15927 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

Do we have any positive examples of elven Laetans?  I get the impression that whilst it might be possible in theory, in practice it is almost non existent.     To start with there is the idea that magic is a gift of the gods/Maker, so the idea that anyone not of the ruling class having magic is something they are extremely uncomfortable with but particularly an elf.    Historically elves have been the slave class.  In Last Flight when Isseya tries to find out information on how to cure the griffons from Tevinter, it is made clear she is only allowed admittance on sufferance because she is a Grey Warden and that is the only reason she is not immediately sold into slavery.  If you are born a mage slave that does not automatically allow you to be raised in status because slaves are not citizens, whereas Soporati are full citizens of the Imperium, just lacking in magic.   Calpurnia was a mage but was not freed until Cory stepped in.   From what it says in her short story, slave mages are regarded in the same way as elves in that they are a useful source of potent blood for spells.  

 

So to be an elf Laetans historically your family need to have been made liberati, then achieved full citizenship as Soporati and then get a mage born into it.   I think most elves would stumble at the first hurdle because even if freed, they never get beyond being a liberati.     Ignore the business about Denarius promising to make Fenris' sister a Magister.   That always seemed ridiculous and the way the class system works in Tevinter proves it to be so.   She was a liberati, that is all and would never rise above that status.   As such she could join a Circle of Magi but would always be regarded as a non-citizen, unless she could find some Magister willing to sponsor her to citizenship, which seems highly unlikely.

[Mistic]

Do we have any positive examples of elven Laetans?  I get the impression that whilst it might be possible in theory, in practice it is almost non existent.     To start with there is the idea that magic is a gift of the gods/Maker, so the idea that anyone not of the ruling class having magic is something they are extremely uncomfortable with but particularly an elf.    Historically elves have been the slave class.  In Last Flight when Isseya tries to find out information on how to cure the griffons from Tevinter, it is made clear she is only allowed admittance on sufferance because she is a Grey Warden and that is the only reason she is not immediately sold into slavery.  If you are born a mage slave that does not automatically allow you to be raised in status because slaves are not citizens, whereas Soporati are full citizens of the Imperium, just lacking in magic.   Calpurnia was a mage but was not freed until Cory stepped in.   From what it says in her short story, slave mages are regarded in the same way as elves in that they are a useful source of potent blood for spells.  

 

So to be an elf Laetans historically your family need to have been made liberati, then achieved full citizenship as Soporati and then get a mage born into it.   I think most elves would stumble at the first hurdle because even if freed, they never get beyond being a liberati.     Ignore the business about Denarius promising to make Fenris' sister a Magister.   That always seemed ridiculous and the way the class system works in Tevinter proves it to be so.   She was a liberati, that is all and would never rise above that status.   As such she could join a Circle of Magi but would always be regarded as a non-citizen, unless she could find some Magister willing to sponsor her to citizenship, which seems highly unlikely.

 

There's Fenris' sister, wishing for that. Even if the chance is slim, and probably her master was deceiving her, nothing says it couldn't happen legally, according to the information found in World of Thedas. Also, there's a common misconception: not every elf in Tevinter is a slave or an ex-slave, the same as not every slave is an elf.

 

Bioware has experience with that. It's basically the Sith Inquisitor's storyline in SWTOR, especially if the Inquisitor is an alien.

[The Baconer]

Not at all. Laetans enjoy the privileges of the free mage classes, which in effect gives them access to the Circles, the upper levels of the Chantry, the Magisterium and they can even become Archons, although the Altus are still above them.

 
Which is like, the only class (besides Altus) to have "full" citizenship, or to not be some kind of subclass. The only nobility in the hereditary sense are the Altus. 
 
 

Do we have any positive examples of elven Laetans?  I get the impression that whilst it might be possible in theory, in practice it is almost non existent.     To start with there is the idea that magic is a gift of the gods/Maker, so the idea that anyone not of the ruling class having magic is something they are extremely uncomfortable with but particularly an elf.    Historically elves have been the slave class.  In Last Flight when Isseya tries to find out information on how to cure the griffons from Tevinter, it is made clear she is only allowed admittance on sufferance because she is a Grey Warden and that is the only reason she is not immediately sold into slavery.  If you are born a mage slave that does not automatically allow you to be raised in status because slaves are not citizens, whereas Soporati are full citizens of the Imperium, just lacking in magic.   Calpurnia was a mage but was not freed until Cory stepped in.   From what it says in her short story, slave mages are regarded in the same way as elves in that they are a useful source of potent blood for spells.  

 

I would say rare, not non-existent. 

[Mistic]

 Which is like, the only class (besides Altus) to have "full" citizenship, or to not be some kind of subclass. The only nobility in the hereditary sense are the Altus.

 

No, the Laetan class is hereditary too. Word of Thedas says that there are families that have been Laetan for generations, "but cannot trace their ancestry to the Dreamers", which puts them below the Altus. Saying that they aren't noble when they have the privileges and enjoy all the legal political powers would be like saying that the Banns aren't nobles because they are below the Teyrns. Nobility has classes (for example, Ferelden has seven tiers of nobility), but that doesn't mean the lower nobles aren't nobles.

 

Given that "a third of the Archons in the history of the Imperium" have been Laetans and that they are known to "vie viciously for power", being a Laetan is still a big deal.

[The Baconer]

No, the Laetan class is hereditary too. Word of Thedas says that there are families that have been Laetan for generations, "but cannot trace their ancestry to the Dreamers", which puts them below the Altus. Saying that they aren't noble when they have the privileges and enjoy all the legal political powers would be like saying that the Banns aren't nobles because they are below the Teyrns. Nobility has classes (for example, Ferelden has seven tiers of nobility), but that doesn't mean the lower nobles aren't nobles.

 

I wouldn't make a reference to the Banns and Teyrns at all because there's not really a basis for comparison. 

 

 

Given that "a third of the Archons in the history of the Imperium" have been Laetans and that they are known to "vie viciously for power", being a Laetan is still a big deal.

 

They vie viciously for power precisely because they are not regarded as true nobility; it's not really the big deal that the underclasses hope/assume it is. It's why Tevinter was plunged into a massive civil war when the first Laetan archon was elected. They are of low birth with no relevant pedigree. It is only with supremely vigorous effort that a Laetan can achieve what an Altus is naturally afforded by being born. Tevinter, despite being known for being the country where mages rule, has its own form of conventional aristocracy, and the Laetan are not part of that. 

[Mistic]

I wouldn't make a reference to the Banns and Teyrns at all because there's not really a basis for comparison. 

 

There is, in the sense that Ferelden has even more nobility levels than Tevinter, all with different political rights.

 

They vie viciously for power precisely because they are not regarded as true nobility; it's not really the big deal that the underclasses hope/assume it is. It's why Tevinter was plunged into a massive civil war when the first Laetan archon was elected. They are of low birth with no relevant pedigree. It is only with supremely vigorous effort that a Laetan can achieve what an Altus is naturally afforded by being born. Tevinter, despite being known for being the country where mages rule, has its own form of conventional aristocracy, and the Laetan are not part of that. 

 

Again, that doesn't stop them from being nobles. Minor nobles, but being a Laetan in Tevinter means more than being a normal mage in a Circle in the South. Of course, even WoT implies that there are differences among the Laetans too: it's not the same being a recently discovered mage who just had their family ascended to Laetan class than being born in a family that has known magic for generations, even if they didn't descend from Dreamers. The former, I agree, would be barely better than rank and file; the later, however, are probably the ones disputing the Altus their privileges.

 

My point is that, when we are talking about possible backstories for the protagonist in DA4, a Laetan Elf is still much more special than the typical, that is, being a slave (when I think about it, Devera is the only Tevinter elf I can remember who wasn't implied to be or to have been a slave).

[The Baconer]

There is, in the sense that Ferelden has even more nobility levels than Tevinter, all with different political rights.

 

...  Which is why I would regard it as incomparable to Tevinter >_>

 

 

Again, that doesn't stop them from being nobles. Minor nobles, but being a Laetan in Tevinter means more than being a normal mage in a Circle in the South. Of course, even WoT implies that there are differences among the Laetans too: it's not the same being a recently discovered mage who just had their family ascended to Laetan class than being born in a family that has known magic for generations, even if they didn't descend from Dreamers. The former, I agree, would be barely better than rank and file; the later, however, are probably the ones disputing the Altus their privileges.

 

It does stop them from being nobles, because they're not. It might make them minor nobles in a de facto sense, but officially they are, again, lowborn. It is a distinction that actively separates them from true nobility. "Minor nobility" in Tevinter would themselves be linked to the Altus in some fashion, like the Trevelyans being an old cadet branch of the Pavus line. 

 

Regarding mages in the south, one born from an affluent family can reasonably expect a cushier, more privileged life than an "average" Laetan, even in spite of the way magic is regulated in the south. Hell, it wouldn't even that surprising for a normal southern mage to have a more comfortable life than a Laetan. We can't really infer any quality-of-life standard from the term "Laetan", because it depends entirely on the efforts of the individuals and families in question. That is certainly not the case with the Altus. 

 

 

My point is that, when we are talking about possible backstories for the protagonist in DA4, a Laetan Elf is still much more special than the typical, that is, being a slave (when I think about it, Devera is the only Tevinter elf I can remember who wasn't implied to be or to have been a slave).

 

My point is that it might be special on paper, but in a realistic scenario the origin story would probably revolve around how not special it actually is, especially for an elf. The political game is already stacked against Laetans, and to make matters worse, Tevinter is still quite racist towards elves. How special would being a Laetan actually be, when you have to fight tooth and nail just to gain admission to the Circle? When you are passed over for even the most "low-end" jobs reserved for those of your class? If they have no wealth to speak of, an Elven Laetan is promised nothing... and can expect to receive even less. 

[Gervaise]

I still think that if they have races in DA4 then class wise an elf is more likely to be a liberati than a Soporati or Laetans, simply because that would be more common.   An elf Laetans would probably have had to fight their way tooth and nail to get any sort of recognition and thus be too invested in maintaining their own position in society.   A human might be a Laetans, whether mage or not, since another member of the family could have been responsible for their elevation.    A dwarf could be from the merchant class and actually doing quite well in society because the Magisters want to keep in with them; lyrium supplies and all that.    I would imagine a qunari/kossith would at best be a liberati, although I do find it hard to imagine a Tevinter citizen going out of their way to help them improve their lot beyond that of slave.     

[Mistic]

...  Which is why I would regard it as incomparable to Tevinter >_>

 

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

It does stop them from being nobles, because they're not. It might make them minor nobles in a de facto sense, but officially they are, again, lowborn. It is a distinction that actively separates them from true nobility. "Minor nobility" in Tevinter would themselves be linked to the Altus in some fashion, like the Trevelyans being an old cadet branch of the Pavus line. 

 

Regarding mages in the south, one born from an affluent family can reasonably expect a cushier, more privileged life than an "average" Laetan, even in spite of the way magic is regulated in the south. Hell, it wouldn't even that surprising for a normal southern mage to have a more comfortable life than a Laetan. We can't really infer any quality-of-life standard from the term "Laetan", because it depends entirely on the efforts of the individuals and families in question. That is certainly not the case with the Altus. 

 

Ah, I see now there's a misunderstanding about what the concept of "nobility" entails. I wasn't talking about quality of life, since quality of life has nothing to do with the legal standing that makes a person part of the nobility.

 

A good real-life example that could be applied to the Laetans is that of "hidalguía" in Spain. Hidalgos were minor nobles (and very often non-hereditary). They had the largest numbers (at a time, there were over 500,000), but since they owned little real property and more often than not refused to do manual work, the usual hidalgo was poor and had a worse living than a wealthy merchant, for example. However, they were still nobles; that meant they enjoyed certain privileges, like not paying taxes, and had access to military and administrative careers, which were banned to non-nobles. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

My point is that it might be special on paper, but in a realistic scenario the origin story would probably revolve around how not special it actually is, especially for an elf. The political game is already stacked against Laetans, and to make matters worse, Tevinter is still quite racist towards elves. How special would being a Laetan actually be, when you have to fight tooth and nail just to gain admission to the Circle? When you are passed over for even the most "low-end" jobs reserved for those of your class? If they have no wealth to speak of, an Elven Laetan is promised nothing... and can expect to receive even less. 

 

As I mentioned before, there's a similar scenario in SWTOR with the Sith Inquisitor. And to be honest, what you mention makes me see that origin in an even better light. Hardships usually make stories more interesting.

[The Baconer]

Ah, I see now there's a misunderstanding about what the concept of "nobility" entails. I wasn't talking about quality of life, since quality of life has nothing to do with the legal standing that makes a person part of the nobility.

 

Quality of life was only brought up because you said "Being a Laetan in Tevinter means more than being a normal mage in the South". Laetan only means what the family or individual can make of it... but the actual noble class of Tevinter tries to make that as difficult as possible. 

 

 

A good real-life example that could be applied to the Laetans is that of "hidalguía" in Spain. Hidalgos were minor nobles (and very often non-hereditary). They had the largest numbers (at a time, there were over 500,000), but since they owned little real property and more often than not refused to do manual work, the usual hidalgo was poor and had a worse living than a wealthy merchant, for example. However, they were still nobles; that meant they enjoyed certain privileges, like not paying taxes, and had access to military and administrative careers, which were banned to non-nobles. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

It is similar in that it allowed access to certain administrative careers (can't say much regarding Tevinter's military since we know so little of that), and not much else. Mostly because the factors that determine the statuses of hidalguía and Laetan are completely unrelated. Possessing magic in Tevinter does grant one full citizenship and rights to participate in the government, but it is not synonymous with nobility.

[Mistic]

Quality of life was only brought up because you said "Being a Laetan in Tevinter means more than being a normal mage in the South". Laetan only means what the family or individual can make of it... but the actual noble class of Tevinter tries to make that as difficult as possible. 

 

As I said, the "means more" part wasn't about the quality of life, but about legal position. A Southern Mage in the best case scenario can't rule their country. A Laetan can.

 

Possessing magic in Tevinter does grant one full citizenship and rights to participate in the government, but it is not synonymous with nobility.

 

Then I need to ask your definition of nobility, because I really can't see what difference you see in it, since the Tevinter situation (including the difference between patricians from birth and plebeians who rise up) matches the very origin of the word

[The Baconer]

As I said, the "means more" part wasn't about the quality of life, but about legal position. A Southern Mage in the best case scenario can't rule their country. A Laetan can.

 

Well, with recent events it seems that a southern mage can actually do better than that. But the potential to be Divine or to be Archon doesn't really affect the average live of a Circle mage or a Laetan. 

 

 

Then I need to ask your definition of nobility, because I really can't see what difference you see in it, since the Tevinter situation (including the difference between patricians from birth and plebeians who rise up) matches the very origin of the word

 

How does it match that description at all? Laetan status isn't derived from the ascension to a political office. A person who can trace their ancestry to a Laetan mage isn't automatically Laetan themselves. Laetan status is granted to a mage's family, but it's not even clear what privileges extend to non-mage members. Becoming Laetan is not indicative of great achievement, even if it is a boon. 

 

Being Altus, on the other hand, is all about ancestry. It's about being able to trace one's lineage back to certain historical figures with renowned magical power, while cultivating and preserving the purity of these bloodlines. Most Altus families have a reserved spot on the Magesterium, the highest position in government aside from the seat of the Archon (though, the Magesterium is more influential overall). It's a social division that goes beyond the system of "mage or non-mage". 

[Mistic]

Well, with recent events it seems that a southern mage can actually do better than that.

 

Actually, no. Centuries before the possibility of Vivienne becoming Divine appeared, Laetans had joined the upper echelons of the Imperial Chantry. Then add their capacity to become Archons, Magisters or have a political or administrative careers, even if most of them won't go beyond minor bureaucrats. You know, like the hidalgos I mentioned earlier.

 

How does it match that description at all? Laetan status isn't derived from the ascension to a political office. A person who can trace their ancestry to a Laetan mage isn't automatically Laetan themselves. Laetan status is granted to a mage's family, but it's not even clear what privileges extend to non-mage members. Becoming Laetan is not indicative of great achievement, even if it is a boon. 

 

Being Altus, on the other hand, is all about ancestry. It's about being able to trace one's lineage back to certain historical figures with renowned magical power, while cultivating and preserving the purity of these bloodlines. Most Altus families have a reserved spot on the Magesterium, the highest position in government aside from the seat of the Archon (though, the Magesterium is more influential overall). It's a social division that goes beyond the system of "mage or non-mage". 

 

Ok, I realize I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that nobility in Rome wasn't tied to feudal ideas of nobility, but to the possession of full political rights and access to the ruling system. So, indeed, the first use of the word "nobility" is synonymous with that. I agree that the Altus embody the classic idea of what nobles should be, but that doesn't mean that theirs is the only kind of nobility that exists or has existed.

 

That Tevinter has a different way to decide who goes into the nobility ranks is an irrelevant matter, because magic doesn't exist in our world and Tevinter doesn't have the consulship office. Yet in both cases there's a distinction between those who had the rank by right of birth (Altus/Patricians) and those who required "the rise of an exceptional individual" to become so (the first mage of a Laetan family, the first man to serve as consul of a plebeian family).

[The Baconer]

Actually, no. Centuries before the possibility of Vivienne becoming Divine appeared, Laetans had joined the upper echelons of the Imperial Chantry. Then add their capacity to become Archons, Magisters or have a political or administrative careers, even if most of them won't go beyond minor bureaucrats. You know, like the hidalgos I mentioned earlier.

 

"Better" as in the reach of the Divine in the south is greater than their northern counterpart. They were even capable of becoming political entities in their own right before that. 

 

 

Ok, I realize I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that nobility in Rome wasn't tied to feudal ideas of nobility, but to the possession of full political rights and access to the ruling system. So, indeed, the first use of the word "nobility" is synonymous with that. I agree that the Altus embody the classic idea of what nobles should be, but that doesn't mean that theirs is the only kind of nobility that exists or has existed.

 

But Tevinter does subscribe to a feudal concept of nobility, even if their government isn't wholly restricted to members of that noble class. 

 

 

That Tevinter has a different way to decide who goes into the nobility ranks is an irrelevant matter, because magic doesn't exist in our world and Tevinter doesn't have the consulship office. Yet in both cases there's a distinction between those who had the rank by right of birth (Altus/Patricians) and those who required "the rise of an exceptional individual" to become so (the first mage of a Laetan family, the first man to serve as consul of a plebeian family). 

 

It's emphatically relevant when one is trying to apply a specific, real-world definition of nobility to Tevinter society. Having access to the office of Archon, the upper ranks of the Chantry, and the Circles are the benefits of being a mage, but being nobility is an entirely different issue. 

 

For example, a mundane Altus would be denied the privileges afforded to every mage by default, but they would still retain their status as Altus. Even if, hypothetically, an Altus family had no living mages, they would still be Altus (even though they would lose their prestige and reserved seat the Magisterium). Being a member of the aristocracy is a product of lineage, it is not decided by a current presence of magic. Laetan, on the other hand, has nothing to do with pedigree and is dependent on living mages within a lowborn family. 

[nightscrawl]

So, basically, an Inquisitor 2.0 minus the glowing hand of doom. I can't say I'm very enthusiastic about that idea, since my main issue with them is not the Messiah archetype, but the fact that they are merely one step above blank-slates

I prefer the blank slate over origins. Unlike some players, I was quite happy that we didn't get any prologue-type stuff at the Conclave. I felt that both the DAO and DA2 origins were too constraining for RP. All of the DAO origins, minus the mage, even gave you a family and set up your relationship with them, which I disliked. True, you can RP once you actually get in the game, but the basis is still there.

[Sifr]

 

But if we work with the slavery angle, slavery itself could be the Ostagar of DA4. You have several origins for the characters, but for some reason or another all of them end up in slavery. Cue a certain event (Solas? Qunari War? Slave rebellion?) and everything is the same from that moment onwards.

 

Seconded, having a protagonist with a unique origin section that ends with them being forced into temporary slavery for a brief period, would be an effective way to give us a first hand perspective on how slaves are often treated within the Imperium.

 

Elves and Qunari could be outsiders who were unlucky enough to be captured in a slave raid on a border town they'd briefly stopped in, or had accidentally made camp too close to the Imperium's borders.

 

Humans could be average Tevinter citizens who'd fallen on hard times and been forced to sell themselves into public-owned slavery. A mage might have been the former apprentice to a slain Magister, forced into accepting public slavery rather than share in their mentor's fate.

 

Dwarves are the hardest to justify, but perhaps something happens that leads them to be thrown out of the Ambassadoria and exiled to the surface. This might lead to them no longer being off-limits to slavers, or realising they had to sell themselves into slavery to survive.

[Medhia_Nox]

@nightscrawl:  I'm curious... you "do" haven an origin in DA:I.  What if I wouldn't have gone to the conclave?  What if I wouldn't have gone wandering off and found the Divine?  What if I would have helped Corypeus... or stayed in the Fade... or any number of one million things.

 

Neither is "better" - I actually have elaborate stories for say... my XCom characters or Crusader Kings characters... or even storylines for entire empires in Civ.  So blank slates are great.

 

But I also felt that the Origins were no different than whatever happens at the beginning of every cRPG.  My disappointment with Origins were that I felt all of them were so well done that they were stories in themselves - but stories that never continue and are ultimately wasted. 

 

Anyway... just curious why the Origins seems so different to you.

[Gervaise]

I like the Origin stories.   True it restricted your character development to a particular scenario but I liked the fact that allowed it to be developed beyond just a few lines of text and this could be acknowledged in game.   Each one was different and I was able to role play them to make my character individual, so my city elf female character could be very different from my male Dalish or my elf mage.   Whilst they didn't do a lot with the stories after the prologue they did put in little details later that were specific to them.  When I returned to the alienage, of course I was recognised, but there was also reference to my deceased husband which made both Zevran (lover) and Alistair (sweet on me) do a double take.   When my Cousland confronted Howe, the latter referred to my father being a traitor, which I denied at the time but then thought about his recent trip to Orlais and the papers from Cailan saying about the proposed marriage with Celene.  (Was my father the trusted messenger?)   In fact what I always felt was wrong was not including Return to Ostagar in the main game because it did seem so relevant to what was going on with Loghain and Eamon.    To my mind the reason DAO had such reply value was because of the different origins.  

 

What I didn't like was having only the single race and background of Hawke because that was too restrictive and not really compensated for by the 3 variations to their character.   DAI was an improvement in having multiple races again but it was a pity any link to your background was really restricted to the odd line of dialogue (Josephine, Dorian, etc) and the war table missions, the result of which were not even acknowledged by your team.   To make it possible to lose your entire clan and then have absolutely no one comment/commiserate with you made your character seem not really part of the world, when your companions/advisors were grieving and complaining and you were expected to respond.  

 

So hopefully we will get a combination of DAO and DAI in the next game, with different races and a slightly different backstory for each.   As pointed out above, you can be a slave and yet have a completed different reason why you are in that position, according to your racial origin.   In fact with the multi-layered Tevinter class system and political structure there is a lot of scope for varying origins and coming up with something that is very different from previous games.

[nightscrawl]

@nightscrawl:  I'm curious... you "do" haven an origin in DA:I.  What if I wouldn't have gone to the conclave?  What if I wouldn't have gone wandering off and found the Divine?  What if I would have helped Corypeus... or stayed in the Fade... or any number of one million things.

 

Neither is "better" - I actually have elaborate stories for say... my XCom characters or Crusader Kings characters... or even storylines for entire empires in Civ.  So blank slates are great.

 

But I also felt that the Origins were no different than whatever happens at the beginning of every cRPG.  My disappointment with Origins were that I felt all of them were so well done that they were stories in themselves - but stories that never continue and are ultimately wasted. 

 

Anyway... just curious why the Origins seems so different to you.

 

I never say anything is "better." EVER. That is down to personal preference.

 

I don't agree with your assessment of the DAI origin, and I don't understand your hypothetical questions; how are those related to origins?

 

I prefer the blank slate of DAI because it didn't tie you to anything. I understand that not everyone RPs this way, but I cannot ignore character background that is presented in the game. If the game tells me that my Trevelyan is the second or third child that was destined for a life in service to the Chantry, then that is what I go with -- it becomes part of my role-play. That is why I prefer as blank a slate as possible, with any sort of relationships or ties left up to the player. The reason I dislike the DAO and DA2 origins specifically, is because (for most of them) you are saddled with a family with pre-defined relationships. For the Cousland origin, your father affectionately calls you "pup" before you have had a chance to say anything or RP at all. That is the kind of thing I dislike.

 

I don't find my Inquisitor boring, as other players do. In fact, he is the first DA character that I became involved with to such a degree that I created elaborate backstories and so forth. I had a grand time RPing my Inquisitor, and the blank slate contributed to that.

 

But again, that is just my own preference. If another player wants more elaborate origins or whathaveyou, then that is fine for them.

 

 

At any rate, this is getting away from Tevinter stuff...

[The Ascendant]

Loving Calpernia from Magekiller. Still hoping she shows up in the next DA game.

[Medhia_Nox]

@nightscrawl:  I said better... also said I like blank slates so no, I did not find the Inquisitor boring.  It is the internet, but the projection was inaccurate. 

 

I think that if we're going to Tevinter talking about these two styles is very relevant for how our Tevinter character is represented.

 

So, you wanted your father to be luke warm to you?  Mean to you?  Something other than affectionate.  Okay, I can see that.  It's a strong suit of the conversation with Josephine. 

 

However... let's take DA:2.  Asking me to care that my brother died?  Sure, I can roleplay it - but when I play interactive titles I like to also experience what I'm roleplaying.  I think some time in Lothering.  A Lothering Origin if you will... would have strongly added to that character. 

 

What if I didn't want to be a Trevelyan, but wanted to play human?  What if I wanted to be a Nevarran?  Or an escaped Tevinter slave? I can't be.  There are always going to be concessions made in a cRPG - that was my point at attempting to illustrate that. 

 

As for the "potential" of DA4? 

I strongly hope that it takes it's time exploring my character before asking me to care.  There are a million ways to do this and Josephine was a huge step in the right direction... the entire Origin could/should be an environment where you set the stages of your character's past to be explored in the future course of the game.

 

Think of an "Origin" where you discuss the three main character developments of Shepard from Mass Effect (instead of just checking text) and then explore those choices throughout the game... like Mass Effect did (a game who uses a character's choice past very strongly I feel). 

 

Anyway... I don't want another game that drops me into a combat obstacle course and asks me to give a f-ck.

[Mistic]

Loving Calpernia from Magekiller. Still hoping she shows up in the next DA game.

 

Mm, did she ever die on-screen in DA:I? "Never found the body" is too easy to retcon as "never really died".

[Aren]

Tevinter is always awake

Yes but Corypheus always for President

url immagine

[nightscrawl]

^ Lol... the smiley face tie really makes it.

[nightscrawl]

So, you wanted your father to be luke warm to you?  Mean to you?  Something other than affectionate.  Okay, I can see that.  It's a strong suit of the conversation with Josephine.

I would have preferred more neutral tones until the player could establish, through their own dialogue responses, how the relationship is. In having the father be immediately affectionate, I felt that it took away some of my agency because it established a close, affectionate familial relationship right from the outset, without waiting for any input from the player.
 
I also disliked the forced sibling death in DA2 for similar reasons (although I understand the necessity for gameplay reasons). I really couldn't care at all that my PC's sibling died. To be honest, I never felt that great an attachment to any of them. Bethany is a nice little sis for my rogue Hawke, but that's about it; I never really cared about what happened to them and part of the reason was because the game expected me to.

 
 

As for the "potential" of DA4? 
I strongly hope that it takes it's time exploring my character before asking me to care.  There are a million ways to do this and Josephine was a huge step in the right direction... the entire Origin could/should be an environment where you set the stages of your character's past to be explored in the future course of the game.

I agree on the way it was handled with Josephine asking certain questions. But I think you have an unrealistic expectation for how it can be handled. If they allow the player to have a great deal of variation, then it may only be cosmetic and restricted to very minor parts of the game, rather than as something more deeply rooted in character development.

 

I don't mind dialogue choices that are purely cosmetic role-play opportunities; the games are chock full of them, but neither do I expect those RP choices to have any great impact down the line as the game goes on. To me, it's enough that the initial choice is there.