120 réponses à ce sujet

[FollowTheGourd]

I'm just wondering how many actually let Sten go as an act of grace and not one of greed or indifference to having a new follower. My original argument was that you weren't given a way to gather enough information upfront. That might have well been the intent, but feels more like a missed opportunity if Sten was supposed to have actual redeeming qualities. To me, what it'd say about my PC is that they like to release psycho-killers on hunches and not anything about being merciful. I'm not asking to learn about the one time he saved a litter of kittens from a burning house, but just something more to go on...

Also, why is it your place to forgive him? It's not your family he slaughtered - or to a lesser degree, did anything against you - making it all the easier on your part to look past it. Is releasing him from the cage the only way to help him? Not that it will make a difference with the Blight coming, but don't they have a dungeon they can toss him in, or some food to spare (maybe from the family he slaughtered), or you can convince the village that a quick execution is in order. Or... how about this as a chance to redeem Sten: vow to defend the people of Lothering until his dying breath - which shouldn't be too long.

And if we just went on the likelihood of rehabilitation - statistically or not - I think a lot more people would be getting life sentences.

Modifié par FollowTheGourd, 04 avril 2010 - 02:50 .

[Lethias]

Yeah in that case there is no unforgivabe crime because a guy who killed 10 innocent can kill then 20 bad guys and wow hes rehabilitated and can go back to live hes life. Well i really don't think it's working this way. Also if Sten was weak so he is totally useless for you and commited the same crime then he can die? because hes weak and cant "equal" hes crime with darkspawn lifes? So there are questions here, and also the story isn't in the modern USA (thank god) so making this decisions based on the modern law is kinda hard.

Also it's not an accident there is something called punishment not rehabilitation.

[Palentor]

Elhanan wrote...
How many deaths then are required to be defined as horrific? Do all of them have to be children?

You might want to ask, even though not possible anymore, people like the pilots Paul W. Tibbets Jr. and Charles W. Sweeney about that.

But back on topic, Sten never asks for forgiveness and none is given, though he has redeemed himself many times over in the end, usually. And of all the companions he is the most trustworthy by far, as he follows a very strict codex, as strange as that codex might seem on first glance, it is still comforting in its predictability.

In the end all my characters and their companions will walk the 7th circle of hell anyway, Sten just does so during his lifetime.

[FollowTheGourd]

Palentor wrote...
You might want to ask, even though not possible anymore, people like the pilots Paul W. Tibbets Jr. and Charles W. Sweeney about that.

Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb is its own debate. Not that I'm for the horrors of nuclear war, but I don't believe all the effects (e.g., black rain) were even that well understood until afterwards. I don't recall the London Blitz or Bombing of Dresden only killing adults either.

[Mlai00]

The Japanese? Yeah they deserved every single radioactive particle. Every single atom.

Seriously, that country was so brainwashed by its own leaders and its own traditions, the only way to wake them up was to show them the horrors of war on their own doorstep, in a way they weren't mentally prepared to ignore.

Truman saved more lives, both American and Japanese, by doing what he did. Japan didn't even want to surrender after the first bomb. That's how crazy they were.

I honestly don't think Japan would be the peaceful international-law-abiding (except for the whaling) globally-productive country that it is now, if it didn't eat the 2 nukes.

[IanPolaris]

Mlai00 wrote...

The Japanese? Yeah they deserved every single radioactive particle. Every single atom.
Seriously, that country was so brainwashed by its own leaders and its own traditions, the only way to wake them up was to show them the horrors of war on their own doorstep, in a way they weren't mentally prepared to ignore.
Truman saved more lives, both American and Japanese, by doing what he did. Japan didn't even want to surrender after the first bomb. That's how crazy they were.
I honestly don't think Japan would be the peaceful international-law-abiding (except for the whaling) globally-productive country that it is now, if it didn't eat the 2 nukes.

I tend to agree (although this is getting a bit OT) and I would even go further.  I think if it weren't for the two atomic bombs, there might not be a Japan today (at least culturally).  As stated above, the Japanese people were willing to die to the last and fight to the last against impossible odds against the Americans had they invaded the Home Islands.  The only results would have been so many casualties (likely including the Imperial Family) that some resettlement from the States would have been needed and there wouldn't be a Japanese culture left (effectively).  That's discounting the possibilityt that Stalin might have nabbed Hokkaido for himself.

-Polaris

[Costin_Razvan]

The ones who scream at the top of their lungs for suffering and death of others aren't ones who have experienced suffering or seen death, that is at least my experience.

The Chinese people are the ones who suffered the most from the Japanese, and yet I have not seen many of them screaming that the Atomic Bomb was the right thing to do, or that it was necessary or whatever.

It is one of the reasons why my main characters ( the ones I am connected the most ) in any RPG that I have played choose to always spare as many lives as possible, both in the short them and in the long term ( ex. putting Bhelen as king of Orzammar ).

I just simply am not a person to judge others, even when I am put in the position as judge, jury and executioner. It's the reason I took Sten with me.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 avril 2010 - 02:44 .

[IanPolaris]

Costin,



If China had had the ability to drop an A-Bomb on Japan, they wouldn't have hestitated for a nanosecond and they certainly would not have felt any guilt about it afterwards.



-Polaris

[Sarah1281]

The Chinese people are the ones who suffered the most from the Japanese, and yet I have not seen many of them screaming that the Atomic Bomb was the right thing to do, or that it was necessary or whatever.

Why would the Chinese people feel the need to justify it? They didn't do it.

[Jax Sparrow]

um... someone is bringing WWII politics up as a comparison? really? Did you learn about WWII from Tom Hanks' speech or something? From what I have heard from actual Japanese is that the common people of Japan LIKED that we dropped those bombs and destroyed their government. Why? cause that government wasn't exactly 'nice' and the end result was a hε11 of a lot better for both Japanese citizens and America soldiers. Wow... trying to play the sympathy card for Japan... just wow.

Back on topic: Again you are given two options, take him with you or leave him there. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take him with you. If you have some moral, and ethical, problem with giving him a second chance then leave him there to rot... I think you get an option to stick a sword in his got too.. but never tried it. Anyhow, everyone has their own opinion on the matter. Me? I felt that with me {in character} he had a high chance of dieing and we needed help; And I am a fan of Justice, and NOT 'revenge/punishment'. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Regardless of Alistair's flakiness, he DOES seem remorseful for what he did and so that was what allowed me to trust him enough to open the cage. If I found out later that was a mistake? I could easily fix that; Versus, leaving him there with a village full of idiots that hated him; Was no better than killing him outright.

Modifié par Jax Sparrow, 05 avril 2010 - 06:18 .

[asaiasai]

bassmunkee wrote...

I had no problem accepting Sten into the party; yeah we needed the extra swords and he accepted that what he did was wrong and as it turned out was not as black and white as it might at first have appeared - once you get to know and understand him you will see that.
Not everything is one thing or the other, in this case it's a more complex situation and quite frankly if you leave him you lose a good character but were to "off" him later you be doing the world no favours ultimately.
As for forgiveness? It's not my place to forgive him or otherwise, but having taken him on and given him a chance, I understood his position and what drove him and he came across as an honourable man who found himself in a position from which he could not see an alternate way out. He accepted it was wrong, but he is a product of his culture and upbringing not ours, but we come to understand him, and he us, by the end - and I think that's worth a lot.
(And yes I know it's only a game).

For all of these reasons above and the fact that Sten is a kick ass 2h DPS warrior i always get him on my team. No one's hands are totally clean.

Asai

[soignee]

Yeah I can only think of the Sean Paul "fragrance" when I see this thread. Wouldn't Sten make an amazing model for aftershave? That's right, yes he would.

[wwwwowwww]

You don't have to look far into history to see that people view thing differently. Some say it's horrific and he deserves no chance, others will disagree. Samurai of old would kill someone who touched their sword, it was an honor thing. Is that horrific? By your standards perhaps, but to them it makes perfect sense.

Sten is from a different country with different beliefs and values, most of which most will never agree with or understand.

Now you can either A) try to understand or not try, really simple

[Elhanan]

But it is not as simple as some would make it. While Sten has different beliefs, he is in Ferelden and under other laws than his own. Even he understands what he has done is horrific, and does not expect mercy, or a chance for atonement. This is the call of the Warden to make, and even the Chantry may be opposed to such a leap of faith, as it were.



As for aftershave, he probably would like Brut....

[wwwwowwww]

Elhanan wrote...

But it is not as simple as some would make it. While Sten has different beliefs, he is in Ferelden and under other laws than his own. Even he understands what he has done is horrific, and does not expect mercy, or a chance for atonement. This is the call of the Warden to make, and even the Chantry may be opposed to such a leap of faith, as it were.

As for aftershave, he probably would like Brut....

Does he understand it's horrific? Or does he just realize it wasn't the best reaction?

[Elhanan]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

But it is not as simple as some would make it. While Sten has different beliefs, he is in Ferelden and under other laws than his own. Even he understands what he has done is horrific, and does not expect mercy, or a chance for atonement. This is the call of the Warden to make, and even the Chantry may be opposed to such a leap of faith, as it were.

As for aftershave, he probably would like Brut....

Does he understand it's horrific? Or does he just realize it wasn't the best reaction?

If you respond, "That is horrible!", he agrees with you even in a later party setting; no lower approval either, I believe.

[wwwwowwww]

Elhanan wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

But it is not as simple as some would make it. While Sten has different beliefs, he is in Ferelden and under other laws than his own. Even he understands what he has done is horrific, and does not expect mercy, or a chance for atonement. This is the call of the Warden to make, and even the Chantry may be opposed to such a leap of faith, as it were.

As for aftershave, he probably would like Brut....

Does he understand it's horrific? Or does he just realize it wasn't the best reaction?

If you respond, "That is horrible!", he agrees with you even in a later party setting; no lower approval either, I believe.

That doesn't mean  he believes it, it could just mean he's not going to debate it with you

[Elhanan]

I readily admit my telepathic ability to read motives is rather weak (as my ex can testify), so I will go by his own testimony.



As mentioned, with the on-coming Blight headed that way, I release Sten for the opp to redeem his sword and honor in most play. But when playing the H/N option, the dead children strike too close to the heart, and I side with the Chantry verdict.

[wwwwowwww]

Elhanan wrote...

I readily admit my telepathic ability to read motives is rather weak (as my ex can testify), so I will go by his own testimony.

As mentioned, with the on-coming Blight headed that way, I release Sten for the opp to redeem his sword and honor in most play. But when playing the H/N option, the dead children strike too close to the heart, and I side with the Chantry verdict.

lol but how many times did that ex accuse you of something and you just agreed to prevent an argument?

[Ponce de Leon]

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.

You cannot be serious! I mean, first : He is conscious of what he did, and admits it was wrong. Second, even if he's the most logical being on the planet, the one that doesn't show any sentiment (apart to the ever vigilant eye of Leliana), it is even clear he wishes freedom with his last line to the PC, saying the PC to ask the revered mother about it. The way he tells it, or rather, the voice actor, it is clear that Sten wishes freedom. I don't know for what purposes, that is true, if he wishes freedom just to fulfill the task or just because he wishes not to die. My guess is the second one, since without his sword and soul, he cannot go back home.

My theory is this : everyone deserves a second chance, even the biggest bloodiest bastards on Earth. I may be crazy saying this, it might feel idiotic and all, but we must not forget that we are human. Killing someone, or leaving him to death because of a crime is equivalent to the crime alone. 1 death or 800, it makes no difference, it's always an error to bring it, but giving it back does not solve anything. And whatever Stalin may have said, death caused by human hands is still a tragedy, no matter the number.

Besides, you are Sten's writer. You know better than anyone if he deserves a chance or not. Or better, if he wishes freedom or not.

[Costin_Razvan]

dark-lauron: I agree with what you have to say. Killing a person, no matter what their crimes, has never served any purpose, and it has never done any good. Hundreds of years of war on this planet can relate to that.



I do think Mary Kirby is just trying to make peace with both sides though.