269 réponses à ce sujet

[Little Princess Peach]

I dont want to be a seeker I'd like the option to choose to be one or not otherwise ti feel like the whole forced to be a warden senario all over again

[Amycus89]

I would like it as an option - and that if you do accept, it gives it to you as a specialization, which aside from talent trees gives you some narrative changes as well.

[TheShadowWolf911]

GavrielKay wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
Everyone believes something. Disbelief is just another world for not believing.

No.

Unless you want to say that not believing in unicorns or Thor is a "belief."

Atheism is more about the rational decision to not live your life according to ancient stories and morals than it is about an active disbelief.  It is about refusing to let something that can't be proven dictate how you behave.  Just about everyone is "atheist" about all the religions that they don't practice.

I would not want to play a Seeker.  I would not buy DA3 if there were no option other than playing a Seeker.

not nessesarilally true, as someone who does follow a religion, i am not opposed to the idea that multiple religions could be right (the only one i outright refuse to believe is possible being Scientology.),

It's Ignorant to assume everyone thinks the same as the average person.

[LobselVith8]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

not nessesarilally true, as someone who does follow a religion, i am not opposed to the idea that multiple religions could be right (the only one i outright refuse to believe is possible being Scientology.),

It's Ignorant to assume everyone thinks the same as the average person.

What does this have to do with what GavrielKay was addressing?

[TheShadowWolf911]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

not nessesarilally true, as someone who does follow a religion, i am not opposed to the idea that multiple religions could be right (the only one i outright refuse to believe is possible being Scientology.),

It's Ignorant to assume everyone thinks the same as the average person.

What does this have to do with what GavrielKay was addressing?

the person said anyone who follows a religion is basically aethiest to the rest, i am not, i view it as possible they could all be right, just one be right, or some right and some wrong.

i am telling the person to stop labeling everyone.



anyway, this argument of Religion Vs. Aethiesm is worthless, its not gonna get us anywhere and neither side will back down, lets get back on topic.

[LobselVith8]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

the person said anyone who follows a religion is basically aethiest to the rest, i am not, i view it as possible they could all be right, just one be right, or some right and some wrong.

i am telling the person to stop labeling everyone.



anyway, this argument of Religion Vs. Aethiesm is worthless, its not gonna get us anywhere and neither side will back down, lets get back on topic.

GavrielKay addressed most people, not everyone. There's a difference.

Part of the reason that some people would prefer to play atheists and/or play someone who isn't a Seeker is because they find the Andrastian Chantry repellant.

[Minttymint]

No, simply because i hate being forced to do anything. Now inevitably its going to happen at a point or another, just not when i start the game and create a character; please.

[Ancient-Knight]

It would be nice that I could choose a diffrent tittle., upose from DA2 & DA:OA where you have no other choice, from grey warden, warden commender to Champion of kirkwal... And what happened to choosing fro other races, in my opinion it nerrors the game a bit... Well its just my opinion!

[FKA_Servo]

I think that they said your chosen specialization - Blood mage, templar, whatever - will have narrative ramifications in the next game.

It leads nicely to the notion of "reverse" origins - you choose your specialization early on, your character grows into that, and your personal story is shaped by it. You can choose to be a righteous templar or seeker who toes the chantry line - or not.

Personally, as long as I'm free to espouse no opinions on the Andrastian religion, I'm fine. Rejecting it would be a nice option to have, but I don't absolutely need it there.

[RobRam10]

TommyServo wrote...
I think that they said your chosen specialization - Blood mage, templar, whatever - will have narrative ramifications in the next game.

Wow really? About time specs had any impact on the story tired of no one saying nothing of me being a blood mage.
Personally I don't want to the protagonist to be a seeker, it would just force us to help the Chantry which I hate.
It's better for our hero to start like neutral and have the Loyalist Seekers as a semi-starting faction and have the choice to either continuing to help them or break off and join the mages or templars.

[ianvillan]

In the game owners general discussion forum esper posted about some rumours that was found about DA3, now I dont know if they are true or not but in it was mentioned that the main character would be an Inquisitor. To me this is worse than a seeker as it seems to make you a zelot Andrastian and anti-mage.

Modifié par ianvillan, 15 août 2012 - 09:38 .

[esper]

ianvillan wrote...

In the game owners general discussion forum esper posted about some romours that was found about DA3, now I dont know if they are true or not but in it was mentioned that the main character would be an Inquisitor. To me this is worse than a seeker as it seems to make you a zelot Andrastian and anti-mage.

 I get to be responsible for that rumour... That's not fair, it was in a rumour thread and I was talking about... (Oh... well, a gossiper, deserve her shame, I guess)

But, yes the rumor is floating, luckily if I am rumor spreading to day the current one is that the whole thing might have been a key-logger hence the effort to make it look real. 

[Heimdall]

ianvillan wrote...

In the game owners general discussion forum esper posted about some rumours that was found about DA3, now I dont know if they are true or not but in it was mentioned that the main character would be an Inquisitor. To me this is worse than a seeker as it seems to make you a zelot Andrastian and anti-mage.

Actaly, I heard that rumor in the form that the protagonist would be part of a new inquisition that rooted out coruption amongst both templars, chantry and mages.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I don't see how, aren't seekers only women?

[Face of Evil]

There were several male Seekers in Dawn of the Seeker.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Ah! ok then.

[Cerah]

The really sucky thing is, that if your character is a Seeker, chances are you'll be forced to be a human... which is one of my huge peeves, since I liked being a dwarf and/or an elf. Being human was just so... dull and boring.

I know with the Chantry itself, they don't accept Elves - like, Elves can be Andrastians, but they're not allowed to really have any roles in the chantry itself. There was the one Dwarven brother that tried to open a chantry, so he was kind of the odd duck I suppose, but beyond that, the Chantry that has been... atleast, shown to us is pretty much only human.
Being a seeker would probably also cut down your class - I doubt they would have much for a mage seeker, unless they came into the order under a very special - and, for that matter, a well thought out backstory - circumstance(s).

Chances are, I'll be considerably less likely to buy DA3 anytime soon when it comes out if I'm forced to not only be a human, but a rogue or a warrior - my favorite class, by far, has always been the mage.

edit; Also forgot to mention I really don't care for the chantry.
So ideally I'd rather not have my character be more or less Andrastian.

If the alledged info leak has any truth to it, being an Inquisitor that is trying to root out curroption in the Templars/Chantry/Mages sounds IMO much better.
Though I'll admit that a Seeker spec might be interesting.

Modifié par Cerah, 16 août 2012 - 07:27 .

[Mello]

Mages are bad to the bone (well in DA2) so if i can't be a mage then no, i don't want to be a seeker. But they can have different story's for each class for example a rouge/warrior can be a Seeker and a Mage can be something different. But on another note, i don't see why not go for it.
* P.S I was too lazy to skim through 11 pages so i only read the OP post *

[Heimdall]

Cerah wrote...

The really sucky thing is, that if your character is a Seeker, chances are you'll be forced to be a human... which is one of my huge peeves, since I liked being a dwarf and/or an elf. Being human was just so... dull and boring.

I know with the Chantry itself, they don't accept Elves - like, Elves can be Andrastians, but they're not allowed to really have any roles in the chantry itself. There was the one Dwarven brother that tried to open a chantry, so he was kind of the odd duck I suppose, but beyond that, the Chantry that has been... atleast, shown to us is pretty much only human.
Being a seeker would probably also cut down your class - I doubt they would have much for a mage seeker, unless they came into the order under a very special - and, for that matter, a well thought out backstory - circumstance(s).

Chances are, I'll be considerably less likely to buy DA3 anytime soon when it comes out if I'm forced to not only be a human, but a rogue or a warrior - my favorite class, by far, has always been the mage.

edit; Also forgot to mention I really don't care for the chantry.
So ideally I'd rather not have my character be more or less Andrastian.

If the alledged info leak has any truth to it, being an Inquisitor that is trying to root out curroption in the Templars/Chantry/Mages sounds IMO much better.
Though I'll admit that a Seeker spec might be interesting.

It sounded like this "Inquisition" might have come out of a rogue seeker faction (Like Cassandra's) so the two may not be mutually exclusive.

[labargegrrrl]

if they suddenly start allowing mages and not just awesomesauce templars to join the seeker order, sure, i'd play as one. if they don't, that's just a bit too one-sided for my taste.