56 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkDragon777]

Mercenary with a relatively unexplained background.

[Issala]

A character with an undefined past is best, to me personally. The less railroading there is when it comes to the gamer building their main protagonist, the better. Also, this cannot be said enough: different race options.

[GodWood]

Since they're going the "Cinematic voiced protaganist" route I'd recommend not half-assing it with a semi-defined one (ala Shepard and Hawke) and instead have two defined protaganists (one mage, one templar) that you get to choose from at the start. 

I believe I elaborated on this idea a while back in this thread.

Atomic pepper wrote...
Commoner, tevernkeeper, wench, cook.

Just a random person that gets dragged to conflict when someone dear is killed/kidnapped. Starts just as a random person armed with a pitchfork/stick/bar stool , ends a war hero :3

If Bioware ever went back to origin stories (which they won't) these are what my ideal origins would be.

Simple everyman characters who simply get swept up in the events are one of my favourite types of protaganist to roleplay.

Modifié par GodWood, 21 juin 2012 - 07:50 .

[Withidread]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Withidread wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Does the background mean much if it's irrelevant?

You can't move on without knowing from where you came.

How does that work with an amnesiac character?

An amnesiac character doesn't know where they came from and is unable to move on. Not knowing where they came from could potentially become the entire driving force behind all of their actions.

I disagree.  As long as you know who you are now, you can make any necessary decisions about your life or the situations in which you find yourself.

Who you were in the past need not matter.

True. It comes down to personality of the character being played. It's possible to nudge characters in one direction or another however.

Personally, I think playing an amnesiac character obsessed with knowing where they came from sounds fun. But then, I find mentally unbalanced characters far more interesting in general. Having a mentally unbalanced protagonist brings an equally unbalanced grin to my face.

[karushna5]

GodWood wrote...

Since they're going the "Cinematic voiced protaganist" route I'd recommend not half-assing it with a semi-defined one (ala Shepard and Hawke) and instead have two defined protaganists (one mage, one templar) that you get to choose from at the start. 

I believe I elaborated on this idea a while back in this thread.

Simple everyman characters who simply get swept up in the events are one of my favourite types of protaganist to roleplay.

While interesting I find that being a rogue is a bit difficult in that scenario. Also I like the idea of not starting as a templar. It seems too much you are picking your sides at the start of the game which i think limits choice. Also if I play a mage i want to be pro-templar.

Hawke was actually pretty ordinary starting off other then being an apostate, (s)he went up the social ladder and power. Any more then that and being an ordinary Joe would take from the heroics and how I would feel about my character.

[Vormaerin]

I'd really rather not be part of an organization if possible. Obviously, I don't know the story that they are intending to tell, so maybe it is necessary.

But, ideally, I'd be a free agent who is trying to do something myself that happens to affect the larger world rather than being a tool aimed specifically at the megaplot.