Pretty much this. I also head canon that my rogue was going to be a Seeker, even though she can never talk to Cassandra about it.
I get why the rogue is restricted, but as a "mundane", you'd think that there would really be nothing to stop any capable fighter from doing this. Where did all those Templar hunters in DA2 come from??
Do you mean a specialization restriction? Because the Seekers are a higher order of the Chantry that oversees the Templars. Their abilities do not come about the same way.
Hey guys I'm wondering how a rogue can play as the inquisitor story wise. A warrior makes sense because they are the most iconic leaders, and mages makes sense because the breach is a magical tear in the sky. Rogues never seemed like the leader type to me as I always saw them as the badass lone wolf's. (well I find it difficult to see mage leaders as well but that's for another time) how do you guys justify a rogue inquisitor? Thank you for your time!
I get why the rogue is restricted, but as a "mundane", you'd think that there would really be nothing to stop any capable fighter from doing this. Where did all those Templar hunters in DA2 come from??
I get why the rogue is restricted, but as a "mundane", you'd think that there would really be nothing to stop any capable fighter from doing this. Where did all those Templar hunters in DA2 come from??
I don't see it as rogue, I just see it as very fast attacker.
A faster warrior.
Class does not determine personality.
To me it seems that the story is heavily mage centric.. unless you're not a mage gtfo. From what I've seen only mages get class specific dialogues which is a real shame but I might be mistaken. I want to go as a rogue for my second run, but this is really holding me up and I can't decide. 
Hey guys I'm wondering how a rogue can play as the inquisitor story wise. A warrior makes sense because they are the most iconic leaders, and mages makes sense because the breach is a magical tear in the sky. Rogues never seemed like the leader type to me as I always saw them as the badass lone wolf's. (well I find it difficult to see mage leaders as well but that's for another time) how do you guys justify a rogue inquisitor? Thank you for your time!
Rogues work well as the reluctant anti-hero type. The guy/girl who is cynical and sarcastic about the whole situation. IMO they just fit well with the dialogue choices that have you telling people that you aren't some chosen one. Dwarf rogue let's me RP this really well, sine the Dwarf Inquisitor is literally a criminal, or at least he/she was. I find that interesting.
My Dalish Archer was sent to the conclave as a spy. She was her clan's best hunter because she could blend into the shadows and strike fast with her arrows. That was the reason it made more sense to send her than to send the Keeper's First, what with all those Templars around, or send a flashier Warrior who would draw attention. Getting pulled into the Fade was an accident of circumstance. She never once claimed to be Andraste's Chosen, but folks believed it about her anyway. I found it interesting to see how her legend was born despite the realities of her life.
*pick up sword, become golden god
*pick up staff, become problem solver
*pick up daggers, become living trash
wat
be glad you didn't go bow.
I never said that there are no female warrior nobles that would be unreasonable. However renowned warriors Cassandra and Aveline are they are the exception. You would think not many women would train in the sword and shield combat since their bodies are physically weaker than a full grown man of the same training. Regardless there is a great number of female templar npcs around but my point wasn't that it's weird for a female noble to be a warrior rather that it's not out of character for them to be a rogue wielding daggers or bows. In my mind females fit the role of quick movement and stealth that is required for the rogue training better than a male especially if they are also bulky (I'm looking at you male Qunari rogues
)
In any case the game's lore provides with enough background to give you the freedom to choose whatever you like and still be acceptable in terms of story however as I said before what is the ideal leader differs from person to person, for me the most fitting Inquisitor is a sword and shield human male Templar since it fits my concept of the ideal leader (warrior leading from the front etc) but also fits the Trevelyan's background.
I'm pretty sure that during the initial conversation with Teyrn Bryce, Duncan, and the Warden-to-be, Arl Howe remarks it as a break with tradition if Bryce has allowed the female human noble to train as a warrior.
Justification for Rogue inquisitor?
Wha da yah mean im not justified?
Rogue is always justified.
Guest_Stormheart83_*
I actually felt the same way playing my Dwarven Rogue so, I stopped and examined the back story provided. In the end I decided that yes my character was a thief that in the past committed some horrible crimes not out of a desire too but, simply as a means of survival and now as a member and eventually leader of the Inquisition she saw it as her chance too save the world and be a hero. Was she a saint? Hell no, she was at times a bit brutal and a little power hungry( having always been on the low end of the totem pole ). But, she did the best she could don't let the class system define who your character is.Hey guys I'm wondering how a rogue can play as the inquisitor story wise. A warrior makes sense because they are the most iconic leaders, and mages makes sense because the breach is a magical tear in the sky. Rogues never seemed like the leader type to me as I always saw them as the badass lone wolf's. (well I find it difficult to see mage leaders as well but that's for another time) how do you guys justify a rogue inquisitor? Thank you for your time!
You weren't chosen because of your class. You were recruited because of your hand, and after that - because you demonstrated leadership.
How many organisations and group you know of that pick leaders based purely on their fighting style, rather than decision-making or wilfulness?
Hey guys I'm wondering how a rogue can play as the inquisitor story wise. A warrior makes sense because they are the most iconic leaders, and mages makes sense because the breach is a magical tear in the sky. Rogues never seemed like the leader type to me as I always saw them as the badass lone wolf's. (well I find it difficult to see mage leaders as well but that's for another time) how do you guys justify a rogue inquisitor? Thank you for your time!
Rogue does not equal Thief, yes he can pick locks but you don't need to be a Thief to know how to picklocks. I know how to picklocks, because I just wanted to learn how to (it makes losing my keys less panic inducing)
I mean is like saying Han Solo couldn't be the captain of a ship because he was a Rogue... (well he was a smuggler so meh)
Known nobility that were/are rogues: Tyreness Eleanor Cousland, Arl Rendon Howe, Nathaniel Howe, Prince Sebastian Vael and Bann Alfstanna. Did I miss any?
I always looked at it as a light fighter, more of a skirmisher. Someone suited to scouting who relies on quickness and wit to fight more than sheer brawn and their tin can armor.
So, my first Quizzie, the female human, was a rogue who learned archery. I figured her background said she was destined for the Chantry eventually, and as such, I figured her family wasn't going to be spending a lot of time or money teaching her how combat skills. Archery, on the other hand, could be said to be a hobby and diversion as much as a combat skill. Too bad for her family she proved so adept at it.
It's realty not about your behavior so much as it is your combat styles, IMO.
Elven archers?
Also there's a locked door that only a Rogue can open in the Wicked Hearts mission and only if the Inquisitor is a rogue.
Yes I count that as reason enough to roll a rogue.
I really wanna know what's in there.
Retour en haut.jpg)
