267 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

DPSSOC wrote...

My HN's can never spare Loghain because of all Origins they have the best idea of the depth of his crimes. I've seen people bring up sparing Sten and Zev and Jowan but that's on a completely different scale. Sten murdered a family; tragic but not unforgivable. Zev tried, and failed, to murder you under Loghain's orders; certainly not unforgivable and sparing Zev is a consideration of risk vs gain. Jowan is really only guilty of one crime, being a blood mage; the poisoning of Arl Eamon is Loghain's crime and Jowan is simply accessory to it. So whether or not to free Jowan isn't a consideration of his crime it's a mark on your feelings toward magic.

Loghain on the other hand committed regicide, which as either he or Maric mentions in TST is an unforgivable crime. I could accept that withdrawing from Ostagar was a tragic but necessary tactical decision but the moment he steps up and declares himself king it becomes a military coup. He also sold Fereldan citizens into slavery, kidnapped and tortured nobility, all to support his Civil War. By the time my HN gets to the Landsmeet it isn't about what Alistair wants, it isn't about what Riordan suggests, Loghain's actions demand justice and justice demands blood. There is no justification that can excuse what he's done,

Only my HN characters have that perspective though. To a DN regicide is pretty old hat and for all the others it's not something they're concerned with. A HN knows the laws of Fereldan, knows what Maric did to the traitors and bootlickers, Loghain is a traitor and my only regret is he doesn't get a traitor's death.

[TheRevanchist]

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

[Persephone]

DPSSOC wrote...

My HN's can never spare Loghain because of all Origins they have the best idea of the depth of his crimes. I've seen people bring up sparing Sten and Zev and Jowan but that's on a completely different scale. Sten murdered a family; tragic but not unforgivable. Zev tried, and failed, to murder you under Loghain's orders; certainly not unforgivable and sparing Zev is a consideration of risk vs gain. Jowan is really only guilty of one crime, being a blood mage; the poisoning of Arl Eamon is Loghain's crime and Jowan is simply accessory to it. So whether or not to free Jowan isn't a consideration of his crime it's a mark on your feelings toward magic.

Loghain on the other hand committed regicide, which as either he or Maric mentions in TST is an unforgivable crime. I could accept that withdrawing from Ostagar was a tragic but necessary tactical decision but the moment he steps up and declares himself king it becomes a military coup. He also sold Fereldan citizens into slavery, kidnapped and tortured nobility, all to support his Civil War. By the time my HN gets to the Landsmeet it isn't about what Alistair wants, it isn't about what Riordan suggests, Loghain's actions demand justice and justice demands blood. There is no justification that can excuse what he's done,

Only my HN characters have that perspective though. To a DN regicide is pretty old hat and for all the others it's not something they're concerned with. A HN knows the laws of Fereldan, knows what Maric did to the traitors and bootlickers, Loghain is a traitor and my only regret is he doesn't get a traitor's death.

1) Zevran, Sten and Jowan made their own decisions. Sten couldn't control his temper. Jowan was a selfish fool who uses blood magic to get what he wants. Zevran was a professional, coold blooded killer. So much for b/w views. (I actually do not narrow these characters down like that) As for risk vs. gain, remember Riordan's advice?

2) A tactical retreat is not regicide. In TST Maric actually blames Loghain for saving his life at the battle of West Hill. He then made Loghain swear to regard no man higher than Ferelden's welfare, not even the king. Unless Loghain tranformed into an ogre, he did not commit regicide. He never declares himself king, he is Queen Anora's regent. BIG difference. HOWE kidnapped and tortured nobles and others, there is no proof positive that Loghain knows about this. HIS civil war? The civil war that was started by the idiotic Bannorn? Justice means blood, but only in selective cases? How....interesting. Justice truly is a double edged sword.....no, wait, that's mercy.

[Persephone]

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Did he not warn Cailan while Duncan, who actually might have made a difference, just looked on? Did he not advise Cailan against fighting on the front lines?

[DPSSOC]

CalJones wrote...
I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

The reason I consider it regicide isn't the condition of Cailan's death it's what Loghain does immediately after.  Rather than go to Denerim and say, "This was a tragic loss, we must rebuild, I will maintain my position under Queen Anora," he stands in front of the Landsmeet and essentially says, "I'm in charge now, fall in line or else."  It's that grab for power that changes his actions (for me) from a sound tactical decision resulting in the death of the King to the abandonment and murder of the King to seize power.  Add into that Loghain blaming the Wardens and you have classic redirection of a guilty conscience.  Loghain knows what he did, what he's still doing, was wrong so he shifts blame to a scapegoat.

[TheRevanchist]

Persephone wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Did he not warn Cailan while Duncan, who actually might have made a difference, just looked on? Did he not advise Cailan against fighting on the front lines?

He warned him about fighting down in the valley...he spoke nothing of the battle itself. He did not even try to persuade him to abandon Ostagar and fall back further north and wait for more reinforcements. He never offered another plan or strategy...he acted like he went along with Cailen's plan while already knowing he would leave him. Duncan on ther hand even says "I would have the King wait for the Grey Wardens from Orlais before we engage the Darkspawn here." Duncan actually wanted him to wait...which would have been the smart thing to do. Instead Cailen listens to Loghain and thinks the plan has a chance. On top of that...Gaider already said Loghain had Jowan poison the Eamon BEFORE the battle took place! Meaning his macanations were already in motion. Considering the Couslands influence and loyalty to the crown he probably DID support Howes actions against them so there would be one less voice to speak against him (a very powerful one I might add).

Loghain already planned to leave him there because he would rather let the Darkspawn kill everyone then let anyone over the border. And don't say thats a smart move because we have no way of knowing Orlais motivations in this matter. We know nothing of Empress Celene to know what she would have done once the Blight was over. Aside from that the Orlisan Grey Warden's are an entierly different matter. They only cared about stopping the Blight and are still turned away simply because of the region their base is in.

[TheRevanchist]

DPSSOC wrote...

CalJones wrote...
I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

The reason I consider it regicide isn't the condition of Cailan's death it's what Loghain does immediately after.  Rather than go to Denerim and say, "This was a tragic loss, we must rebuild, I will maintain my position under Queen Anora," he stands in front of the Landsmeet and essentially says, "I'm in charge now, fall in line or else."  It's that grab for power that changes his actions (for me) from a sound tactical decision resulting in the death of the King to the abandonment and murder of the King to seize power.  Add into that Loghain blaming the Wardens and you have classic redirection of a guilty conscience.  Loghain knows what he did, what he's still doing, was wrong so he shifts blame to a scapegoat.

-Refers fo BA claping dude on top of page-

[Persephone]

kylecouch wrote...

Persephone wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Did he not warn Cailan while Duncan, who actually might have made a difference, just looked on? Did he not advise Cailan against fighting on the front lines?

He warned him about fighting down in the valley...he spoke nothing of the battle itself. He did not even try to persuade him to abandon Ostagar and fall back further north and wait for more reinforcements. He never offered another plan or strategy...he acted like he went along with Cailen's plan while already knowing he would leave him. Duncan on ther hand even says "I would have the King wait for the Grey Wardens from Orlais before we engage the Darkspawn here." Duncan actually wanted him to wait...which would have been the smart thing to do. Instead Cailen listens to Loghain and thinks the plan has a chance. On top of that...Gaider already said Loghain had Jowan poison the Eamon BEFORE the battle took place! Meaning his macanations were already in motion. Considering the Couslands influence and loyalty to the crown he probably DID support Howes actions against them so there would be one less voice to speak against him (a very powerful one I might add).

Loghain already planned to leave him there because he would rather let the Darkspawn kill everyone then let anyone over the border. And don't say thats a smart move because we have no way of knowing Orlais motivations in this matter. We know nothing of Empress Celene to know what she would have done once the Blight was over. Aside from that the Orlisan Grey Warden's are an entierly different matter. They only cared about stopping the Blight and are still turned away simply because of the region their base is in.

Remember Cailan saying: "Loghain is eager to bore me with his strategies." Not exactly promising. And no, he did not know he would abandon him. The decision to retreat was caused by the delayed signal and much greater enemy forces than originally expected. Duncan nods along with Cailan during the War Council, uncomfortably, yes, but just the same. Why not warn him again? Gaider explained that Eamon being sedated is a leftover from a cut plot involving Celene, which re-appears in RTO. He also confirmed that Loghain knew nothing and had nothing to do with the Cousland massacre.

The Wardens and Orlais are a rather shady bunch. They committed treason. Allied themselves with the darkspawn. (In "The Calling) They consist of murderers, thieves, blood mages, kinslayers, carta thugs, bandits and traitors...so if you want to be "lawful good", would YOU trust them? Or, if you were a pragmatist, would they not seem shady to you? 

[Persephone]

DPSSOC wrote...

CalJones wrote...
I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

The reason I consider it regicide isn't the condition of Cailan's death it's what Loghain does immediately after.  Rather than go to Denerim and say, "This was a tragic loss, we must rebuild, I will maintain my position under Queen Anora," he stands in front of the Landsmeet and essentially says, "I'm in charge now, fall in line or else."  It's that grab for power that changes his actions (for me) from a sound tactical decision resulting in the death of the King to the abandonment and murder of the King to seize power.  Add into that Loghain blaming the Wardens and you have classic redirection of a guilty conscience.  Loghain knows what he did, what he's still doing, was wrong so he shifts blame to a scapegoat.

He is a heavy handed politician. He distrusts the Wardens; and with good reasons. Of course he feels guilt and it its tormenting him. Cailan, despite being a glory hounding, obnoxious moron, was not only Maric's son but Rowan's. The decision isn't what is tormenting him for the most part. But losing so many men he knew, as well as Cailan in an unwinnable battle.

[DPSSOC]

Persephone wrote...
1) Zevran, Sten and Jowan made their own decisions. Sten couldn't control his temper. Jowan was a selfish fool who uses blood magic to get what he wants. Zevran was a professional, coold blooded killer. So much for b/w views. (I actually do not narrow these characters down like that) As for risk vs. gain, remember Riordan's advice?

Yes Sten, Zev, and Jowan are guilty, yes they deserve punishment, none of their crimes (IMO) warrant death.  As for Riordan's advice yes Loghain's valuable, yes keeping him alive is a minimal risk, but none of that matters.  Justice transcends all other considerations (IMO).  Sten, Zev, and even Jowan are willing to work for attonement, their crimes can be forgiven in return for service (similar to prison), but Loghain's crimes cannot be forgiven.

Persephone wrote...
2) A tactical retreat is not regicide. In TST Maric actually blames Loghain for saving his life at the battle of West Hill. He then made Loghain swear to regard no man higher than Ferelden's welfare, not even the king. Unless Loghain tranformed into an ogre, he did not commit regicide.  He never declares himself king, he is Queen Anora's regent. BIG difference.

 
PPOV.  To my HN Loghain does commit regicide, not solely because of what he did at Ostagar but what he did after.  He sauntered up to the Landsmeet and declared himself the unquestionable ruler of Fereldan and hid behind a technicality.  Anora made no decisions, Anora made no proclamations, it was Loghain running the show, going so far as to sit on the throne.

Persephone wrote...
HOWE kidnapped and tortured nobles and others, there is no proof positive that Loghain knows about this.

 
Ignorance is no excuse.  A commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, if Loghain didn't know what Howe was up to he should have.  If I'm a manager of a company and one of the people under me commits a criminal act I can, and should, be held responsible if I fail to notice or refuse to stop it.  So Loghain is either guilty of the crime or criminal negligence take your pick.

Persephone wrote...
HIS civil war? The civil war that was started by the idiotic Bannorn?

 
Yes HIS civil war.  If he hadn't marched into the Landsmeet like the tyrant he spent years trying to bring down, and demand unquestioning obedience the war never would have happened.  Because that was the tone of Loghain's speech "I am in charge, you will do what I say or else."  Loghain issued an ultimatum, the Bannorn found it unacceptable, they rose up to do something about it.

Persephone wrote...
Justice means blood, but only in selective cases? How....interesting. Justice truly is a double edged sword.....no, wait, that's mercy.

Yes justice does not require blood in all instances; just as the death sentence is not called for in every crime.  Some crimes are unforgivable, the accused deserving neither mercy nor chance for redemption.  Loghain nearly doomed Fereldan because of his pride and paranoia I think that qualifies.

[TheRevanchist]

Persephone wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Persephone wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Did he not warn Cailan while Duncan, who actually might have made a difference, just looked on? Did he not advise Cailan against fighting on the front lines?

He warned him about fighting down in the valley...he spoke nothing of the battle itself. He did not even try to persuade him to abandon Ostagar and fall back further north and wait for more reinforcements. He never offered another plan or strategy...he acted like he went along with Cailen's plan while already knowing he would leave him. Duncan on ther hand even says "I would have the King wait for the Grey Wardens from Orlais before we engage the Darkspawn here." Duncan actually wanted him to wait...which would have been the smart thing to do. Instead Cailen listens to Loghain and thinks the plan has a chance. On top of that...Gaider already said Loghain had Jowan poison the Eamon BEFORE the battle took place! Meaning his macanations were already in motion. Considering the Couslands influence and loyalty to the crown he probably DID support Howes actions against them so there would be one less voice to speak against him (a very powerful one I might add).

Loghain already planned to leave him there because he would rather let the Darkspawn kill everyone then let anyone over the border. And don't say thats a smart move because we have no way of knowing Orlais motivations in this matter. We know nothing of Empress Celene to know what she would have done once the Blight was over. Aside from that the Orlisan Grey Warden's are an entierly different matter. They only cared about stopping the Blight and are still turned away simply because of the region their base is in.

Remember Cailan saying: "Loghain is eager to bore me with his strategies." Not exactly promising. And no, he did not know he would abandon him. The decision to retreat was caused by the delayed signal and much greater enemy forces than originally expected. Duncan nods along with Cailan during the War Council, uncomfortably, yes, but just the same. Why not warn him again? Gaider explained that Eamon being sedated is a leftover from a cut plot involving Celene, which re-appears in RTO. He also confirmed that Loghain knew nothing and had nothing to do with the Cousland massacre.

The Wardens and Orlais are a rather shady bunch. They committed treason. Allied themselves with the darkspawn. (In "The Calling) They consist of murderers, thieves, blood mages, kinslayers, carta thugs, bandits and traitors...so if you want to be "lawful good", would YOU trust them? Or, if you were a pragmatist, would they not seem shady to you? 

Ok and if you make a DC are you not a Carta Thug? I fail to see how painting the Wardens in such a negative light is entierly fair...like I said before the Wardens did not support Sophia and many of Fereldens Wardens abandond her because the Wardens do not meddle in politics, their only concern is the Darkspawn and nothing more. Sophia acted above her station because she could not take her political defeat with honor and had to press the issue. Her actions do not make all Wardens a evil organization with a dark agenda...neaither do the very few in The Calling. The actions of a few do not damn the whole organization for that is an unfair assumption. There is no reason at all to distrust Orlais Warden's. Wether or not Eamons poisoning is left over from a cut plot or not...the fact remains it happened BEFORE the battle...meaning Loghain already had plans.

You also clearly know nothing of Ferelden politics because the King of Ferelden can not simply make demands of the Bannorn. Unlike most monarchys the power in Ferelden comes from the Bann's and goes up to the King, not from the King downward. The Bann's were correct in their response...Loghain has no right to make demands of the Bannorn. Not only is he not the King he is not even actually a noble, but an uplifted commoner...who has the nerve to stand before them and make demands of them as if he was entitled to it. The power in Ferelden lies with the Bann's and the Arl's first and formost. That is why the Landsmeet even exists, so the King can meet with them and try to win their support for whatever actions he wishs to begin.

[testing123]

kylecouch wrote...
Not only is he not the King he is not even actually a noble, but an uplifted commoner...who has the nerve to stand before them and make demands of them as if he was entitled to it.

Heh... I'm sure that's exactly how they reacted to it.  'A commoner issuing ME commands?  How quaint!'

[TJPags]

How in the world does the fact that Eamon's poisoninig is a left-over from the cut-out Celene in Denerim story helpful to Loghain's position? Without that plot, the poisoning actually makes a lot less sense, doesn't it?

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...

How in the world does the fact that Eamon's poisoninig is a left-over from the cut-out Celene in Denerim story helpful to Loghain's position? Without that plot, the poisoning actually makes a lot less sense, doesn't it?

The poisoning without the intention to kill doesn't make any sense. Had Eamon died, the Bannorn's options would have been severily reduced. Eamon being sick only, probably didn't kill their hopes.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...

How in the world does the fact that Eamon's poisoninig is a left-over from the cut-out Celene in Denerim story helpful to Loghain's position? Without that plot, the poisoning actually makes a lot less sense, doesn't it?

The poisoning without the intention to kill doesn't make any sense. Had Eamon died, the Bannorn's options would have been severily reduced. Eamon being sick only, probably didn't kill their hopes.

To me, the whole thing stinks.  I know DG said he wasn't supposed to die, but there's really little in-game to support that (yes, I know the whole "he didn't die when you killed the demon" argument and the "that's why the elf was watching to see if anything changed" argument, but I find them flimsy).
So what we see in game is Loghain poisoning what we're told is a very influential noble, for no reason that we're ever given.  Very sloppy editing, IMO.

[atunnei]

Me sparing Loghain in my HN origins comes down to the fact that Loghain surrenders after the dual.

Removing the plot saves you mechanism, had I let one of my other companions dual Loghain and he won I would wish for him to spare them and would have followed him into battle.



Granting him the mercy I would have wished from him had he won seems like It's the honorable thing to do.



So when Loghain surrenders I spare him.

[Bigdoser]

I sometimes spare Loghain but killing him in front of anora personally I think thats being quite a douche. The bloody splatter on her made it worse.

[Raelis25]

I really appreciate everyone's input and am grateful that you all took the time to share your opinions and experiences.

I respect everyone's opinions, but I must say the following bothered me a little:

DPSSOC wrote...

 I've seen people bring up sparing Sten and Zev and Jowan but that's on a completely different scale. Sten murdered a family; tragic but not unforgivable.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the murder of innocent civilians is more acceptable than the murder of the king. Maybe it is so according to Ferelden's laws, but it should not be so according to moral laws. Is Sten's crime realt not unforgivable? Maybe the Warden should have met that sole surviving boy that managed to escape Sten's bloodbath. I'd like to see that boy's reaction to the fact that the murderer of his family was spared and allowed to join a Grey Warden in his travels, becoming a hero of Ferelden in the process. I I think his rage and pain would put Alistair's temper tantrum at the Landsmeet to shame.

It's not about Loghain, really. It's just I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can brush off Sten's horrible crime like that. I thought the whole point of it was that wnat Sten did was unforgivable, and the Warden takes an unbelievable risk/shows how uniquely merciful he/she is when he/she frees this mad creature.

Modifié par Raelis25, 27 décembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[testing123]

Bigdoser wrote...

I sometimes spare Loghain but killing him in front of anora personally I think thats being quite a douche. The bloody splatter on her made it worse.

Yes, perhaps the Warden should have politely asked her to leave the room before he/she got on with the business of killing her father.

Raelis25 wrote...
I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the murder of innocent civilians is more acceptable than the murder of the king. Maybe it is so according to Ferelden's laws, but it should not be so according to moral laws. Is Sten's crime realt not unforgivable? Maybe the Warden should have met that sole surviving boy that managed to escape Sten's bloodbath. I'd like to see that boy's reaction to the fact that the murderer of his family was spared and allowed to join a Grey Warden in his travels, becoming a hero of Ferelden in the process. I I think his rage and pain would put Alistair's temper tantrum at the Landsmeet to shame.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

It's not about Loghain, really. It's just I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can brush off Sten's horrible crime like that. I thought the whole point of it was that wnat Sten did was unforgivable, and the Warden takes an unbelievable risk/shows how uniquely merciful he/she is when he/she frees this mad creature. 

Loghain is responsible for more than just the death of the king.  Neither Sten, nor Zevran, nor Jowan have the sort of power or influence in their decisions that Loghain has.  Everything he did affected lives on a macro scale. Beyond that, Sten shows some sense of remorse for what he did, he feels shame for his actions.  Loghain never admits that he did anything other than what was necessary.  If you actually feel that he committed crimes, it becomes more difficult to show mercy to the unrepentant.

You could argue that what Sten did was unforgivable, but the scale and the remorse are notably different.

[TheRevanchist]

Raelis25 wrote...


I really appreciate everyone's input and am grateful that you all took the time to share your opinions and experiences.

I respect everyone's opinions, but I must say the following bothered me a little:

DPSSOC wrote...

 I've seen people bring up sparing Sten and Zev and Jowan but that's on a completely different scale. Sten murdered a family; tragic but not unforgivable.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the murder of innocent civilians is more acceptable than the murder of the king. Maybe it is so according to Ferelden's laws, but it should not be so according to moral laws. Is Sten's crime realt not unforgivable? Maybe the Warden should have met that sole surviving boy that managed to escape Sten's bloodbath. I'd like to see that boy's reaction to the fact that the murderer of his family was spared and allowed to join a Grey Warden in his travels, becoming a hero of Ferelden in the process. I I think his rage and pain would put Alistair's temper tantrum at the Landsmeet to shame.

It's not about Loghain, really. It's just I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can brush off Sten's horrible crime like that. I thought the whole point of it was that wnat Sten did was unforgivable, and the Warden takes an unbelievable risk/shows how uniquely merciful he/she is when he/she frees this mad creature.

While Sten commited the act in a fit of madness I agree it is indeed a very horrible crime. But that madness was triggered out of fear of disrespecting his culture and what he believed to be the lose of his very soul. But I do indeed consider Sten's crime horrible and I don't honestly like him that much because of it. (excludeing the fact I just hate Qunari in general.)

[TheRevanchist]

jvee wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...

I sometimes spare Loghain but killing him in front of anora personally I think thats being quite a douche. The bloody splatter on her made it worse.

Yes, perhaps the Warden should have politely asked her to leave the room before he/she got on with the business of killing her father.

Raelis25 wrote...
I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that the murder of innocent civilians is more acceptable than the murder of the king. Maybe it is so according to Ferelden's laws, but it should not be so according to moral laws. Is Sten's crime realt not unforgivable? Maybe the Warden should have met that sole surviving boy that managed to escape Sten's bloodbath. I'd like to see that boy's reaction to the fact that the murderer of his family was spared and allowed to join a Grey Warden in his travels, becoming a hero of Ferelden in the process. I I think his rage and pain would put Alistair's temper tantrum at the Landsmeet to shame.

It's not about Loghain, really. It's just I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can brush off Sten's horrible crime like that. I thought the whole point of it was that wnat Sten did was unforgivable, and the Warden takes an unbelievable risk/shows how uniquely merciful he/she is when he/she frees this mad creature. 

Loghain is responsible for more than just the death of the king.  Neither Sten, nor Zevran, nor Jowan have the sort of power or influence in their decisions that Loghain has.  Everything he did affected lives on a macro scale. Beyond that, Sten shows some sense of remorse for what he did, he feels shame for his actions.  Loghain never admits that he did anything other than what was necessary.  If you actually feel that he committed crimes, it becomes more difficult to show mercy to the unrepentant.

You could argue that what Sten did was unforgivable, but the scale and the remorse are notably different.

Also true.

[Persephone]

jvee wrote...

Loghain is responsible for more than just the death of the king.  Neither Sten, nor Zevran, nor Jowan have the sort of power or influence in their decisions that Loghain has.  Everything he did affected lives on a macro scale. Beyond that, Sten shows some sense of remorse for what he did, he feels shame for his actions.  Loghain never admits that he did anything other than what was necessary.  If you actually feel that he committed crimes, it becomes more difficult to show mercy to the unrepentant.

You could argue that what Sten did was unforgivable, but the scale and the remorse are notably different.

He does show remorse. Lots of it. If you recruit him, that is.

[Raelis25]

kylecouch wrote...

 But that madness was triggered out of
fear of disrespecting his culture and what he believed to be the lose of
his very soul. 

I really don't think Sten's crime
should or can be rationalized in any way. But I'm glad you agree that
what he did was unforgivable.

jvee wrote...

Loghain is responsible for more than just the death of the king.  Neither Sten, nor Zevran, nor Jowan have the sort of power or influence in their decisions that Loghain has.  Everything he did affected lives on a macro scale. Beyond that, Sten shows some sense of remorse for what he did, he feels shame for his actions.  Loghain never admits that he did anything other than what was necessary.  If you actually feel that he committed crimes, it becomes more difficult to show mercy to the unrepentant.

You could argue that what Sten did was unforgivable, but the scale and the remorse are notably different.

It's not a matter of the scale of their crimes. The fact that Loghain's actions affected more people does no in any way lessen Sten's culpability or make his crimes less horrible. And I was not comparing Loghain and Sten anyway. I was disagreeing with the idea that Sten's crime was not unforgivable.

The remorse Sten displays is also debatable. Personally, I felt he was much more upset by the loss of his honor than by the act of murder.

[testing123]

Raelis25 wrote...
The fact that Loghain's actions affected more people does no in any way lessen Sten's culpability or make his crimes less horrible.

Obviously I didn't say anything like that.  What I said was, the crimes that Loghain is charged with affected thousands on a massive scale.  Sten's charged crime directly affects one family.  I never said that scale magically made Sten innocent, only that his crimes are hardly comparable to someone in the position of power Loghain had.  

[Raelis25]

jvee wrote...

Obviously I didn't say anything like that.  What I said was, the crimes that Loghain is charged with affected thousands on a massive scale.  Sten's charged crime directly affects one family.  I never said that scale magically made Sten innocent, only that his crimes are hardly comparable to someone in the position of power Loghain had.  

Then I'm not really sure what exactly we're disagreeing about. My point had nothing to do with Loghain at all, I merely objected to the idea of Sten's crime being considered 'forgivable',