The difference being that one snaps in the form of being paralyzed in horror by his own cowardice, and the other snaps by literally tearing a family apart. So is there a difference? Everyone can very well and ultimately answer that, yet only for themselves.
My personal belief is that there's so many factors, so much background, so many people involved with Blackwall's crime, while Sten's is just straightforward disgusting. The point about his remorse is made by himself in the game. He always mentions that he failed the Qun and whatnot, and while some may argue that this is equal to Rainier's basic understanding of morality, I was originally more reluctant to stick with him than with Thom because of it.
I know that, because Sten became my Warden's friend & mentor. I believe even he deserves a second chance, and I'm not trying to declare winners & losers here. If anything, I wanted to say I personally had an easier time feeling compassion for Blackwall, if not by much. If anything furthermore, it shows how little I care for abandoning good people just because of the most primitive, most restrictive & unproductive form of dubious justice: "An eye for an eye."
I just don't see how some make the point that there's an objective competition for terribleness in what they both did, and I brashly (not without a faint humorous intent if I'm honest) wagered that the only superficial difference remains the personal insult.





Retour en haut







