274 réponses à ce sujet

[Arch1eviathan]

I would rather her be a companion or even a romance option for DA3. I'd romance her.

[Dakota Strider]

One other thing I forgot to mention, in the reason I am against making DA3 about a Seeker PC, is I really hope that ME3 stops the Hawke/Shepard style of shoehorning us into one type of PC, that has very little wiggle room in choices and individual player concept. I really want to see a return of their letting the player choose what type of PC they are playing, including race and classes. The more they restrict our choices for character class and race in the very beginning of the game, the less choices we will have throughout the remainder.

[syllogi]

I don't see mage Seekers as realistically being sanctioned by the Chantry, and I don't want to give up the option of being a mage.

I also hate being railroaded into associations with organizations. In ME1 we were loyal to the Systems Alliance military, whether we liked it or not, and then suddenly we're Cerberus4lyfe without any choice in ME2. I'd love a chance to choose a faction on my own, and benefit or lose depending on that choice.

[Heather Cline]

A seeker as a companion would be cool but not as a player character because frankly being forced into a religious role is not cool. It's like me forcing you to believe in my religion and not your own.

[catabuca]

Heather Cline wrote...

A seeker as a companion would be cool but not as a player character because frankly being forced into a religious role is not cool. It's like me forcing you to believe in my religion and not your own.

Indeed.

Even if you factor in the possibility to question your faith as you go through the game, possibly deciding to act against the Chantry (or not), to impose a set alignment on the PC right at the outset wouldn't, I believe, be what DA has traditionally been about.

It's far better to start with a neutral character, one who may come with baggage but not baggage that ties them to one faction or another (if those factions are going to be the focus on any moral and ethical decision-making during the course of the game) and let the player come to their own conclusions about where they stand, than it is to set the game up as being about a Seeker who has to decide whether they want to continue to defend their organisation or not. That approach could work just fine in another game, but that's not the sort of game DA is.

[berelinde]

^^ Well said.

It is reasonable to expect that personal stance on the mage/templar issue is going to play a large part in DA3. Imposing even a token alliance favoring one side over the other isn't what this series is about.

[The Elder King]

berelinde wrote...

^^ Well said.

It is reasonable to expect that personal stance on the mage/templar issue is going to play a large part in DA3. Imposing even a token alliance favoring one side over the other isn't what this series is about.

While I agree on the fact of having a PC who is not a Seeker, the Seekers (or at least the Seekers in which the PC would serve) aren't one of the two factions. The Seekers in which Cassandra and Leliana served, that serve the Chantry, are trying (or at least this is implied in DA2 and Asunder) to find peace between templars and mages. They didn't join the war against the mages.

[Zkyire]

I'd love it.

It could be a Seeker who was pushed into becoming one, but never really cared much.

It could be a Seeker who is very devout but has his or her faith waining throughout the game where you basically get to choose to:
- reaffirm your faith
- reject it outright
- or remain a believer in the Maker, but reject the Chantry's doctrine.

Just because the character would start out as a Seeker/believer doesn't mean you the player will have to stay that way.


And Maria's point was on the mark. It's role playing. Having some established traits may not be so bad.

Is it really role playing if you're just playing YOU in every game?

Modifié par Zkyire, 15 avril 2012 - 07:02 .

[Huntress]

Zkyire wrote...

I'd love it.

It could be a Seeker who was pushed into becoming one, but never really cared much.

It could be a Seeker who is very devout but has his or her faith waining throughout the game where you basically get to choose to:
- reaffirm your faith
- reject it outright
- or remain a believer in the Maker, but reject the Chantry's doctrine.

Just because the character would start out as a Seeker/believer doesn't mean you the player will have to stay that way.


And Maria's point was on the mark. It's role playing. Having some established traits may not be so bad.

Is it really role playing if you're just playing YOU in every game?

.. For real you think people like me don't know the meaning of rolleplaying? I will never roleplay a character that has a strong Allegiance to a religious group, why? I have never taken part of any type of organization even less, one, who is telling me in a book how bad a I am because i am a woman and how curse I am if I don't follow or belive on whatever *** they try to feed me.
BUT If they allow this seeker to destroy the chantry and kill anyone who belive in this religion because it conflict with how I the one doing the roleplaying sees it,then fine, but I have to kill them all.. alright? Just think of Skyrim how you can KILL everyone from the Black-Brotherhood, oh and if a companion is a freak like sebastian, My roleplaying has to kill it aswell no more running away before last battle ok? Second thoughts I can't roleplay that type of creatures, it will make me sick.

Modifié par Huntress, 15 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[berelinde]

Role playing to me means playing the character I want to play. It does not mean forcing myself to slog through a game playing somebody else's character. That's limiting and boring.

[esper]

Zkyire wrote...

I'd love it.

It could be a Seeker who was pushed into becoming one, but never really cared much.

It could be a Seeker who is very devout but has his or her faith waining throughout the game where you basically get to choose to:
- reaffirm your faith
- reject it outright
- or remain a believer in the Maker, but reject the Chantry's doctrine.

Just because the character would start out as a Seeker/believer doesn't mean you the player will have to stay that way.


And Maria's point was on the mark. It's role playing. Having some established traits may not be so bad.

Is it really role playing if you're just playing YOU in every game?

Because I would not enjoy playing that role. Plain an simple like that. There is no point in roleplaying a role I don't want to play.

Modifié par esper, 15 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[syllogi]

Zkyire wrote...

I'd love it.

It could be a Seeker who was pushed into becoming one, but never really cared much.

It could be a Seeker who is very devout but has his or her faith waining throughout the game where you basically get to choose to:
- reaffirm your faith
- reject it outright
- or remain a believer in the Maker, but reject the Chantry's doctrine.

Just because the character would start out as a Seeker/believer doesn't mean you the player will have to stay that way.


And Maria's point was on the mark. It's role playing. Having some established traits may not be so bad.

Is it really role playing if you're just playing YOU in every game?

No matter how you spin it, limiting the background of a character to belonging to a very distinct organization limits roleplaying.  I can only roleplay a Seeker character's motivations so much, while a character who has a choice of factions has far more interest to me, in how I imagine them.

[Zkyire]

I get that Dragon Age Origins has basically allowed us to select from several different backgrounds, to give people a choice to play other backgrounds if they don't like X.

But is being a Seeker any different from Hawke in DA2 though? Hawke had a background in Ferelden, Hawke was close to his family, Hawke fled the Blight rather than stay and fight. These are all pre-established character traits that not everyone would have liked, but still accepted, and more importantly, developed the character from there as their own during the actual events of DA2.

I get that not everyone would actively like playing a Chantry-loving Seeker, but that's the whole point of a developing story isn't it? That the Seeker, as the PC, would start out with the Chantry, but based on your actions throughout the game, could say, by Act 2, leave the Chantry and choose to say, support the Mages or whatever.

Hell, the character could even be a Mage-Friendly Seeker who only joined the Chantry to actively thwart their Mage-oppression from within, by leaking intel of a raid on an apostate hideout to give them a chance to flee etc.

Modifié par Zkyire, 15 avril 2012 - 10:53 .

[Dakota Strider]

Anyone remember the old NwN1 games? Especially in the first one, they had many class specific quests to do, in almost every chapter of the game. I would like to see DA3 with multiple paths, that could be played by multiple character types. Especially if they could make endings that varied enough so that each path felt unique. Then people could have their Chantry/Seeker hero, others their mages, others rangers, warriors, rogues, etc. And not to mention humans, elves, dwarves (at the very least).

[catabuca]

Zkyire wrote...

I get that Dragon Age Origins has basically allowed us to select from several different backgrounds, to give people a choice to play other backgrounds if they don't like X.

But is being a Seeker any different from Hawke in DA2 though? Hawke had a background in Ferelden, Hawke was close to his family, Hawke fled the Blight rather than stay and fight. These are all pre-established character traits that not everyone would have liked, but still accepted, and more importantly, developed the character from there as their own during the actual events of DA2.

I get that not everyone would actively like playing a Chantry-loving Seeker, but that's the whole point of a developing story isn't it? That the Seeker, as the PC, would start out with the Chantry, but based on your actions throughout the game, could say, by Act 2, leave the Chantry and choose to say, support the Mages or whatever.

Hell, the character could even be a Mage-Friendly Seeker who only joined the Chantry to actively thwart their Mage-oppression from within, by leaking intel of a raid on an apostate hideout to give them a chance to flee etc.

Having a family you want to protect is not the same as being a member of an organisation that has a specific stake in the political outcomes of the game world. Choosing to join an organisation like that could certainly be a part of the gameplay, if other options are also included, but starting out with a very specific implied outlook on the political landscape can be very limiting to players who wouldn't choose to have anything to do with the Seekers if it was up to them, for example.

The protagonists in Origins and 2 were essentially blank slates. The only history we had for them was their background in terms of race, their skills set in terms of class, and whatever personal history we knew with regard to family, friends, etc. In neither game were we forced to start out with a protagonist who was automatically aligned with any sectarian group, and the games let us go from that 'blank slate' to take on all the arguments presented to us and make up our own minds.

As I said earlier, I'm sure a game that had as its main character someone who was a part of an organisation like the Seekers and in turn came to question that allegiance might be a very interesting one. But it seems the exact antithesis of what a Dragon Age game has been up to this point, which is a game that gives you the bare minimum in terms of pre-established character, in order for you to be in a relatively neutral position when you approach the events of the game. In Origins this was slightly different, in that a noble dwarf, for instance, may have a different motivation than a dust town dwarf, but there was choice involved, in that the player had several of these different backgrounds to choose from, so no one was forced into one role or another. In addition, none of the origin stories involved your character being actively a member of an organisation that was a major political or religious force in the main story.

[Zkyire]

I see your point.

I guess what I'd really want then is a more lengthy and in depth origin story for each of the characters as to not only better explain X character's motivations, but to demonstrate that this person is somewhat battlehardened, rather than "I never held a sword until today and already I'm better than every soldier I meet" kind of a thing.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

CAN A SEEKER BE A MAGE?

[tishyw]

berelinde wrote...

Forget the Chantry. Not all Seekers are Chantry zealots, but all Seekers do profess faith in the Maker and in Andraste.

This would be a deal-breaker for me.

NO. In the most emphatic language possible.

I'm cool with Seeker companions. I'm even OK with it if said Seeker companions manipulate the protagonist into taking an active role in the global conflict (the way Anders did). But do keep in mind how many players reacted to Anders's actions. Do we need that kind of railroading?

Somebody must be able to think of a PC background and back story that doesn't involve mandated religion.

+1
This post says it all for me really, I don't want to have to play a religious character.  The only way this would be remotely interesting for me is if said character gets the chance to abandon their religous vows and join the other side!

[Dessalines]

I am cool with Seeker companions, but I am not cool with playing a Seeker. I am still not happy about being a Grey Warden. Honestly, I get to look forward to ending my life by attacking dark sparn in the deep roads. Yeah, you saved me from death, so you can used me for a bit, so I can die latter. I think there can be a variety of characters that would have a reason to be in Orlais, and get into the action. At the end of Dragon Age 2, this is what is happening:
1) Templars have revolted against the Chantry.(An army of highly trained lyrium-addicts roaming around the lands)
2)The mages have revolted against the Chantry
3)The Seekers are doing seeker stuff for the Chantry which evolves around the disappearance of the warden and Hawke.
4)Who knows how angry the Quanari are with the Chantry.
5)The Antivan Crows are facing inner turmoil too.
6) Who knows what crazy missions Grey Wardens have been doing?
7) Orlais has nobles vying for power, chevaliars, and the bards.
8) Flemeth and Morrigan

I think Bioware can come up with more interesting ways for the protaganist to be involved in the Dragon Age 3 events, then just being a Seeker.

[catabuca]

Being able to explore the different positions and conflicts between sectarian groups, and within them, is important to a Dragon Age game, but it's best when handled through our companions.

In DA2 we had Anders, who provides the point of view of mages fighting against oppression. Sebastian is our view of the Chantry at its most fervently pious. Fenris offers a view of someone outside of both of those camps, with his own reasons for hating mages. Merrill offers another view of mages, and perhaps more importantly, blood magic. Aveline represents the bureaucracy and 'policing' involved in trying to maintain some kind of balance while these factions are at war in the background. Isabela offers an insight into relations with the Qunari.

If Hawke was active within one of these groups at the start of the game then we wouldn't have as much freedom to assess the ethical and moral issues as they are presented to us, because some sort of attitude would already be implied. The closest the game gets is through Bethany or if Hawke is a mage, but even then, they are non-Circle (unless Bethany goes down that route later on, but again, that's not Hawke and so is external to your character), and effectively 'outside' of the politics that have been raging between Templars and mages. That Hawke can become embroiled in those politics as the game goes on, and as we learn more about Malcolm and how magic and the Cirlce and the Templars touched the Hawke's lives in the past, those are things that happen through the course of the game, they aren't a fixed position we start out with during character creation.

It doesn't necessarily follow that there can be no previous affiliation for the protagonist of DA3, only that by creating them from the outset as a member of such a visible and recognisable group, that is a major player in the political landscape of the game, is more restrictive (regardless of any future opportunity to disavow oneself of that organisation) than starting from a position of relative neutrality and having them slowly dragged into events as the game unfolds.

Modifié par catabuca, 16 avril 2012 - 03:45 .

[Zkyire]

catabuca wrote...

Being able to explore the different positions and conflicts between sectarian groups, and within them, is important to a Dragon Age game, but it's best when handled through our companions.

In DA2 we had Anders, who provides the point of view of mages fighting against oppression. Sebastian is our view of the Chantry at its most fervently pious. Fenris offers a view of someone outside of both of those camps, with his own reasons for hating mages. Merrill offers another view of mages, and perhaps more importantly, blood magic. Aveline represents the bureaucracy and 'policing' involved in trying to maintain some kind of balance while these factions are at war in the background. Isabela offers an insight into relations with the Qunari.

If Hawke was active within one of these groups at the start of the game then we wouldn't have as much freedom to assess the ethical and moral issues as they are presented to us, because some sort of attitude would already be implied. The closest the game gets is through Bethany or if Hawke is a mage, but even then, they are non-Circle (unless Bethany goes down that route later on, but again, that's not Hawke and so is external to your character), and effectively 'outside' of the politics that have been raging between Templars and mages. That Hawke can become embroiled in those politics as the game goes on, and as we learn more about Malcolm and how magic and the Cirlce and the Templars touched the Hawke's lives in the past, those are things that happen through the course of the game, they aren't a fixed position we start out with during character creation.

I guess I just feel as if the player character in DA games is too passive. Like it's other people's stories and the PC is just along for the ride, rather than having a personal vested interest in the form of previous history with certain people/groups.

That's what I loved about the Arl Howe story in DA:O if you picked the Noble-born Human. Unfortunately it wasn't expanded on more.

catabuca wrote...
It doesn't necessarily follow that there can be no previous affiliation for the protagonist of DA3, only that by creating them from the outset as a member of such a visible and recognisable group, that is a major player in the political landscape of the game, is more restrictive (regardless of any future opportunity to disavow oneself of that organisation) than starting from a position of relative neutrality and having them slowly dragged into events as the game unfolds.

See, that I'd actually like.

A character who used to be a Seeker before the game starts, but has left it for whatever reasons (reasons, say the player can choose when asked why).

Modifié par Zkyire, 16 avril 2012 - 03:53 .

[TheJediSaint]

I'm not really concerned about what the PC "should" be in DA3 as much as I'm interested in what I can "make" the PC into during the course of the game.

[Thor Rand Al]

syllogi wrote...

I don't see mage Seekers as realistically being sanctioned by the Chantry, and I don't want to give up the option of being a mage.

I also hate being railroaded into associations with organizations. In ME1 we were loyal to the Systems Alliance military, whether we liked it or not, and then suddenly we're Cerberus4lyfe without any choice in ME2. I'd love a chance to choose a faction on my own, and benefit or lose depending on that choice.

I can't see that either and that's why it would never work for those that love to play mages.  I would actually prefer if I played a mage to be a free/apostate mage rather then a chained mage unless there was a way to litereally free myself, which in Asunder the mages are doing that but still they are part of a group.  I liked how Hawke had that freedom of not being a part of the Circle.  Yes he was branded an an apostate but that also gives a mage more freedom to do what they want (bloodmage) where as you turn to bloodmagic in the tower and all hell breaks loose.

[LobselVith8]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's pretty cut and dry that Hawke says [someone] is with the Maker. There's not much room for interpretation there. In addition to the Andrastian battle cries, it's pretty self-evident. I don't see why you dismiss it so easily. It's not as though Hawke has the dialogue to say that he's atheist like The Warden did, or even Aveline.

Hawke saying that someone who has died is with the Maker is open to interpretation? I honestly don't understand that. It's like when I addressed my concern about Hawke appearing white in Varric's opening story, and there were people who had claimed that the developers were making a commentary on race - despite the fact that absolutely no evidence supported such a claim.

 
Are there known Andrastian battlecries? Is there a handbook somewhere in-game that I neglected to find?  

You'll have to excuse me for addressing what Hawke explicitly stated, and not pretending that it was code for something else entirely. The Warden could be an atheist, while Hawke is an Andrastian. Pretending that Hawke saying that someone is "with the Maker" is really super-secret code for something else entirely really makes little sense to me, especially given his other dialogue, along with his Andrastian battle cries where he continually brings up the Maker.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

If a person is raised in or around a certain faith, aspects of that religion could easily become part of that person's lexicon. There is enough evidence to warrant that the Amell-Hawke family was raised under a faith - dialogue from Leandra and Bethany point to this. I would say that their lines speak more to an actual and current belief in the Maker than Hawke's. Hawke yelling out in the heat of battle that someone will meet the Maker (which could be akin to "go to hell"), or muttering "Oh, Maker" when exasperated (something that Aveline does as well), doesn't necessarily mean that Hawke is a practicing Andrastian. It denotes familiarity with a religion that was prevalent in his/her upbringing.

"Go to hell" and "I'm sending you to God" are two entirely different things. You seem to be arguing against what the narrative explicitly tells us about Hawke, and I see no reason to. I suppose the issue is that I'm addressing that I would prefer having the choice in regards to what my protagonist believes in, rather than having that choice removed entirely, as it is with Hawke. I'm not interested in coming up with fan explanations for what Hawke explicitly says, I'm interested in having a real choice in determining what my protagonist believes in, as I had with The Warden. The Warden can be an atheist, and the player has a choice in expressing this. Hawke can't be an atheist, because the writers didn't permit the player such agency over the protagonist of Dragon Age II.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That is a lot of hoops to jump through in order to explain that Hawke saying that [someone] is "with the Maker" doesn't mean what he explicitly said, and argue that it doesn't mean Hawke is a firm believer. I'd rather have the option to actually have a character who didn't believe in the Maker (like The Warden) instead of having to fan fic alternative explanations to comments that are explicitly voiced by the protagonist.

  

Why can't someone say "X is with the Maker" and it have to mean that the person uttering that is a believer? I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong, but I am trying to say that there is another way to look at the line, and at all Maker-references made by Hawke. It's not a matter of hoops. I didn't do any jumping or tumbling to arrive at the conclusion I presented. I merely heard the line, and felt that it was ambiguous.

It is a lot of hoops when you're addressing that what Hawke says has some double-meaning. I simply don't see the point to it. My issue is: Why can't Hawke be an atheist? Why is that choice out of my hands, when I had such a choice with The Warden?

whykikyouwhy wrote...

And why should the game be so explicit in every single line of dialogue? People are going to read whatever they wish into anything said or written, in-game or otherwise. People will add their own head canon, people will inject motivation behind their character's actions no matter if it's Dragon Age or any other RPG. Isn't that part of role-playing?

If you want the ability for your character to declare that (s)he does not believe, that's one thing. But in the realm of role-playing and interpretation of what currently exists in the game, being a non-believer is indeed possible depending on your perspective.

The Warden could express that he or she was an atheist, so I don't see the issue here. The developers did it once, I don't see why they couldn't do it again with Hawke, rather than taking the choice out of my hands. Especially when they determine that Hawke is an Andrastian, regardless of what I want.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I always took his Andrastian lines to mean that Hawke was Andrastian, but that's how I see it. Then again, it's difficult for me to roleplay a character when I never know what he's going to actually say. It looks like that same issue is going to happen for people in Dragon Age III.

I don't know how you have arrived at the conclusion that the "same issue" is going to appear in DA3. It's pretty early to make any assessment of what will or won't be in DA3. 

If the protagonist is going to be a Seeker, then most likely we will see a repeat of the issue I had with Andrastian Hawke.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 16 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[nightscrawl]

CENIC wrote...

"But if the PC is a Seeker, then he/she can't be a mage!"

I don't believe this to be true.
Multiple times in the games/novels, it's been pointed out how hypocritical the Chantry is in its treatment and use of magic. They harness their templars with the use of lyrium, and their mages with the use of blood magic (phylacteries). I also keep coming back to the codex entry about the Seekers of Truth that mentions a rumor that they can read minds, and the scene in Asunder where Lambert seems aware of Cole's presence even though nobody else can sense him. Is it really so difficult to believe that the Chantry's secretive special forces might include a mage or two? Forcibly drafted or otherwise? Remember that in Act 3 of DA2 Meredith doesn't give mage Hawke a choice when it comes to hunting down blood mages for her. I'm sure that sort of thing ruffles a lot of players' feathers by taking the choice out of their hands, but it makes sense in the scope of the narrative.

With this post, I'm getting away from the lore here and just focusing on game system regarding class.

The PAX panel dialogue, as well as the presentation of follower armor customization would lead one to believe that the Seeker is a type of warrior.

That said, there hasn't been any clear indication that ALL seekers are of this warrior-type, or if they are simply an organization that accepts people with various skill sets to accomplish their mission. The Seeker in the PAX panel is shown alongside a Grey Warden, and we know they accept all types. Also, Leliana is shown at the end of DA2 wearing Seeker garb. Is she an actual Seeker, or just rolling with them temporarily? As we know, Leliana is a rogue. So I think if you go with "Seeker as organization" it's completely doable and would be quite interesting.

It all depends on the basic foundation for the story and PC they are building. Is it a person who is in the middle of all the action, like our Warden? Or is it someone who is along for the ride, like Hawke? If it's the former, I can see a Seeker PC being an option, sure. Just like we became a Grey Warden in DAO. If it's the latter, I don't see it happening, rather it would be far more likely that we would have a Seeker as a companion than as the PC.