158 réponses à ce sujet

[Spirit Vanguard]

I don't know if I'd say "hypocritical" exactly. Sometimes I pick the fluff responses with companions that I know garner approval to buffer when I know we won't agree. Those speech options don't necessarily mean anything. Or there's also the flirt options. Picking them can earn approval without meaning much of anything at all too -- and honestly, sometimes they're just a better option than the others. Or amusing. Or both.

 

I actually happened to agree with Solas on just about everything, so we were easy friends.

 

I recruited Zevran because I believe in second chances -- I continue to recruit him because, no, I'm not great at diversity in role playing and I don't believe in killing companions.

 

I let Morrigan drink from the Well not at all because I like her -- actually, I feel she gets what she deserves when she drinks.

 

But Vivienne?   No. To all of her. Just No.

 

I'd say the first time through each game I made friends with everyone naturally. (Well... not the one mentioned above -- and she's the first. Ever. In any game with companions.)

 

You can be yourself and people can still love you, you don't have to pretend being pro-templar to get the love of Aveline and Fenris, and then be pro-mage to get the love of Anders and Merrill.

 

People waste time trying to get the approval of the companion, when it should be the companions seeking the approval of the damn protagonist.

 

This is true. As a pro-mage-freedom Hawke I gain Fenris friendship without lying about it -- he likes my jokes. At the same time, though, is avoiding stating an opinion either way considered hypocritical or just tactful?

 

I guess I'd say that ultimately I try to be tactful rather than a likable liar.

[Arshei]

This is true. As a pro-mage-freedom Hawke I gain Fenris friendship without lying about it -- he likes my jokes. At the same time, though, is avoiding stating an opinion either way considered hypocritical or just tactful?

 

I guess I'd say that ultimately I try to be tactful rather than a likable liar.

 

Avoid a topic just because you know you don't share the opinion of the other person and you don't want them to hate you if you say your opinion... Is a sort of hypocrisy. You don't avoid the topic because you don't like it, you do it because you don't want to lose approval, which is running away like a coward and you deserve to die.

[nightscrawl]

Does DA2 even let you not acquire people? There are only so many to choose from depending on your own class. I can't see not acquiring everyone in that game just so you have some viable options for a balanced party.

Not necessarily. It depends on your playstyle. I play on easy/casual and usually roll with the same crew in every game. On a mage play I only had myself as mage. On a rogue play I only brought Anders for the occasional support buffs but generally avoided bringing him along. If I don't like a follower I don't bring them along, regardless of how useful they are.

For DAI, my crew is Dorian, Cole, Cassandra, with Varric sometimes subbing for Cassandra. I play an SnS warrior. That grouping and their skills are enough for me.

 

In Inquisition, I don't see how it's the protagonist's place to choose who to accept for the Inquisition. You're merely an agent, Leliana/Jose/Cullen are your supervisors. I guess if you ignore the companion acquire quests until after you become the boss aka Inquisitor, I can see how you could cannon someone not being a good fit for your organization.

I agree with this, which is one reason I wait until after Skyhold to recruit (or not) Iron Bull. That seems like the biggest decision, whereas all of the others are individual persons.

However, I will add that Dorian is presented a bit differently. It's not really about recruiting or not. He wants to stay and help, but it's presented as the Herald having no trust in him.

[6. I don’t want you here.] I never asked for your help.
     Dorian: No, you didn’t. Yet it’s my homeland that’s involved, isn’t it?
     Herald: That’s exactly why I don’t want you here.
     Dorian: I suppose I could argue, but if you won’t support me, I doubt the others will. Have it your way. I’ll do what I can from afar.

In this case, Dorian doesn't see the point in staying if even the Herald of Andraste, the person who went into the future with him and has had the most association with him out of anyone else, won't vouch for him.

I can't say I blame him when presented with such an antagonistic attitude.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I feel like specifically with Fenris, unless you're playing a ruthless character type that doesn't have much empathy for anything they perceive as irrationality or emotional weakness, not pressing him on mage issues could easily be just the choice of a character that sympathizes with the fact that he's suffering from psychological trauma. He's had horrible things done to him. Demanding that he see mages differently and constantly needling him isn't helping him, if the character is the type that would care about that at all. Fenris is, in my opinion, pretty innocent in his beliefs. He's reacting out of pain and confusion. I think you could easily treat his beliefs on mages gingerly and avoid taking him where you know he'll be exposed to mage issues (at least at a rate that's higher than usual for Kirkwall) and consider that to be just the reasonable choices of a compassionate character that sees no benefit in tormenting a person that's already been through hell.

 

I always play pro-mage freedom characters. I romanced Anders in DA2 and supported him fully even after the Chantry incident. As a person that plays mostly mage characters with a 100% pro-mage freedom perspective, I still always found it easy to understand and sympathize with Fenris. What's happened to him is horrible. I think you can't play a character that really supports the sorts of personal freedoms and opposes abuses of power that's usually associated with the most common arguments against the Chantry/Templar treatment of mages and not also understand why Fenris is a sympathetic figure. This isn't to say that I'd usually lie about my views on mages to him or undercut mage causes if he's in the party, but I can totally justify taking the lighter replies to his commentary or just not pushing it, when I might be more forward and aggressive in those beliefs to someone like Cassandra or Vivienne. 

[Arshei]

I feel like specifically with Fenris, unless you're playing a ruthless character type that doesn't have much empathy for anything they perceive as irrationality or emotional weakness, not pressing him on mage issues could easily be just the choice of a character that sympathizes with the fact that he's suffering from psychological trauma. He's had horrible things done to him. Demanding that he see mages differently and constantly needling him isn't helping him, if the character is the type that would care about that at all. Fenris is, in my opinion, pretty innocent in his beliefs. He's reacting out of pain and confusion. I think you could easily treat his beliefs on mages gingerly and avoid taking him where you know he'll be exposed to mage issues (at least at a rate that's higher than usual for Kirkwall) and consider that to be just the reasonable choices of a compassionate character that sees no benefit in tormenting a person that's already been through hell.

 

I always play pro-mage freedom characters. I romanced Anders in DA2 and supported him fully even after the Chantry incident. As a person that plays mostly mage characters with a 100% pro-mage freedom perspective, I still always found it easy to understand and sympathize with Fenris. What's happened to him is horrible. I think you can't play a character that really supports the sorts of personal freedoms and opposes abuses of power that's usually associated with the most common arguments against the Chantry/Templar treatment of mages and not also understand why Fenris is a sympathetic figure. This isn't to say that I'd usually lie about my views on mages to him or undercut mage causes if he's in the party, but I can totally justify taking the lighter replies to his commentary or just not pushing it, when I might be more forward and aggressive in those beliefs to someone like Cassandra or Vivienne. 

If it wasn't Anders the one who *kaboom* the chantry, would you still have let that person live?

[nightscrawl]

I remember that just after Here Lies the Abyss, I agreed with Cassandra that what happened should not be forgotten. It should recorded to preserve truth.
...then I agreed with Dorian that maybe fudge and/or omit parts pertaining to the fade. It would be too easy to unintentionally inspire people to comepletly the same feat, or so the reasoning went. Let them speculate, he said.

Yeah...that was a bit hypocritical.

I think this depends on how this plays out. If you do Cassandra's dialogue first and tell her you agree, and then talk to Dorian and get his perspective on it, you could very well think, "Hm, I hadn't thought of it that way," and change your view. Seems natural to me, and not hypocritical.

I always suggest that Cassandra be "careful," which is a sort of neutral response in that you an see the importance of truth, but also understand how dangerous it can be, which Dorian expands on.

[GoldenGail3]

If it wasn't Anders the one who *kaboom* the chantry, would you still have let that person live?

No. It was an act of terrorism and it hurt people - so no way in heck would I have let them live.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

If it wasn't Anders the one who *kaboom* the chantry, would you still have let that person live?

Yes, because I agreed that Kirkwall was beyond a peaceful solution and I thought Elthina was as much the problem as Meredith. If Anders would have told me what he was planning, I would have helped him. 

[Spirit Vanguard]

Avoid a topic just because you know you don't share the opinion of the other person and you don't want them to hate you if you say your opinion... Is a sort of hypocrisy. You don't avoid the topic because you don't like it, you do it because you don't want to lose approval, which is running away like a coward and you deserve to die.

 

I view it as "we're not going to agree, so why argue?" Avoidance is avoidance. I don't see how that's hypocritical -- if I said the opposite of what I believe just to please them, then yes. But I'm not. For ex: There's no point in pushing Fenris on mage freedom directly. Only through action does he accept Hawke as an exception.

[Arshei]

No.

 

See? that's the hypocrisy, not that I say anyone is a bad person for letting his feelings/or his character feelings affect the decision, but if in your mind you kill everyone who commits genocide, what is stopping you from killing Anders?

 

Same as Blackwall, I see people being harsh with the judgment of everyone, but then here comes Blackwall to the rescue and "let's forgive him, his beard is cute"

 

That's why I mentioned Zevran in the post, would you let live any random assassin that tried to kill you?, like the ones in Lothering? or like the guys from Leliana personal quest?

[Spirit Vanguard]

No. It was an act of terrorism and it hurt people - so no way in heck would I have let them live.

 

Killing someone because they killed people... That sounds hypocritical to me.   

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Without lie

 

1) How many times did you picked answers just to get the approval of a companions?

 

2) How many times you let Zevran join your team just to get a new companion?

 

3) How many times did you let Morrigan drank from the well just because you liked her character?

 

4) How many times did you pretended to be interested in Solas hobbies just to get his approval?

 

1) Never. I prefer to roleplay instead of rollplaying.

 

2) All the time. Grey Wardens seek and use any sort of help that they can get to combat the Blight, including assassins. Heck, Duncan recruited Daveth into the Wardens even though Daveth stole his purse.

 

3) Not once. As I stated previously, I roleplay. Additionally, I would say that Morrigan is someone with high intelligence but low wisdom, which is not exactly a likeable combination.

 

4) Never. Solas' hobbies are genuinely interesting. I am incredibly awful at drawing so anyone who can draw well always has my curiosity. Also, navigating the Fade to learn from spirits is also incredibly fascinating, mage or no mage. Plus, I hate tea (and many caffeinated drinks) as well, prefer water or milk or fruit juice.
 

[nightscrawl]

None of the scenes I've seen indicate that the people know they're being heard. They're just worrying about something and Cole picks up on it. The impression I got of that particular soldier was that he was delirious with pain. Maybe begging for relief, but I'm sure not actually death. I mean, if I had a choice between life with no pain or death, I'd go with the former. I've read Asunder... if anything, it seemed Cole only killed sociopaths still in their infancy; these crazies hadn't fully embraced their murderous tendencies, so still felt conflicted that their morals didn't truly mimic normal social standards. The only -near- exception was an ex Tranquil that knew he would be made tranquil again. And Cole opted not to kill him. But they dropped some of Cole's knowledge of stuff for Inquisition. Like, Cole TOTALLY KNOWS people get naked. He watched tons of mages get it on in the white Spire. That's his opening sequence in the book. And a conversation he has with Evangeline. So, why is he so shocked when Cullen ends up naked?

That's not how Cole works, though. He reads people's true wants. It's not about him simply hearing a wounded soldier's delirium. Also, Cole underwent fundamental changes in Asunder and then further on. He is really quite different in DAI. Even though he had a different writer, this is one of those situations where it works out because the background of the character allows for that change to have taken place. Cole himself explains it all in the game.

I agree on the naked thing, though, but I'm guessing that was just Patrick Weekes being humorous in a scene that is not serious to begin with.

[phoray]

Not necessarily. It depends on your playstyle. I play on easy/casual and usually roll with the same crew in every game. On a mage play I only had myself as mage. On a rogue play I only brought Anders for the occasional support buffs but generally avoided bringing him along. If I don't like a follower I don't bring them along, regardless of how useful they are.

For DAI, my crew is Dorian, Cole, Cassandra, with Varric sometimes subbing for Cassandra. I play an SnS warrior. That grouping and their skills are enough for me.

 

I agree with this, which is one reason I wait until after Skyhold to recruit (or not) Iron Bull. That seems like the biggest decision, whereas all of the others are individual persons.

However, I will add that Dorian is presented a bit differently. It's not really about recruiting or not. He wants to stay and help, but it's presented as the Herald having no trust in him.

[6. I don’t want you here.] I never asked for your help.
     Dorian: No, you didn’t. Yet it’s my homeland that’s involved, isn’t it?
     Herald: That’s exactly why I don’t want you here.
     Dorian: I suppose I could argue, but if you won’t support me, I doubt the others will. Have it your way. I’ll do what I can from afar.

In this case, Dorian doesn't see the point in staying if even the Herald of Andraste, the person who went into the future with him and has had the most association with him out of anyone else, won't vouch for him.

I can't say I blame him when presented with such an antagonistic attitude.

 

 Just reading that hurts my insides. I love Dorian. My first PT, I was like, Dude has my trust after all that, he's staying. I honestly don't know who I love more, Dorian or Cullen. Anyway, I've never told him to fudge off, never watched anyone tell him to fudge off, but I can hear him say those lines and it is ouchies.

[Arshei]

Yes, because I agreed that Kirkwall was beyond a peaceful solution and I thought Elthina was as much the problem as Meredith. If Anders would have told me what he was planning, I would have helped him. 

 

Good, but forgive me if I don't believe you.

 

You know, I like to think the same as you do but with the whole Qunari plot, I would never give Isabela to the arishock, and I excuse it saying "the arishock was crazy, he attacked innocent people just because he wanted, they were not related to the thief or the relic"

But that's not true, if it was a random thief the one who stole the relic, I would hand over him to the qunari in a second.

 

Feelings make us terrible hypocrites.

[nightscrawl]

 Just reading that hurts my insides. I love Dorian. My first PT, I was like, Dude has my trust after all that, he's staying. I honestly don't know who I love more, Dorian or Cullen. Anyway, I've never told him to fudge off, never watched anyone tell him to fudge off, but I can hear him say those lines and it is ouchies.

 

I've never picked it myself. I only watched it for research in a play where I was looking at ALL of the different IHW paths. His tone is disappointed but also expecting -- I suppose I shouldn't have expected otherwise.

[phoray]

That's not how Cole works, though. He reads people's true wants. It's not about him simply hearing a wounded soldier's delirium. Also, Cole underwent fundamental changes in Asunder and then further on. He is really quite different in DAI. Even though he had a different writer, this is one of those situations where it works out because the background of the character allows for that change to have taken place. Cole himself explains it all in the game.

I agree on the naked thing, though, but I'm guessing that was just Patrick Weekes being humorous in a scene that is not serious to begin with.

 

 

In Asunder, we actually hear Cole's thoughts and get to read his conversation with that female mage who intentionally murdered someone because she thought she was better than them. Yet if she really thought she was better than them, she wouldn't want death. I read this as a few possible things: 

1. She's a sociopath who hasn't embraced being one yet, so her logic is confused on the matter of her worth being alive.
2. She actually feels guilty she murdered someone and thinks the only way is to atone. 
3. A mixture of 1 and 2. She's like that dude in DA2 who likes to molest/murder little elf girls, but in his lucid moments knows it's wrong.

I personally feel from the description of her actions that 2 is very unlikely. Could be 3, but I lean towards 1.

 

Nevertheless, I didn't have Asunder information during my first playthrough. I told him not to kill the soldier and chalked it up to him being a spirit, which Solas had just told me. And with the information from the book in mind now, I feel like it was the shock of being in a new place and the extreme pain of the soldier that tempted him into trying to off him. I mean, he was surrounded by people who could see him, and he'd just chosen not to kill a tranquil a month or so before so honestly, without that explaination, I don't know why he was tempted. Well, I mean, obviously it was to present his character to new players, but otherwise....ya know what I mean.

[phoray]

I've never picked it myself. I only watched it for research in a play where I was looking at ALL of the different IHW paths. His tone is disappointed but also expecting -- I suppose I shouldn't have expected otherwise.

 

But that's why it's so painful... Knowing his full story, we know this guy just ran away from home because Daddy was playing dirty and his father replacement had gone off the deep end into weird stuff. And here he is, he took a chance...and the stereotypical anti-Tevinter Free Marcher mentality shuts him down after all that time in the future? I can't even imagine where he'd go. I expect he'd feel lost. I mean, he only gets the Magister Reform Idea after all the stuff you learn with him as the Quiz. And his speech is about how you inspired him. So does he even do that if he didn't hang with the Quiz?

[Arshei]

Well, I mean, obviously it was to present his character to new players, but otherwise....ya know what I mean.

 

That's an important point for every character, it will never be the same the decision of the Well of Sorrows with a person who never played DA:O (never knew Morrigan), compared to the decision of a Morrigan fan.

 

When I played Inquisition, it was my first Dragon Age, and Morrigan is presented as a mysterious witch, nothing more, nothing less, you can't just trust her, the logical decision for everyone would be take the Well for the inquisitor.

[GoldenGail3]

Killing someone because they killed people... That sounds hypocritical to me.

Hyprocrital is saying don't do it and doing it yourself... Hmm, true. But I actually didn't kill him for that - I killed him becuase of the act of terrorism (I don't think Hawke did anything Terroist like, did they?)

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Good, but forgive me if I don't believe you.

 

You know, I like to think the same as you do with the whole Qunari plot, I would never give Isabela to the arishock, and I excuse it saying "the arishock was crazy, he attacked innocent people just because he wanted, they were not related to the thief or the relic"

But is not true, if it was a random thief the one who stole the relic, I would hand over him to the qunari in a second.

 

Feelings make us terrible hypocrites.

 

I see the attack on the Chantry as an act of war. The Chantry is responsible for the incarceration of mages and Elthina had the power to act and wouldn't. I see her as bearing full responsibility for the state of Kirkwall, and I believe the mages would have continued to suffer indefinitely there if nothing had been done. I believe in "second" chances, but Elthina had a decade to do something and wouldn't. The issue is, I don't think it's wrong to attack an organization like the Chantry. The Templars were essentially their army. If they wouldn't move to control them, then they're culpable for the negative ramifications. I see them as a fair target and sometimes violence must be used to forcefully stop violence. Innocent people may have died, but that's how war works. Innocent people will always die, and the Chantry was hurting innocent people already. I agree with what Anders did and I think the outcome, now that we've seen it, further justifies the means. He wanted mages to be free and his actions ultimately were responsible for that happening. I don't have any qualms with what Anders did. If you think rebel fighters are inherently bad and that war is only for people with special flags and crowns, then it's bad, but that's not my perspective. 

 

My issue with Isabela is that honestly I don't see any benefit in leaving the Arishok alive. It's not like he gave me that option before he'd already attacked the city. He waited until it was already to a point where I could just kill him to end it. What was the benefit of leaving him alive, really? The Qunari make no secret that they want to conquer all of Thedas and force their beliefs on everyone through literal brainwashing, if necessary. Killing the Arishok is a perfectly good way to destabilize what's essentially an enemy and by the point you have the option to give up Isabela, it's not like it would stop the attack on Kirkwall. They already did that and you've already fought through them to get to him. Killing him is going to end it just as surely as letting him go and your enemy loses their leader. There's really not much of a drawback. If handing over Isabela actually stopped the attack and saved people, then it might be different. Ultimate.. it really doesn't fix anything. A dead Arishok is a better outcome than an alive Arishok, imo, with or without Isabela. If it was a random thief, I still wouldn't see how leaving the Arishok alive at that point was necessarily a good thing. I'd rather give the thief a chance than the Arishok. 

 

But I think, to me, the issue is that Elthina and the Arishok had all this time to become better people in game and instead of that they continue to wholly embody bad people, by my own measure. They're not going to "get better" after years of experience with them, especially since they're literally the figureheads of what I see as two enemy factions in the world state. They're way beyond a second chance and, in fact, have only caused harm and negativity in the world, as far as I'm concerned. There's literally no positive that I see in keeping these people alive. They're the type of people that the world is better without. I see hope for Isabela and Anders, but I don't see it for Elthina and the Arishok.

[GoldenGail3]

I see the attack on the Chantry as an act of war. The Chantry is responsible for the incarceration of mages and Elthina had the power to act and wouldn't. I see her as bearing full responsibility for the state of Kirkwall, and I believe the mages would have continued to suffer indefinitely there if nothing had been done. I believe in "second" chances, but Elthina had a decade to do something and wouldn't. The issue is, I don't think it's wrong to attack an organization like the Chantry. The Templars were essentially their army. If they wouldn't move to control them, then they're culpable for the negative ramifications. I see them as a fair target and sometimes violence must be used to forcefully stop violence. Innocent people may have died, but that's how war works. Innocent people will always die, and the Chantry was hurting innocent people already. I agree with what Anders did and I think the outcome, now that we've seen it, further justifies the means. He wanted mages to be free and his actions ultimately were responsible for that happening. I don't have any qualms with what Anders did. If you think rebel fighters are inherently bad and that war is only for people with special flags and crowns, then it's bad, but that's not my perspective. 
 .

I think that Anders litteraly just forced a war to happen over that. I don't think that's acceptable - but eh, these topics aren't really my thing in all respects..

[Spirit Vanguard]

Hyprocrital is saying don't do it and doing it yourself... Hmm, true. But I actually didn't kill him for that - I killed him becuase of the act of terrorism (I don't think Hawke did anything Terroist like, did they?)

 

The idea in the basic form is: Killing is wrong. You killed people. So you deserve to die --- Rather than "you deserve to be punished for your crime" which isn't interchangeable to me.

 

With Blackwall you're given the option to let him hang or atone, serve the Inquisition or shove him off to the Wardens. I feel these are fitting. What does killing him resolve? Nothing. It doesn't undue his crime. It's just one more death.

 

It turns into a Batman vs Joker situation...

[Arshei]

I see the attack on the Chantry as an act of war. The Chantry is responsible for the incarceration of mages and Elthina had the power to act and wouldn't. I see her as bearing full responsibility for the state of Kirkwall, and I believe the mages would have continued to suffer indefinitely there if nothing had been done. I believe in "second" chances, but Elthina had a decade to do something and wouldn't. The issue is, I don't think it's wrong to attack an organization like the Chantry. The Templars were essentially their army. If they wouldn't move to control them, then they're culpable for the negative ramifications. I see them as a fair target and sometimes violence must be used to forcefully stop violence. Innocent people may have died, but that's how war works. Innocent people will always die, and the Chantry was hurting innocent people already. I agree with what Anders did and I think the outcome, now that we've seen it, further justifies the means. He wanted mages to be free and his actions ultimately were responsible for that happening. I don't have any qualms with what Anders did. If you think rebel fighters are inherently bad and that war is only for people with special flags and crowns, then it's bad, but that's not my perspective. 

 

My issue with Isabela is that honestly I don't see any benefit in leaving the Arishok alive. It's not like he gave me that option before he'd already attacked the city. He waited until it was already to a point where I could just kill him to end it. What was the benefit of leaving him alive, really? The Qunari make no secret that they want to conquer all of Thedas and force their beliefs on everyone through literal brainwashing, if necessary. Killing the Arishok is a perfectly good way to destabilize what's essentially an enemy and by the point you have the option to give up Isabela, it's not like it would stop the attack on Kirkwall. They already did that and you've already fought through them to get to him. Killing him is going to end it just as surely as letting him go and your enemy loses their leader. There's really not much of a drawback. If handing over Isabela actually stopped the attack and saved people, then it might be different. Ultimate.. it really doesn't fix anything. A dead Arishok is a better outcome than an alive Arishok, imo, with or without Isabela. If it was a random thief, I still wouldn't see how leaving the Arishok alive at that point was necessarily a good thing. I'd rather give the thief a chance than the Arishok. 

 

But I think, to me, the issue is that Elthina and the Arishok had all this time to become better people in game and instead of that they continue to wholly embody bad people, by my own measure. They're not going to "get better" after years of experience with them, especially since they're literally the figureheads of what I see as two enemy factions in the world state. They're way beyond a second chance and, in fact, have only caused harm and negativity in the world, as far as I'm concerned. There's literally no positive that I see in keeping these people alive. They're the type of people that the world is better without. I see hope for Isabela and Anders, but I don't see it for Elthina and the Arishok.

 

If you think that a person deserves to die because it has the means to help other people but he/she prefers to remain neutral... At least tell me that you give food the orphan, that you are finding the cure against the cancer, that you every time you see someone  being bullied you jump to the rescue. Tell me that at least.

[Arshei]

The idea in the basic form is: Killing is wrong. You killed people. So you deserve to die --- Rather than "you deserve to be punished for your crime" which isn't interchangeable to me.

 

With Blackwall you're given the option to let him hang or atone, serve the Inquisition or shove him off to the Wardens. I feel these are fitting. What does killing him resolve? Nothing. It doesn't undue his crime. It's just one more death.

 

It turns into a Batman vs Joker situation...

 

The difference is that Anders is an abomination with a demon inside him that can blow up every city he wants, he is a danger for everyone. The point isn't "kill him because he killed innocent people", he is not even human, and don't come here with the discussion of Solas that spirits are people, Solas knows nothing.