85 réponses à ce sujet

[Naturalus]

Sten is like a warrior monk that follows his very alien and strict qunari moral code that makes him definitely Lawful Neutral.

Sten does very bad things to himself because his alien moral code tolds him to do those things. People seem to assume that Lawful is same as good but that is not the case there could be bad laws or bad moral codes and people who follow those codes very strictly are lawful.

Lawful Tax collector who bleeds every last coin out of the pocket of poor childrens that die in starvation after that becouse law tolds him to do so is as lawful as paladin that follow his own moral code.

[Phreylorn]

Neutral Evil. Hear me out.



First, the neutral part. He does not go out of his way to avoid conforming to the law (chaotic) nor does he follow it when it is inconvenient for him (lawful.) He does what he needs to do to get the job done. That, to me, says neutral.



As far as evil, he's not your stereotypical evil. But I can cite precedence for this. The Assassin PRC has an "evil" prerequisite, stating specifically that it is evil to not care one whit for taking a human life. This is very true of Sten - he does NOT care who he has to kill to get his job done. If you're in his way, well, sucks to be you.



I'm citing precedence for this off of 3.5, but since the alignment system got a revamp in 4e and Lawful Neutral does not exist any more, I assume 3rd/3.5 is the edition you're referring to.

[J.O.G]

Lawfulness is what cements societies together, the confidence that there is something greater than the single individual, rules are a measure to realize this ideal, so a lawful person will adhere to those rules or strife to change them so that they concur with his personal ideals.

Chaos is what brings change, for good or bad. It is the confidence that man forges his own destiny. Rules are a measure to suppress the personal freedom of each individual and only the strong are fit to break them.

Both can be good and evil, and while chaos causes the flashy headlines, lawfulness is much more subtle and long lasting.

And yes, Sten is LN with a tendency towards evil .

Modifié par J.O.G, 28 novembre 2009 - 08:57 .

[Malcroix]

Sten is Lawful Stupid.



I lost 10 approval with him just for accepting the Redcliff quest.



One of the FOUR MANDATORY QUESTS you HAVE to do to proceed with the game.



A quest which would get us AN ARMY to fight against the Archdemon's blighted hordes. FOR FREE. Not speaking of all the loot and XP we'll get, making ourselves more powerful.



And instead of approving, he demands we go STRAIGHT AT THE ARCHDEMON.



Yeah, right. You and what army, MORON?



Other than that... he's a decent warrior, much better than Shale or Alistair. He's also not a whiny **** nor a flaming ******, so again an advantage vis-a-vis those two.



If only he wasn't so frikkin dumb... oh well. I still got Morrigan and Zevran.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

I could actually see him as Lawful Evil. Remember, the only reason why he is in Ferelden is to learn more about The Blight in order to prepare for an eventual Quanari invasion. He is not fighting The Blight because he is in anyway good, but the Lawful part of him binds him to The Warden's service.


EDIT: Lawful has nothing to do with laws. It is more about things such as keeping your word and similar things. For example the evil baron who overtaxes his minions and rules with an iron fist, i.e using the system to do evil, is Lawful Evil. As opposed to the Chaotic Evil thug who cares little for honour and just murders and plunders as he sees fit. Or the straight-out-mean-guy who is Natural Evil - he's just rotten to the core!

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 28 novembre 2009 - 10:36 .

[Inarai]

Lawful neutral, I'd say.



LAWFUL: Sten adheres to a strict code of Qunari honour. This is very important to him. Ergo, he is Lawful something, period.

NEUTRAL: He follows orders. He does his duty. He has no interest in good or evil - even his desire for atonement is a matter of qunari honour. Ergo, he is neutral.

[Seifz]

Definitely Lawful Evil. At least, that's what I want to say. But he did sort of feel remorse for some of the things he's done, so maybe he's not entirely evil? I might go Lawful Neutral, but just barely. Anything non-Lawful isn't even on the radar.

[Inarai]

Seifz wrote...

Definitely Lawful Evil. At least, that's what I want to say. But he did sort of feel remorse for some of the things he's done, so maybe he's not entirely evil? I might go Lawful Neutral, but just barely. Anything non-Lawful isn't even on the radar.

But he doesn't actively seek to do evil.  The crime that landed him in that cage was committed in a blind rage - so he can't be considered culpable for it.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

He is evil, no doubt. His wish to atone for this crime doesn't originate from good, but from his code of honour; the lawful aspect of it. Note how he never says he regrets killing them because he feels bad for them; its simply because he has shamed himself according to his code of honour. He doesn't really care about the peasants.

As I said in my previous post; the Quanari are an evil race by default. Sten belonged to an advance scout party to learn more about Ferelden, the Blight in particular, to prepare for an Quanari invasion.

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:04 .

[MR-9]

You don't get it. Sten wants to kill darkspawn and end the blight. He could care less about a town in distress, some woman trapped in a tower or an ancient powerful relic. Sten wants to get the job done and if you're doing anything but the job, Sten would just as well cleave you in half because you have zero value to him.

[Seifz]

Inarai wrote...
NEUTRAL: He follows orders. He does his duty. He has no interest in good or evil - even his desire for atonement is a matter of qunari honour. Ergo, he is neutral.

But he also has no value for life, human or otherwise, and that's the big one in D&D's alignment system.  So, Evil.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

MR-9 wrote...

You don't get it. Sten wants to kill darkspawn and end the blight. He could care less about a town in distress, some woman trapped in a tower or an ancient powerful relic. Sten wants to get the job done and if you're doing anything but the job, Sten would just as well cleave you in half because you have zero value to him.

Indeed.

For his crime, Sten has sworn to atone by ending The Blight. No more, no less. Things he feel do not contribute or lead towards this end he will naturally disagree with.

[marshalleck]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He is evil, no doubt. His wish to atone for this crime doesn't originate from good, but from his code of honour; the lawful aspect of it. Note how he never says he regrets killing them because he feels bad for them; its simply because he has shamed himself according to his code of honour. He doesn't really care about the peasants.

As I said in my previous post; the Quanari are an evil race by default. Sten belonged to an advance scout party to learn more about Ferelden, the Blight in particular, to prepare for an Quanari invasion.

Just because someone makes a mistake once, doesn't make them evil. Sten admits that killing defenseless farmers who had done nothing to wrong him was improper. The fact that he submitted himself for punishment (without further violence) to atone for his crime suggests to me that he's not out solely for himself and his own gain. Remember, the hallmark of D&D evil is "myself before everyone else."

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:13 .

[Ulrik the Slayer]

marshalleck wrote...

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He is evil, no doubt. His wish to atone for this crime doesn't originate from good, but from his code of honour; the lawful aspect of it. Note how he never says he regrets killing them because he feels bad for them; its simply because he has shamed himself according to his code of honour. He doesn't really care about the peasants.

As I said in my previous post; the Quanari are an evil race by default. Sten belonged to an advance scout party to learn more about Ferelden, the Blight in particular, to prepare for an Quanari invasion.

Just because someone makes a mistake once, doesn't make them evil. Sten admits that killing defenseless farmers who had done nothing to wrong him was improper. The fact that he submitted himself for punishment (without further violence) to atone for his crime suggests to me that he's not out solely for himself and his own gain.

It doesn't make him good, since his desire to atone is driven from his own code of honour. In fact, one could call him selfish because he desire to make himself feel better about it by redeeming himself in his own eyes by abiding to his code of honour. Never does he express regret on behalf of the peasants; only because it was wrong according to his code of honour to slay unworthy foes.

The fact that he only cares about redeeming himself is expressed by him disaproving, even attacking the player, if he feels you're doing things that doesn't lead to his redemption.

Lawful. Evil.

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:14 .

[marshalleck]

I never said it makes him good. I think he's Lawful Neutral. He follows his code of honor and his duty, regardless of the ultimate outcome of those orders (invasion).

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:14 .

[marshalleck]

sigh...double post

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:16 .

[thegreateski]

Sten is the guy who takes your crummy alignment chat and rips it in half.

He then tells you to go sharpen his sword and afterwards point him in the direction of the nearest Darkspawn.

Modifié par thegreateski, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:16 .

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Neutral people don't go invade other countries. Ask Switzerland.

Ask Sten about Quanari values, i.e what they do with Mages, and you'll see that they are evil. And Sten doesn't seem to disagree with such treatment.

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:16 .

[marshalleck]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Neutral people don't go invade other countries. Ask Switzerland.

Sten didn't make the decision to invade. He's following orders. If he was ordered to go pick flowers, he may find it foolish but he would do it.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:17 .

[Inarai]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He is evil, no doubt. His wish to atone for this crime doesn't originate from good, but from his code of honour; the lawful aspect of it. Note how he never says he regrets killing them because he feels bad for them; its simply because he has shamed himself according to his code of honour. He doesn't really care about the peasants.

As I said in my previous post; the Quanari are an evil race by default. Sten belonged to an advance scout party to learn more about Ferelden, the Blight in particular, to prepare for an Quanari invasion.

1: Again, culpability is at issue.  Are you familiar with the concept of "mens reas", the guilty mind?

2: That's short sighted.  We really don't know what the Qunari want or need.  They may have a very good reason.  But Sten does what he's ordered to do, because he's ordered to - and that's what his code tells him to do.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

marshalleck wrote...

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Neutral people don't go invade other countries. Ask Switzerland.

Sten didn't make the decision to invade. He's following orders. If he was ordered to go pick flowers, he may find it foolish but he would do it.

If he was truly Neutral he wouldn't follow those orders. In dnd, neutral truly means neutral. Its an extremely rare set of aligments almost always exclusive to groups such as monks or druids.

It doesn't mean "doing what you're ordered to do!" neither. Indeed, Sten challanges authority (The Warden) on several occasions.

[Raxxman]

Sten doesn't try to use the Law to his own advantage, which is inherent in classical LE personality.



Just because he's focused and doesn't care about the common man doesn't make him evil. More likely he dissaproves because it effects the task he's set himself.



He commits a crime, but accepts his punishment, does not attempt to manupliate the law to his own personal gain.



Lawful is without doubt, but he's not classically evil, nor is he selfish, he'll follow you for no personal gain, even making an excuse to stay with you after you complete his character quest. I'd say he's Neutral, people have to understand that both good and neutral characters can commit evil actions, alignment is a tool not a freaking straight jacket.

[marshalleck]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Ask Sten about Quanari values, i.e what they do with Mages, and you'll see that they are evil. And Sten doesn't seem to disagree with such treatment.

Is this an indictment of Sten personally or Qunari as a whole? Because the title of the thread is questioning Sten specifically.

Sten believes that all people have their place in Qunari society and should seek to fulfillment by being what they are. He doesn't pass moral judgments. That's one facet of neutrality.

[Trace of Toxin]

How is he evil because he killed someone in a blind rage? That's called manslaughter, not murder. That doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you someone who has self-control issues.

[Serenity84]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...
If he was truly Neutral he wouldn't follow those orders. In dnd, neutral truly means neutral. Its an extremely rare set of aligments almost always exclusive to groups such as monks or druids.

That's more like True Neutral