s late for me. Celsis (talk) 08:07, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, he cared for Cailan so much that he would feed his body to the wolves.
- I do not doubt that Loghain had his reasons for what he had done, and certainly found lots of excuses for himself - yet, he doesn't have the guts to say "sorry, I was wrong, and I wronged you". I do not see how I could ever respect him.
- I'll adress the rest of your post later, since there are definitely issues that rose me from me chair. --Ygrain (talk) 09:40, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- While Ferelden isn't the real world, many of same basic customs and traditions that were a part of the medieval ages would still be used in Dragon Age, that means the punishments befitting the crime committed. Lets look at some
- Committing an insurrection and acting against the crown (Leaving Cailan to die at Ostagar and setting himself on the throne while there were others more suited to rule)? That would be high treason. Not treason, but high treason. Those guilty of treason would have been executed, usually by beheading. High treason was punished by being hung, drawn and quartered. Seriously, look it up. That would last several hours before the traitor died.
- Allowing Howe to perform torture? Several of the nobles would have recommended an eye for an eye, and submitted Loghain to the same torture he allowed. And considering what Howe did, that will kill a man of Loghain's age.
- Now for the jaywalking part of the murder, arson and jaywalking feature. Selling the elves into slavery. Even in Ferelden, where much like the rest of Thedas where Elves are looked down upon by Humanity, that was considered to be such a heinous act, that at the very least Loghain would have been facing the prospect of imprisonment (which would be pointless considering that was the "lesser" evil to what Loghain did).
- In the end, the Warden or Alistair killing him at the Landsmeet is a mercy. To those who spared Loghain, look at it this way. You've condemned a man to suffer for the rest of his natural life, with the weight of his crimes and his betrayals. He will be condemned to realise that his literally becoming a monster until the day he takes the last walk into the Deep Roads. Which is worse? His crimes being punished straight away, or the long, slow punishment those who spare him pass onto him.--Madasamadthing (talk) 17:02, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
Then please allow me to punish the Warden and Hawke for their crimes on any sort of option he or she may have chosen in the game period. For choosing between Bhelen or Harrowmont, for choosing to save Amaranthine or the Vigil, to choosing between the Mages or the Templars, the list goes on. However, if I were to, there would be no Warden, and unless Loghain was there, then the two heroes are taken out of the picture from saving Ferelden, and the entire whole of Ferelden would be taken over by Darkspawn. Then the whole of Kirkwall would have fallen to the Qunari with no Hawke. Now, where is the greatness of justice in that? All I'm hearing here is a repeat of the same arguments that Loghain did not say "I'm sorry" and that he did horrible things that are punishable by death, to which I’ve addressed and have not gotten a different answer. And while you guys do say that CERTAIN choices that Hawke or the Warden COULD take are punishable by death, you have not addressed those that they did not have a choice in choosing between that is damned if you do or don’t. Also, again, if you were actually to have killed Hawke or the Warden for whatever crimes they have committed, who would have saved everyone? There was no better person than the Warden, Hawke or perhaps even Loghain, to save their country or city. You’d kill an entire country or city just to punish whatever other crimes Hawke, the Warden, or Loghain had chosen? Or even if you did it after everything is done, then you’ve just killed off what many would deem a hero. It’s an eye for an eye that leaves everyone blind and every hero or person in the world is doomed from the beginning. If anything that anyone does is punishable by death, because the world isn’t made up of black and white, then there sure wouldn’t be many people in this world or everyone would be in jail. Celsis (talk) 19:03, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." Friedrich Nietzsche. The Warden and Alistair are already dead. They've been dead since they underwent the Joining. They've already been "sentenced" to die, either by fighting the Darkspawn or by soul obliteration killing the Archdemon. As for your examples, the choice between the Templars or the Mages, the Vigil or Amaranthine, are Loghain's fault. Uldred started the rebellion at the Circle with the promise that the mages under his command would be free, the rebellion which deprived Ferelden of its strongest weapon for much of the Blight and cost far more lives than Alistair's or the Warden's actions. The choice of the Vigil or Amaranthine, comes down to the fact that there are barely enough soldiers in the whole of Ferelden to protect every town or city because of the civil war which Loghain started. As for Bhelen or Harrowmont, there is the lesser evil of Bhelen, which was the whole point of that quest, you either support a tyrant who will secure the future of a race, or support a bigot whose actions will condemn the dwarfs to a slow, isolated death. Which is the lesser evil? But nothing Loghain did can be considered to be the lesser evil of any choice. Could he have sacrificed troops to get Cailan out of the battle, ensuring that there would have been a figurehead that the nobility and the people could rally around? There was things the Warden did that could be considered cruel or horrific, but in the end, exitus acta probat, the outcome justifies the deed. Everything Loghain did moved the country closer to oblivion. Everything he did was for his own gain, to secure his seat on the throne as the Regent. Loghain claimed that Cailan's vanity meant that the darkspawn was a Blight, despite all evidence to the contrary, it was Loghain's own vanity that it couldn't be a Blight. In the end, you might feel sympathy for Loghain, but there is nothing that can redeem anything he did. His death at the Landsmeet wasn't cruel, it wasn't unusual punishment. It was a mercy compared to what waited for him. Modern morality and thoughts of justice can't come into it. Its a medieval-esque setting, and there were proper punishments for regicide, high treason, conspiracy and murder. --Madasamadthing (talk) 19:40, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
@ Celsis: I wasn't criticising you for not mentioning every possible example of morally questionable actions by characters, simply pointing out that Isabela gets a free pass on what she did way too frequently. And not just in the current discussion. But yes, you're right, Zevran is also part of that bunch.
As for the other "morally questionable" choices you mention: all my Wardens fully upgraded Vigil's Keep and saved Amaranthine, and all of them put Bhelen on the throne because he was a) progressive and b) tried to improve the lot of the casteless. All of my Hawkes sided with the Mages. Common theme? Helping the oppressed or those unable to help themselves. As far as I'm concerned, that goal has been achieved in every one of those situations. Yes, my Wardens do regret Bhelen's excesses, and had there been an option to help the people he persecuted, they would gladly have taken it, but a) Harrowmont would have been no better and b) at least Bhelen did help the dwarven people as a whole.
But are those decisions comparable to selling people into slavery, willingly abandoning an entire army to die just to kill one man or allowing torture to quash political opposition? And assuming Loghain's goal was to save Ferelden, which part of what he did actually benefited the country or its people? Even if my Wardens are responsible for putting Bhelen on the throne, they're not directly responsible for his actions. Loghain, on the other hand, is directly responsible for at least Ostagar, framing the Wardens and slave trading (the torture was Howe's doing; even if Loghain approved of it, he wasn't directly responsible either).
Other questions: where in the game does it say that he sold the elves into slavery because the Alienage wasn't defensible? Loghain's own justification for it was that he used the traffic to fund the war effort. Denerim was not under attack when he did it, and there was no indication that the horde was headed in that direction. Besides, he couldn't have raised taxes? Levied contributions from nobles who were loyal to him? Was slave trading really the ONLY available option for money? He sold the elves into slavery to save them? Really?
As for offing Cailan, he couldn't have hired an assassin to do it? Ordered Howe to take care of his dirty work? After all, that's exactly what happened with Zevran. Is sacrificing an entire army really the most efficient and inconspicuous way of getting rid of what he perceives as an inept ruler, especially when you need as many soldiers as possible to fight a horde of darkspawn?
At this point, I will repeat: I would much rather have let Loghain live and recruited him to fight the Archdemon, so that he could do at least something useful for his country rather than destroy it (which is what he was doing prior to the Landsmeet). I let Sten, Anders, Zevran and Isabela live, because I'd much rather they all do something useful as atonement, since they all express either regret, responsibility and/or a wish to correct their mistakes. I don't interpret Loghain's "I yield" as any of those, and yet, I would still prefer to send him against the Archdemon as punishment. The problem? Alistair's reliability and usefulness as an ally outweigh Loghain's. Nilfalasiel (talk) 19:37, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
@Celsis:
"Would you then, show regret for your choice? Would you sincerely apologize for making any of those choices?" Yes and yes. I do not accept "the end justifies the means" as an excuse to ease the bad conscience. I sided with the Mages, since I refused to let Meredith slaughter innocents for the crime of one man, knowing that I may be releasing bloodmages and that I'll be responsible for any evil they commit. I do not see, however, how choosing something that may unpredictably turn out bad in the future (e.g. choosing Harrowmont or Bhelen) is on par with a decision to kill or oppress many innocents to reach your goal. Exterminating the Dalish or burning Amaranthine would truly be equivalent actions - and should the Warden's head roll for that, so be it.
"After the riots in the Alienage there were still many buildings and things to be repaired and bodies still rotting in the streets and homes" Pardon? Are we talking about the riots in connection with the city elf origin? That happened before Ostagar, and according to the devs, the events of the game take about one year. There is no way there are still rotting bodies at the time of the Landsmeet. There is no way there were rotting bodies for more than a day or two even after a fresh wave of riots, since relatives and neighbours would dispose of them out of mere sense of self-preservation, if not for anything else. If the "rotting bodies" part comes from Loghain at the Landsmeet, it's merely his propaganda - after all, were there any such bodies when the Warden was waltzing around the ALienage? Not in my playthrough.
"This would take time and money to do, which they did not have" The Crown of Ferelden ever invested money into the Alienage, or intended to, prior Alistair's rule? Provide quotation, please, if you intend to use this further as a point.
"and with an incoming blight, it was near impossible to save the Alienage at that point if and when the Blight hit Denerim." As it turned out, other parts of Denerim were near impossible to save, as well, yet no-one suggested moving people out of there. The same goes for the whole southern part of Ferelden, where there were thousands of people who could not have been saved. I do not hold him accountable for not being able to save everyone, so all of your reasoning what could or could not have been done with the elves is a moot point.
"Loghain does not have any prejudice against elves so that did not effect his decision" That's true. Loghain's ruthlessness is absolutely undiscriminating.
"It was save the few vs the many, and he chose the many." And who did he save by selling the elves, I pray? What positive effect did he ever reach?
"What Loghain did was the quickest solution to getting the Alienage elves out of the line of fire" That's the worst hypocrisy I've ever heard. Saving people by selling them to those who are notorious for bleeding them to death whenever they need to boost a spell? Besides, listen again to what Loghain says himself: he's not doing this with the thought of any dubious benefit for the elves; his reasoning is that since they are probably doomed, anyway, he can treat them in any way he wants, and if there is profit in it, even better.
As for the whole Ostagar dilemma: this has been discussed to the death, with no clear outcome possible, since crucial parts of information are missing. However, at least a couple of points. First, Loghain is supposed to be the briliant strategic mind, one who claimed that if a battle cannot be won, you should make it winnable. Yet, we see none of his supposed genius shine at Ostagar. The location he chooses for a crucial part of his plan severly lacks in security. Next, Loghain's ally murders the king's close friend with his family and falsely accuses them of treason, which is something he could never have hoped to get away with, had Cailan and Fergus Cousland lived. Yet, Howe dares to. Add to it the hint that Cailan's secret correspondence was tampered with, and you will never convince me that Ostagar was an on-spot military decision instead of a planned coup. The beacon did come after the signal but it has never been confirmed that the battle was unwinnable at that point, and basing any timing on the sutscene is ridiculous, since if we were to judge by cutscenes, then the travel from Highever to Ostagar would have happened in zero time. - Oh, and "I doubt incapacitating Cailan would have boded well for Loghain once he'd find out what happened" - well, Cailan would have to find out in the fisrt place. Diarrhoea in a camp is a pretty common occurence. That was just a simple off-hand example; my point is that if Loghain really wanted to save Cailan, he would have found a way. --Ygrain (talk) 21:23, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
I remember it was said that killing Cailan WASN'T planned because Loghain told him not to fight on the front lines he didn't want Cailan to die but at that point he was kinda like.. Oh well not much I can do without messing up my own plans. I believe the also devs said that Ostagar wasn't winnable.(For more than just the game wouldn't happen reasons) And his original plan was to get rid of the wardens not the king. He didn't like the wardens he didn't like that a whole bunch of them would have came from the place he hated most. Not to mention other factors such being a general trying to lead a country at it's worst, and having such a bad adviser such as Howe. I deal with Loghain in different ways depending on my character and how I build him, but personally I really liked one of the options you could say to him if you kill the archdemon with him in your party which boils down to 'No your punishment is living with your crime and guilt, knowing not only were you wrong about the blight but now have to live with the curse of the taint.' For people who hate Loghain with a passion I like to think that keeping him alive is just as big of punishment if not worse than killing him depending on what you do with it how you do with it, since he becomes something he had distrusted for all these years etc. And now I'm starting to ramble without making sense.. 97.104.81.199 (talk) 22:16, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- To my best knowledge, it was stated that Loghain did not plan to kill Cailan before they arrived at Ostagar. It was also stated as facts that 1) the beacon was indeed late (but it was never said that it was too late), 2) Loghain did not anticipate the darkspawn flooding the Tower of Ishal, and 3) the darkspawn came in greater number than was expected. --Ygrain (talk) 06:29, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- You’re right, the Crown probably hasn’t invested a whole lot of money in the Alienage, which means that the Alienage was even more doomed from the start because their home is made of a bunch of shanties. If you accuse Loghain in the Landsmeet though of the slavery thing, he'll say there were still repairs to do, which means they probably put at least some money into it. If other parts of Denerim were impossible to save as well, those are probably in human areas, and unfortunately, the humans are a lot more well off than the elves and of course, are allowed to fight or flee with what they have, plus structures in Denerim outside the alienage are in a lot better shape than the shanties of the Alienage, and whether or not they are savable isn’t as important as who is in them and what they are allowed to do. I do not justify the treatment of elves in this game, it is simply what is in the story, and humans at that point would not allow elves to run around Denerim with weapons in case they revolt against them later (all of these possibilities of where elves could go was put into my previous post). If all of my arguments are moot point, then Loghain should have simply left those Alienage elves in their homes to die from the darkspawn, since they weren’t savable anyway and wouldn’t be allowed out of their Alienage. In terms of whether slavery is better than death, it really depends on opinion, and I personally will see the argument from either side as valid enough, but Loghain made his decision.
- In terms of who he’d save on the few vs many, he got a ton of money to fund his efforts for the war, and to defend Denerim with it. Yes, it’s ruthless, he will not deny that, but there you have it.
- I apparently cannot say enough times that the whole Ostagar thing was all Cailan’s idea. He believed the Grey Wardens (with what few numbers they were) would turn the tide of war for him like in the stories, and thus he threw strategy and consequences into the air, and decided to lead a frontal assault on the Darkspawn. The Grey Wardens aren’t perfect, and with such few numbers, how the hell are they supposed to fight off all that darkspawn on their own and with such few other numbers? You forget that Cailan is Loghain’s King, therefore, Loghain must follow King Cailan’s orders, even if they are stupid, because he is the General, but not the King who leads the Armies. So perhaps he thought the few battles at Ostagar in the beginning was doable and thus followed, despite his doubts, but upon finding the last straw, he had to make a decision. So yes, perhaps he did betray his King, but it was the own King’s doing.
- If Loghain and his men had died for his king, to which the King would have died anyway (Thank you anonymous poster for confirming that Ostagar could not be won), then there would have been fighting for power for the throne amongst the highest class of nobles. This of course, being the Couslands, Howes, the Arl of Redcliffe and the current other ruler Anora. Of course, with Cailan dead regardless, there is still the issue. With an incoming Blight there is absolutely no time for political intrigue for who gets the throne, which there most definitely will be without a King. So, Loghain wanted to stop the political intrigue before it even started, to unite everyone as quicky as possible to stop the Blight and thus did what he did. What the Howes did to the Couslands probably would have happened without Loghain, as Rendon Howe was greedy to the bitter end and wanted them out of the picture for awhile. With so many different people vying for power and so many different people supporting them, there is no way to get them united in stopping the Blight. Loghain didn’t want to become King himself, since had says he would never have taken Anora off the throne, he simply wanted to get everyone united as soon as possible and unfortunately he chose a brutal path. However, he poisoned Eamon with some sleep draught to get him out of the picture, when he could have easily have just gotten him killed instead, but with Eamon being Rowan’s younger brother, I doubt he wanted Eamon dead. Or perhaps he let Howe do that, I don't recall. He also let Howe do what he wanted with the Couslands, and Howe chose to kill them all. With two of the factions out of the way and the 3rd pacified, he could keep Anora on the throne and get his work done to save Ferelden from the Blight, because he didn’t think Anora was a bad queen, and for good enough reason, it was not just because she’s his daughter. It would have taken forever to have decided who would be King, and since Anora was there, it would have been quicker to keep her where she was. Celsis (talk) 22:41, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- First off, Loghain did not poison Eamon with a sleeping draught, he fully intended for the poison to be fatal. The only reason that that this did not succeed was that Connor went and made a deal with a desire demon. Also, I'm not having the political intrigue argument. Arl Eamon never shows an inclination to take the throne himself, and neither do any of the Couslands save the warden, and that event is not even canon. Anora was well loved by the people and it was common knowledge that Cailan did not sire any heirs. With this knowledge, there is little reason that the nobles should not continue to support her, even when her relation to Loghain ought to tarnish her name (ie the landsmeet) she still manages to be popular that her voice alone, which does not count as a vote, is enough to more or less decide who wins the landsmeet in and of itself. Addressing Howe, as opposed to Anora he is incredibly unpopular, and his attempts to take the throne for himself would surely be met with universal resistance. Howe is not stupid, and would not make a play for the throne under such conditions. Hence there would be no debate over who would rule- none of the nobles would challenger her. Loghain created some fabrication to justify his own actions to himself, and then took the throne from Anora, which caused the Ferelden civil war.
As for Ostagar, Gaider explicitly stated that Loghain never intended for Cailan to leave Ostagar alive over on the BSN forums. The battle may have been unwinable, but this had nothing to do with Loghain's decision to abandon Cailan. That was made before the army ever arrived at that fortress in the middle of nowhere. So Loghain's actions were very much a deliberate and well planned regicide. The fact that Cailan's idea to go to Ostagar made the execution of Loghain's plans practicable is irrelevant. There was no lesser of two evil choices being made at Ostagar, that was bold faced murder, but now I'm repeating myself.
And so, after deliberately murdering his king and sparking a civil war what does Loghain do? He teams up with one of the most loathed men in the country, who also conveniently orchestrated the deaths of one of the few families best able to oppose him should he try to snatch the throne. He then proceeds to allow said man to torture people at his whim, including but not limited to: anyone who might oppose him, and the Templar who could give witness against Loghain's poisoning of Arl Eamon. He also proceeds to reward Howe for his abominable acts by granting him both the Teyrnir of Highever and the Arling of Denerim. HIghever was vacant, but in most playthroughs Loghain must depose Vaughan in order for Howe to take control of the city. Loghain is unaware of Vaughan's actions in the alienage, so justice is not an excuse here. All this being demonstrated, one of two things is now true about Loghain: He either ignores all of Howe's crimes and pays him off to win him as an ally, or he has been conspiring with Howe from the start. Neither of these place Loghain in a very good light.
Loghain sold elves into slavery to fund his war. Understood that there is no saving the alienage if the blight comes, but the problem is that Loghain does not believe there is a blight, and in fact seems to believe that the Fereldan army alone can push back the incursion, even after all the wasted resources during the civil war. He may not have been able to save the alienage if the darkspawn reached Denerim, but did he believe that the darkspawn would reach Denerim? Judging by how he treated the darkspawn threat it was clear that he did not, so arguing that he sold the elves for their own safety is not a valid point. Expanding upon this further, the funds he acquired from selling the elves go straight to fighting the war that could have been avoided had he not attempted to seize the throne, so the need for funds for the war was entirely his own doing. Loghain was not trying to save the elves because he believed they were in no danger, all he did was sell them into slavery so that he could finance his own ambitions. On the other hand, even were he was trying to save the elves, and even if it was a lesser of two evils choice on how to finance Ferelden's defense instead of his own ambitions, the fact remains that the need for funds arose from Loghain's own actions. Following this chain of thought Loghain caused the situation where he had to choose the lesser of two evils, so choosing the lesser of two evils does not count in his favor.
And when it finally comes down to the Landsmeet and post landsmeet events, yes Loghain does show remorse in his own way, and is indeed willing to sacrifice himself to the archdemon as atonement. I commend him for that. My wardens individual personalities determine whether or not this stays Loghain frome execution. Still, when left to cold, hard, logic. Loghain is up for the chop. Every. Single. Time. ----Isolationistmagi 03:18, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
His past deeds don't excuse Loghain from being a madman. After all the hoopla Loghain spouted out about Maric being the last living descendent of Calenhad, he decides to abandon the last living descendent of Calenhad (a la Cailan). And you know, if Loghain was that freaking out about his forces, he really could have said no to Cailan, as he had said when Cailan had proposed inviting the Orlesians. He says no to Maric plenty of times.
And blaming the Warden and Alistair? That was just LOW. And then essentially taking the throne while there was a beloved and very functional queen? That's low too. Oh, and killing his daughter's husband, whom Anora evidently had affections for? That's just cruel. He might rant about "daughters being six with pigtails", but Anora does hint that she did love Cailan. And he left the king for dead on the battlefield.
His heinous crime list continues. Let's buy assassins using the money gained from selling elves to Tevinter Imperium (and we all know they get grand treatment. Just look at Fenris) to kill two people who were just obeying king's orders. Let's sell elves to Babylon, they don't count anyway. Let's assassinate best friend's brother-in-law, despite him being "fat and old and stopped caring" (or something like that). And it's not like Loghain didn't have anything to do with the Circle debacle either. Oh, and let's not forget Loghain's men threatened the sovereign rights of Orzammar. Loghain successfully got rid of the rivalling Teyrnir too. He says "I see painted masked lords beat an old farmer to death with riding crops. To this day I don't know why, is that hate? I saw senseless good men fighting Chevaliers with nothing! No weapon, no armies, not even hope of success to see the occupation end, is that hate?"; sure, this sounds horrible, but that's pretty much the life of the City Elves. And Loghain just goes ahead and sells them into slavery. That' hypocrisy at its finest.
So yeah, Loghain deserved to die. And if he got beaten in combat by the Warden or the companions (I mean, Wynne beat him up in one of my playthroughs), then perhaps he's getting old and fat and senile, so he won't serve very well as a general anyway.
It's one thing to not enter a battle because of evident defeat. It's another to lie and trick people and then turning tail and running away. I HIGHLY doubt Cailan would have said "you dare say no to me!? Off with your head!" to his father-in-law and pretty much his foster-father. I mean, that's what advisors are for; to say no to you when they think it's a bad idea.
And you know, the hero thing DID get to his head. He yells out "Traitors! Which of you fought the Orlesian Emperor when his troops flattened your fields and raped your wives!? NONE OF YOU deserve a say in what happens here! None of you have spilled blood for this land the way I have! HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME!" because, you know, no one else fought Meghren. Or spilled blood. Or lost their family during the Fereldan rebellion. Sure, he is the hero of River Dane, but he has forgotten that Whulff has lost his sons to the Blight, Eamon's sister fought in the rebellion. Everybody made sacrifices for that victory. But nope. Loghain thinks it's all him. And what was he thinking that he could handle the Blight alone? History dictates that Blights were always handled by the Grey Wardens and a few countries. Loghain couldn't have been THAT stupid to think "oh yes, I bet my puny little country which was getting beaten up by a neighbouring country can handle trouble that nearly decimated mankind a few times all by itself". That's just foolish.
And why take Anora off the throne? She was a good puppet, so there wasn't any need. Loghain was effectively the ruler of Ferelden during the Blight. Anora just sat there, whether she intended to or not.
I'm sorry, but making one Warden won't make up for killing a dozen. And saying sorry won't bring back the dead. There are necessary deaths - if dying would save hundreds, then it's worth it - but the deaths Loghain caused were REALLY needless. I can't see Tabris, Amell, Surana, or Cousland ready to forgive the man. And as for the rest, they owe Duncan their lives. So I can't really imagine Aeducan, Mahariel or Brosca cheering Loghain on either. GabrielleduVent 03:56, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Lets just give you the benefit of the doubt that the Couslands and the Arl of Redcliffe are not people who would vie for the throne. Lets just ignore the fact that the Couslands wished that their youngest son or daughter marry a Howe for political power. Lets just ignore the fact that the Arl of Redcliffe wants only a Therein blood on the throne, and while he sympathized with Anora, knew she was manipulative and thus didn’t quite trust her. Lets just ignore the fact Anora was approaching her 30th birthday and had not produced an heir to the throne and that rumors were spreading she was infertile, which would begin to question her position on the throne.
- Lets instead, answer my questions of what your Warden chose that I had asked so many posts ago that no one has answered yet. Such as, which Dwarven king did you choose for the throne? Bhelen or Harrowmont? Lets first say you chose Harrowmont, you’re essentially keeping everything the same way it was, which is steady decline and eventual doom of the dwarven kingdom. He cuts off trade between the dwarves and the surface, which is their lifeline, and continues on with the casteless being worthless (which could not only create diversity, but more dwaves) just to name a few things that would nourish the Dwarven kingdoms end. Now lets say you chose Bhelen, you’re essentially choosing what Loghain does and fought for in principle. Bhelen is just as ruthless, just as brutal, yet he does what he thinks is best for the Dwarven kingdom, which is to build his kingdom back up and make them stronger, and he has and will cut down anyone who will get in his way to do so. Despite this, Bhelen has done his job when chosen and successfully brings Orzammar back, even reclaiming lost thaigs in the process, and Loghain has prepared the human army for the fight against the Blight. So, how could you have supported Bhelen if you are so dead set against the “evilness” of Loghain? Or, how could you support Harrowmont when it means the end of the dwarven kingdom of Orzammar? Orzammar is one of the last known remaining inhabited dwarven kingdoms by the way, so that being gone would pretty much almost be the end of all non surface dwarves on Thedas. Celsis (talk) 05:23, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- I should have thought of this sooner, but oh well. Loghain isn't worried about Couslands or Eamon vying for the throne after Ostagar because at that point they are already out of the picture as far as Loghain knows. Loghain says at Ostagar that he knows what Howe did to the Couslands, and in the Denerim cutscene en route to Lothering Eamon is already poisoned as Loghain declares himself regent. So both my original point and your argument against it in this matter are moot. This in fact leaves Loghain even less reason to declare himself reagent, as all of the nobles with enough influence to stand a chance at a bid are out of the picture.
- If you want to hear my thoughts on the warden's choices in comparison to Loghain's, drop me a line on my talk page or start a new forum, as such a discussion digresses from the purpose of this one. ----Isolationistmagi 05:49, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a point in that it is pretty much pointless to discuss the reasoning behind Loghain's choices and what he could or could not have done, that wasn't the point, so I probably shouldn't have argued it, but I hoped for people to understand him, but some people just can't put their facts together straight, including me on one case, but discussing the reason why Loghain got rid of those nobles before Cailan's death isn't the overall point. There is a reason why I brought up the Warden's choice of Harrowmont and Bhelen and that is because the situation regarding that parallels greatly to that of Loghain's situation. So why should Bhelen be a good choice while you want Loghain dead when they both use the same methods with similar goals with successful results? The whole thread was whether or not you regret killing Loghain, and if you can choose Bhelen as king, why can't people understand where Loghain is coming from and want him dead so badly when they put someone similar to him on the throne? Choosing Harrowmont, again, spells the end of Orzammar, is that the better choice? Celsis (talk) 07:24, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- /cough/ Neither the Couslands nor Eamon can vie for the crown since neither has a claim. That was the whole point of pushing AListair through as an heir - he is the only one whose bloodline gives him a greater claim than that of the dowager queen, who has proven herself to be an apt ruler. The younger Cousland, or even Teagan, is we presume a female HN, would be a perfect candidate for prince consort, which would throw the whole clout of Couslands and/or Guerrins behind Anora, and there is absolutely no reason to start a civil war. Loghain's actions, however, prevented this outcome.
Bhelen vs. Harrowmont: and you haven't answered my question hwo choosing one of not ideal candidates equals to treason, murder, genocide, regicide, infringing upon civil and human rights etc. Seeing the outcome of choosing Bhelen or Harrowmont is possible only in hindsight, whereas with Loghain, he already makes his decisions with these outcomes in mind.
"In terms of whether slavery is better than death, it really depends on opinion, and I personally will see the argument from either side as valid enough, but Loghain made his decision" It was not a decision he was entitled to make, though. The elves were not given any choice in this, they were lured under a false pretext of help. The choice to take their chances with the darkspawn or with the Tevinters was only and solely theirs to make.
"some people just can't put their facts together straight" Less condescendence, please.--Ygrain (talk) 07:26, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
Even without hindsight, you know Bhelen is cutthroat already and has killed people before, including rumors that he did in his sibling (which he did), and Harrowmont is a traditionalist that views the casteless as scum due to tradition. During thorough investigations of both before choosing a King, you will find most of the information about Bhelen and Harrowmont and the possible consequences of choosing either. It might be more difficult to piece together, but the signs are clearly there for you to find if you simply explored. You don't even have to be an Aeducan or Brosca, the Noble and Commoner dwarven Wardens, to find this out. Celsis (talk) 07:51, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- There is enough information to assess their personalities, not the outcomes of their rules. There is absolutely no way to predict their response to the Anvil, or that one will get murdered and not the other. There is no telling if Bhelen will actually carry out his plan to incorporate the casteless, or that Harrowmont won't have a revelation of the wrongness of the caste system after the Blight is over.
- Anyway, in the choice between a known cutthroat and a guy who supports the system that discriminates against a part of the population and forces mothers to let their children die because they are of the wrong sex, there is no way one's conscience could remain clean - but still, how does this equal to sacrificing thousands for one's own powergrab derelicting duty and committing regicide on the son of his best friend and of the supposed love of his life?--Ygrain (talk) 08:07, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, the more I read this discussion, the less I mind having to execute Loghain. Nilfalasiel (talk) 10:24, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
@ @ Celsis: I do understand why someone would chosse to spare Loghain, and also why they would support Bhelen. Through past actions Loghain has clearly demonstrated that he is capable of doing "whatever it takes", a quality which is ideal in most wardens. Beyond that he is a skilled fighter and a well-renowned fighter that has previously fought darkspawn. Beyond that it is an enirely appropriate form of punishment. Furthermore post-landsmeet he has lost the political clout necessary to be a real threat, so it's not like there's going to be a rebellion if he walks away alive, let alone a warden whose taint will have its way with him very quickly. Does this override the fact that he is a paranoid regicide who sold innocents into slavery to fund a war that he started by declaring himself regent when he had no legal right to do so: and is also a man that has defied the odds on countless occasions to do what others thought impossible, so could in fact find a way to be a real threat if he so wished? Even with the crimes I've left out here not considered, I can understand why someone would let him live from a pragmatic perspective. Once we go into sparing him because he was justified in each or even most of the choices he made throughout DAO, that is where I stop seeing eye to eye with those that make him a warden. ----Isolationistmagi 14:36, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- In regards to Nifalasiel, you’re right within the games context that you won’t know those actions before it comes, but we’re talking about whether or not you regret killing Loghain for his actions now (the original topic of the forum), given all that you know about him, which includes meta gaming and knowing everything about him. Within the games context, your Warden might not know certain things, but we aren’t talking about the Warden, we are talking about the player. When I first played the game, I hated Loghain as much as anyone does here. Upon further knowledge of what really happened and getting a largely more broad perspective of the story and the decisions he’s made, as well as simply talking to him if I spared him, I changed my mind about him. I still don’t like his choices either, but I understand why he made them, and I understand his intentions, just like with Bhelen, even if I don’t like him either. Therefore, I do regret choosing to kill Loghain now.
- But to answer your question of how does this equal Loghain sacrificing thousands and killing his king, just look at Harrowmont, he sacrifices all of Orzammar just to keep his tradition, which is after making him king, but we’re talking with what we know. Bhelen killed his oldest sibling, rightful heir to the throne, and either killed or got his competition, the middle sibling, out of the way (with intent of killing them) before vying for power. Can you blame Loghain for not knowing that the Warden would come and save everything if there was no evidence for Loghain to see, which there isn’t for him anyway? He didn’t know that Alistair existed, he didn’t know the Warden was that strong, he did with what he had and knew, and you’re going to use the exuse that you couldn’t have known Bhelen and Harrowmonts true actions after making them king when you’re the player who knows the outcome and Loghain is a character that is in the story’s context.
- In regards to Isolationistmagi, I do not think Loghain is guiltless for his actions, but again, I understand where he is coming from, which is why I can regret killing him, and why I personally can make Bhelen King of Orzammar every time. But no one has seemed to answer that question for me of who they made king. Celsis (talk) 19:56, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
Harrowmont. ----Isolationistmagi 20:02, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
So, can you defend yourself then for why you doomed the entire city of Orzammar given what you know? Celsis (talk) 20:14, March 18, 2012 (UTC)