145 réponses à ce sujet

[Korva]

I'm not saying he's not guilty. What I'm saying is that the idea that somehow his men shouldn't also get the noose because these weren't the children they'd normally be sanctioned to kill in a war is ridiculous. His men deserve to die just as much as he does; that he happens to try to attone is a point in his favour (as is his being useful) but to me that doesn't excuse his troops.

 

Oh, agreed. It's guilt all the way down: from the chevalier whose plan it was and whose gold paid for it, to Rainier who took the money and ordered the slaughter, to the soldiers who carried it out. I was actually baffled that Blackwall turning himself in was enough to save Mornay. "My orders, my fault" does not strike me as an excuse that a society like Orlais would accept.

[MiyuEmi]

I think him saving the life of his soldiers is all in support of the most dangerous frame of mind in the world, according to my psych professors, and that is 'Soldier's Mentality'.  Doing something just because you're told to do so without questioning the right or wrong of it.  As I stated above, I never warmed to Blackwall's character, but the idea that he knew there were children present and he still didn't call off the attack pretty much seals his fate for me.  Though I'll also agree that all of his soldiers also deserved the same fate.  Maybe it was common, a la the Romanovs, for children to be killed as well as adults when overthrowing a royal family, but clearly the reactions are based on modern responses and general responses despite having to follow popular opinion if this was in fact historically going on.  Anyway, I'm off track!  Blackwall ordered people to kill everyone, including the children.  He didn't get his hands dirty.  He just sat back, like the incident with the dog, only this time, he was the one who told the boys to kill the dog.

[Han Shot First]

I think him saving the life of his soldiers is all in support of the most dangerous frame of mind in the world, according to my psych professors, and that is 'Soldier's Mentality'.  Doing something just because you're told to do so without questioning the right or wrong of it.  As I stated above, I never warmed to Blackwall's character, but the idea that he knew there were children present and he still didn't call off the attack pretty much seals his fate for me.  Though I'll also agree that all of his soldiers also deserved the same fate.  Maybe it was common, a la the Romanovs, for children to be killed as well as adults when overthrowing a royal family, but clearly the reactions are based on modern responses and general responses despite having to follow popular opinion if this was in fact historically going on.  Anyway, I'm off track!  Blackwall ordered people to kill everyone, including the children.  He didn't get his hands dirty.  He just sat back, like the incident with the dog, only this time, he was the one who told the boys to kill the dog.

 

Do you feel the same about Sten, who essentially commits the same crime? Or Isabela, who dumps an entire load of slaves into the ocean where they drown, so that she could lighten her ship? Or Zevran, whose probably murdered more innocent people than Blackwall & Sten combined just because someone paid him to?

[MiyuEmi]

@Han Shot First: Yes I would, though I didn't know about Isabella's crimes I still feel the same way.  I generally thought she was selfish and wouldn't put this past her knowing the Qunari are sitting there because she has their book.  Blackwall, like the men he passed it down to is suffering from Soldier's Mentality. Zevran just works with the Crows because he was 'raised' into it and is a trained assassin who never denies that fact.  He could have chosen to work on a different path, but he didn't.  But as I've said, in particular, I never warmed to Blackwall's character so I will be harshly judging him based solely on his actions.  I can imagine the choice would be more difficult for someone who actually liked his character or utilised him often.  It's my RPG method.  Everyone has choices.  Yes the individual who gave Blackwall the order in the first place should also be penalised, but his part in the murder of small children shouldn't be overlooked, especially not when he had the opportunity to stop his men.  It just rubbed me the wrong way, sorry.  Oh, and yes about Sten as well.  He flipped out about his sword due to it's importance to him as taught through the Qun, you can't justify what he's done.

[cronshaw]

Do you feel the same about Sten, who essentially commits the same crime? Or Isabela, who dumps an entire load of slaves into the ocean where they drown, so that she could lighten her ship? Or Zevran, whose probably murdered more innocent people than Blackwall & Sten combined just because someone paid him to?

Sten's crime is much worse

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Sten's crime is much worse

How is Sten's crime much worse? Both he and Rainier committed the same crime: butchering a family.

The only difference was the reason they did it: Rainier because of greed and Sten because of temporary insanity. 

[Amirit]

How is Sten's crime much worse? Both he and Rainier committed the same crime: butchering a family.

The only difference was the reason they did it: Rainier because of greed and Sten because of temporary insanity. 

 

First of all, Balckwall did not kill anyone personally - he ordered execution of everyone thinking there will be only military stuff (so, to poster above you - no, he did not know about children there). Second, Sten regrets not the loss of lives, not dead children but his insanity - he "lost his face" and undermined Qun because of this, while Blackwall is terrified by the way events went. And third, that was the family of orlesian general - hence, Game players, not some completely innocent bystanders. Kids are kids, crime is crime, but that farmers who probably saved Sten's life and pay with theirs for that - I feel more compassion towards them.  

[Phoe77]

Realistically, I think comparing multiple homicides to determine which one was most heinous is a waste of time.  The thing that sets them apart for me is how they act after the fact.  Blackwall is remorseful for ordering the hit and, I believe, for turning his men into murderers in the process.  I don't remember if Sten ever seemed to be remorseful about what he did.  Even if he didn't, it's a tricky thing to assess given the cultural differences.

[Gilsa]

The Inquisitor steps on Orlesian soverignity just to extract the man into Inquisition custody. Rainier had turned himself into the proper authorities for a crime that predated the Inquisition and was to be executed accordingly. Case closed. Extracting him for Skyhold judgment is nothing more than cutting in line.

 

Blackwall's story arc also suffers somewhat from the wrong condition preventing a dialogue tree ("I want the truth this time") from firing after the judgment scene.

[Shelidon]

Blackwall's story arc also suffers somewhat from the wrong condition preventing a dialogue tree ("I want the truth this time") from firing after the judgment scene.

Wow. Thanks for the link, mate: that was some helpful insight (and I really appreciate when they recognize a problem and offer some workaround).

[cronshaw]

How is Sten's crime much worse? Both he and Rainier committed the same crime: butchering a family.

The only difference was the reason they did it: Rainier because of greed and Sten because of temporary insanity. 

Because Sten was a guest in the house and the family was caring for him after he had been wounded. 

[Dean_the_Young]

How is Sten's crime much worse? Both he and Rainier committed the same crime: butchering a family.

The only difference was the reason they did it: Rainier because of greed and Sten because of temporary insanity. 

 

Well, there's also their response to it.

 

Rainier ran away from the law for the next several years, hiding from it. Sten stayed put and turned himself over to the local justice system as soon as he came to his senses.

[Dean_the_Young]

First of all, Balckwall did not kill anyone personally - he ordered execution of everyone thinking there will be only military stuff (so, to poster above you - no, he did not know about children there).

 

 

Blackwall led the attack on the ground, even passing on a chance to stop the attack when he did know about the children. He was directly involved in the attack, not merely making orders from a distance.

 

 

Second, Sten regrets not the loss of lives, not dead children but his insanity - he "lost his face" and undermined Qun because of this, while Blackwall is terrified by the way events went.

 

 

Putting a tad bit of projection on a foreign culture viewpoint, but whateves.

 

 

And third, that was the family of orlesian general - hence, Game players, not some completely innocent bystanders. Kids are kids, crime is crime, but that farmers who probably saved Sten's life and pay with theirs for that - I feel more compassion towards them.  

 

 

 

...uh, children are not Game players. And even if they were, it would be irrelevant because there is no 'completely innocent of all sins' requirement to being an innocent bystander.

 

I mean, it's great that you can rationalize not feeling guilt over the murder of innocents because you feel safe assuming that they were assholes somewhere else, but that's not a rationalization of why they were guilty. That's a rationalization for why they deserved. Which is more misanthropy than anything else.

[Dean_the_Young]

Because Sten was a guest in the house and the family was caring for him after he had been wounded. 

 

Not that he really knew about that, considering he was out of it until he woke up and realized he was without his sword. It's not like he ceremonially accepted rites of hospitality or anything.

 

Speaking of which, does Thedas have anything comparable to ye old rights and expectations of hospitality for strangers?

[Dean_the_Young]

I think him saving the life of his soldiers is all in support of the most dangerous frame of mind in the world, according to my psych professors, and that is 'Soldier's Mentality'.  Doing something just because you're told to do so without questioning the right or wrong of it.

 

What's particularly soldier-ly about that mentality? That's not even uniquely or remarkably military in nature. Most people are naturally inclined to defer to authority figures, even (and sometimes especially) in resolving moral delimmas.

 

Did you question the morality of your psych professor's label when he or she raised it? Or did you accept it and use it without considering how offensive and biased it might be towards others?

[In Exile]

How is Sten's crime much worse? Both he and Rainier committed the same crime: butchering a family.
The only difference was the reason they did it: Rainier because of greed and Sten because of temporary insanity.

Sten didnt do it out of insanity. He knows what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway because of his freaking out over the loss of his sword - its like someone wrecking their room when they're angry. Remember the Qunari word for non-Qunari is "bas" (thing). It's why Sten chooses to remain captive.

[Phoe77]

Wasn't Sten's life also forfeit because he lost his sword?  If so, it seems possible that he consented to being imprisoned because he knew he was going to die anyway.  Perhaps he simply wanted to die without his dishonor being recognized instead of due to some noble desire for redemption through self-sacrifice.  I guess it's something we won't know the answer to unless someone tells us, but Sten and Blackwall do seem somewhat more similar than I would initially have imagined.

[Aimi]

Wasn't Sten's life also forfeit because he lost his sword?

Incidentally this is one of the stupidest things ever and would have resulted in the self-destruction of the Qunari military in the course of a couple of campaigning seasons.

[Phoe77]

I agree that it's dumb, but from my ethnocentric point of view, a lot of things the Qun demands are stupid.

[Aimi]

I agree that it's dumb, but from my ethnocentric point of view, a lot of things the Qun demands are stupid.

Probably one of those rules more often honored in the breach than in the observance, if it's a rule at all (and I could understand it being a rule in theory because lol martinets). I can imagine that our sten would be the only one to take it seriously, because of course he would.

[MiyuEmi]

What's particularly soldier-ly about that mentality? That's not even uniquely or remarkably military in nature. Most people are naturally inclined to defer to authority figures, even (and sometimes especially) in resolving moral delimmas.

 

Did you question the morality of your psych professor's label when he or she raised it? Or did you accept it and use it without considering how offensive and biased it might be towards others?

 

Soldier's Mentality is the idea that someone will do anything, just because a superior tells them to.  You're going to have to defer to psych courses from a couple of decades ago.  It was a psychological theory so yes, I listened and questioned because to me the idea of being a person is the ability to make choices which it was being proposed to us in class, people were not making choices.  Blackwall, and in turn his men, simply did what they were told, regardless of the morality of it.  Here is a Reddit discussion about it.  I'm not just pulling it out of my backside and trying to be offensive to anyone and neither were my psych professors. 

 

The mindset exists in any form of 'policing' though I don't know why it was settled on being called 'soldier's' mentality (although it's likely because they're all soldier's of some kind) but it was used for all individuals in a solcier position, be it military or local law enforcement where taking lives is unfortunately part of the job, but there are some who will not question the orders of their authority figures and will simply do as their told despite the atrocity they're being asked to commit.  I actually have family actively in the military and I know the mentality is not a universal thing.  Most soldiers now question authority and that's a good thing.  This menality is similar to mob menality, just doing what everyone else is doing.

 

http://www.reddit.co...tible_with_the/

 

Also, the term has now been changed, so my apologies.  It is now called 'Deindividualisation'.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Deindividuation

[In Exile]

Incidentally this is one of the stupidest things ever and would have resulted in the self-destruction of the Qunari military in the course of a couple of campaigning seasons.

 

The real question is what happens when their weapon inevitable breaks from overuse. 

[Nykara]

You recruit plenty of reprehensible people across BioWare games

Sten

Jack

Miranda

Morrigan

Anders

Thane

Zevran

Lilliana

murders and assassins all

for some reason Blackwall seems to be getting a little more vitriol than most

I think people are madder that Blackwall lied to them about being a warden than about what he actually did

That being said I'm not sure I see any reason we shouldn't be able to execute him

 

Edit:   by Han

You don't actually 'recruit' Miranda, you aren't given a choice in ME2 if she comes along or not nor can you kick her. Best you could hope for is getting her killed in the suicide mission.
Jack, Thane, Morrigan and Leliana I am not sure on. I can't remember if questlines actually wont move forward until you have recruited them or not. Although in DA:O I am pretty sure you can ****** anyone off enough in to leaving.

The rest you have a choice NOT to go and pick them up, so if you choose to take them or not is on your head I guess, or your characters.

[Mocksie]

Even though I dislike him, I always send him to the Grey Wardens.

 

He's a liar, but he's still a good fighter. May as well help the Grey Wardens rebuild their numbers after Adament, since they aren't too picky about the backgrounds of those that join their order. It's pretty much a death sentence anyways, and he risks dying right away from the joining.  

[Mocksie]

You recruit plenty of reprehensible people across BioWare games

Sten

Jack

Miranda

Morrigan

Anders

Thane

Zevran

Lilliana

murders and assassins all

for some reason Blackwall seems to be getting a little more vitriol than most

I think people are madder that Blackwall lied to them about being a warden than about what he actually did

That being said I'm not sure I see any reason we shouldn't be able to execute him

 

Edit:   by Han

 

Yes, but the difference is that Blackwall lied about who he was and withheld information about what he did.

 

Thane, Jack, Sten, and Zevran were both up front right away about the fact that they had killed people. Sten may have not told you right away why he was in the cage, but he did tell you he deserved to be there (implying he did something bad). Morrigan never hid behind a mask, and she also never killed innocent people or impersonated another.  Leliana may have taken awhile to tell you who she was, but she did say right away that she had a colorful past, and she never impersonated someone else to escape from it. Anders never hid the fact that he was an abomination, and potentially dangerous because of it, either. 

 

Blackwall is not only a murderer (one that is responsible for the deaths of even children), but he let his own men suffer from it, and then ran away and impersonated another to escape his crime. Impersonated a man that was honorable, which some could say stains his death. He lies about all of these things to you the entire time, even when it becomes blatantly obvious that he knows nothing about Grey Wardens during the Adament arc. Not to mention, he hides behind his fake persona and acts all uptight and honorable to other party members about their actions, which he really has no right to do, considering his past (such as condemning Iron Bull if you let the Chargers die during his personal quest, despite the fact that Blackwall basically did the same thing to his men).