No there's not. Alistar will just end up sending her to the tower. Most times while playing as a male human noble, I wish there was a dialogue which would lead up to having the option to kiss her and romance her. Oh well. Amm879 17:01, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure she's assumed Dead if Alistair survives the Archdemon.
If Alistar survives the Archdemon? The only way I see him dying is if you allow Anora to kill him. After that, he apparently lives regardless... Morrigan's Ritual or not. Doing the Ritual, both the Wardens live. Not doing the Ritual, your Warden dies. End of story. But I never gave it much thought about when Alistar sends Anora to the tower... that she's assumed dead... since everyone you see except Sandal is dead. Hmm... I wonder if her body is laying on the ground somewhere... Amm879 18:22, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
You can choose to have Alistair strike the killing blow instead (in fact, if you romance him, he'll insist on sacrificing himself if you haven't done the ritual)--WouldYouKindly 18:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think she is presumed dead. In fact, the game gives no option for her to die which makes me think she will appear in a sequel.
I agree that she is an unbelievable bitch though. I wish there was an option to pretend to support her, make her fall in love with you, sleep with her, then betray her, kill her father, and make Allistair the king. Is that too extreme? I think I'm just upset because Cauthrien really does it for me and Anora made her hate me :)
Really? Because I've made a lot more female characters than males and I've always had them romance Alistar. But the option never came up to have Alistar sacrifice himself. Is this dependant on the origin of my female character? Female human noble only? Does Anora have to rule alone to have this happen? Hmm, interesting.
And yeah, it's too bad that someone like Ser Cauthrien has to die... especially after reading the backstory of her, Loghain and Maric. Her reaction when Loghain decides to retreat makes me look at her as loyal and one of the "good guys." She obviously had no choice with the history between her and Loghain. And I don't think Anora is a bitch... but understanding how royalty works, she doesn't qualify since she does not have a single royal blood in her, though she may think of her as a better ruler than Alistar. Isolde, on the other had, is a bitch. I also don't like the way she looks, lmao. If I had to decide whether to save a Desire Demon or Isolde... I'd pick the Desire Demon, lmao. Amm879 19:39, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Even if you say to Riordan that you will make the final blow there is a hiatus just before then in the final battle and a discussion between you and Alastair/Loghain as to who will make the sacrifice. If Alastair dies then Anora gets the throne, even if you were going to be queen to Alastair's king - a good reason to keep him alive with the ritual. If he is in a relationship with you he dies, no matter what you say. If you want him to live and you don't want a demon baby you can always leave Alastair defending the gates and not put him into your party.
--- Actually, I think Anora survives. Female Noble, romancing Alistair, you still become his love in the end. But at the very end where the game recaps everything that has happened after killing the archdemon, I'm pretty sure it mentions something about Alistair sticking around the castle, and saying something like "Much to Anora's displeasure" or something. I cannot remember, but I DO remember it making me mad, because I wanted her to die. Really really badly. [Karin]
Is it just me, or does Anora have a Shatneresque delivery? Next time you hear her, imagine Captain Kirk saying the same lines. Doesn't it sound like a match? DokEnkephalin (talk) 14:04, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I'd call it Shatneresque, I'd call it overly controlled. I've known people who speak like that in normal conversation, and many more people when they're in tense situations. It's a sign that they're choosing their words very carefully. It's got an odd effect on speech, the pauses and emphasis are a bit off. It seemed to me when she was doing that she was trying not to misspeak, that she was worried about saying something wrong. An understandable fear when she was in front of the lords at the Landsmeet, or while with the Warden who could easily kill her if she was going to be trouble (in theory, sadly we can't even if we want too). Or at least that's what I thought of her style of speech, I could be interpreting it wrong though. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 17:52, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
What happens if you imprison Anora and then let Alistar (or make him) kill the Archdemon without doing the ritual...Who becomes king/queen then? Do they just let Anora out of the prison....or what?IP no. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:23, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Or 'what' indeed. Anora survives no matter what you do. Even if you kill Loghain and take the crown for yourself, you don't get the option to execute her. If King Alistair imprisons Anora and then sacrifices himself, she still gets to be queen. DokEnkephalin (talk) 14:52, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Cauthrien doesn't have to die, actually; you can convince her to walk away at the Landsmeet chamber (if you didn't kill her entire party at the Arl's estate). Alistair will insist on sacrificing himself if he's in love with a female warden, Morrigan's Ritual was NOT done, AND he is in the active party rather than left at the gates. For other Wardens (non-romanced females, males), it's optional to let Alistair take the killing blow (again, if the Ritual was not completed). In all options, it's assumed Anora lives, though likely in exile or imprisonment if she refuses to swear fealty to Alistair. Otherwise, she remains queen and it's not an issue. I think the epilogue slide where a married Warden and Alistair rule and "to the displeasure of Queen Anora" pops up is a bug, as she'd only still be the Queen if she married Alistair/Rules alone/with the Human Noble. It should be there if the Warden is Alistair's mistress, though. And yes, Alistair says at the Landsmeet that he's letting Anora live and keeping her in the tower in case he doesn't survive the Blight, so Fereldan is not left without a ruler. She even remarks how surprised she is by his planning, and afterward I can't really see Alistair being willing to outright execute her for no real reason when she's contained. Anora's biggest problem to me is she's been raised like a princess her whole life and is exactly like Loghain in several ways, though even he admits her main loyalty is to herself. I think it's a case of she's never been told "no" before.LynMars (talk) 18:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Well....all said, I kind of agree with the OP. There ought to be a option to execute Anora.....maybe we'll see some mention of how she died a grotesque death in DA2....here's hoping. :D :P IP no. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:35, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
It is obvious from the last few comment that none of you live in a monarchy.
If a women is married to a male regent she becomes Queen, if her husband dies a new monarch will be proclaimed, this will most likely be her and her husbands oldest child or oldest male child depending on the state of gender equality. The Queen however retains her title, she becomes queen mother instead of queen consort but she remains queen. Both England and Denmark had for many years a queen mother AND a Queen Regent (though that is not relevant), thereby having two persons at once with the title queen.
If you are a hopefull women wanting to become queen I can inform you that prince Christian of Denmark, is currently not engaged. After his father he is next in line to the throne so the women that marries him will be queen one day. Also he is four years old so you need some patience :-))
A man that marries a regent queen however will not be king, he will be Prince-consort, that is bad news for all the male usurpers out there that wants to be king.
Now there are rare occasions when a Queen-consort have been made regent usually ruling on behalf of her minor child, but the situation presented in DA with no children and no apparent hair is very rare, and it is unknown to me that any queen-consort should have any claim to a throne if she isn’t ruling on behalf of a minor child. What Loghain did is not unusual historically speaking, the leading general of a nation is an obvious Interregnum regent when there is no clear hair to the throne, what is strange is that Loghain apparently didn’t distinguished between queen-consort and queen-regent, this distinction is paramount in any monarchy.
I also believe that it was this reason the sparked the civil war, he was seen as an usurper and rightly so. Had he after Cailan’s burial announced that he ruled as an Interregnum regent until a new hair to the throne could be found, something that could be postponed to after the Blight had ended, it would not only have been more normal but it would also have let to far less defiance. Ruling on behalf of the widow to the regent is unheard of when the widow herself cannot inherit, and as far as I know Ferelden is a hereditary monarchy, with the decedents of Calenhad as the royal family.
This is something that have bugged me very much about DAO, I agree Anora is a bitch and I want to kill her too, but that Loghain announced himself regent the way he did, that is idiotic. Had he announced himself Interregnum regent, Eamon, Alistair or anyone else wouln’t have been a treat to his reign, because it would only be temporary, “until such a time as order can be restored to the land and a proper hair found". In this way he could buy himself close to a decade of unchallenged rule, as long as he made it clear that a proper hair would be found within the Theirin line. Alistair as the closest in line would be announced crown prince to be crowned after stability had been restored, unless he refuses or Loghain could find someone better.
Perhaps Anora was pregnant, that would solve everything for Loghain, he would be regent for her child and would buy himself 18 years on the throne before he would have to give it up. All this he could gain by announcing himself “Regent Interregnum”
All this is good planning but you all forget one thing. Loghan was over come by a fear of the Orlisa taking over. Do I think Loghan or Anore or evil. No Anora cunning and a women with no claim. She think like a politishion. Loghan think like a man who has lived through the Orlishion crulty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceStar100 (talk • contribs)
Not all monarchies work exactly the same, and the scenarios in DA:O are what we're given, correct or not based on how real world monarchies work; it wouldn't be the first time a fantasy setting's changed the rules. As for Anora being pregnant, it's mentioned in a few places that there was concern about why she and Calain hadn't had heirs yet, nor is there mention of heirs in any epilogue (which do call any Warden husband a prince-consort, contradicting earlier in game comments). Still, none of what's in DA:O is terribly far-fetched, though Loghain's attempt at regency when and how he did it is a bit insane, but he wasn't in his right mind either due to his fear of Orlais (and Howe's ambition wasn't helping). Anora seemed the best choice to the Bannorn until they learned for sure about Alistair, who until then was kept secret--and even then, he wasn't considered fit to rule by everyone, including Loghain, who clearly wanted his own daughter instead. Fereldan's monarchy may be hereditary, but there was no one else in the Theirin line left; even Eamon's claim was through marriage, same as Loghain and Anora. It struck me as "someone wants to usurp the throne, and we don't have much choice due to the Blight coming, but man do we not like this." That they're coming off a long occupation likely doesn't help the inheritance situation.LynMars (talk) 22:22, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
IceStar100 that was to many grammar mistakes for me to properly understand you, you can’t be forgetting whole words in your sentences, it’s just too much.
And LunMars. Yes I am aware that fantasy settings sometimes change the rule, but Calenhad is the clear founder of the royal line much like Gorm the Old is it in real world Denmark, everyone that have a legitimate claim to the throne have to be descended of him.
What I am saying is that Loghain could have avoided the cival war if he had been more tactical. As “Regent Interregnum” on the ground of him being the general of Ferelden until a proper hair could be found would both be solid and sound. He could buy himself the throne at least until the blight had been ended and when he learned of Alistair he could have proclaimed him Crown prince and insisted that he be trained in the act of ruling before taking the throne. It wouldn’t be difficult for Loghaim to convince the landsmeet that Alistair needed a lot of tutelage before he could take the throne and that he should rule the land until he was ready. After the blight had ended he would have Alistair in the palace where he could watch him every single day for years with Anora rubbing her back to him, whispering and tempting his weak little mind just like she had Cailan. Showing the fitfulness of his own daughter he could finally force Alistair with the landsmeets blessing to marry Anora. I’m just saying that there are lots of ways Loghain could have kept the power for years had he just appeared more willing to compromise.
- Loghain wasn't looking for power for years, though; he wanted to keep the nation he'd saved from Orlais together, and without giving the Orlesians a foothold again. Nothing about the man suggests a willingness to compromise; he's not a politician, he's a general. Anora has all the political ability, which she uses to try and keep her tenuous position. Loghain knew about Alistair, but between his disdain for the Grey Wardens and possibly being afraid Alistair would be like Cailan in friendliness to Orlais, and not knowing if Alistair was fit to rule, I don't think Loghain considered Alistair for the throne at all, even as his own puppet. Politically, Loghain's tactics make little sense, but he wasn't coming at the regency like a politician would. He was treating the situation like a battlefield exercise and refused to understand why the Bannorn wouldn't get in line with his absolute control like his soldiers would. I also think some of Howe's advice may have been to blame; I doubt the man's ambition stopped with Highever and Denerim, and eventually he'd have set Loghain up for a fall as well, leaving himself with a lot of power and control for a real coup once the messy civil war and darkspawn were dealt withLynMars (talk) 10:34, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I have said it once I will say it again and try to be clearer on my reasoning, Loghain set the whole thing up, he first had to kill Maric and since Maric died at sea he could have set it up to make it look like an accident, I know how easy it is to do something like that being ex-Navy(I got this from Sailors who I was stationed with.). My guess is he knew that Cailain was not fit to be King in his eyes, that is why his next goal was to get Cailan to marry his daughter Anora, then wait for the opportunity to present itself. And, when the blight happened he knew the time was right to strike, so he baited Cailan into going for the glory and fame. So, Loghain planned the battle to achive his goal. Howe might have nudged Loghain into betraying Cailain, but the seeds of his betrayal were there way before then, just think about how he treated Cailain before the last battle. Loghain felt he was the stronger leader between him and Cailain and when Cailain asked the Orlesians and Duncan requested the Orlesian Wardens for assistance that was all he needed to justify his actions. He not only got rid of a weak King, but also those who he felt were inferior warriors and relied on their legend and not their skill as warriors. What he did not count on was Alister and the new Grey Warden Tammoria(the name of my character in the game)surviving the attack on the tower. And, when he discovered that Allister and the new Grey Warden were alive he knew he had to get rid of them or be found out that he caused Cailain's death, so when Howe approached him with Zevran Arainai from the Antivan Crows, Loghain agreed to have them kill Allister, the new Grey Warden and anyone with them. Anya McDonald (talk)
As much as I can concur with LynMars I cannot disagree more with Anyamarie. Loghain was not a politician not by a long shot, yes had he done what I said his plan would have succeeded, but he didn’t think about it that way, he was a soldier and he never truly wanted to rule he just felt like he had no choice.
It is absurd to the extreme to accuse Loghaim for assassinating Maric, he idealised Maric. He betrayed Cailan because he just coulnd’t respect him, but more importantly he betrayed him because he had to. The blight was too severe; the Darkspawm too numbers to be defeated at Ostegar even if he had followed the plan. Had he not retreated, all the armies of Ferelden had been lost. He was a good an honourable man, a hero who was so unfortunate that he no longer had a king to serve, lost he grasped to the one voice that was more then willing to whisper in his ear Howe.
We know that it was Rendon Howe that made contact with the Antivan Crows and he properly also nudged Loghain to many of his other questionable acts, and the only other I know of is sending Jowan to poison arl Eamon.
I have said it before and I will say it again, I really hope that the developers will consider my idea for a future DLC. The Loghain Chronicle will finally tell the tale of the Blight from his perspective.
Frankly Anyamarie you offend my honour the way you slander Loghain. You have absolutely no hold in anything you say, had Loghain been a snake like Howe you would never have seen a soldier with such devotion as the one seen in Ser Cauthrien.
You know what the difference is between a soldier and a mercenary? A mercenary do a job, they will fight for whoever pays them the most, and cares only for getting paid. A soldier on the other hand, he is a believer. He fights for great justice in the name of his sire. He is willing to die for his lord and his cause. Ser Cauthrien is a soldier. All of Howe’s men are mercenaries, and he doesn’t understand the difference, for he cannot comprehend, that some causes and some men are worth dying for.
- First off, I mostly agree with you on this, your analyzations are top notch, and I don't agree with Anya Marie at all either. There is no way Loghain killed Maric, I actually think it was Maric's sudden and tragic death that lead to Loghain's fall. Maric was a good king, Cailan had quite a few issues and Loghain knew it. Loghain was clearly a good man with good intentions, but he did kind of snap. Howe was by far the more evil of the two. The Loghain Chronicles would make a fantastic DLC. Though I have said before I'm not too sure Loghain was that good of a general to start with. I think that Ostagar could have been one with a better general but they didn't have one so that doesn't really matter.
- Now, I know that English isn't your first language, so I'm not sure what to make of it, but that soldier/mercenary comparison doesn't translate too well. A soldier believes in a cause worth fighting for, not necessarily a leader. While I've never been in the military myself, I come from a family with a lot of military. A lot of soldiers don't like their CO, they don't like what they are called on to do. Once you join though you can't just leave. Soldiers start out as believers, it's up to the CO to keep them that way.
- A manipulative and charismatic enough person can easily inspire the kind of loyalty from someone that Ser Cauthrian had for Loghain, but I don't think Loghain was that kind of man. It's a knight that fights for their sire, and that's what Ser Cauthrian was. They have a calling higher that any ordinary soldier. Ser Cauthrian was also more than a knight, she was Loghain's second, his trusted lieutenant and likely his closest friend since the death of Maric. Loghain was not charismatic at all, he inspired that kind of loyalty because he was a good man. Ser Cauthrian will even tell you that, but if you leave her alive before the Landsmeet she will tell you something has changed in him and she asks for you to show him mercy.
- Howe was a different story, he was a terrible person and he got what he wanted through violence, threats, and promises. His betrayal of the Couslands would make it clear to everyone what he was, and a man like that can't hold that kind of Loyalty. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 20:51, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I think Loghain actually did like Calain, he just harbored a deep and inescapable hatred of Orlais, who he was still fighting a war against. Even though he maintains his story publicly, there's a bit of self-loathing in his solemness when away from the court of public opinion. He also doesn't have much love or respect for Howe, who he would prefer to dirty his own hands and leave him plausible deniability and a scapegoat he himself would love to hate.. DokEnkephalin (talk) 20:35, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how anybody can consider Loghain a good and honorable man. Good and honorable men are not raving paranoids who commit high treason.
Loghain may have believed he had the best intentions in committing high treason and leaving the son of his best friend to die, but his actions in DAO are neither good nor honorable. Gruedragon (talk) 21:11, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Cailan wasn't exactly the best of Kings, it might have actually been for the best that Loghain killed him. Who knows what might have happened if Cailan had decided to go ahead and divorce Anora to marry Empress Celine? Loghain did a lot of terrible things, but the same can be said of a lot of people considered good and honorable. Leaders must make difficult choices on behalf of those that follow them. Cailan's actions could have been seen as a betrayal of Fereldan, they could have sparked civil war, the Orlesians might have actually tried to take over Fereldan once the chevaliers were back in the country. We don't really know. What we do know is Loghain had to make a tough choice. It could be said he made the wrong choice for the right reasons, but he also could have been right at least in killing Cailan. We do know he was wrong about how to deal with the Wardens. The Wardens are actually needed to defeat the blight, but it was their own secrecy that led to Loghain not knowing that. He should also probably have approached the matter of the then vacant throne differently, but he did what he felt he had too as best as he knew how to do it. It's easy to say he made the wrong choices in retrospect, but with the information he had, the situation he was in, it was likely the only decision he could make. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 21:50, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
So was poisoning Eamon and killing the Couslands (I know that was Howe, but Howe and Loghain are buds and Loghain benefited immensely by having the two nobles with the closest shot at the throne eliminated) also for the greater good? Gruedragon (talk) 22:32, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
If he really believed what he was doing was honorable, then why all the deception? Such effort to obscure his actions is practically an admission of guilt. DokEnkephalin (talk) 23:02, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
If Loghain was directly involved in Howe's attack on Highever, he obviously considered it the best course of action whether it actually was or not. Whatever reasons Loghain had for doing it (or allowing it) were likely given to him by Arl Howe himself. Howe likely told Loghain that Teyrn Cousland would not support them in their chosen course of action. Maybe Teyrn Cousland could have been convinced that the king was inept and needed to be removed, maybe not, though I doubt Howe would actually make a serious effort at finding out. No matter what the Couslands would have done, it was in Howe's best personal interest to kill them off and take over their Teyrnir. For that reason I doubt Loghain had good information on the issue, he'd be forced to make the decision with what info he had.
As for why Loghain would be so deceptive, why is anyone ever? Being straightforward with people is not always the best idea. Manipulating people can be considered unethical, but you have to look at the desired end as well. Think of spies, deception is what they do, the very essence of their trade. A spy can work for any type of cause though. It's not the method, it's what it's used for. Deception does not imply wrongdoing, it just implies a belief that others may not agree with your actions (whatever their reasons or those actions may be). --Aedan Cousland (talk) 00:38, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
He's not a spy, though. He's an officer, a warrior, a general, and even if he were a spy as well, the need to cloak your activities is for enemies. So, if he'd frankly revealed all his plans, do you think the change in the level of support he'd get is any indication of how sound a course of action it is? Surely the consensus of his peers would say something about his honor and rightness. DokEnkephalin (talk) 00:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
The need to cloak your actions is for anyone in a sensitive line of work, no matter what line of work that happens to be. The use of spies and the importance of secrecy is the point of part 13 or The Art of War by Sun Tzu, every successful general would not only know the importance of secrecy in their actions, but would make extensive use of it. Only those that need to know will be told and there is nothing wrong with misleading an enemy (or a potential enemy). What would happen if he'd revealed all of his plans and the amount of support lost or even gained, has nothing to do with how sound a course of action it is. Look at Bhelan, he killed his eldest brother (and framed his other sibling), possibly killed his father, and if he won the support of the Assembly to become king, he would go on to dissolve it when it become problematic. He does a lot of terrible things, and he lies about all of it, but it actually turns out to be the best thing for Orzammar. Lies and secrets are one of the simplest things in the world, they can be used for good or bad. Idealism is a dangerous thing, sometimes you need to do thinks you wish you didn't have to do to protect what you cherish most. The real world, and the world of Thedas are not black and white, they are oh so many marvelous shades of grey. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 01:23, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
All I can say is that if one looks back through history, one will see many examples of the type of soldiers Loghain is. Soldiers who are in a position to take over if they feel that the sitting rulers are not up to par for their Nation. It is called a Coup and it happens all the time, don't take my word for it just read history, especially military history. And, in my opinion Loghain felt Cailain was not the leader he felt should be on the throne. Even his own words have suggested this when he tells Ban Teagan that "I have not shurked my responsibilities to the throne and neither will any of you." So, this tells me that Loghain eventhough a friend to Maric, he was loyal only to the throne and not the person sitting on the throne. Hate me if you will, but I stand by my statement and suspicions about Loghain..Anya McDonald (talk)
- No one hates you, they just disagree with your theory. That's also not what a "Coup" or "Coup d'état" is. A coup is the sudden overthrow of a government by a small portion of the existing government. The use or involvement of the military in the overthrow is not the defining factor. While Loghain truly cared for Maric (enough that he wouldn't murder him), his true loyalties were to Fereldan. If you read The Stolen Throne there are some interesting things on that point that I'll not go into now. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 02:06, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Exposure to the light of public opinion would've revealed just how poor a course of action Loghain was selecting. Honesty is the best policy not simply because it's more ethical, but because deception and obfuscation is cowardly -- if your convictions are really solid, you should be able to put your balls directly on the line, win support on the strength of that, and carry on in spite of opposition. And if you're going to such lengths of deception and treachery, you'd better be damn sure you're right, but unfortunately in Loghain's case the assurance that he was right and everyone else was wrong was a false assurance, and by keeping everyone in the dark he demonstrated that he knew this. This turned out to be his fatal flaw, which he ultimately accepted the consequences for with much more courage than he'd shown the rest of the story. DokEnkephalin (talk) 02:13, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
I see the potential for this to turn into a very heated ethical debate. Generally I'm all for that sort of thing, but it seems like a bad idea. I'm going to leave this thread now. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 02:27, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
It's less about ethics than pragmatism; by concealing his plans he also concealed the flaws in them. And if that didn't leave him in a vulnerable enough position, consider the nature and character of those who supported that plan versus the nature, character, and capability to serve the kingom's interests of those he expected opposition from. He's pretty clearly doomed himself. DokEnkephalin (talk) 03:02, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
I think I like you Aedan Cousland you are insightful and right on the mark, I understand why you wish to leave this tread and I don’t think I will leave more comments on it either after this.
Howe was a vessel, Loghain knew that he tolerated him because he thought he could use him. He certainly made mistakes, his greatest I believe was trusting Howe. His action in the Alienage didn’t happen before he started to lose ground to the banns and I’m certain that it was by Howe’s suggestion.
I don’t get why so many of you have so much against covert operations. TV has made war an almost impossible task because it creates the illusion of nearness possibly even kinship with the enemy. When you can see a women crying holding the bloody copse of her baby in her hands, or a man frantically trying to gather his own intestines you fell sic to the bottom of your soul and hatred to the men who did this. Had it been in the newspaper it would have said something like this.
“Yesterday was a great success for our troops, they captured the enemy city of X, there was some casualties also among the civilians, private, Jan, Jim and Jon Doe, fell on the battlefield, they will be remembered.”
It is not about deception, it is about perception. There is not objective way to look at the circumstances, but there are many ways to provoke feelings of either: patriotism, compassion or disgust. It is all about how you paint the picture.
I am a philosopher and “Der Ding an sich” has a special interest for me, why do you guys think it is so fleeting. Try to give your responds at least half as much thought as Aedan Cousland does. -rphb- (talk) 17:23, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
If Loghain's actions are an example of covert operations, then everyone he left out of the loop must be 'the enemy', so the bannorn can't be blamed for having so little confidence in him as to rebel -- hell, even his own daughter couldn't help getting suspicious of the answers to his questions. What little of his hand he's shown was already against their interests, and he didn't seem to be taking those into any future considerations. Him concealing his plans to conceal their flaws certainly don't make those flaws go away, it just means that when the cover-up fails, the collapse follows much more quickly; like so many examples in history. Or for a more current example, you must be aware that retreating from the thread with the assurance of the indisputability of your arguments certainly shields them from analysis. DokEnkephalin (talk) 19:22, August 3, 2010 (UTC)