Ce sujet est fermé
My "full Paragon" Mage - Felt the Maker abandoned him by giving him his abilities as a Mage. See's it as a curse.
Mage abilities manifest themselves in childhood or early adolescence, so unless your Inquisitor was born into a devoutly Fundamentalist family...
Hold on, the Maker abandoned you by giving you magic, even though you're still rich, can leave the Circle, and wouldn't inherit anything anyway? The Maker cursed you by making you be born last, maybe.
Mage abilities manifest themselves in childhood or early adolescence, so unless your Inquisitor was born into a devoutly Fundamentalist family...
I share one detail about my Inquisitor, and suddenly people seem to know everything else about them!
,
Yeah, I'm just kind of disappointed with the (lack of) explanation from Cassandra about why the relationship had to be over if she was divine. I thought maybe I missed something, but apparently not. If the Divines have had lovers in the past, and people have been ok with it, I think some explanation is called for. Otherwise it just seems a cheap attempt at angst/drama.
It would be nice to get some explanation on this. Otherwise, I'm really at a loss. My Canon world has my Warden with Leliana, and my Inquisitor with Cassandra. I'd love for Leliana to be the Divine, but then I don't know what that means for her and the Warden.
I mean sure, there's Vivienne. But thats Vivienne.
Well, I'm assuming human mage, right? Because by all appearances, the Trevalyans are a devoutly fundamentalist family.
These are my preferences, my beliefs. The longer purity remains intact the better light it gives. Considering this, Cassandra in her 30' seemed to be a perfect match for the Inquisitor. Such a pity.
Well, either you are joking or you have one exceptionally fatuous belief.
Well, I'm assuming human mage, right? Because by all appearances, the Trevalyans are a devoutly fundamentalist family.
Not in DAI they aren't. Or, if they are, it's not mentioned. There's a dialogue with Josephine where you can say that your family supports the Chantry, but that doesn't mean they're devout Fundamentalists. The Trevelyans come off as arseh*les, but I wouldn't call them zealots.
Actually, the whole "supporting the Chantry" thing may be a ruse, since they have high-level contacts in both the templar Order and the Chantry itself. They might just be feigning piety to advance themselves and make themselves look good. The nobles in this series (other than Arl Eamon, and noble companions) tend to be arseh*les in some fashion, so I wouldn't put it past them.
Well, I'm assuming human mage, right? Because by all appearances, the Trevalyans are a devoutly fundamentalist family.
But alas, enough of that, time to get back to the topic at hand.
I share one detail about my Inquisitor, and suddenly people seem to know everything else about them!
This is the backstory given on your codex entry. The Inquisitor has one you know.
This is the backstory given on your codex entry. The Inquisitor has one you know.
It is up to the player to decide who our protagonist is, how he (or she) views magic, and certain details about their life.
This is the backstory given on your codex entry. The Inquisitor has one you know.
Correct, the backstory - the background. The past.
Not the present story, or the future story. It's a reason why Bioware allow us to create our own Characters, to give them life. A splash of a background story is fine by me, but from the moment the game starts, to when it ends, I think I'll stick with deciding how my Character should behave and think.
Not really. The Inquisitor can determine how they themselves behave, but the Trevelyans, Ostwick, and their Circle is all set in stone. It was one of the most sedate Circles in Thedas. No one was forcing a nobleman to leave his family. Especially not in a Circle where literally everyone could leave.
Not really. The Inquisitor can determine how they themselves behave, but the Trevelyans, Ostwick, and their Circle is all set in stone. It was one of the most sedate Circles in Thedas. No one was forcing a nobleman to leave his family. Especially not in a Circle where literally everyone could leave.
The neutrality of the Ostwick Circle and the ties the Trevelyans have with the Chantry are certainly part of the backstory for the human main character, but it's still up to the player to decide how their character views magic and their upbringing. It's why you can even tell Cassandra you hated it when she asks you about your life in the Free Marches.
The neutrality of the Ostwick Circle and the ties the Trevelyans have with the Chantry are certainly part of the backstory for the human main character, but it's still up to the player to decide how their character views magic and their upbringing. It's why you can even tell Cassandra you hated it when she asks you about your life in the Free Marches.
I don't understand, are you disagreeing with something Br3admax said? Because you essentially just repeated what they posted.
I don't understand, are you disagreeing with something Br3admax said? Because you essentially just repeated what they posted.
You must have missed the 'not really' that introduced their post, then, which was a retort to my earlier post addressing that it's up to the player to determine how he or she feels about certain elements of their past.
You must have missed the 'not really' that introduced their post, then.
And I'm guessing you missed the "the Inquisitor can determine how they themselves behave", which, again, you essentially repeated.
And I'm guessing you missed the "the Inquisitor can determine how they themselves behave", which, again, you essentially repeated.
So what you're saying is that Brad missed the point of my earlier post, and disagreed with me for no reason?
,
Yeah, I'm just kind of disappointed with the (lack of) explanation from Cassandra about why the relationship had to be over if she was divine. I thought maybe I missed something, but apparently not. If the Divines have had lovers in the past, and people have been ok with it, I think some explanation is called for. Otherwise it just seems a cheap attempt at angst/drama.
But if she makes one comment about how the robes feel awkward on her...
I don't see why I was included in that quote chain, unless you disagree with me being confused by what the f**k that gibberish about purity and light meant.
But that has nothing to do with your views and everything to do with your deliberately vague use of language that no normal person would use in day-to-day conversation.
Nice way to lose your spine; by the way, beliefs are not sacrosanct. You know what they said is stupid, why not just accept that you think it is and move on? lol The person’s claim is that “The longer purity (virginity) remains intact the better light it gives”, how is that not fatuous? The language they used, just makes it more so. lol
But if she makes one comment about how the robes feel awkward on her...
The things we wish for our relationships with Cass to remain lol.
Its hopeless, she'd probably wear body armour under the robes anyway!
Bioware's on a rooftop somewhere, wearing a cape, waiting for the right moment to save us from our questions. Just you wait.
So what you're saying is that Brad missed the point of my earlier post, and disagreed with me for no reason?
Ummm, no.
You said that the player is free to shape how the Inquisitor feels about things (which nobody disputed), then Br3admax said that, while that was true, their background and the information surrounding their background is set-in-stone, because it is. Then you replied to them and combined the two into one post ( quoting you here: The neutrality of the Ostwick Circle and the ties the Trevelyans have with the Chantry are certainly part of the backstory for the human main character, but it's still up to the player to decide how their character views magic and their upbringing.), which wasn't a clear agreement or disagreement with Br3admax, hence me being f**king confused and saying "I don't understand". If you aren't clearly agreeing or disagreeing, then what are you doing? Just parroting the same thing someone else said, but with a few more words?
Ummm, no.
You said that the player is free to shape how the Inquisitor feels about things (which nobody disputed), then Br3admax said that, while that was true, their background and the information surrounding their background is set-in-stone, because it is. Then you replied to them and combined the two into one post ( quoting you here: The neutrality of the Ostwick Circle and the ties the Trevelyans have with the Chantry are certainly part of the backstory for the human main character, but it's still up to the player to decide how their character views magic and their upbringing.), which wasn't a clear agreement or disagreement with Br3admax, hence me being f**king confused and saying "I don't understand". If you aren't clearly agreeing or disagreeing, then what are you doing? Just parroting the same thing someone else said, but with a few more words?
Actually, Brad said "not really", and Brad's following lines didn't actually pertain to the protagonist's views on his or her backstory, but rather about the Circle of Ostwick and the Trevelyan family. Pointing out that these elements are static doesn't really change that it's up to the player to determine how they feel about them, as well as choosing certain elements of their backstory. What I addressed, and what Brad said, are two entirely different things. I hope I cleared this up for you, and that we don't have to spend another page on this.
Actually, Brad said "not really", and Brad's following lines didn't actually pertain to the protagonist's views on his or her backstory, but rather about the Circle of Ostwick and the Trevelyan family. Pointing out that these elements are static doesn't really change that it's up to the player to determine how they feel about them, as well as choosing certain elements of their backstory. What I addressed, and what Brad said, are two entirely different things. I hope I cleared this up for you, and that we don't have to spend another page on this.
You sound mad salty, tbh. Does it make you angry when the game doesn't care about the character you personally want to make?
Did someone ask for Cass-related art?
Source: http://paranoidvin.d...ghast-497852347
Source: http://mattdemino.de...ghast-497859460
@Merela
I like the bottom one best.
"I agree that it's slightly incredibly retarded"
Downplaying something to make it stand out more. I forget the term used to describe it, I just call it reverse-hyperbole.
Retour en haut
