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.
I said, I can agree with her. But the murder is murder. Even if I agree.
I said, I can agree with her. But the murder is murder. Even if I agree.
I don't call it murder, and now we're talking in circles.
I don't call it murder, and now we're talking in circles.
That was not the point anyway, rather that Sera is more reliable than Zevran or not. I think she is not more reliable, but a lot people still prefer consider Zevran unacceptable.
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.
Sera volunteered to help; she didn't become a soldier. And if you aren't fast about what to do, she'll knife the noble. What Bioware gives you on top of that is an an entire game standing option to tell Sera to leave the Inquisition. This is actually more representative of how one could intervene with someone who had displeased us that isn't turning around and murder knifing them as well.
That was not the point anyway, rather that Sera is more reliable than Zevran or not. I think she is not more reliable, but a lot people still prefer consider Zevran unacceptable.
Well, at least Sera won't try to kill you (a second time) if your approval isn't high enough. And without meta-gaming, I'd recruit Sera any day over an assassin hired to kill the pc.
I also respect Sera's views on right and wrong. They are very pure, idealistic, and uncompromising; kind of like Justice's but with more colorful dialogue.
Sera volunteered to help; she didn't become a soldier. And if you aren't fast about what to do, she'll knife the noble. What Bioware gives you on top of that is an an entire game standing option to tell Sera to leave the Inquisition. This is actually more representative of how one could intervene with someone who had displeased us that isn't turning around and murder knifing them as well.
Soldier or not, she is a part of the organisation. This is not like the Warden's nice support mob, or Hawke's happy killers.
If I not fast? This is quite like blackmail ... She not really can afford, I think. This proves that she is not reliable. Not a bad person, but she is no better choice than Zevran.
Dragon Age: Origins - Morrigan, Leliana, . Despite how different they were, I liked Morrigan and Leliana so much that I had a hard time deciding between them for LI.
Dragon Age: Origins: Awakening - Sigrun, Justice. I absolutely love Sigrun. She's adorable and her story is moving. And Justice was the best guy to have around righting wrongs and teaching about the world.
Dragon Age 2 - Bethany. I related a great deal the Hawke-Bethany relationship in the game because I'm close with my siblings. Fenris and Aveline were the bros that my first Hawke got along with the best over the majority of the game, but Hawke and Bethany felt like the central relationship in my story. She ended up in the Circle and it felt like reuniting with her was the most engaging part the ending for me.
Dragon Age: Inquisition - Cassandra maybe? She definitely felt like the primary best friend character for my devout Inquisitor. Aside from her Varric was kind of a cool reminder of DA 2.
Although in all fairness I find it hard to compare my feelings towards characters across multiple playthroughs with different player characters. I mean sometimes they are universally liked or disliked, but in other cases they'll may or may not become my favorites, or sometimes I'll even have drastically different perspectives.
Isabella can be a selfish cowardly former friend of Hawke or Hawke's soulmate. Zevran can be either a dead traitor or a friend.
Probably ... Morrigan/Varric/Solas?
If we count DA:A, Morrigan/Anders/Varric/Solas.
Well, at least Sera won't try to kill you (a second time) if your approval isn't high enough. And without meta-gaming, I'd recruit Sera any day over an assassin hired to kill the pc.
I also respect Sera's views on right and wrong. They are very pure, idealistic, and uncompromising; kind of like Justice's but with more colorful dialogue.
This is quite a dangerous combination. (Especially when we consider how easily she is capable of murder.)
Well, at least Sera won't try to kill you (a second time) if your approval isn't high enough. And without meta-gaming, I'd recruit Sera any day over an assassin hired to kill the pc.
I also respect Sera's views on right and wrong. They are very pure, idealistic, and uncompromising; kind of like Justice's but with more colorful dialogue.
For Sera "right" is what she finds amusing at the time and "wrong" is when people deny her fun.
When Sera acts without Inquisitors permission and kils lord Harmond, it is murder. Inquisitor should have the authority to sentence her for it (prison, life for life or perhaps the option to let lord Harmond's grieving family have their revenge). But unfortunately the game offers no such option.
Sera is not pure she is naive. One day she must realize there are consequences to one's actions... I wish I could be there and see it when she does. Her character arc in DAI was rather unsatisfactory. She did not grow as a person. She still refuses to believe anything other than the one "truth" that suits her selfish needs.
Zevran could kill you in a blink of an eye. You know this about him when you accept him as your party member. Sera however is chaotic and unpredictable - that's what makes her dangerous. She does not even realize how many lives are affected by her little games (and I doubt she cares).
If you and Zevran become friends he is loyal to you. He will even defend you from the crows - his old comrades. He has certain honor to him. I would trust him more than Sera. He is wiser and understands how the world works. Sera is just too juvenile and like you said idealistic - and she has already proven to be unreliable. You cannot trust her to follow orders.
When Sera acts without Inquisitors permission and kils lord Harmond, it is murder. Inquisitor should have the authority to sentence her for it (prison, life for life or perhaps the option to let lord Harmond's grieving family have their revenge). But unfortunately the game offers no such option.
The Inquisitor, paramilitary organization and right of conquest aside, doesn't really have the right to judge anyone. You're basically a kangaroo court. Sure, it's murder, but it's either a crime in Ferelden or Orlais, depending on how you go about it. They don't really address it (or maybe even realize it) until the Exalted Council, but the Inquisitor has about as much right to judge her as we do.
For Sera "right" is what she finds amusing at the time and "wrong" is when people deny her fun.
No.
When Sera acts without Inquisitors permission and kils lord Harmond, it is murder. Inquisitor should have the authority to sentence her for it (prison, life for life or perhaps the option to let lord Harmond's grieving family have their revenge). But unfortunately the game offers no such option.
No. See above posts. Plus, between Inky and Sera, if anyone should judge Harmond, it should be the one whose friends were murdered by him. And lol, sympathizing with the Harmonds.
Sera is not pure she is naive. One day she must realize there are consequences to one's actions... I wish I could be there and see it when she does. Her character arc in DAI was rather unsatisfactory. She did not grow as a person. She still refuses to believe anything other than the one "truth" that suits her selfish needs.
Her purity comes precisely from acting on corruption without thinking about long term consequences. That's what idealism is about; same with Justice and Samara, for example.
If you and Zevran become friends he is loyal to you. He will even defend you from the crows - his old comrades. He has certain honor to him. I would trust him more than Sera. He is wiser and understands how the world works. Sera is just too juvenile and like you said idealistic - and she has already proven to be unreliable. You cannot trust her to follow orders.
Keyword: if. If you bothered to read, I said "without meta-gaming" I'd take Sera any day over Zevran. With meta-gaming, it's debatable.
No.
No. See above posts. Plus, between Inky and Sera, if anyone should judge Harmond, it should be the one whose friends were murdered by him. And lol, sympathizing with the Harmonds.
Her purity comes precisely from acting on corruption without thinking about long term consequences. That's what idealism is about; same with Justice and Samara, for example.
Keyword: if. If you bothered to read, I said "without meta-gaming" I'd take Sera any day over Zevran. Without meta-gaming, it's debatable.
For example I not sympathize with this bastard, much better with Sera, but if Sera come with the Inquisitor, there is no right to judge, nor to kill him without permission. This makes her unreliable. This is simple.
Justice is not "idealistic", Justice is justice. And Sera is not justice. Just a girl (the cuteness is no excuse).
The Inquisitor, paramilitary organization and right of conquest aside, doesn't really have the right to judge anyone. You're basically a kangaroo court. Sure, it's murder, but it's either a crime in Ferelden or Orlais, depending on how you go about it. They don't really address it (or maybe even realize it) until the Exalted Council, but the Inquisitor has about as much right to judge her as we do.
She gets away with murder. Why no one cares about this? Elf murdered a nobleman. Surely someone would raise a fuss? Harmond must have some family or friends or at least allies. The only witnesses are Inquisitor and her companions. Sera is Inquisitor's companion and thus her responsibility. She has enough authority to judge Sera when she disobeys her orders. No one can just murder whoever they want and get away with it. This annoys me. Again, Sera learns nothing. She doesn't have to answer for her actions. All you can do is scold her a little bit and Sera doesn't give one **** about that.
She gets away with murder. Why no one cares about this? Elf murdered a nobleman. Surely someone would raise a fuss? Harmond must have some family or friends or at least allies. The only witnesses are Inquisitor and her companions. Sera is Inquisitor's companion and thus her responsibility. She has enough authority to judge Sera when she disobeys her orders. No one can just murder whoever they want and get away with it. This annoys me. Again, Sera learns nothing. She doesn't have to answer for her actions. All you can do is scold her a little bit and Sera doesn't give one **** about that.
What annoys me is how posters here keep throwing around the word "murder" as an absolute in this topic; completely ignoring and being disrespectful of any rebuttals to the contrary.
What annoys me is how posters here keep throwing around the word "murder" as an absolute in this topic; completely ignoring and being disrespectful of any rebuttals to the contrary.
Sera killed Harmond violently, brutally. She attacked him and didn't give him chance to defend himself. Use what ever term you wish, it doesn't change the facts.
She gets away with murder. Why no one cares about this? Elf murdered a nobleman. Surely someone would raise a fuss? Harmond must have some family or friends or at least allies. The only witnesses are Inquisitor and her companions. Sera is Inquisitor's companion and thus her responsibility. She has enough authority to judge Sera when she disobeys her orders. No one can just murder whoever they want and get away with it. This annoys me. Again, Sera learns nothing. She doesn't have to answer for her actions. All you can do is scold her a little bit and Sera doesn't give one **** about that.
I'm not care for this "nobleman", I do not judge Sera (he killed her friends). But she blackmail the Inquisitor. This is unacceptable.
Sera killed Harmond violently, brutally. She attacked him and didn't give him chance to defend himself. Use what ever term you wish, it doesn't change the facts.
Should everyone guilty of a crime be given a chance to defend themselves before getting what they deserve? Should their deaths always be quick and painless? I see what Sera did as justice, not murder. Harmond murdered many innocents, including one right in front of you. and tried to kill Sera as well. I, however, can see how people take issue with her retaliating when it potentially denies the Inquisition an ally. I can also sympathize with why she did it.
BTW, you say nothing can be done when she kills Harmond? You can throw her out of the Inquisition in the next conversation.
I'm not care for this "nobleman", I do not judge Sera (he killed her friends). But she blackmail the Inquisitor. This is unacceptable.
Blackmail?
Should everyone guilty of a crime be given a chance to defend themselves before getting what they deserve? Should their deaths always be quick and painless? I see what Sera did as justice, not murder. Harmond murdered many innocents, including one right in front of you. and tried to kill Sera as well. I, however, can see how people take issue with her retaliating when it potentially denies the Inquisition an ally. I can also sympathize with why she did it.
BTW, you say nothing can be done when she kills Harmond? You can throw her out of the Inquisition in the next conversation.
Sera has no more right to kill Harmond than he had to right to kill those innocent people. She is no better than him when she takes the matter to her own hands. There is no excuse to her actions. She did what she wanted - damn the consequences (and why not when she obviously never has to suffer them!)
Throwing Sera out of the Inquisition solves nothing. She will just continue murdering people for fun somewhere else.
Sera has no more right to kill Harmond than he had to right to kill those innocent people. She is no better than him when she takes the matter to her own hands. There is no excuse to her actions. She did what she wanted - damn the consequences (and why not when she obviously never has to suffer them!)
Throwing Sera out of the Inquisition solves nothing. She will just continue murdering people for fun somewhere else.
The Inquisitor has no more right to judge Harmond than Sera. As In Exile pointed out, the Inquisition is really just a kangaroo court.
I've never understood people who say "I'd be no better than him" so and so when you kill someone who murdered other people, etc. Killing a person who killed an innocent is not the same as just killing an innocent. The latter is much worse IMO.
Also, the "law" in the DA universe is very different from ours and very corrupt. Nobles are allowed many legal privileges. It is groups like Red Jenny that remind them there are consequences for hurting the little people. You may not like such vigilantes out of principle, but categorizing them as being just as bad as the murdering nobles is something I strongly disagree with.
Blackmail?
Stop talking with him, Really, stop it!... or something... Then she start the action. By what right?
Stop talking with him, Really, stop it!... or something... Then she start the action. By what right?
I wouldn't call that blackmail. A strong request or warning, maybe, or an insolent demand at worst. Blackmail requires extortion; usually with something as leverage.
I wouldn't call that blackmail. A strong request or warning, maybe, or an insolent demand at worst. Blackmail requires extortion; usually with something as leverage.
WARNING? For what?
Patiente! If I remember: she asked for a favor.
(I promised myself that with one of my character I will try to understand her better, maybe with Adaar ... with a Trevelyan could be hard task.)
Should everyone guilty of a crime be given a chance to defend themselves before getting what they deserve? Should their deaths always be quick and painless?
Yes.
I do not believe in death as punishment. Or in any punishment. We lock people away because they are danger to themselves and others. Not to punish them. We have not right to punish or judge them. No one has that right.
I've never understood people who say "I'd be no better than him" so and so when you kill someone who murdered other people, etc. Killing a person who killed an innocent is not the same as just killing an innocent. The latter is much worse IMO.
It's exactly the same. Ends do not justify the means. Evil in the name of good is still evil. Murder is murder. There is no difference.
Retour en haut