Guild Wars 2

i really dont get it, WHY does everyone hate him anyway?

I personally didn’t find him particularly annoying at all – until I’d played through the personal story with a couple of characters. When you know the dialogue already, you realise he does talk a lot in your missions…

I can think of two reasons people don’t like him. One – spoilers! – is that some people don’t like it when NPCs become the stars of a story and we, the players, end up helping them. Personally I don’t have a problem with this, and I think the tactic has served the Guild Wars canon well over the years. That said, there are a couple of places in the personal story where the way it’s done is a bit questionable. In particular, when someone starts sabotaging/attacking your character, and Trahearne and the PC agree that it’s obviously to get at him…somehow.

The second reason is simpler: he’s an NPC who talks a lot. He comes along with you a lot, he spends a lot of your missions talking incessantly in the background, and you listen to a lot of cutscenes with him. Those characters tend to irritate people over time, and after hearing Trahearne’s life story four times or so, I was starting to understand it, no matter how petty it is!

Curuniel.4830:

when someone starts sabotaging/attacking your character, and Trahearne and the PC agree that it’s obviously to get at him…somehow.

It makes perfect sense. The reason the Pact can hold together is that they can agree on a leader not affiliated with any Order but who is respected by all 3. As far as is known, Trahearne is the only one that qualifies. His second in command (you) is affiliated with an Order. If you want to break an enemy alliance, kill the person holding the alliance together. Zhaitan strikes at enemy leadership over and over again: Queen Jennah and the leaders of the Orders. In an obligatory mission in Timberline Falls, a major leuitenant of Zhaitan orchestrated an elaborate plot as an apparently random attack on an archaeological dig just to lure Trahearne into a trap.

That said, I feel that Trahearne risks himself far too much as a military leader. This may be because of Sylvari naivitee, or the fact that video game conventions often have leaders fighting on the front lines far more often than you see IRL.

In GW1, people constantly complained about various NPCs who were featured a lot: Prince Rurik, Master Togo, Mhenlo, Kormir and Dunkoro. However, when they left players to read mission text or NPC text to find out what was going on, people who did not read complained that it all made no sense. No matter what ANet did, they would get complaints. I would not worry overmuch about it. Remember, lots of people write: “I love this game” and do not single out any particular aspect, but when people complain they often single out one or a few aspects.

I do not hold dislike for Trahearne as there is room enough for your character to become a famous “hero”. Trahearne takes the spotlight, alright, but in GW1 ones characters rarely got any credit for everything one did and rarely got recognized by NPCs at all. Winds of Change comes to mind as an exception (especially the funny NPC dialogues after getting discovered when spying on the thugs).

In GW2 one becomes a “hero” rather quickly i’d say, and Trahearne is the one who acts as leader but always confers with you and leaves most of the actual decisions to you – it’s you who slays Zhaitan in the end, and Trahearne is not there. You play a key role and do get credit, and who is actually at least as important for the Pact as Trahearne.

I see it like this, one is kingmaker and the power behind the throne, so to speak. Should Trahearne fall one day (given the history of such characters in GW1 it is not completely unlikely) then who would inherit his position as marshal most likely?

Neither does his voice acting appear as that bad to me, it’s as noble as i would expect it to be from someone as him. People can just skip cutscene dialogues if getting annoyed by Trahearne.

SPOILER DON’T READ
I think the main reason is because trahearne replaces your compagnion from the order you’ve chosen. I did get a bit attached to Tybalt from the order of whispers. When those compagnions die, you get trahearne, even when the wound is still fresh. But we cold-hearted gamers aren’t supposed to care about the loss of a virtual character, we’re to cool for that, so we cover it up by saying bad things about trahearne, that kitten leafy know-it-all who intends to save the world from an undeath dragon…

I haven’t finished the story yet but from everything I’ve seen and heard already I would assume it is because players want to be the hero of the story rather than being the ones who help the hero. Coming from GW1 where the player is the one who passes the trials of ascension to be able to fight the mursaat and take down the vizier (and then similarly heroic tales for the expansions).

People claim it’s because Trahearne takes the spotlight.

However, he doesn’t. It’s just folks wanting to be the top macho person in charge. Same reason why folks hated Kormir, more or less, except that Trahearne’s less insulting than she was by the end of it. But folks fail to realize that the Marshal of the Pact isn’t a fun role. Imagine the paperwork he has to do. And while you’re off hanging with Apatia, Tonn, or dealing with the friendly fire incident, Trahearne’s doing what? Watching a place get built. That’s very fun.

Honestly, Trahearne doesn’t hold as much of a spotlight than Destiny’s Edge members during the first 20 levels of the personal story, or the Order mentors during the 30-50 levels of the personal story. Hell, he’s pretty much holding a torch while they’re holding braziers and bonfires (respectively).

I think his mechanical voice acting only greatly harms his disposition though.

Frosch.7809:

In GW2 one becomes a “hero” rather quickly i’d say.

I agree – the only way I can make the personal story work for me in my head is to imagine that it plays out over about six months. I don’t blame the writers for compressing it, because you want it to move along at a pace where exciting developments occur on a regular basis, but it makes more sense to me to have built a local reputation over a month or two, then spent three or four months rapidly earning a reputation in your new order, then joining the Pact. If you think about it on that kind of timescale, the player’s rise is impressively fast and owes a lot to convenient timing, but not unrealistic.

I also agree that insisting that the player character must be the one mightiest hero who is credited with everything is kind of silly. I like the fact that Guild Wars plots allow for your hero to be a highly competent person without whom the happy ending would not be possible, but ArenaNet can still tell the history through the stories of important other figures – Master Togo, Kormir, etc. I have no problem with my character being a witness to great historical events.

JohnLShannonhouse, I don’t mean to suggest that it’s unreasonable to expect Zhaitan and its forces to go after Trahearne – he is a key co-ordinating figure, and in theory the Pact would be significantly weakened without his mediating influence. He is the Twilight Sparkle of the Pact – organiser, mediator, deployer of other people’s talents (including his commander’s). Again, in theory, heh. What I did have a problem with was a whole story arc in which the player character is framed for incompetence, and Trahearne says “all these moves have been against you so far, but I think it’s clear that the real target is me.” And my character agrees! I don’t think that’s what it suggested at all; I think perhaps the PC deserves a little credit for also being a major driving force and source of morale in the Pact in their own right.

Okay, first off, not everyone hates Trahearne, some like him, other dislike him a little and some are indifferent.

Still if I look at this forum, other forums and my circle of friends and I had to give an estimate, I would say more than the majority of people who fully played through the storyline atleast once hate him. Let’s just say it’s 60% (of course no statstic behind) of those players that hate him. The other 40% have one major group, people who played Sylvari as their first character. Sylvari players tend to like him or are indifferent to him since he shows up very early in their story. And that the first reason why the 60% hate him:

1. He just shows up. Their is 0 introduction to him, you just meet him with your order mentor and everyone tells you how freaking awesome he is (everyone has stories of past heroics of him and so on). This is pretty lame for non-sylvari players, why should they even care about him. Bonus points if the player doesn’t like Sylvari to begin with (like me).

2. He unfortunatly has to replace one the best characters in your story. That’s reason number two. After tagging along some one as awesome as Tybalt Leftpaw, Forgal Kernsson or Sieran (yes some people apparently like her /shrug), you not only have to witness their death (which is pretty cliché I might add) but no you are also stuck with Salad Head… I mean Traderp… wait that’s still not right, Trahearne!

3. He is a Mary-Sue. All the NPC’s love him, every decision he makes is right (only the ones made by the player go wrong), he has only informed flaws, he never get’s heard. He is by defintion a Mary-Sue and one of the worst offenders I have seen in a main-steam MMO. This is also the reason why people say he is a glory hound. He doesn’t do anything, all major decisions are made by the player. He just either sits on his butt or follows you around. How about you make some tactical decisions yourself once? Oh you can’t because you are the scholary-type, that’s why you wield a huge magical sword that has the power to cleanse Orr.

4. His voice is terrible. On top of that he has no hints of any interesting character traits. He is as plain and shallow as you can get. However that’s a problem all Sylvari have in my opinion. They are simply unintersting. I’m getting that itching in my fists again, let’s come to an end quickly, before I punch through my monitor.

5. He steals the spotlight. The personal story is supposed to be that, personal. But instead the last third is only about the pact. The player is reduced to a nameless soldier. Yes I know, he is the Commander, but we never ever command anything, only a small task-force, which however more often when not, gives us the orders. (“Shoot the giants!”, “get to the top of the hill!”). Everything that has made my character unique before is gone. My Norn has the exact same lines as Charr, human, Asura or Sylvari. This frustration is led out on Trahearne, who has the bad luck of being the center of attention of the pact storyline.

And a minor note: “It’s just folks wanting to be the top macho person in charge. Same reason why folks hated Kormir, more or less, except that Trahearne’s less insulting than she was by the end of it.”

That is the most ridiculous statement I have read in this thread. I hate Trahearne, but I liked Kormir. She had character and she made decisions, she had flaws and most importantly, she suffered for her mistakes. Kormir was a great leader and character, Trahearne is light years away from being either.

Kormir had a bit of a journey to go through between the beginning of the game and the end. Now that I think about it, I think part of what I dislike about Trahearne’s part in the story (not Trahearne himself, but rather the way he’s used) is that I feel like he doesn’t get the character development he should. He starts as a scholar, he’s told he has to be more, and then… he is. Suddenly fighting the dragon head-on is a great idea. I think I’d be a lot more sympathetic if he had some struggles and difficulties along the way, and if I felt that he had actually struggled at all.

I have huge problems with the whole ‘vision of the future’ sequence, but that’s a blog post for another day!

I don’t have quite the Mary-Sue reaction that some do to Trahearne, but I do think that a lack of meaningful character challenges and development (possibly caused in part by time constraints) gives that impression. And BuddhaKeks, I adore the sylvari and find them to be an extremely complex and interesting race… but that opinion was formed based on lore pre-release, and my view of them may not be fully backed up by the way they appear in-game. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve found the writing in-game doesn’t do the base concepts justice.

During my personal story, my character’s weakness was shown to me twice by having a friend die, first was Forgal, the second was Apatia. These tragic losses fuel the player’s hate for Zhaitan, but unfortunately for Trahearne as well. He never loses anyone, he never makes mistakes, the only time he ever has any doubt it when the Pale Tree shows him his future in Orr, which he deals with in what, five minutes? He’s shown to us as a character on an equal standing as the player character, but his story has no weight to it comparable to that of the player character. It’s like putting Mario as Batman’s sidekick and trying to make the story serious.

So, basically, he’s very shallow. He’s an environmentalist who didn’t like Zhaitan polluting Orr so he makes it his mission, yada yada, but that’s it. He’s made out to be like some kind of perfect Messiah.

What would be best if for the rest of the stories they just sit Trahearne back in his seat in the Pact HQ and just let the Hero be front-line general from now on. All problems fixed.

Hate is too strong of a word for me to use for him. It’s more of a general apathy for me. Most of the complaints I have against him were already listed by others: lack of character depth, bland personality, and Mary-Sue-ish qualities. Not to mention the whole…

Trehearne: I don’t want to be leader.
Pale Tree: It is your destiny.
Trehearne: Ok, I’ll be leader! What should we do next commander?
Me: /facepalm

If he is going to be a major character for the remainder of the game, they really really need to expand on him, and give his character some depth. I don’t mind playing the role of henchman in a MMO, but I’d much rather be a henchman to an interesting character/leader.

Erukk.1408:

Hate is too strong of a word for me to use for him. It’s more of a general apathy for me. Most of the complaints I have against him were already listed by others: lack of character depth, bland personality, and Mary-Sue-ish qualities.

The player character accumulates far more of those than Trahearne. I am not sure if I really like the voice actor for the male human anymore. I think the big problem is the voice direction, and this is an across-the-board matter.

Veteran voice actors can salvage it, I mean Felicia Day does manage to make me not want to strangle Zojja every moment she opens her mouth. (Only when she’s being a prima donna, Snaff dying is all that matters, and that Kudu stinks!) And Steve Blum’s Rytlock is very good.

Not to mention the whole…

Trehearne: I don’t want to be leader.
Pale Tree: It is your destiny.
Trehearne: Ok, I’ll be leader! What should we do next commander?
Me: /facepalm

I’m coming up on this part again, but I thought it was “I don’t think I can lead” and the Pale Tree going: “You don’t think you can lead? Bull. Look important, act confident, and stare down anyone who tries to call your plan stupid.”

. . . those eyes . . .

If he is going to be a major character for the remainder of the game, they really really need to expand on him, and give his character some depth. I don’t mind playing the role of henchman in a MMO, but I’d much rather be a henchman to an interesting character/leader.

This sums up a lot of “but I liked my mentor, now I got this walking weed” complaints. The mentors had some time to grow on you, and then they were gone. (Except Sieran. Apparently she’s an exception.) Trahearne needed some more exposure if he was going to be important.

We’ll see what comes. Personally, I expect him to be more absent since he doesn’t have a personal stake (his Wyld Hunt) in being there all the time.

This thread won’t end well!!

The problem is….you just can´t love every character. I very much liked Tybald and Sieran bud I hated Forghal….it´s just….I didn´t liked him.
On the other hand, when I first met Trahearne (as a sylvari) I thought “cool, this necro who is all about Orr,sounds interesting”. Then I met him on Claw Island and it was cool too…but then I´m stucked with him for all eternity and he isn´t that much cool. I liked him at first but when I was at the end of story, I didn´t liked him at all…and with second char,I hated him. He is just a type of a character that isn´t bad when he is not around often.
I´d more like, if I can choose a character with whom I´ll go on missions. You could cooperate with your order´s division in the Pact, have a Order- specific tasks and you could choose from maybe two or three characters, with whom you´d like to go. But that´s more of a PS problem, than about Trahearne.

I am among the few that actually like Trahearne I think. I think he is a nice character

Zeefa.3915:

I am among the few that actually like Trahearne I think. I think he is a nice character

I think he is too. But I liked him better when he was Cecil, Dark Knight of Baron.

Wait . . .

BuddhaKeks.4857:

every decision he makes is right (only the ones made by the player go wrong)

Uh, no?

His decision to use the back tunnel during Forging the Pact is wrong; his decision to use the ritual at the royal tombs is wrong, but our comment about the Source of Orr from A Light in the Darkness’ vision is right. He’s not wrong often, but he’s not present often to make a wrong decision – most of the time he’s around as Pact leader he’s telling us where to go because it’s tactical and we decide how to go there.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

How about you make some tactical decisions yourself once?

He does. I think you need to pay more attention during Forging the Pact and his involvement with the Pact elsewhere. He’s the one who chooses where to put Fort Trinity (even if you name it) and why; he’s the one who chooses the targets that are the Eye and Mouth of Zhaitan as well as which targets to go after for limiting Zhaitan’s minion supply. If this isn’t tactical decisions I don’t know what is.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

He steals the spotlight. The personal story is supposed to be that, personal. But instead the last third is only about the pact. The player is reduced to a nameless soldier. Yes I know, he is the Commander, but we never ever command anything, only a small task-force, which however more often when not, gives us the orders.

And this is different from the rest of the personal storyline…. how? We’re always a nameless soldier. We’re always being told what to do. The only time we get to “command anything” as you put it would be when choosing the splits – like when we decide how to hunt down the Eye of Zhaitan, or how we decide how to go after the Mouth of Zhaitan, or how we decide which of the Orders’ plan to invade Cursed Shore to go with.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Uh, no?

His decision to use the back tunnel during Forging the Pact is wrong; his decision to use the ritual at the royal tombs is wrong, but our comment about the Source of Orr from A Light in the Darkness’ vision is right. He’s not wrong often, but he’s not present often to make a wrong decision – most of the time he’s around as Pact leader he’s telling us where to go because it’s tactical and we decide how to go there.

Oh what terrible mistakes those were! We are stuck in a cave for 5 minutes longer! Oh no we went to the wrong body of water (see how Trahearne instantly looses all hope, that little prick!). Truely he will learn from those mistakes and become a better leader! (In case you don’t know, this is sarcasm).

Konig Des Todes.2086:

He does. I think you need to pay more attention during Forging the Pact and his involvement with the Pact elsewhere. He’s the one who chooses where to put Fort Trinity (even if you name it) and why; he’s the one who chooses the targets that are the Eye and Mouth of Zhaitan as well as which targets to go after for limiting Zhaitan’s minion supply. If this isn’t tactical decisions I don’t know what is.

How do you know that? The reason he takes credit for naming the Fort is that he does not want the orders to believe that one of them had made the decision. Same could apply to every single decision that seemingly comes from him. And it would make sense. How would a scholar know how to make tactical decisions all of the sudden? He himself says he is a terrible leader, why would he be able to be such a great leader out of nowhere? There are 2 explanations: 1. Terrible character development or 2. He is a liar. He does nothing but taking the credit of other peoples work. I like to think that Anets writing team has some kind of talent, and made him the typical boss. Does nothing, knows nothing, gets all the credit. (For the greater good, you know)

Konig Des Todes.2086:

And this is different from the rest of the personal storyline…. how? We’re always a nameless soldier. We’re always being told what to do. The only time we get to “command anything” as you put it would be when choosing the splits – like when we decide how to hunt down the Eye of Zhaitan, or how we decide how to go after the Mouth of Zhaitan, or how we decide which of the Orders’ plan to invade Cursed Shore to go with.

The first 3 quest lines are about the player. If you are human you might look for your parents, if you are Norn you might want to get revenge and so on. Then one of the orders needs your help. Your help. Not anyone elses. The Order storylines are pretty fifty-fifty about the player and his mentor. But that’s okay because the mentors are actually likeable and well written characters. The story follows your exploits and it makes sense that the mentor can give you orders, since he is your superior (but he also listens to your input).

The pact storyline starts similar, only now you have a superior who has no clue what he is doing, has no character and only is on top of you in the chain of command because he never actually signed up in any of the orders. Sounds pretty unfair, eh? Because it is. And now this guy gives you orders, but only after the player told him what orders he should give. It’s not far fetched to think that he never had any idea of his own, if he didn’t have the orders and the player as advisers. It doesn’t matter what orders he gives you, you just do it like a mindless drown and after you are done, you come back askin for more to do.
That’s pretty bad, but if you actually bothered to quote the whole point you would have noticed that my main issue with this is actually that it doesn’t matter what race you are. You are always Trahearne’s little sidekick. Even though, that doesn’t make sense, for a Norn for example or an Asura. Those 2 races shouldn’t easily accept him as superior. A Charr could have issues with him too, maybe even a human, but all for different reasons.
Now you can say: “But the dialog isn’t really different for anyone in the order storyline too!” Yeah it isn’t and that sucks, but it’s less apparent and the well written mentors make up for it. Trahearne doesn’t.

I don’t hate him for “taking over the spotlight”. Unlike many, Kormir never bothered me.

I dislike him because for such an important character, he has no personality and a very shallow character arc. I also don’t care for the fact that he’s ‘destined’ to cleanse Orr. I’m human – why should I care what some magical tree says? If I had a vision from the Six, maybe I would have cared, but any non-Sylvari has little reason to follow what the Pale Tree says.

His introduction for non-Sylvari also comes out of nowhere. We’re just supposed to accept the fact that he’s a renowned scholar and respected by everyone even though we’ve never heard of him before. I’m never shown a good reason to follow him, other NPCs just tell me I should. Good stories show, they don’t tell.

Overall I find him boring and shallow, and for an important NPC that’s a major problem.

I think Trahearne was just executed poorly. In theory there’s nothing wrong with the role he has to play. If, for example, it was Tybalt that was stealing the show from you in the final arc of the story, I doubt many people would be complaining.

But bland lines combined with wooden voice acting and an abrupt/forced introduction? That does not make for an emotional connection with the player.

So even if the lore and explanations behind Trahearne’s character, motivations, and eventual undertakings all make logical sense, that still is not enough for a good story.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Same could apply to every single decision that seemingly comes from him. And it would make sense. How would a scholar know how to make tactical decisions all of the sudden? He himself says he is a terrible leader, why would he be able to be such a great leader out of nowhere? There are 2 explanations: 1. Terrible character development or 2. He is a liar.

There’s a 3rd and 4th option. Humility and/or lack of confidence. There are many genre’s that love to pick a man who is humble and doesn’t feel that he can lead in order to develop them into the leader type. The lack of confidence comes from the fact that he has never lead people before, it doesn’t mean that he is not good at it, he cannot know until he tries, and he tried/succeeded. I’ll definitely admit that the character development on him is majorly lacking (this coming from a Sylvari-lover that played the game for the first and only time all the way through on a Sylvari). I personally hope that they will use the future expansion to take him to the next level as a competent leader of the pact, rather than a man constantly second guessing his actions. The death of Zhaitan is a great and pivotal point for possibly developing his character and making him much more enjoyable to be around. (Just plain up killing him would be a total cop out, live up to your mistakes and fix them.)

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Does nothing, knows nothing, gets all the credit. (For the greater good, you know)

Oh really?

Screenshot ahoy.

And, heck, might as well go one extra . . .

Narcemus.1348:

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Same could apply to every single decision that seemingly comes from him. And it would make sense. How would a scholar know how to make tactical decisions all of the sudden? He himself says he is a terrible leader, why would he be able to be such a great leader out of nowhere? There are 2 explanations: 1. Terrible character development or 2. He is a liar.

There’s a 3rd and 4th option. Humility and/or lack of confidence. There are many genre’s that love to pick a man who is humble and doesn’t feel that he can lead in order to develop them into the leader type. The lack of confidence comes from the fact that he has never lead people before, it doesn’t mean that he is not good at it, he cannot know until he tries, and he tried/succeeded. I’ll definitely admit that the character development on him is majorly lacking (this coming from a Sylvari-lover that played the game for the first and only time all the way through on a Sylvari). I personally hope that they will use the future expansion to take him to the next level as a competent leader of the pact, rather than a man constantly second guessing his actions. The death of Zhaitan is a great and pivotal point for possibly developing his character and making him much more enjoyable to be around. (Just plain up killing him would be a total cop out, live up to your mistakes and fix them.)

Bolded the important part, in that case it falls under 1. Terrible character development.

@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.

Really?

I got a screenshot for that too.

Little shop of horrors. NEVER trust a talking plant who tries to help you out.

He’s the Kormir of GW2 for most players. The player(s) do all of the work, and this useless, boring NPC swoops in and takes all of the credit.

In Trahearne’s defense, though, he’s not nearly as bad as Kormir was. He actually helps out by doing a lot of the planning and logistics during the invasion of Orr, but needs the player character to do the legwork, as he pretty much sucks at that.

Kormir, on the other hand, invented the Thief profession.

Generals that lead from the front lines are idiots. They are exposing the entire chain of command to risk and leaving their forces open for crippling damage.

This is why the PC cant be Marshal. Its also why he ‘doesnt do anything’. He does alot. He runs an army. Infact the only times he actually exposes himself is during critical missions where his expertise is needed or when he has to prove himself to others.

Trehearne’s contribution is fine with me. Fort Trinity didnt build its self. All the gear and tech the Pact has and I got to use didnt invent and produce itself. The support we get from other nations didnt materialise out of no where. Someone had to do all the admin work for that and establish the plans and logistics to make the invasion work.

The player, on the other hand, actually gets the freedom to run around as he pleases, choose which missions he wants to be involved in and use all the cool toys Trehearne spent all the time getting produced and supplied.

The poor kitten deserves some credit. His job would have sucked.

Also, its been said before but Ill say it again. The reason Kormir turned into a god was thanks to the other gods. She didnt ‘steal’ the godhood from the player characters. If they had tried what she tried they would have probably just blown up. The Five Gods made the choice, not Kormir.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BuddhaKeks.4857:

@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.

Really?

I got a screenshot for that too.

Nice screen, but that has still nothing to do with what I’m talking about. Try again please.

You know that there’s a problem when the main NPC gives you an overwhelming urge to shank them in the back. That’s the impulse that I had with Trahearne, which is a very unusual reaction for me.

Raynor.1973:

He’s the Kormir of GW2 for most players. The player(s) do all of the work, and this useless, boring NPC swoops in and takes all of the credit.

In Trahearne’s defense, though, he’s not nearly as bad as Kormir was. He actually helps out by doing a lot of the planning and logistics during the invasion of Orr, but needs the player character to do the legwork, as he pretty much sucks at that.

Kormir, on the other hand, invented the Thief profession.

I’m not going to get into the trouble with Kormir. However, Trahearne doesn’t take credit away from you for anything. If anything he downplays and shares out the glory to everyone working for the Pact’s victory.

Also, just about everyone you run into and help out thanks you and sings your praises rather than the Marshall’s. You even do get the Master of Whispers to thank you for making it possible, Destiny’s Edge throws respect your way, and if anything Trahearne turns around and tells you “okay, we’re done here, now while I still lead the Pact, it’s going to be a help to you when you need it”.

So, I’m not sure how he’s a glory hound if everyone under him knows you’re the one doing things, gives you credit for all the stuff you actually do, and just lets Trahearne lead. While Trahearne basically turns it back around to let his leadership follow your example.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BuddhaKeks.4857:

@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.

Really?

I got a screenshot for that too.

Nice screen, but that has still nothing to do with what I’m talking about. Try again please.

Okay, since you keep moving the goalpost, explain what you want to prove? Because from your post I quoted, you said this:

“He does nothing but taking the credit of other peoples work. "

. . . which, you know, I showed you it wasn’t so. You wanted to change that to:

“@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.”

. . . so I bring up at least one instance where he doesn’t make the plan, he asks you to choose a course and he’ll follow your lead. Which, mind you, is not the first time he asks you to choose what you think is the most important plan (even if all three are followed in their own time).

So, let me propose you post a screenshot of him taking credit for a plan which wasn’t his. And if you use “naming Fort Trinity” after already excusing it, I won’t know what to say since you’ll have moved the goalposts yet again.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BuddhaKeks.4857:

@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.

Really?

I got a screenshot for that too.

Nice screen, but that has still nothing to do with what I’m talking about. Try again please.

Okay, since you keep moving the goalpost, explain what you want to prove? Because from your post I quoted, you said this:

“He does nothing but taking the credit of other peoples work. "

. . . which, you know, I showed you it wasn’t so. You wanted to change that to:

“@Tobias Trueflight: I was talking about the plans Trahearne comes up with, not the actual execution of those plans, as that would be impossible to take credit for.”

. . . so I bring up at least one instance where he doesn’t make the plan, he asks you to choose a course and he’ll follow your lead. Which, mind you, is not the first time he asks you to choose what you think is the most important plan (even if all three are followed in their own time).

So, let me propose you post a screenshot of him taking credit for a plan which wasn’t his. And if you use “naming Fort Trinity” after already excusing it, I won’t know what to say since you’ll have moved the goalposts yet again.

I haven’t moved any goalposts, you just don’t understand what I was talking about, you just picked sentences out of their context, refusing to look at my argument, probably because you were so eager to disprove me that you didn’t think about what I actually wrote.

I said, we can not know if Trahearne actually comes up with his plans himself or if he just steals them. Story wise it would only make sense if he takes other peoples work and claims it to be his own. If it is his work, than we have a bad case of character development, because he goes from scholar who never took command, not even fought in a war, to tactical genius in the matter of weeks.

If you think one or the other is true is for you to decide and it’s probably just his bad writing, but I went under the assumption that he is better written when we migth think and in this case the only possible explanation is, that he is a liar and fraud. Now keep posting you screens, because it amuses me how little they have to do with my argument.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

I haven’t moved any goalposts, you just don’t understand what I was talking about, you just picked sentences out of their context, refusing to look at my argument, probably because you were so eager to disprove me that you didn’t think about what I actually wrote.

I feel this has been said about something else which has a lot of attention on these forums, but it’s probably nothing but deja vu.

Regardless, very well, totally misunderstood you but still willing to “play”.

I said, we can not know if Trahearne actually comes up with his plans himself or if he just steals them. Story wise it would only make sense if he takes other peoples work and claims it to be his own. If it is his work, than we have a bad case of character development, because he goes from scholar who never took command, not even fought in a war, to tactical genius in the matter of weeks.

There’s actually very little tactical genius in the plans, the plans as a whole are very simple and just happen to work because the player character is there to keep them on the rails. When the player is not there (say, you wind up with “Air Drop” instead of “Armor Guard”) things very quickly fall apart.

Far as I can tell, the Orders come up with the plans, present them to Trahearne, who then takes the information and plans into account before making a decision. Such as the three avenues you can take in Orr (by land, by sea, by air), and the options which lead to the Cathedral of Silence or that boatwreck elsewhere.

Please note, this is about on par with other tactical-level decisions in the real world. “Genius” and “failure” is generally separated by whether or not it works. If it works? Genius, inspired, wonderful. If it fails? Obviously not tactically sound. Something can be very simple in planning and work perfectly . . . and it can be planned down to the phase of the moon and fail spectacularly because something got missed.

He is shallow and uninspiring; plus his voice is annoying.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Regardless, very well, totally misunderstood you but still willing to “play”.

I said, we can not know if Trahearne actually comes up with his plans himself or if he just steals them. Story wise it would only make sense if he takes other peoples work and claims it to be his own. If it is his work, than we have a bad case of character development, because he goes from scholar who never took command, not even fought in a war, to tactical genius in the matter of weeks.

There’s actually very little tactical genius in the plans, the plans as a whole are very simple and just happen to work because the player character is there to keep them on the rails. When the player is not there (say, you wind up with “Air Drop” instead of “Armor Guard”) things very quickly fall apart.

Far as I can tell, the Orders come up with the plans, present them to Trahearne, who then takes the information and plans into account before making a decision. Such as the three avenues you can take in Orr (by land, by sea, by air), and the options which lead to the Cathedral of Silence or that boatwreck elsewhere.

Please note, this is about on par with other tactical-level decisions in the real world. “Genius” and “failure” is generally separated by whether or not it works. If it works? Genius, inspired, wonderful. If it fails? Obviously not tactically sound. Something can be very simple in planning and work perfectly . . . and it can be planned down to the phase of the moon and fail spectacularly because something got missed.

If tactical decisions were so easy to make, you’d just any everyday man and set him on the top of an army. He starts giving very simple orders (“go take that city”) and the soldiers figure the rest out.
But it doesn’t work that way. Even seemingly simple operation need a whole lot of, information gathering, planning and some competent experienced people who know what they are doing. Trahearne is no such individual.
Yet people insist that he makes all the tactical decisions and that’s why he is needed as the Marshal. Again, my argument is, if he is in fact that competent leader, then it proves how much of a badly written Mary-Sue he is. If he is not the one coming up with these plans, then he is atleast more believable, but at the time he is useless, as he does nothing, yet get’s credited as very important. There is simply no reason in making him the leader of the pact, when his only 2 qualifications are, that he is not member of one of the orders and that he know his stuff about Orr. This should make him an adviser to the Pact real leader, not the leader itself.
The Pact is a military organization, needing a military leader. Is that the player? Not necessarily, but some one like Magnus the Bloody Handed for example could have worked. Zhaitan is a direct threat to his city, he is known to have taking action against the Risen (in EoD) and he is an experienced leader and sailor who also was never attached to any of the Orders.

I didn’t hate him, but I was rather uninspired by him.
There’s a whole listing why in the thread on the personal stories side of this forum.
Long story short I wouldn’t have minded him being the adventerous scholar running around the dungeons trying to find something help fight the Dragons.

That would have been awesome, but he was tacked on at the later act of the story and I never did get much of a chance to work with him before. That’s even with my Sylvari character. We at least saw the failings and successes of the other hero proxies in previous games before something big happened. We didn’t get much with him.

So I’m more on the pity side than hate.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Narcemus.1348:

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Same could apply to every single decision that seemingly comes from him. And it would make sense. How would a scholar know how to make tactical decisions all of the sudden? He himself says he is a terrible leader, why would he be able to be such a great leader out of nowhere? There are 2 explanations: 1. Terrible character development or 2. He is a liar.

There’s a 3rd and 4th option. Humility and/or lack of confidence. There are many genre’s that love to pick a man who is humble and doesn’t feel that he can lead in order to develop them into the leader type. The lack of confidence comes from the fact that he has never lead people before, it doesn’t mean that he is not good at it, he cannot know until he tries, and he tried/succeeded. I’ll definitely admit that the character development on him is majorly lacking (this coming from a Sylvari-lover that played the game for the first and only time all the way through on a Sylvari). I personally hope that they will use the future expansion to take him to the next level as a competent leader of the pact, rather than a man constantly second guessing his actions. The death of Zhaitan is a great and pivotal point for possibly developing his character and making him much more enjoyable to be around. (Just plain up killing him would be a total cop out, live up to your mistakes and fix them.)

Bolded the important part, in that case it falls under 1. Terrible character development.

I would disagree, I would say it’s a #3 that turned into a #1 (when speaking about your mentioned line specifically).

I’ll admit that I haven’t finished the personal storyline, so maybe this changes eventually, but right now I’m more upset that Trahearne is supposedly well-respected and gets his big glowy sword…and sucks.

Aside from the mediocre, uninspiring, and at times bland voice acting, shouldn’t a character supposedly as awesome as he is supposed to be actually kick kitten once in a while?

I do understand that as the player we are supposed to do most of the work, but when I’m running around killing undead like its going out of style, he’s just swining the big sword around and doing a whole bunch of not much.

I don’t care so much that he gets all the credit, I care because he doesn’t seem to deserve all of it. He seems good as a coordinator, logistics manager, and strategist. But I would completely accept him getting the credit if ANet could toss in a cutscene or two where he mows down armies, sets continents on fire, redirects planets, or at least fights better than the usual npc I’m supposed to guard.

-he is boring.
-he is weak. My bone horror does more damage than he does.
-he is dumb.
-he stole all my glory.

If he just stayed in the back ground, like Evennia did, he would have been fine. But he had to come into the spot light, steal all the attention, while we did all the work.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

If tactical decisions were so easy to make, you’d just any everyday man and set him on the top of an army. He starts giving very simple orders (“go take that city”) and the soldiers figure the rest out.

Now you’re just being insulting to the army, and those who lead. Not to mention Commanders who actually can pull off hard decisions in WvW and have them not blow up in their faces.

Tactical decisions are never “simple”, except in a video game where it becomes simplified. These are not people dying, they are characters. They are green names on the screen, not actual people.

But it doesn’t work that way. Even seemingly simple operation need a whole lot of, information gathering, planning and some competent experienced people who know what they are doing. Trahearne is no such individual.

That’s your opinion about competency. Experience? Experience he possibly does not have, but then again . . . from a position of my own experience, you can get a lot of mileage from surrounding yourself with experienced people and listening to their advice.

Yet people insist that he makes all the tactical decisions and that’s why he is needed as the Marshal.

He makes the decisions because he is the last word to say “let’s do this plan then”. It’s his word that is “go”. That’s what I mean, and that’s usually what is meant when it’s said he makes the decision. He bears that responsibility.

To borrow a greater man’s phrase? “The buck stops there.”

Again, my argument is, if he is in fact that competent leader, then it proves how much of a badly written Mary-Sue he is. If he is not the one coming up with these plans, then he is at least more believable, but at the time he is useless, as he does nothing, yet get’s credited as very important. There is simply no reason in making him the leader of the pact, when his only 2 qualifications are, that he is not member of one of the orders and that he know his stuff about Orr. This should make him an adviser to the Pact real leader, not the leader itself.

Again. Competence in leadership is not being the genius, not being able to always make the right decisions. Competence in leadership is knowing when to listen to those who advise you, and when to tell them it’s time to listen. Not coming up with every plan, not knowing all the answers, and not putting all the pieces together doesn’t make Trahearne any less of a leader.

What makes him the leader are two qualities which are perhaps the most important. The willingness to commit to an action with all the forces necessary to carry it out, and the humility to carry responsibility for that decision. You may see that humility only during one part of the story.

The Pact is a military organization, needing a military leader. Is that the player? Not necessarily, but some one like Magnus the Bloody Handed for example could have worked. Zhaitan is a direct threat to his city, he is known to have taking action against the Risen (in EoD) and he is an experienced leader and sailor who also was never attached to any of the Orders.

You make a good point, though “need” is once again incorrect. You would like it to have a military leader. It’s possible the Vigil would also like it to be a military leader, but the Priory and the Order of Whispers wouldn’t have much place in such a hierarchy. They are not soldiers. They are scholars and sneaks.

We could keep naming who could lead, and I could point out it’s equally possible to put it on Rytlock Brimstone. . . or Logan Thackeray. Or Knut Whitebear. Or Countess Anise. You could come up with a case for any of them and have it sound legitimate. Heck, I bet if I really tried I could come up with reasoning that Kudu would be ideal to lead.

CHIPS.6018:

-he is boring.
-he stole all my glory.

Hmmm. Right. All your glory.

Because he’s a nobody that hasn’t earned anything, yet is thrust into the spotlight where everyone rallies behind him, including the divided Orders, who treat the player with more hostility (as you make your choice of one, the others shun you).

There was a novel written on Destiny’s Edge and, as I understood it, that was the point of GW2: getting them back together. I was excited for this story, but it was shoehorned into the dungeon story arc while an unknown sylvari comes forth and is basically the chosen one to save Orr, and all personal stories pledge allegiance to his side.

While he’s a weak character, that is the real football to the head.

OrianZeta.1537:

Because he’s a nobody that hasn’t earned anything, yet is thrust into the spotlight where everyone rallies behind him, including the divided Orders, who treat the player with more hostility (as you make your choice of one, the others shun you).

Depends on your race. Some say “I’m disappointed but I can live with that”. Some get annoyed you didn’t see their way (usually the Priory). Strangely it feels the Order of Whispers is more forgiving if you walk away from them, since they probably will be helping you somewhere down the line anyway.

The Vigil? Oooooh boy do they remember the snub though.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Now you’re just being insulting to the army, and those who lead. Not to mention Commanders who actually can pull off hard decisions in WvW and have them not blow up in their faces.

I can’t argue against that because that is actually my point.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

That’s your opinion about competency. Experience? Experience he possibly does not have, but then again . . . from a position of my own experience, you can get a lot of mileage from surrounding yourself with experienced people and listening to their advice.

Competence: Someone who has actually studied the art of war. Trahearne according to himself is just a historian. Now that’s not a bad thing, considering my father is a historian, my brother is a historian and I’m gonna be one in the future myself. But does that give me or my family the ability to command an army? Of course not. I did it countless times in video games, but that does not mean I could do it in real life. Same applies to Trahearne. He has no edication in that field, even if he studied Orr’s military history, that does not mean he can lead an army.

He makes the decisions because he is the last word to say “let’s do this plan then”. It’s his word that is “go”. That’s what I mean, and that’s usually what is meant when it’s said he makes the decision. He bears that responsibility.

Then why do we need him? If all he does is say: “Let’s do this!” And why does he even get credit? Sure every army needs some one who calls the shots. But how can someone decide which plan is the best if he has no idea about the substance? Which is why he let’s the player decide so often, according to my thesis. He simply has no freaking clue what to do.

Again. Competence in leadership is not being the genius, not being able to always make the right decisions. Competence in leadership is knowing when to listen to those who advise you, and when to tell them it’s time to listen. Not coming up with every plan, not knowing all the answers, and not putting all the pieces together doesn’t make Trahearne any less of a leader.

What makes him the leader are two qualities which are perhaps the most important. The willingness to commit to an action with all the forces necessary to carry it out, and the humility to carry responsibility for that decision. You may see that humility only during one part of the story.

But he does not show that willingness until later. In this war is simply too much at stake to let someone lead that doubts himself. It’s not like a prophecy that says, he is the chosen one. No, it’s just the Pale Tree saying he can do it. Why, in the name of the Realm of Torment, would the Orders of Tyria even listen to a freaking tree? By all logic, no intelligent soldier would ever in a million years choose Trahearne as the leader. Even if they trust him. The job is too important to be filled with someone as him. Unless of course he doesn’t actually do anything, and is only their to look good and smile into the “camera”. In which case he would not deserve to get any credit at all, except for the few things he actually does. Mostly public relations. And it’s his ritual that cleanses Orr, I give him that. But again, cleansing Orr could have been done by him without being the Marshal.

You make a good point, though “need” is once again incorrect. You would like it to have a military leader. It’s possible the Vigil would also like it to be a military leader, but the Priory and the Order of Whispers wouldn’t have much place in such a hierarchy. They are not soldiers. They are scholars and sneaks.

We could keep naming who could lead, and I could point out it’s equally possible to put it on Rytlock Brimstone. . . or Logan Thackeray. Or Knut Whitebear. Or Countess Anise. You could come up with a case for any of them and have it sound legitimate. Heck, I bet if I really tried I could come up with reasoning that Kudu would be ideal to lead.

Again, it’s a military operation. If you go by logic, you would want someone with military competence and experience to lead you, even if you are a scholar or an agent. Compare it like this. The USA get’s attacked by aliens. The US army, the CIA and the NASA want to strike back. Only one can be the leader of this military operation. Who would they choose, a guy who studied xeno-biology, a guy who is really good in sneaking behind enemy lines, or a veteran general who commaneded armies his whole life?
All of those skills are valuable, but only of them is capable of commanding the attack force, so you would choose him, by logic. The other ones can be his advisers sure, but they should not be the commanders, because they simply aren’t as good in the job as the actual general.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

Again, it’s a military operation. If you go by logic, you would want someone with military competence and experience to lead you, even if you are a scholar or an agent. Compare it like this. The USA get’s attacked by aliens. The US army, the CIA and the NASA want to strike back. Only one can be the leader of this military operation. Who would they choose, a guy who studied xeno-biology, a guy who is really good in sneaking behind enemy lines, or a veteran general who commaneded armies his whole life?
All of those skills are valuable, but only of them is capable of commanding the attack force, so you would choose him, by logic. The other ones can be his advisers sure, but they should not be the commanders, because they simply aren’t as good in the job as the actual general.

If it was the US armed forces? You’d probably have the Air Force actually first in line rather than the Army, and the commander-in-chief is still the same. Who would probably not be a military leader. This is why I hate real world analogies. They do not translate well 100% of the time.

If the mission was to be a long-term one? Two commanders who hold different times they’re in clear command. In matters of combat, one commander. In matters of peace and civil matters? Another commander. We could go on about this, but I don’t see a point to it and it’s hideously off topic.

On topic?

I maintain Trahearne can handle this leadership due to two reasons: the respect of the three orders who know he knows a lot about Orr and the Risen . . . and the fact he is willing to listen to their input. He doesn’t need to be all-knowing and a perfect military tactician.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

If it was the US armed forces? You’d probably have the Air Force actually first in line rather than the Army, and the commander-in-chief is still the same. Who would probably not be a military leader. This is why I hate real world analogies. They do not translate well 100% of the time.

If the mission was to be a long-term one? Two commanders who hold different times they’re in clear command. In matters of combat, one commander. In matters of peace and civil matters? Another commander. We could go on about this, but I don’t see a point to it and it’s hideously off topic.

On topic?

I maintain Trahearne can handle this leadership due to two reasons: the respect of the three orders who know he knows a lot about Orr and the Risen . . . and the fact he is willing to listen to their input. He doesn’t need to be all-knowing and a perfect military tactician.

Yeah Air Force would have probably more accurate but you got the point. And I talked about the commander of said operation, which in fact be a member of the military, even if the president of the US would be legally the head of the mission, but I could be wrong, I don’t have any deeper knowledge on the command structure of the US.

And now you going down to opinion. It’s you opinion that Trahearne is good enough to be the leader, but logically there are better choices. Not saying his knowledge about Orr isn’t a crucial factor for the operation, but that alone and him being a “nice guy” who listens to his advisers, does not make him a good choice.
And now if go back to my original point: Trahearne is the wrong choice for the position for obvious reasons, yet no one seems to notice that in universe, which I gave 2 possible explanations for:
1. He really isn’t competent, but he manages to hide that fact. This unfortunatly rather common in leading positions.
2. He suddenly really is a great leader out of nowhere, for no logical reason and therefore is badly written.

BuddhaKeks.4857:

And now you going down to opinion. It’s you opinion that Trahearne is good enough to be the leader, but logically there are better choices.

The problem is that the “logical better choices” all can be discounted for various reasons. Naturally, this is because it’s made so Trahearne is the choice to lead. It gets into a wonderful circular path, the more I look at it. And yet, I still can’t see how he’s spectacularly unqualified compared to the player character or another order-neutral member. No matter who you stick there, it’s not going to work unless they’re specifically written for that role.

. . . which then is no better because then it gets into Mary Sue for real.

Not saying his knowledge about Orr isn’t a crucial factor for the operation, but that alone and him being a “nice guy” who listens to his advisers, does not make him a good choice.

I don’t think he’s a “nice guy” so much. Polite? Yes. Nice . . . I find a hard time characterizing any sylvari as “nice”. They feel off. They feel like it’s not entirely their feelings, more like what they’re expected to say.

I also think someone leading the orders who listens to them all and sifts for the pieces to use is perhaps very qualified to lead. Not from the front. (I attribute that to Trahearne’s inexperience, along with his fixation on “I must cleanse Orr” meaning he has to personally be putting himself at risk to do so.) Towards the end, he seems to get this and only puts himself in when it’s necessary. He has the good sense to stay out of Arah, after all.

And now if go back to my original point: Trahearne is the wrong choice for the position for obvious reasons, yet no one seems to notice that in universe, which I gave 2 possible explanations for:
1. He really isn’t competent, but he manages to hide that fact. This unfortunatly rather common in leading positions.
2. He suddenly really is a great leader out of nowhere, for no logical reason and therefore is badly written.

1. He’s not competent compared to, say, Forgal, Ogden, or Doenn . . . all three have considerably more experience with warfare in comparison. However, he seems competent enough to know when he needs to ask for advice. I think his big problem was a lack of confidence, which . . . was solved by what amounts to “his god” telling him “no, you can do this”.

And just because I said those three names? I don’t think they could lead. Forgal’s a little too reckless, Ogden’s a stone dwarf and probably not particularly interested, and Doenn’s dismissive of the other two orders’ potential at first.

2. I don’t see real evidence of him being a great leader in so far as actually making the plans. I see a lot . . . a lot of him adapting plans and using information he finds to piece together something. The best part of the assaults on Orr are carried out as individual plans by the orders and supporting crew (the split in the final chapter) or as a whole using different pieces of each order to reinforce each other (Straits of Devastation and the Temples).

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

. . . which then is no better because then it gets into Mary Sue for real.

Which is exactly what Trahearne is right now. Could that happen to other characters? Possibly, but if I look at GW2 right now, it’s pretty obvious that the Sylvari are the creator’s pet, so to speak. Just look at Caithe, the only “good” member of Destiny’s Edge, or how every NPC talks about Sylvari. You will hardly find anything negative about them, most of it is praise.

I don’t think he’s a “nice guy” so much. Polite? Yes. Nice . . . I find a hard time characterizing any sylvari as “nice”. They feel off. They feel like it’s not entirely their feelings, more like what they’re expected to say.

That’s why I put it in quotation marks. Though them feeling off, is not the word I would use, I would describe them as uncanny or even creepy.

I also think someone leading the orders who listens to them all and sifts for the pieces to use is perhaps very qualified to lead. Not from the front. (I attribute that to Trahearne’s inexperience, along with his fixation on “I must cleanse Orr” meaning he has to personally be putting himself at risk to do so.) Towards the end, he seems to get this and only puts himself in when it’s necessary. He has the good sense to stay out of Arah, after all.

You are assuming another leader would not listen to advises and I have to ask, why would you think that? Only because someone has experience in the subject himself, does not mean he is resistent to advise.

1. He’s not competent compared to, say, Forgal, Ogden, or Doenn . . . all three have considerably more experience with warfare in comparison. However, he seems competent enough to know when he needs to ask for advice. I think his big problem was a lack of confidence, which . . . was solved by what amounts to “his god” telling him “no, you can do this”.

And just because I said those three names? I don’t think they could lead. Forgal’s a little too reckless, Ogden’s a stone dwarf and probably not particularly interested, and Doenn’s dismissive of the other two orders’ potential at first.

2. I don’t see real evidence of him being a great leader in so far as actually making the plans. I see a lot . . . a lot of him adapting plans and using information he finds to piece together something. The best part of the assaults on Orr are carried out as individual plans by the orders and supporting crew (the split in the final chapter) or as a whole using different pieces of each order to reinforce each other (Straits of Devastation and the Temples).

1. What makes you think Ogden would be not interested in being the leader of the Pact? The entire purpose of his post-ritual race is to fight the EDs. I would rather say he isn’t the best choice because he is never shown to be a military leader. In EotN he was more of a scholar/diplomat. It was his job to find allies for the dwarven army, not command them into battle. You are right on Forgal and Doenn I guess, but there are more competent people around.

2. I don’t see Trahearne’s leading skills as something special. There are more characters that have these traits and more. You seem to be under the impression that Trahearne’s ability to listen to the ideas of other people is something only he could do. But it isn’t. In fact if he blindly listens to everything, that acutally makes him a bad leader, as someone could give him ill advice and he wouldn’t even know. That’s why you need someone who actually knows how to deal with warfare. Trahearne got lucky that he had competent advisers and the player, without them he would have been fertilizer after 1 week.
This again leads me back to my point. Trahearne is kind of pointless in his role, because he is not qualified to fulfill it.