85 réponses à ce sujet

[DaeFaron]

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.

No spoilers, but at one point Sten says (if you have him out)

Sten: Putting the group before the individual is honorable

I fail to see how he is lawful evil.

Lawful neutral all the way for Sten, An evil person would have killed the guards that found him instead of willingly allowing himself to be captured, with zero struggle.

[Raxxman]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

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.

But they'll gladly hold wealth plundered from oppressed and often murdered people for war criminals.

[Inarai]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

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

And if you meet his challenge by being authoritative, he approves.  He needs to know he's following someone "worthy".

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Raxxman wrote...

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.

He shows disregard of the lives he took, showing no compassion. Along with agreeing with the rather evil Quanari doctrine, makes him evil. Maybe not stereotypically evil, but he is not neutral nor good.

[marshalleck]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He shows disregard of the lives he took, showing no compassion.

This is actually false.

Just because he doesn't get all weepy over it doesn't mean he is incapable of realizing it was the wrong thing to do.

I think Sten actually shows a remarkable sense of self-awareness and presence of mind. Moreso than any other character in the game, with the exception of Wynne perhaps.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:29 .

[DaeFaron]

Then again, Sten doesn't dwell on who he kills. Would you call a Native American evil for following their laws and traditions instead of the normal?



The main thing that would dip Sten into the 'evil' section would be how he dislikes weak people who don't stand up for themselves, or require others simply to finish the job.



Maybe when I play a mage I'll hear this line about what the Quanari do to mages...

[Inarai]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Raxxman wrote...

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.

He shows disregard of the lives he took, showing no compassion. Along with agreeing with the rather evil Quanari doctrine, makes him evil. Maybe not stereotypically evil, but he is not neutral nor good.

So, he is evil because he doesn't do what a good character would do?  Sorry, no.

Compassion, remorse, moral redemption - these characterise GOOD characters, and are central to exalted characters, the pinnacle of good.

A character's alignment is defined by what they actively and willfully do.  So, "not doing evil" doesn't make you good.  Equally, "not doing good" doesn't make you evil.

[marshalleck]

Inarai wrote...

A character's alignment is defined by what they actively and willfully do.  So, "not doing evil" doesn't make you good.  Equally, "not doing good" doesn't make you evil.

Taking this logic a bit further...if it is evil to kill those farmers, Sten realizes it and submits himself for punishment to atone for his crime. He is seeking balance. That is neutrality.

[Raxxman]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He shows disregard of the lives he took, showing no compassion. Along with agreeing with the rather evil Quanari doctrine, makes him evil. Maybe not stereotypically evil, but he is not neutral nor good.

Actually on his personal quest he DOES show compassion AND regret for his actions. Why do you think he let himself be caged?

If you only look for evil in actions you'll only see evil.

And calling the Quanri evil based on the treatment of mages would also imply that the chantry is evil. Following this path of logic you could argue that the Darkspawn are actually good as they're trying to wipe out the oppressing evil forces holding the world.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

He doesn't do good for goodness sake. Its the lawful side of him that makes him do it. Same with fighting The Blight. He doesn't seem to care about the lives of the peasants or the people of Ferelden. Had he not been honour-bound to aid The Warden he probably would've welcomed The Blight as a way of weakening the Fereldans.

If he hadn't been lost his sword and all that, and gathered information about The Blight, he would've reported back and we'd have a Quanari invasion to deal with as well, since they would probably attack while The Blight is in effect, or afterwards.

Hmm... nope. The core intentions as to why he is there doesn't strike me as neutral at all. He's an evil pawn in an evil scheme that just happened to find himself in a situation where his lawful got him caught in a sticky situation.

EDIT: The Chantry is evil in the way it treats the Mages, actually. Its one of the big ironies of DA:O.

"Magic exists to serve man, never to rule over him."

Ironically, magic does rule over the mages with the help of the Chantry and The Templars. The mages being magical and because of it being ruled over does indeed mean that magic, in a sense, does rule over man. And the Chantry/Templars being the means of how it happens.

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 28 novembre 2009 - 11:36 .

[DaeFaron]

marshalleck wrote...

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He shows disregard of the lives he took, showing no compassion.

This is actually false.

Just because he doesn't get all weepy over it doesn't mean he is incapable of realizing it was the wrong thing to do.

I think Sten actually shows a remarkable sense of self-awareness and presence of mind. Moreso than any other character in the game, with the exception of Wynne perhaps.

Sten realizes what he did was wrong, but he knows you gave him a chance to redeem himself, even in his own eyes.

Get a good rep with him as you play through, in the epilogue when you talk he is different then how you first met him.

Also - Sten: Where is the cake? They promised me cake... the cake is a lie.

[fro7k]

Lawful Neutral according to D&D's definitions, Chaotic Evil according to my own.

[Inarai]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He doesn't do good for goodness sake. Its the lawful side of him that makes him do it. Same with fighting The Blight. He doesn't seem to care about the lives of the peasants or the people of Ferelden. Had he not been honour-bound to aid The Warden he probably would've welcomed The Blight as a way of weakening the Fereldans.

If he hadn't been lost his sword and all that, and gathered information about The Blight, he would've reported back and we'd have a Quanari invasion to deal with as well, since they would probably attack while The Blight is in effect, or afterwards.

Actually, if he had reported back, you'd probably have Qunari HELP.  A Blight threatens everyone, and had it been allowed to spread, it could have endangered what were now Qunari lands.  In fact, the reason they didn't help in others is the same reason for Sten's mission:  This is the first Blight they've been on the scene for, and they don't know what to do.

[Raxxman]

 

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

He doesn't do good for goodness sake.

That statement doesn't make him evil just not good.

Put it this way, he doesn't do evil for evils sake.

Its the lawful side of him that makes him do it.

In your somewhat sketchy opinion, but my previous statement still holds true

Same with fighting The Blight. He doesn't seem to care about the lives of the peasants or the people of Ferelden. Had he not been honour-bound to aid The Warden he probably would've welcomed The Blight as a way of weakening the Fereldans.

That's a huge claim without any evidence.

If he hadn't been lost his sword and all that, and gathered information about The Blight, he would've reported back and we'd have a Quanari invasion to deal with as well, since they would probably attack while The Blight is in effect, or afterwards.

Again no real evidence to back this up, it's all opinion.

Hmm... nope. The core intentions as to why he is there doesn't strike me as neutral at all. He's an evil pawn in an evil scheme that just happened to find himself in a situation where his lawful got him caught in a sticky situation.

Eh well your entire claim is based on an assumption that has no solid evidence. It's a conspiracy theory. Still your belief that only evil invades is wonderfully naive. Most soliders have no say in what they fight. Heck you could argue that the common footsoilder thought he was doing gods work during the crusades. Ever heard the saying 'Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die.'

EDIT: The Chantry is evil in the way it treats the Mages, actually. Its one of the big ironies of DA:O.

"Magic exists to serve man, never to rule over him."

Ironically, magic does rule over the mages with the help of the Chantry and The Templars. The mages being magical and because of it being ruled over does indeed mean that magic, in a sense, does rule over man. And the Chantry/Templars being the means of how it happens.

missed the look for evil and you will only find evil part of my comment didn't you. Chantry may well be evil to Mages, but it's largely good to the people. Again committing an evil act doesn't make one evil, and to hold that viewpoint is just naive.

TBH you sound like one of the people who forces paladins to play lawful stupid in games under fear that any action that could be interperted as evil will immediately cause the stripping of their powers.

[DaeFaron]

Indeed, think about it the mages and templar mostly get along, only when a mage starts being secretive the templars start suspecting things and even then, its tranquil before death.

[GoldenusG]

I'd say Lawful Neutral. He strictly obeys the laws of his people, and the order of his... General, for want of the actual term. Hell, you can see how strict he remains, by the fact you never learn his name, even if you get to 100% loyalty.



Neutral... Well he's certainly not good, and whilst by our perceptions, he leans towards evil, he doesn't act on such. I think he'd get along perfectly with Duncan to be honest.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Evil acts are always evil, no matter the justification. Killing Connor to save the lives of people is both an evil deed as well as a good deed. You might be redeemed in the eyes of people because you intentions were good, but it does not change the fact that you killed a child.

And yes; a Paladin who does evil, even if he does so unwittedly, does evil and is to be treated as such. For example Baldur's Gate 2 has a quest where you are to save a village from marauding monsters, only to find that the monsters were fellow Paladin initiates disguised as monsters by illusion magic in order for you to fall from grace. And indeed you have to work very hard to redeem yourself in the eyes of yourself, your god and your order.

Modifié par Ulrik the Slayer, 29 novembre 2009 - 12:20 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

This s why 3.5e's alignment system is stupid and I'm glad they got rid of it, pretty much, in 4e. I say that Sten is Unaligned.

[marshalleck]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Evil acts are always evil, no matter the justification.

To cop a rather cheesey reference: only Sith deal in absolutes.

But perhaps you can relate.

Modifié par marshalleck, 29 novembre 2009 - 12:20 .

[marshalleck]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

This s why 3.5e's alignment system is stupid and I'm glad they got rid of it, pretty much, in 4e. I say that Sten is Unaligned.

This alignment system was in place before 3.5. It's as old as AD&D itself.

[Inarai]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

This s why 3.5e's alignment system is stupid

This is why it's good - it's complexity models reality.  Things aren't black and white, and you can't always be sure where an action fits.

[DaeFaron]

Thats slightly a spoiler, but such a decision is entirely up to you, Sten might suggest it merely because he doesn't know that much about the fade. His suggestions come from the viewpoint of, if you give somebody a few gold pieces, they'll come back for more and more.



Think about it, he's trying to help them by telling them to try it themselves, not to require the help of others for everything.

[Inarai]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

*spoilers*

And yes; a Paladin who does evil, even if he does so unwittedly, does evil and is to be treated as such. For example Baldur's Gate 2 has a quest where you are to save a village from marauding monsters, only to find that the monsters were fellow Paladin initiates disguised as monsters by illusion magic in order for you to fall from grace. And indeed you have to work very hard to redeem yourself in the eyes of yourself, your god and your order.

This is the no-spoiler forum.  Get rid of those spoilers, and do it now.

And that's debatebly bull. Maybe the guy who wrote that bit thought it qualitied, but there's a body of argument behind the idea that the will to do it matters.  Looking at things as being that black and white is just stupid.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Hahaha. Bickering over Baldur's Gate 2 spoilers? Hilarious. Seeking argument for argument's sake, I see.



You claim the "black and white"-side of things to be stupid, but its how old-school DnD alignment works - and that's what the topic is about. Not your own moral values.

[Inarai]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...

Hahaha. Bickering over Baldur's Gate 2 spoilers? Hilarious. Seeking argument for argument's sake, I see.

You claim the "black and white"-side of things to be stupid, but its how old-school DnD alignment works - and that's what the topic is about. Not your own moral values.

No, my problem is the first paragraph.

And, hardly.  That's only the case for paladins and exalted characters, really.