Like it or not, in both DA and ME you are forced to align with characters with questionable backgrounds. While you are generally stuck with certain characters, my more moral PCs would not lose any sleep over their deaths.
Well... it's not like I need them to be squeacky clean. I do like our roguish friends like Varric, Sera and Isabela.
But thing is, all of them still have some boundaries. On the other hand, an assassin will kill a pregnant woman if the money is good enough.
Whom you forgive more than a giant who murdered a family of five - two parents and their three children - with his bare hands?
I think all this talk of morals and backgrounds is a load of hooey. I don't think you have a problem with the fact that Zevran used to kill people; it's that he tried to kill you. Sten murdering a whole family, and plenty more before them without remorse when the Qun demanded it? Forgivable, since it wasn't you that he tried to kill. But Zevran targeting your precious player character? Unacceptable!
Well... it's not like I need them to be squeacky clean. I do like our roguish friends like Varric, Sera and Isabela.
But thing is, all of them still have some boundaries. On the other hand, an assassin will kill a pregnant woman if the money is good enough.
I think a lot of people miss out on some of Zev's characterization because they play "good" Wardens. I generally do too, but Zevran looks a lot darker compared to a Paragon-ish saving puppies Warden than he does with a ruthless or even pragmatic one. Thank goodness for YouTube or I never would have known these dialogue paths existed.
If the character is a villain, then it is fine. But I don't want a remorseless killer as a companion and certainly not a friend.
You say "misdeeds" like it's the same as regular mistakes everybody has made once or twice.
I tend to play my own characters as villainous as a game allows me to, so I certainly can't claim the moral high ground. Wouldn't mind a remorseless killer as a companion either, as long as they'd be friendly to me. Regular old "puckish rogues with hearts of gold" usually just annoy me.
Whom you forgive more than a giant who murdered a family of five - two parents and their three children - with his bare hands?
I think all this talk of morals and backgrounds is a load of hooey. I don't think you have a problem with the fact that Zevran used to kill people; it's that he tried to kill you. Sten murdering a whole family, and plenty more before them without remorse when the Qun demanded it? Forgivable, since it wasn't you that he tried to kill. But Zevran targeting your precious player character? Unacceptable!
Well... it's not like I need them to be squeacky clean. I do like our roguish friends like Varric, Sera and Isabela.
But thing is, all of them still have some boundaries. On the other hand, an assassin will kill a pregnant woman if the money is good enough.
Sera kills nobles because it's fun and Isabela had no remorse about those slaves she drowned.
I don't see how either of them is supposed to be better than Zevran who had no choice. He was raised to be assassin that is the only way he has ever known. Sera and Isabela chose to do what they did themselves. Both had a better life, but chose crime on their own.
Sera doesn't litelly kill anyone and Isabela does regret drowning those slaves.
This:
Just saying: Sera is not innocent. I don't have problem with Sera's moral, but Zevran is more predictable. and more reliable. (Nevertheless I always recruited Sera, and now I will get her a new chance. Who know, maybe once I will like her.) The only characters who I think terrible: Vivienne (I always recruited her too. She is can be useful and fun).
By the way: you saw, when Zevran kill anyone? Because I do not. The fact that I did not see that he kills, does not mean that he never killed anyone. This also applies Sera.
I do not understand this moral squeamishness.
Not sure why anyone gives half a damn about that noble from Verschiel. He is an *******.
Predictable isn't the word I'd use, considering that Zevran only stays if the Warden befriends him. Sera's approval needs to get really low for her to want to leave.
I'm sure many of the people Zevran killed too had it coming. And some were completely innocent, honest, good people who did not deserve death. Same with Sera. They are both murderers who have innocent blood on their hands. Don't pretend one is better than other. Zevran at least is honest - he kills because it's his job. For money. Sera claims she is justified that she does it "for the people" - yet her ignorance must cost those very same people dearly when the nobleman whose son she killed orders his soldiers to burn their fields and houses, to kill their husbands and sons, rape their mothers and daughters, for vengeance...
Not sure why anyone gives half a damn about that noble from Verschiel. He is an *******.
Predictable isn't the word I'd use, considering that Zevran only stays if the Warden befriends him. However, Sera's approval needs to get really low for her to want to leave.
(I know a pile of assh0les, but all of them still alive...)
I don't think the fact that someone are is an assh0le, a valid reason for killing, especially when the superior want to interrogate him. I think this is insubordination. It's hard to tolerate in such organisation.
But this is not important. The point: Sera is fun, but not innocent.
And where's your moral squeamishness?
Not sure why anyone gives half a damn about that noble from Verschiel. He is an *******.
Predictable isn't the word I'd use, considering that Zevran only stays if the Warden befriends him. However, Sera's approval needs to get really low for her to want to leave.
Whatever he is, he's someone Sera can personally kill, even though he wasn't aggressive. I assume that was a response to your claim that Sera doesn't kill anyone. Anywho, my characters give "half a damn" about him cause he's a nobleman like them who they can strike a deal with. They'd rather side with him then some lowlife peasants. Roleplaying reasons.
How do we know Sera has killed someone who did not deserve it?
Who deserve it? And who decides? She?
I'm sure many of the people Zevran killed too had it coming. And some were completely innocent, honest, good people who did not deserve death. Same with Sera. They are both murderers who have innocent blood on their hands. Don't pretend one is better than other. Zevran at least is honest - he kills because it's his job. For money. Sera claims she is justified that she does it "for the people" - yet her ignorance must cost those very same people dearly when the nobleman whose son she killed orders his soldiers to burn their fields and houses, to kill their husbands and sons, rape their mothers and daughters, for vengeance...
Who deserve it? And who decides? She?
This is exactly what the City Elf Warden does when they slaughter Vaughan and his entire estate full of guards. Most people would say Tabris was perfectly justified considering the circumstances, no matter that the alienage was purged in response. I still cut his sorry head off. The fact that there was retribution didn't sway most CE players, I bet.
This is when he captures the bride in CE origin story, right? I let him keep Shianni for chance to escape myself and he promised me money too. I wasn't going to kill him because I knew that would have consequences...
If you think of it that way, who has the right to kill anyone? She targets people the law will not touch. It is just unfair to categorize Sera (who has a black/white view on morality), with unapologetic criminals like Isabela. All the people I saw Sera killed did have it coming IMO, so I am not going to assume she kills innocents until I see it.
I do not care who killed who (just was a question. I think: a legitimate question, because Sera just a little angry girl, she have not competence to judging people). Sera has agreed to submit herself to the Inquisition, FREELY. And she killed this bastard without the agree of the Inquisitor. This is not really tolerable thing in this case.
This is when he captures the bride in CE origin story, right? I let him keep Shianni for chance to escape myself and he promised me money too. I wasn't going to kill him because I knew that would have consequences...
I do not care who killed who (just was a question. I think: a legitimate question, because Sera just a little angry girl, she have not competence to judging people). Sera has agreed to submit herself to the Inquisition. And she killed this bastard without the agree of the Inquisitor. This is not really tolerated in this case.
That is a different discussion. I believe if Sera witnesses a noble murdering people, like Lord Assh0le in Vershel, she can kill him without it being labeled "murder." Insubordination, maybe, but not murder.
Murder and Insubordination, and not "maybe".
When an angry little girl can kill anyone, whom she want and when she want, The Inquisition lost the prestige. A new organization not can afford such a thing.
Murder and Insubordination, and not "maybe".
When an angry little girl can kill anyone, whom she want and when she want, The Inquisition lost the prestige. A new organization not can afford such a thing.
I do not see it as murder. I call it justice: justice you believe can be denied by the Inquisitor.
I do not see it as murder. I call it justice: justice you believe can be denied by the Inquisitor.
I just do not understand why the Inquisitor can not interfere.
Revenge is not justice. The revenge only revenge. Even if I agree with that. (Yes, I can agree with Sera, but I do not approve of what she does, and as she does.)
Why can't you understand that she can not do what she want in this situation? This is an army, there are rules.
I just do not understand why the Inquisitor can not interfere.
Revenge is not justice. The revenge only revenge. Even if I agree with that. (Yes, I can agree with Sera, but I do not approve of what she does, and as she does.)
Justice and vengeance are not always mutually exclusive, such as in this case. And I'm not arguing whether or not Sera should have acted on her own authority. I'm just saying is it wasn't murder. Justice goes beyond someone's authority or law.
Those what i was like from DAO-DAI
DAO:
Morrigan
Ogren
Shale
Sten
DAA:
Velanna
Sigrun
Ogren(already was in DAA but in DA2 he was far worst then in DAA)
Anders
DA2:
Merrill
Varrick
Anders(already was in DAO)
Aveline
Bethani(even if she was death in my canon cos of mage hero, pity that hero not have a choice of who to save)
DAI: almost none from a new ones, worst-one sided(they are good for only nonmage human templar andrastian) companions ever and this is not good if i think what would be in DA4
Solas?
Varrick(but he was already in DA2)
Those what was i not like DAO-DAI
DAO
Lelianna
Wynne
Zevran
DAA
Justice
Nathaniel
DA2
Sebastian
Carver
Fenris
Isabella
DAI
Cole
Sera
Cullen(i want to execute him since DAO and especially in DA2 with his Meredith and they make him gerenal without any options, worst thing ever)
Lelianna(bring her from grave and made her advisor was one of the worst thing)
Cassandra
Josephine
Dorian
Vivienne
Retour en haut
