Nathaniel didn't kill anyone at Vigil's Keep. He simply gave one of the Wardens a black eye.
I'd suggest recruiting him. He isn't his father and wasn't even in Ferelden when Howe betrayed the Couslands, so he had nothing to do with either Rendon Howe or Loghain.
The only question here is: Do you believe a son should suffer for his father's crimes?
It's ingenuity think that Nathaniel was innocent on what happened and Highever. What Loghain and Rendon did wasn't by impulse, they planned the thing. When Loghain saw that he'd not persuade Cailain into his desires, he decided to betray and kill him. And he knew Rendon would aid and side him.
Rendon fought at Cousland's sides, and Cousland had Rendon as a friend, but Rendon never accepted to be a Cousland vassal. For years he hated all the Couslands. Loghain provided him the opportunity he needed. Rendon wanted to be the arl of the land he owned, of Highever, of Denerin, of anywhere Loghain would give him.
Then, do you think all the Howe didn't share his believes? Don't you think he raised his sons to think the same way?
Also, it's common that somebody knows something bad is gonna happen, even orders it to happen, and goes far from the place to later claim he had nothing to do with it. It's clear Rendon sent his sons far away to assure they'd not be around, to not risk having them killed during the invasion and also, if the plan went wrong, to not have them involved and guiltied of the crime.
I agree that some times we accept a companion or conscript somebody based on metagaming. Loghain conscription we can say it was a strategy to later have him killed from the archdemon. But Nathaniel, Zevran and Morrigan - in case we follow the line of not trusting her, not accepting apostades, and wanting to kill her at Witch Hunt - is just for metagaming. Untrustful people would better get killed in the first opportunity, if we're not sure they won't betray us later.





Do góry







