I'm talking about:
Some like the "stick it to the Man" approach so they go with elf and mage. Others, myself included, prefer the "fight to stop everything you love from being destroyed" and go with Human and normal.
Isn't why people play mages, elves, or mundanes. I don't play mage to have an Inquisitor "stick it to the man." I play mage because I like magic. It's also kind of weird how this implies you have to want to play human and "normal." to want those things.
I really liked a human male mage as Inquisitor.
He was my middle ground between an old fashioned Warden and a more pro-mage freedom Hawke
I'm talking about:
Isn't why people play mages, elves, or mundanes. I don't play mage to have an Inquisitor "stick it to the man." I play mage because I like magic. It's also kind of weird how this implies you have to want to play human and "normal." to want those things.
Anyone can do mental gymnastics come up with any number of reasons why one particular combination is the "right" one.
And, ultimately, it will be up to each person what they prefer.
Some like the "stick it to the Man" approach so they go with elf and mage. Others, myself included, prefer the "fight to stop everything you love from being destroyed" and go with Human and normal.
Can't you play a Qunari / Elf mage, or a Dwarven Rogue and still "fight to stop everything you love from being destroyed"?
Love is universal, so is Armageddon.
"Magic is to serve man and never rule over him." The operative word is "SERVE." No Inquisitor mages for me!
I can't speak for JB but I think this comment was more meant to be reflective of why people in this thread say they're playing an elf mage.
Pretty sure most people play elf mage to have someone stick it to them, not stick it to the man, tbh.
Pretty sure most people play elf mage to have someone stick it to them, not stick it to the man, tbh.
I'm talking about:
Isn't why people play mages, elves, or mundanes. I don't play mage to have an Inquisitor "stick it to the man." I play mage because I like magic. It's also kind of weird how this implies you have to want to play human and "normal." to want those things.
Then you wouldn't be among the some people he was talking about, would you?
"Magic is to serve man and never rule over him." The operative word is "SERVE." No Inquisitor mages for me!
I'm talking about:
Isn't why people play mages, elves, or mundanes. I don't play mage to have an Inquisitor "stick it to the man." I play mage because I like magic. It's also kind of weird how this implies you have to want to play human and "normal." to want those things.
I said "some", it is obviously not an universal rule. And I know that some play it for the reasons I mentioned because we have seen it mentioned in these forums.
Can't you play a Qunari / Elf mage, or a Dwarven Rogue and still "fight to stop
everything you love from being destroyed"?
Love is universal, so is Armageddon.
Of course you can. Again, "some".
With that being said, non-human PCs in both DAO and DAI have always been seen as outsiders aiding people who are not their own. Anora/Alistair will even mention, during their speech, how a Dwarf Warden is not a native of Ferelden and yet still fights for it.
Then you wouldn't be among the some people he was talking about, would you?
I said "some", it is obviously not an universal rule. And I know that some play it for the reasons I mentioned because we have seen it mentioned in these forums.
When someone says, "Some do this, but we others do this," I don't see how else someone is supposed to read that besides "Us and Them." Obviously, technically, that's not absolute, but that's exactly how it sounds.
Mages do get unique dialogue and judgement opportunities, but ultimately it's your preference on how to play and who you play as.
When someone says, "Some do this, but we others do this," I don't see how else someone is supposed to read that besides "Us and Them." Obviously, technically, that's not absolute, but that's exactly how it sounds.
Maybe my hearing is going, but I've never confused 'some people hold -x- view' with 'everyone holds -x- view.' Don't really sound the same, technical differences and completely different scopes aside.
Would I be correct in assuming, JB, that when you said "everything you love" you were referring
Serious question. Because I have no problem understanding that view, and think it's a fair one. The other races have a bit less of a personal stake in the events of inquisition.
Yes, you are correct.
I think people in-game would be most receptive and accepting of a Human Female Warrior Inquisitor, that's basically what people in southern Thedas imagine Andraste being so it fits with the "Herald of Andraste" title.
I think people in-game would be most receptive and accepting of a Human Female Warrior Inquisitor, that's basically what people in southern Thedas imagine Andraste being so it fits with the "Herald of Andraste" title.
Andraste was a mage, actually...
Andraste was a mage, actually...
Nobody knows, so drop it.
Comparing the Qunari to National socialist Germany is insulting to the Germans
The qunari didn't demolish their whole country in eleven years.
Nobody knows, so drop it.
True, it's just the vastly more probable outcome, and in fact the only one that could ever be confirmed, if there ever is to be a confirmation (as Bioware refuses to confirm the Maker).
True, it's just the vastly more probable outcome, and in fact the only one that could ever be confirmed, if there ever is to be a confirmation (as Bioware refuses to confirm the Maker).
Why is it "vastly" more probable?
Nobody knows, so drop it.
Right, so I guess she was a mundane who just happened to be able to do impossible magical stuff (miracles). Then again... That is true for a mundane Inquisitor too. Maybe Andraste also had an anchor?
Why is it "vastly" more probable?
Because otherwise, the Maker would have to A. exist, and B. literally be willing to intervene multiple times for the sake of a (married) pretty voice.
Retour en haut
