Why are people more freaked out by Sera's quest than Solas'? I didn't care about that idiot noble. He was a Fereldan middling redneck who was mixing himself in the Game- he was bound to be gruesomely murdered and his body tossed into a pit. Sera just sped up the process.
Because of her reasons. Solas had a legitimate reason at the death of one he called a friend. Sera? Her hatred isn't specific to that one git. She could have destroyed him in so many ways - but imagine that, e.g. as a noble-born hero in any DA game, you are judged by someone like Sera without being given the benefit of the doubt. Should I be convincing everyone that I'm not like that?
I don't buy that we know this guy was evil, because come on, Sera is a cheerful killer that doesn't ask a lot of questions about the people we slaughter. Plus she expects that everyone should just take her as she is and anyone who doesn't agree with her personality can just screw themselves. So then how does she have a right to presume that all nobles deserve little more than an arrow in the eye?
They made the choice excessively easy for us, we know the guy was a scumbag, which is why I let her kill him. But what if there had been ambiguity there? Can I trust that she's not going to get that over-eager to off someone because she thinks she knows what that person has done? The guy who's corpse she's raving over betrayed her and yet she takes her vengeance?
The problem is, this is idealism over personal goals. Idealism is great - but it also can lead to a very major blindness that, if you're lucky, you can avoid because your actions happen to benefit oppressed people. Yet, this kind of lack of looking at all the facts is what historically is at the root of all the inequality and xenophobia that her attitude is supposedly against.
At least... that's my take on the situation. I realize that I can't argue the point too much because the story was set up so that we see a wicked, wicked noble taking advantage, who wouldn't let her kill him?