75 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

I'm tired of tragic backgrounds, can we get a

 

"yeah my life was pretty chill until _________ and I ended up in the Inquisition"

[Aimi]

I like a war hero background like shepard could have

A Colonist/War Hero or Earthborn/War Hero Shep still had a pretty crappy life. Spacer/War Hero was the only relatively normal combination of the bunch.

[Divine Justinia V]

I'm tired of tragic backgrounds, can we get a

 

"yeah my life was pretty chill until _________ and I ended up in the Inquisition"

 

Or at least a choice, like ME.

[KaiserShep]

The Spacer/War Hero background is pretty happy, I'd say. I mean, you got into some sh*t with with the batarians, but that doesn't reflect on the life Shepard had before that, and still had some family out there.

 

But yeah, I'd like to have a relatively normal background. Tragedy is great when it works, but we've already got that for two protagonists so far.

[Ap0crypha]

Just two? Almost every single Bioware protagonist has had a tragic background! Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect (where 8/9 combinations were traumatic in some way), both the Dragon Ages (where all the Origins had some level of suckiness and II was just plain depressing)...

 

Erm, unless you were just talking about the Dragon Age protagonists.

[Vegeta 77]

A Colonist/War Hero or Earthborn/War Hero Shep still had a pretty crappy life. Spacer/War Hero was the only relatively normal combination of the bunch.

i agree i should have said spacer/war hero cause you still have a mother and have a lot of respect in the alliance it the best out of the three for a happier shep history

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i'm sure whatever they came up with beats the prisoner background

 

on topic tho: i'm cool with no background if they allow PC to voice his/her opinions on the world (they did so far, with certain limitations in DA2). i'm guessing the events in "intro" quest are covering tragic background. for me the story matters, not the village PC comes from. you probably won't visit said village in the game (no origins, right?).

 

as for DA:O: the idea was amazing. i really felt the connection to the places/ppl i've met in the origin stories. because of the interaction and that interaction shaped somehow the PC - i cannot imagine Aeducan GW supporting Bhelen. well unless he was drooling idiot but dialogues didn't allow me to RP that (maybe i just don't know how to RP properly). i really don't think i'd feel the same about NPCs mentioned in some fixed background.

[Jynxed_]

I prefer the tragic backrounds, because it helps me get all immersive and roleplay-ey. If I have a butterfly kisses and rainbows story I just feel like I'm an jerk in-game whenever I make choices. For example, if my Hawke had a super happy life and then DIDNT give Merril the-whatever-it-was the keeper gave me, I would feel like a jerk. BUT because my Hawkes life was pretty shitty, I didn't care about making her sad!

 

 

..wow that's messed up

[Jynxed_]

i'm sure whatever they came up with beats the prisoner background

.

"Hey! Your awake! Not sure who you are or how you got here but I've been watching you sleep for the past few hours! Oh look! We're here! Time to die! Yay!! Oh look over there! A dragon? Oh no better do some tower-to-roof parkour! Kay see you later! By the way I'm pretty sure that dragons like your dad or something! Later!"  

 

Prisoner backstory 10/10

 

[Inprea]

I prefer the Conan motivation( in the books) where you left in search of adventure. that's it. It allows for the Hero to be more Heroic, he does not have to be anywhere, but here he is risking life and limb when he could just go home. That is true heroism, when it's being done solely because it is right. 

That's one thing I've considered. I believe it adds to an act of kindness when the person could otherwise just pack their bags and leave. If you're driven by some desire brought on by trauma so extreme that it could be considered mental sickness it begins to shift so that the person seems like they're being made to help others rather then doing it of their own free will. That and I don't believe everyone needs beaten over the head in order to realize something is wrong and they should help others.

 

Though and before I continue I haven't read the book. Conan's desire to seek out horribly dangerous situation just for the sake of conquering the situation made him seem a little insane to me but I'm not the type you'd ever see jumping out of a plane for the thrill of it.

[Vulpe]

The tragic background is somewhat over-utilized when it comes to heroes. It does provide a convenient instrument for driving a character to becoming something greater through personal struggle, but I don't think it's fair to insinuate that happy people can't also be driven to greatness as well. Any character can be interesting if written well. If being tragic was the only thing that made us interesting we'd be a pretty masochistic society indeed. 

 

I vote happy. Happy is good. 

 

Usually when people are happy they are satisfied with their current situation and tend do do nothing because why would they? Everything is ok, no problems, they are happy. No need to trouble yourself. This leads to stagnation and a lesser concern for personal developement.

 

When the happines is striped away or was never there to start of, people tend to try and make something to obtain it. They work and struggle to improve their life and achive that state of personal happines.

 

 

So no, I don't think that a person that is most of the time happy can achive his/hers full potential as well as someone that has a tragic story/ is not satisfied with how things are and wants more because when people are happy they get a little lazy and stagnate...unless they are mobilized by someone else.

 

The ones for whom happiness is like a oasis in the desert are the ones that either get better or break. They are always in a search to discover themselves and to improve their lives and maybe, if they are the leader or/and carring types, improve the ones of other people ( usually family and/or friends ) so that they wouldn't have to go on the same bumpy ride as them and achive somehow the same personal developement as the ones that struggled to achive it without going through all the hardships and suffering, thus possibly getting even more from it because they have the possibility of developing themselves without making the mistakes the ones that guide them did when they took the same road.

 

In the end, to much happines is a cancer for personal developement and I vote for tragic.

[Lotion Soronarr]

While Ideally you should be able to "create your own family"....you can't really. There's no way to account for so many different characters and stories.

 

So the best way is to either have a fixed background (and family) or have no family at all.

 

I remember when I was writing a story/short novel and I made the protagonist an orphan. Left at the door of the church/orphanage. Also born with a gift of "magic" (I use quotes because normal mages are very powerful and draw mana. The "marked" like him are incredibly weak compared to mages, have only a few abilities - auras/buffs - and they draw from their own life force, not mana. So they are literally killing themselves a little any time they use their power).

corny as hell, right?

Well I didn't have an idea what kind of parents to write and I kinda needed him to land on the streets so he ends up becoming a thug/thief/bandit.

 

To this day I can't say that either approach is "bad". Just....different.

Tragic backstories are a dime a dozen, but they exist for a reason.

[Inprea]

Usually when people are happy they are satisfied with their current situation and tend do do nothing because why would they? Everything is ok, no problems, they are happy. No need to trouble yourself. This leads to stagnation and a lesser concern for personal developement.

 

When the happines is striped away or was never there to start of, people tend to try and make something to obtain it. They work and struggle to improve their life and achive that state of personal happines.

 

 

So no, I don't think that a person that is most of the time happy can achive his/hers full potential as well as someone that has a tragic story/ is not satisfied with how things are and wants more because when people are happy they get a little lazy and stagnate...unless they are mobilized by someone else.

 

The ones for whom happiness is like a oasis in the desert are the ones that either get better or break. They are always in a search to discover themselves and to improve their lives and maybe, if they are the leader or/and carring types, improve the ones of other people ( usually family and/or friends ) so that they wouldn't have to go on the same bumpy ride as them and achive somehow the same personal developement as the ones that struggled to achive it without going through all the hardships and suffering, thus possibly getting even more from it because they have the possibility of developing themselves without making the mistakes the ones that guide them did when they took the same road.

 

In the end, to much happines is a cancer for personal developement and I vote for tragic.

 

Now is this based on any study or just your personal opinion? In Spencer A. Rathus HDEV it talks about self esteem and a person's tendency to succeed and prolonged periods of unhappiness tend to hurt self esteem. Put simply a child with higher self esteem as well as young adults along with parents that provide a highly structured environment has a much greater tendency to succeed earning higher income and positions then those that are in poor conditions. An enriched environment provides the stimulation needed for the brain to develop while a poor one can easily leave a person under developed. Now they are exceptions of course.

 

The people from poorer settings show a higher tendency for substance abuse, become drunks, and criminal behavior later in life as well as typically develop social skills more slowly.

 

As for your question. Being happy doesn't mean being satisfied. They are people who find it's the conquest that makes them happy rather then having what they sought. Often it seems to me the more a person has the more they want.

[Vulpe]

Now is this based on any study or just your personal opinion? In Spencer A. Rathus HDEV it talks about self esteem and a person's tendency to succeed and prolonged periods of unhappiness tend to hurt self esteem. Put simply a child with higher self esteem as well as young adults along with parents that provide a highly structured environment has a much greater tendency to succeed earning higher income and positions then those that are in poor conditions. An enriched environment provides the stimulation needed for the brain to develop while a poor one can easily leave a person under developed. Now they are exceptions of course.

 

The people from poorer settings show a higher tendency for substance abuse, become drunks, and criminal behavior later in life as well as typically develop social skills more slowly.

 

As for your question. Being happy doesn't mean being satisfied. They are people who find it's the conquest that makes them happy rather then having what they sought. Often it seems to me the more a person has the more they want.

 

It's a personal opinion and I didn't take in account some factors like the living conditions and education. Of course someone with a better material condition has more chances, but what I said didn't take this into account. It's my fault that I wasn't more precise about it. Apply what I said to people that are from the social category, with a similar life style and that basicaly have a similar starting point.

 

As for the alchohol, drugs etc bit, that's why I said that they get better of break. Many will break, but the ones that are able to sustain themselves on the floating line will develop greatly. I think that they, compared to the ones you mention, get the most out of it.

 

It's the quantity vs quality thing. There are more chances for a happy person to not break and to develop himself as a human being and a character, but quality wise, I think that the few that struggle and succed to overcome their problems ( be it emotional, social or whatever you want ) are more socialy developed and capable than the first ones.

 

 

As for your answer to my question : I said that they tend to stagnate. That would mean a majority, not all of them. Of course there are cases as the one you brought up. Again, it was my fault that I wasn't clearer about it.

[whogotsalami]

No. Enough of mauled siblings, fankenstein mothers etc.

[Wolfen09]

i do like me some good tragedy, but its hard to get emotionally attached to a character when the only part of his background is a few words saying your entire family was killed and now your mad.... at least show a cut scene depicting it...  Id have to say a neutral type background like a mercenary thrown into a heroes role, or maybe some random soldier who happens to survive cause hes on the can while s*** is goin down outside

[elyu]

I usually prefer the 'underdog' backgrounds; Mage, Elf, Castless etc. so I guess that comes under tragic.

Pretty much this. I like playing characters that are bitter, resentful of a certain group (mages-templars, elves-humans) or have risen up from nothing (tabris, hawke). I'm a sucker for tragic backgrounds.

[SiN82]

Beacause i want to be a badass/ironfist kind of inquisitor, i'm pro dramatic background, so i will have my revenge against the world thank to my new role 

[Helios969]

I like roleplaying from different circumstances...which is the point...getting out of my comfort zone to experience something new. Can it even be called roleplaying if you just make the same decisions you would in your day to day life?

[Xilizhra]

I like roleplaying from different circumstances...which is the point...getting out of my comfort zone to experience something new. Can it even be called roleplaying if you just make the same decisions you would in your day to day life?

Yes, because they're decisions you never get the chance to make in your day-to-day life.

Also... it's an interesting idea to have someone whose personal life isn't Hell. I'd be willing to give it a shot.

[Hellion Rex]

I would prefer at least one happy background for my first human mage.

[Tinxa]

Hawke's background is pretty happy, S/he lived in a loving family and when the father died they still lived happily until the darkspawn came. Things only start going badly when DA2 starts.

Noble origins have happy lives as favored children of nobles. City and Dalish elves are also happy but they live more simply (Yes you're a city elf and live in a slum but you still had your father and other loving relatives). The mage spends his life sheltered in a circle. Only the castless dwarf had to scrape by just to survive his entire life.

 

So I'm not sure what is meant by a happy background??? That the PC just leaves his happy family and becomes an Inquisitor and the family is all right the entire game? Or that the PCs life prior to DAI was happy?

[Wolfen09]

true, but most of those have tragic twists... i believe its the hey im a nobles kid who just decides hes goin to be the inquisitor without any tragic twist in it...  he just wakes up one day and everything is how he wants it to be, no family death, no abuse, no being thrown into the deep roads

[Vaseldwa]

I prefer a more tragic background. In my opinion it can make the character more relate-able and have the ability to handle more emotionally. Not to mention it would make them more humble (or more determined and not taking any crap) and they can be more relate-able. To put it simply, someone who has a tragic past with a traumatic childhood. Not letting what happened to this point in his or her life determine his or her future.

[Statare]

Heroes who are struggling against adversity, when the cards have been/continue to b stacked against them are inspiring. Most of us feel like we are struggling at some point in our lives against something, these people feel relatable, and if they can overcome a horrible trauma we can't even imagine, we can overcome the little traumas of our daily lives.

 

Personally, I like tragic heroes, but at the same time, I realize they exist in a state of exception. Sure, some people in real life rise above adversity and succeed, but there are many, many more who never do. In a lot of ways, such exceptionality is fundamental to how we imagine heroes/role models, and I think this is problematic and even repetitive. It makes use believe there is more opportunity than there is. Even so, I love role playing such characters. They can make me feel good.

 

I have a problem with the idea of a character who "is" happy. By definition, such a person, living in Thedas at the time of the Veil Tears, may all of a sudden stop having a happy story. In literature, we call these moments "states of exception" because rules change. A peasant can become king. A king becomes a pauper, and the status quo is no longer a thing. Such moments naturally attract the exceptional character, they who would be king but for reason x. They get their moment, they succeed, and they don't want to perpetrate the abuses they suffered under the Old Regime. A happy character (can a person be happy? or can they only feel happy?) usually loses something in such states of exception, and this loss motivates them to return the conditions of the world to the status quo. They are a backward-oriented character, always looking back with rose-colored glasses. Usually in literature this is the main divide of protagonists in such tales of exception: the idealist who had nothing and would start a revolution, and the king-now-pauper who fights to restore order.

 

I prefer the revolutionary character.