120 réponses à ce sujet

[SurelyForth]

Mlai00 wrote...

All of the self-righteous blather only applies if you're playing the HN origin. If you're coming from 1 of the other origins, you'd care a little less or a LOT less that he killed some human peasants.

The world doesn't revolve around your little pet Cousland.

Right. So if I'm not playing a CE I should always accept Caladrius's offer because, after all,  why shoud I care about a couple of elves dying as long as it benefits me directly.

Anyway, I recruit Sten without hesitation. He's big, he's hardy, and I need the help.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 01 avril 2010 - 04:54 .

[jpdipity]

"we could use an extra sword" is the only reason a Grey Warden needs IMO.

The Blight must be stopped by any means which means that I am going to recruit muderers, assasains, blood mages - whoever it takes to win. If they cause my PC any trouble, he/she is confident enough in their abilities to handle the trouble swiftly just as a Duncan did with Jory.

[Mlai00]

On the topic of city elves...

A City Elf is going to care a LOT less that Sten killed a few human peasants. Especially with the sort of ignorant bigotry that a city elf Warden invariably gets from the uneducated masses.

It'd be like being a black Warden in the South.

Modifié par Mlai00, 02 avril 2010 - 02:20 .

[Elhanan]

I released Sten each time except when playing the Human Noble origin. After discovering Sten had murdered the children, the only face I could then see was that of my dead nephew. No Sten or Zev for me this time.



But I was pleased to have met and fought along with the Quanari in all the other options. I especially enjoyed telling him that his tale of the bee was the most he had spoken since release.

[Ceridraen]

I bring him because to do otherwise feels too much like assassination. I also do it because I tend to give people second/third/etc chances in real life, too, & because I do really stupid things in the name of pity. (This means, should art/game follow life, Sten should pretty much get his pretty soul sword back & cut off my elvish head...)

[Volourn]

"It was all in the heat of passion. Hence, voluntary manslaughter.

Matlock would surely have bailed poor Sten out."

You obviously don't know what manslaughter is. Manslaughter is when you hit someone with your car due to speeding or driving drunk or playing with a gun and shotting them by accident. Manslaught is killing someone unintentionally. What Sten did is murder. Lawyers could argue the degree (since it wasn't preplanned) but it's not murder.

Matlock would never take his case. He tends to avoid defending such punks. In fact, he's more likely to assist the prosecuter.

I don't know how the 'justice' system works in Sten's country works but even there I doubt he'd be allowed off scott free for murdering 8 civilians.



"If you're coming from 1 of the other origins, you'd care a little less or a LOT less that he killed some human peasants."
Only if your PC is as immoral as Sten is. My dwarf noble was disgusted. Only my eveil characetrs didn't care and even they were thinking how pathetic he is.

Modifié par Volourn, 02 avril 2010 - 01:02 .

[LadyZaria]

I've only read a few replies, so I may be repeating here, but I like freeing Sten.

Yes, he killed 8 civlians, which is a horrible crime. But look at the circumstances:

He's a stranger in Ferelden. His entire platoon was killed. His sword was missing (a HUGE deal to the Qunari. Akin to the value of shields to Spartans. If you've seen 300, you'll remember the line "Return with you shield, or on it." It was the same feeling the Qunari hold towards their swords).

He gets awakened by strangers, and iirc, he said he had difficulty understanding them, panicked, and attacked.

It was not a cold-blooded act, and one that Sten clearly regrets. It was, for all intents and purposes, a tragic accident, not murder.

[LadyZaria]

Volourn wrote...

"It was all in the heat of passion. Hence, voluntary manslaughter.

Matlock would surely have bailed poor Sten out."

You obviously don't know what manslaughter is. Manslaughter is when you hit someone with your car due to speeding or driving drunk or playing with a gun and shotting them by accident. Manslaught is killing someone unintentionally. What Sten did is murder. Lawyers could argue the degree (since it wasn't preplanned) but it's not murder.

Matlock would never take his case. He tends to avoid defending such punks. In fact, he's more likely to assist the prosecuter.

I don't know how the 'justice' system works in Sten's country works but even there I doubt he'd be allowed off scott free for murdering 8 civilians.



"If you're coming from 1 of the other origins, you'd care a little less or a LOT less that he killed some human peasants."
Only if your PC is as immoral as Sten is. My dwarf noble was disgusted. Only my eveil characetrs didn't care and even they were thinking how pathetic he is.

It wouldn't be manslaughter, but he could plead innocent by reason of extreme emotional duress. I think ADA Cutter (gogo L&O reference ) would give him a deal.

[Huojin]

LadyZaria wrote...



He gets awakened by strangers, and iirc, he said he had difficulty understanding them, panicked, and attacked.

It was not a cold-blooded act, and one that Sten clearly regrets. It was, for all intents and purposes, a tragic accident, not murder.

I always free Sten 'cause I like him in a weird sort of way, but I find this really hard to understand.

He tells you that he asked them where his sword was, they said they didn't have it and he said he knew they weren't lying.  So he's conscious, coherent and can understand them.  But THEN he panics and kills them.

I agree that it's not cold-blooded but it still doesn't make sense to me.

[this isnt my name]

Maria Caliban wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

In Lothering, desperate for troops, but seriously: this guy murdered eight civilians.  Is there a rationale to freeing him beyond "we could use an extra sword"?

There's 'everyone shoudl have a chance at redemption' and 'this is too cruel a way for him to die.'

Yes because killing 8 people even kids because you cant find a sword dosent deserve a cruel punishment. I kept him alive only because I like getting the most out of the game and keeping as many people as possible, if I didnt think like that, he would be darkspawn food.

[Volourn]

'a tragic accident"



Yourd efintion of 'accident' is quite scary.



btw, Don't people realzie that the argument being used to defend Sten could pretty much get all spousal abusers, rapists, and the like off.



"I didn't mean too, but I was too angry and emotional."



Please. Sten is a murderer. It can't be any more clear cut. I'm gona assume thsoe defending his actions that they're anything but murder are simply trolling.

[HoonDing]

Volourn wrote...

"It was all in the heat of passion. Hence, voluntary manslaughter.

Matlock would surely have bailed poor Sten out."

You obviously don't know what manslaughter is. Manslaughter is when you hit someone with your car due to speeding or driving drunk or playing with a gun and shotting them by accident. Manslaught is killing someone unintentionally. What Sten did is murder. Lawyers could argue the degree (since it wasn't preplanned) but it's not murder.

Manslaughter can be with the intent to kill. The point is that the perpetrator is LESS culpable than with murder, due to for instance not being in a right state of mind. Look up the legal term "diminished responsibility".

[Zeleen]

FollowTheGourd wrote...

(If I sound too serious about this, I'm not.)
How about an option to end it for him right then and there, like that other prisoner in the cage back in Ostagar, if leaving him to be eaten by the darkspawn was somehow too cruel (and yet leaving the other refugees in Lothering wasn't, but what could you have done). Or toss him a dagger or other pointy object so he can end it himself if he so chooses.

That might sound a tad sociopathic, but I can't imagine wanting to release him even on an evil playthrough unless there was some reason I cared about beyond knowing that I can get him as a follower. I don't believe you can even know at the time what originally set him off exactly, so why would you be bucking for his release? Just because he's actually honest about his crimes?

He didn't even think he deserved saving... but it felt as if my dialogue options were trying to make up for a lack of plausible motivation by steering me towards saving him without even so much as the option of "have you ever done anything good?" or  "fine, rot for all I care." - that I recall anyway. I tried for such a response but the best I could get was a promise to look into it.

Even if the family *had* taken his sword - and his soul for all he thought - what justification is that to slaughter them all? Self defence when the deed was already done? Who wants a follower so easily panicked?

Actually you do have that option so what's all the talk about??

[Mary Kirby]

That Sten's crime is unforgivable is pretty much the entire point. It's supposed to be unforgivable.



Letting Sten out of the cage, like sparing Loghain, is more about the player character than the NPC. Giving a man a chance to redeem himself is easy if his crime is minor, or a misunderstanding, or he was coerced. There's nothing particularly noble about forgiving a man who really didn't do anything that bad. It requires an act of grace on the part of the player character to forgive a man who has truly done something terrible.



Which is why you don't have to do it. Redemption is a long-shot at best, and certainly not the most logical outcome. Leave him to die. It's the most sensible approach. It's what he wants, and perfectly valid choice.

[Lethias]

Even Sten says later that he cannot justify what he's done, so saying "he's sword was represented hes soul and he was exiled from the qun etc." is true, but it is no excuse for killing innocent, seriously. And everyone deserves a second chance seems like a nice idea and humanist and everything, but sadly it isn't black and white, not everyone deserves a second chance. Even if Sten feel regret about this thing that doesen't mean it's okey, imagine every murder says: okey i am sorry i regret it, let me join the army", and after 1 year he can go free, well things don't really work this way. If you play a Human Noble you don't question that Arl Howe deserve to die, he kiled your family, you borther's little boy. Well Sten did the same to another family, why is he better? Cause he killed some no name peasants?

And again he can be a nice person and say touching tings, but if santa would kill someone's family you don't forgive him because he is a nice guy and like to give away gifts.

Well even when i saved him and became friendly etc and he was a good warior i knew it's really unfair, but well theres many unfair things in Thedas. I'm only saying that trying to justify things like this by saying hes a nice person, or with hes sword is really odd.

And if you say the darkspawn is the real threat and hes usefull then why destroy the anvil? why stop avernus from hes experiments?, why not sacrifice elves for power? or ally with demons? All of this things makes you stronger to fight for the greater good, so they are justified then. DAO is full of this kind of decisions, like how far will you go or will you keep your moral while you fight with the darkspawn.

Just imagine a world after the darkspawns with full of injustices because they were needed to defeat them.

Ehhm ok and btw i also like Sten at the end ;o

[FollowTheGourd]

Zeleen wrote...

FollowTheGourd wrote...
[My entire post]

Actually you do have that option so what's all the talk about??

Like what? Of course you don't have to release him, but it looks as if all your options force you to leave the possibility open - or at least the journal doesn't update with something like "I'm content to leave him in his cage". I found an old save game near Sten and I'm looking at sten_main.dlg in the toolset for the conversation tree.

Even if you offer to kill him ("I could end it for you now, if you prefer") then Sten declines ("My preference is death in battle. Failing that, I will wait for the darkspawn.") and you can't persue it unlike dealing with the caged prisoner in Ostagar. Edit: But that's just a side point to my first paragraph - I'm not saying it absolutely needed the option of killing him.

Either way, The Qunari Prisoner quest seems to stay open until Lothering is destroyed by the Blight or you release him and get him to follow you.

Modifié par FollowTheGourd, 02 avril 2010 - 09:24 .

[TheMufflon]

Mary Kirby wrote...

That Sten's crime is unforgivable is pretty much the entire point. It's supposed to be unforgivable.

Letting Sten out of the cage, like sparing Loghain, is more about the player character than the NPC. Giving a man a chance to redeem himself is easy if his crime is minor, or a misunderstanding, or he was coerced. There's nothing particularly noble about forgiving a man who really didn't do anything that bad. It requires an act of grace on the part of the player character to forgive a man who has truly done something terrible.

Which is why you don't have to do it. Redemption is a long-shot at best, and certainly not the most logical outcome. Leave him to die. It's the most sensible approach. It's what he wants, and perfectly valid choice.

And that is why Sten is my favourite character in Dragon Age.

[this isnt my name]

Mary Kirby wrote...

That Sten's crime is unforgivable is pretty much the entire point. It's supposed to be unforgivable.

Letting Sten out of the cage, like sparing Loghain, is more about the player character than the NPC. Giving a man a chance to redeem himself is easy if his crime is minor, or a misunderstanding, or he was coerced. There's nothing particularly noble about forgiving a man who really didn't do anything that bad. It requires an act of grace on the part of the player character to forgive a man who has truly done something terrible.

Which is why you don't have to do it. Redemption is a long-shot at best, and certainly not the most logical outcome. Leave him to die. It's the most sensible approach. It's what he wants, and perfectly valid choice.

I kept him alive to find out why he killed them, I thought it would be a good reason, shame I cant kill him now, I mean I killed people for less e.g bandits on bridge...But then again they arent a potential resource.

[Sarah1281]

You can always kill him at Haven.

[HoonDing]

Even if Sten went on to decimate the entire town after releasing him from his cage, the villagers' fate would still have been been less horrendous than being swiped by the Darkspawn... men & children serving as fodder, and women (including that very nice Revered Mother) turned into Broodmothers.



One might as well save one person, when the rest of the village are merely content with standing around and waiting for the horde.

[FollowTheGourd]

Sten seemed the most content to die to me. I'm pretty sure the refugees didn't all want to stick around Lothering to face the Blight - besides that doomsayer you can take care of (not that the game lets you recruit them like Sten). I mean, in Redcliffe you can even give that girl and her brother money to get to away to Denerim or wherever it was again.

Modifié par FollowTheGourd, 02 avril 2010 - 09:34 .

[Walina]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

In Lothering, desperate for troops, but seriously: this guy murdered eight civilians.  Is there a rationale to freeing him beyond "we could use an extra sword"?

No, there isn't any good reason but just because it's a game you will take him as a compnion otherwise you're going to never recruite anyone since most of your compnions killed someone / people 

but that's just a game that's why you can't save civilans because it wasn't planned / programmed

Modifié par Walina, 02 avril 2010 - 09:47 .

[TafkanX]

this isnt my name wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

That Sten's crime is unforgivable is pretty much the entire point. It's supposed to be unforgivable.

Letting Sten out of the cage, like sparing Loghain, is more about the player character than the NPC. Giving a man a chance to redeem himself is easy if his crime is minor, or a misunderstanding, or he was coerced. There's nothing particularly noble about forgiving a man who really didn't do anything that bad. It requires an act of grace on the part of the player character to forgive a man who has truly done something terrible.

Which is why you don't have to do it. Redemption is a long-shot at best, and certainly not the most logical outcome. Leave him to die. It's the most sensible approach. It's what he wants, and perfectly valid choice.

I kept him alive to find out why he killed them, I thought it would be a good reason, shame I cant kill him now, I mean I killed people for less e.g bandits on bridge...But then again they arent a potential resource.

Technically you can attempt to recruit the bandits.  They refuse and attack you, but the option still exists.  The difference with Sten is he accepts your offer.  I have always recruited him on the simple grounds that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a gameplay (read: metagaming) standpoint but if I needed a reason in character, the ol' "Wardens take it where they can get it" standby works like a charm.  I don't generally use him much but I enjoy his conversations.

[Mlai00]

His crime is... unforgivable?

You're looking at things from an Old Testament standpoint. Modern justice system (in the USA) is not about punishment. It's about keeping the society safe.

Locking up a criminal is not punishment. It's to keep from hurting anyone else. When he's rehabilitated, he goes free. That's why there's something called parole.

The death penalty (or life imprisonment) is not punishment. It's because the criminal is so horrific, that rehabilitation is deemed statistically impossible.

So... the old "trial by fire" justice system that your Warden employs... I consider that something akin to rehabilitation. If you take this guy into the heart of **** Germany, and your team successfully assassinates Hitler in what was likely a suicide mission, and he voluntarily completes the mission with you... Then yes, in a medieval setting I would consider him fully rehabilitated.

[Elhanan]

Mlai00 wrote...

His crime is... unforgivable?
You're looking at things from an Old Testament standpoint. Modern justice system (in the USA) is not about punishment. It's about keeping the society safe.
Locking up a criminal is not punishment. It's to keep from hurting anyone else. When he's rehabilitated, he goes free. That's why there's something called parole.
The death penalty (or life imprisonment) is not punishment. It's because the criminal is so horrific, that rehabilitation is deemed statistically impossible.
So... the old "trial by fire" justice system that your Warden employs... I consider that something akin to rehabilitation. If you take this guy into the heart of **** Germany, and your team successfully assassinates Hitler in what was likely a suicide mission, and he voluntarily completes the mission with you... Then yes, in a medieval setting I would consider him fully rehabilitated.

How many deaths then are required to be defined as horrific? Do all of them have to be children? And would the Warden be so willing to release Hitler rather than slay him?

No answers are really required, as both us and the Warden should follow a rule of law. In Ferelden, it would seem that the Warden may offer release to service as part of the legal system; not opposed to it.