2858 réponses à ce sujet

[Barathos]

I don't really know what you thought happened there but this does not seem to describe the actual events. To whom was the servant "a traitor"? How was the noble a threat "to us"? Could you recap how you saw the story, I think we'll find fundamental differences in perception here.
 

...exactly what the noble did to his servant?
 

OIC! So when I, for example, poison my arrows and Full Draw some bandit standing oblivious and way outside engagement range that's "fair" but when 45kg Sera goes bare handed and one-on-one against that noble it's completely horrible! And when that same noble has an unarmed servant shot in the back a couple of times thats... what? Not worth worrying about?

 

How... pragmatic.

Go watch the personal quest again. The servant lured Sera there on orders of the noble. Now, at this point he would've noticed who's with her and figured out there's some powerful people to deal with the noble. Unfortunately, he decides to alert the noble that Red Jenny has arrived and gets shot (loose ends and all that). Thus, traitor.

 

Again with your terrible comparisons! Stahp! 

 

He was? I never got the memo, perhaps she might have left the decision of his death to you then? O wait nope! Arrow in my face!

I want to say that this person was talking about the noble who you first meet in Val Royeaux, in which case, yeah! Go Sera! Although her own reasoning for killing him was... off. The Inquisitor merely killed him because he was shooting fireballs. Nobody likes it when somebody throws fireballs at you.

[AzureAardvark]

The thread was created to hear the pov of those who aren't fond of Sera. Then Sera fans came in, read things they knew they weren't going to like..and then not liked it. LOL!! Ah BSN. I love it here.

 

I, too, am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on in here!

[Nathair Nimheil]

You are comparing gameplay content to story content. You know they are not the same. I KNOW you know they are not the same, but it serves your argument so you are using it anyway. Be willing to concede points in an argument.

Please do not tell me what I know or what I think or call me dishonest, OK?
 

If I chose to stridently roleplay a pacifist and just IGNORE all trash mobs coming at the party I would not be able to progress through the game. Comparing that with the (excessively violent) killing of a named story NPC you're in conversation with is willfully ignorant. They are NOT comparable.

Because... you say so? The argument is that you kill enough to advance the story, right? So you kill people more or less at random, not because of who they are or what they do but just because they are in your way or have something you happen to need. That is the completely moral kind of killing. That is completely different from Sera killing a callous, unrepentant casual murderer for his crimes. That is simply evil.

Have I got that right?

[robertthebard]

The noble called it off as soon as he realized the Inquisitor was working with Red Jenny, he assumed that the Inquisitor was in a similar boat as himself in being manipulated.
 
Letting that man be beaten to death by a raving moron is cruel and unnecessary
 
Yes, working with him is going to soil the Inquisition forever, like working with demon using Wardens, or apostate mages, or templars....... right

Again, somebody missed some context, and it's someone else's fault. The noble called for a truce to save his ass. He thought he was getting Red Jenny, alone, so he could end her. He, like you, believes that Sera is Red Jenny, instead of just being an agent of Red Jenny. There's an important distinction there, but it is beyond you. It must be, because no matter how many times it's pointed out, you refuse to see it. Isn't this, in a nutshell, what you're accusing Sera of being? So fixated on what you believe to be true that you can't see the truth, even when it's right there in your face? Pot meet kettle?

[KaiserShep]

She's out for herself,and is willing to out little people in harm's way to further her own goals of self serving profit

 

Outing them requires her to actively work against them, by snitching to the very people she claims to be working against, but this never happens.

[Hazegurl]

How do you know! You didnt stop to talk to them! Just kill kill kill! Maybe they were a squad of Dorians ex's run away to join the Inquisistion and you slaughtered them like dogs! You Heartless cad! Or maybe Dorian is using the Inquisition to further his own goals and he wants them killed to silence them before they tell you! You never ever tried to talk to them! Just fire ball to the face! It makes me sick! Sick I say!

An i doin it rite?

Well...Dorian did say that leaving him later would be dangerous. So now we know why. He gets his new boyfriend to run around killing all his old ones. Oh Dorian, you wicked wicked mage.

 

Spoiler

[Nathair Nimheil]

The servant lured Sera there on orders of the noble. Now, at this point he would've noticed who's with her and figured out there's some powerful people to deal with the noble. Unfortunately, he decides to alert the noble that Red Jenny has arrived and gets shot (loose ends and all that). Thus, traitor.

So (in your interpretation of events) the servant deserved to be executed because he was (as you see it) disloyal to his employer. And, since this murder was totally justified and appropriate, Sera should not have reacted as she did. Is that your contention?
 

Again with your terrible comparisons! Stahp!

Stahp handwaving them away. Explain why the analogy doesn't fit.

[KillTheLastRomantic]

Please do not tell me what I know or what I think or call me dishonest, OK?
 
Because... you say so? The argument is that you kill enough to advance the story, right? So you kill people more or less at random, not because of who they are or what they do but just because they are in your way or have something you happen to need. That is the completely moral kind of killing. That is completely different from Sera killing a callous, unrepentant casual murderer for his crimes. That is simply evil.

Have I got that right?

 

I simply cannot argue with that. Not because you've disproved my point, but because you've ignored and twisted it so much that there is no way to respond constructively. You are criticising the player character for actions that the player MUST take in order to progress through the game and comparing that with story content. That is not 'because I say so'. I've clearly stated my case. Your response is not logical.

[robertthebard]

You are comparing gameplay content to story content. You know they are not the same. I KNOW you know they are not the same, but it serves your argument so you are using it anyway. Be willing to concede points in an argument.
 
If I chose to stridently roleplay a pacifist and just IGNORE all trash mobs coming at the party I would not be able to progress through the game. Comparing that with the (excessively violent) killing of a named story NPC you're in conversation with is willfully ignorant. They are NOT comparable. Now if you were talking about a cutscene in the game where, say, the Inquisitor brutally butchers Briala because of her polotical machinations, THAT is comparable. Of course, talking about the Inquisitors story related actions is difficult because they are influenced by the player. I didn't execute anyone during judgement, for example. If I had, that would be potentially comparable to Sera's actions. Random trash mob enemies that you must kill to progress as a basic gameplay requirement is not relevant.

What was his name? Seriously, since he's a "named NPC", what was his name? Seems to me like it was "Noble". If we could access the scripting, do you think it would be "RandomNoble25" or somesuch?

[KillTheLastRomantic]

What was his name? Seriously, since he's a "named NPC", what was his name? Seems to me like it was "Noble". If we could access the scripting, do you think it would be "RandomNoble25" or somesuch?

 

That's so beyond the point I was making that it's ridiculous. 

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

I simply cannot argue with that. Not because you've disproved my point, but because you've ignored and twisted it so much that there is no way to respond constructively. You are criticising the player character for actions that the player MUST take in order to progress through the game and comparing that with story content. That is not 'because I say so'. I've clearly stated my case. Your response is not logical.

I am sorry, but it does seem that you have clearly delineated a distinction between in-game xp-killing and dialogue-choice related killing.  I think that Nathair is saying in an objective moral-framework, there is no distinction.  The differences you've constructed exist within the framework of a game, true.  But the actual moral and ethical decisions that people attack Sera over, are also part of the self-same game.  It does feel a bit like a "Do as I say, not as I do" situation, or perhaps like Animal Farm's "Some animals are more equal than others" fallacy.

 

I don't think you and Nathair are going to be able to agree here, because you are both coming at it from mutually exclusive and incompatible approaches.

[Nathair Nimheil]

You are criticising the player character for actions that the player MUST take in order to progress through the game and comparing that with story content. That is not 'because I say so'. I've clearly stated my case. Your response is not logical.

You're going full meta here then. The inquisitor is morally pure because it's The Player requiring him to progress through the game. The Inquisitor is, in effect, possessed and nothing but a helpless victim while Sera deserves to be condemned because she kills without that pure "must kill to play game" excuse. Is that it?

[robertthebard]

The thread was created to hear the pov of those who aren't fond of Sera. Then Sera fans came in, read things they knew they weren't going to like..and then not liked it. LOL!! Ah BSN. I love it here.

Did you see my first post in this thread?

My first post

[KillTheLastRomantic]

I am sorry, but it does seem that you have clearly delineated a distinction between in-game xp-killing and dialogue-choice related killing.  I think that Nathair is saying in an objective moral-framework, there is no distinction.  The differences you've constructed exist within the framework of a game, true.  But the actual moral and ethical decisions that people attack Sera over, are also part of the self-same game.  It does feel a bit like a "Do as I say, not as I do" situation, or perhaps like Animal Farm's "Some animals are more equal than others" fallacy.

 

I don't think you and Nathair are going to be able to agree here, because you are both coming at it from mutually exclusive and incompatible approaches.

 

I agree, I don't get it. I've bought the game. In order to progress through it I MUST 'kill' npc's, at least trash mobs, or I simply cannot play it. I have no other choice. In other parts of the game, story related parts, I DO have a choice to kill people and thus I think it's comparable. If I was murder knifing characters left right and centre, I feel like that's a relevant point to make.

[Hazegurl]

So (in your interpretation of events) the servant deserved to be executed because he was (as you see it) disloyal to his employer. And, since this murder was totally justified and appropriate, Sera should not have reacted as she did. Is that your contention?
 

Well, if an Inquisitor sees disloyalty to their employer as worthy of death then kicking Sera out is a light sentence.

[KillTheLastRomantic]

You're going full meta here then. The inquisitor is morally pure because it's The Player requiring him to progress through the game. The Inquisitor is, in effect, possessed and nothing but a helpless victim while Sera deserves to be condemned because she kills without that pure "must kill to play game" excuse. Is that it?

 

That's not what I said. At all. Considering you were accusing me of hyperbole yesterday, you're certainly using a lot of it with me and putting words in my mouth. 

 

Gameplay that I, as the player, must fulfill to progress - Irrelevant. The only way I could argue that point on your level is if I had stopped playing as soon as my character had to kill an NPC to progress and said, 'Nope, he's a pacifist, I shall not continue to play.' And then I wouldn't even have any opinions on the game to express, because I wouldn't have played it.

 

Story choices that I have some input in regarding the fate of characters - Absolutely, throw it in my face, if I played a violent character. I, as a player, had a choice in what happened to character's and if I chose to kill NPC's then that is comparable. My choices and opinions on them become a valid representation of my morals and opinions.

[Shelidon]

You're going full meta here then. The inquisitor is morally pure because it's The Player requiring him to progress through the game. The Inquisitor is, in effect, possessed and nothing but a helpless victim while Sera deserves to be condemned because she kills without that pure "must kill to play game" excuse. Is that it?

I'm sorry, I think you are going meta when you say that enemies during combact gameplay are standing around minding they own business and you ruthlessly kill them. The fact that the AI isn't intelligent enough to perceive you and attack you first is not relevant: move closer and they are going to attack you, thus triggering the self defense reaction.

Then there are certain options of pushing roleplay into gameplay and you might find me sympathetic in that. After all I was the one always bringing Varric along in DA2 because he had to be there in order to tell the tale. Still you should understand that these kind of extreme choices are fully optional, as they are not part of the game mechanics.

[Nathair Nimheil]

I agree, I don't get it. I've bought the game. In order to progress through it I MUST 'kill' npc's, at least trash mobs, or I simply cannot play it. I have no other choice. In other parts of the game, story related parts, I DO have a choice to kill people and thus I think it's comparable. If I was murder knifing characters left right and centre, I feel like that's a relevant point to make.

To such existential sophistry I offer the Jessica Rabbit defence; Sera's not bad, she's just scripted that way. Clearly it's Luke Kristjanson that's immoral here.

[robertthebard]

That's so beyond the point I was making that it's ridiculous.

Why? Because there's no answer to the dilemma you created? Seriously, you claim he's a named NPC, but his name is Noble, just like probably 100 other NPCs. Note that I couldn't care less about the "I don't approve of " line of reasoning. I have conceded that this is a perspective thing, and my perspective doesn't match up. But when you state a clear position, and then claim that "That's not my point", it leaves it sort of vague what you're going on about then. The Noble in question is another random NPC that wanted to kill you, until he figured out that you weren't as easy to kill as the unarmed servant he kills right in front of you, then it's "Yeah, I killed that insignificant gnat, let's deal".(extremely rough paraphrase...I mean DA2 rough)

But here's my question: What was the goal of the War Table mission that leads up to this confrontation? The actual mission states that marching through probably wouldn't benefit the Inquisition much, but that simply marching some troops through wouldn't cost anything. The rewards say it did gain the Inquisition something, and not to tell Sera. So what happened is, the Inquisition marches some troops through the area, and disrupts this guy's land grab? That's what it was all about in the first place right, Nobles scrambling after scraps in the wake of the disaster? We are then set up, by one of the "injured" parties.

[skotie]

I want to say that this person was talking about the noble who you first meet in Val Royeaux, in which case, yeah! Go Sera! Although her own reasoning for killing him was... off. The Inquisitor merely killed him because he was shooting fireballs. Nobody likes it when somebody throws fireballs at you.

Yes the noble when you first met her, he was throwing fireballs at me, yes, was his aim worth a damn no! Did I consider him a threat, no! Did I get the option to spare this miserable fool? No!

 

At the very leat I would have caputred him and decided his fate in the thrown room, hopefully with a better idea of how this man was an enemy to the inquisition. Did this happen though, nope we need "Arrow in my face and no breeches" *sigh*

[KaiserShep]

I'm still impressed that BioWare wrote this character to not only be so polarizing, but to also snatch the decision of whether or not someone lives or dies mid-sentence, depending on what you say. It takes me back to the good old days of Wrex taking out Fist with a shotgun. Mad props, man.

[KillTheLastRomantic]

Why? Because there's no answer to the dilemma you created? Seriously, you claim he's a named NPC, but his name is Noble, just like probably 100 other NPCs. Note that I couldn't care less about the "I don't approve of " line of reasoning. I have conceded that this is a perspective thing, and my perspective doesn't match up. But when you state a clear position, and then claim that "That's not my point", it leaves it sort of vague what you're going on about then. The Noble in question is another random NPC that wanted to kill you, until he figured out that you weren't as easy to kill as the unarmed servant he kills right in front of you, then it's "Yeah, I killed that insignificant gnat, let's deal".(extremely rough paraphrase...I mean DA2 rough)

But here's my question: What was the goal of the War Table mission that leads up to this confrontation? The actual mission states that marching through probably wouldn't benefit the Inquisition much, but that simply marching some troops through wouldn't cost anything. The rewards say it did gain the Inquisition something, and not to tell Sera. So what happened is, the Inquisition marches some troops through the area, and disrupts this guy's land grab? That's what it was all about in the first place right, Nobles scrambling after scraps in the wake of the disaster? We are then set up, by one of the "injured" parties.

 

Because you are so blinded by some bizarre hostility towards my differing opinions of a fictional character that you are nitpicking at any slip ups I make and essentially ignoring the body of my post. You're right, I don't remember his name. Maybe he doesn't have one. Good on you, pat yourself on the back. Now actually address the point I was trying to make. It's clearly stated what said point is in that post.

[robertthebard]

Yes the noble when you first met her, he was throwing fireballs at me, was his aim worth a damn no! Did I consider him a threat, no! Did I get the option to spare this miserable fool? No!
 
At the very leat I would have caputred him and decided his fate in the thrown room, hopefully with a better idea of how this man was an enemy to the inquisition. Did this happen though, nope we need "Arrow in my face and no breeches" *sigh*

Really? So you didn't go to recruit Sera until you went to Skyhold? Because prior to that, you don't have the option to judge people, you're the Herald, not the Inquisitor. Cart before the horse?

[Vyndral]

To such existential sophistry I offer the Jessica Rabbit defence; Sera's not bad, she's just scripted that way. Clearly it's Luke Kristjanson that's immoral here.

Oddly enough that random noble and the random mobs in the game fill exactly the same role in the game. Things that gotta die to move the story forward. Poor fellas. Im glad im not just some random dude... Oh crap...

[Nathair Nimheil]

The only way I could argue that point on your level is if I had stopped playing as soon as my character had to kill an NPC to progress and said, 'Nope, he's a pacifist, I shall not continue to play.' And then I wouldn't even have any opinions on the game to express, because I wouldn't have played it.

Exactly so, except that this is not "on my level", it is on yours. I was only and ever speaking exclusively about a consistent in-game moral framework. You broke the fourth wall, don't blame me if it blows up in your face.