Sorry for cross-posting (I started the same topic in combat&strategy section), but it seems that my question fits better the story&campaign section... My bad.
Well, I'm before my first playthrough of DAI. For the first run I want to play the human male Inquisitor, who is a devout, faithful andrastian, strict about his faith and principles he follows. He will side with templars, romance Cassandra and bring back an old order to chaotic Thedas.
So my question is: which class will fill the above role the best (storywise)? At first I thought that warrior of the noble house Trevelyan, which has connections to the Chantry, will be the best, but then I thought that the circle mage, who actually liked living in the circle and who is a knight enchanter, might be a more interesting choice. At least being a mage who sides with templars and closes all the mages back in the circles sounds quite interesting, as it's an "out of the line" role.
Also, I read on this forum that being a human gives you (storywise) some interesting political options, which are unavailable to other classes. Does that stick only to human non-mage, or to every human class? In the description of the races it's stated that both human mage and non-mage classes have noble origin...
I picked the human warrior precisely because I wanted to play devout if open-minded Andrastian, and she was a lot of fun even though I always wished that matters of faith could be explored (and debated) much more deeply. The templar ally mission ended up being one of my favourite parts of the game. Going sword & board with the Champion spec emphasized being a frontline leader and protector of the people, but sadly tanking is less enjoyable in this game than it used to be in Origins.
All in all, the race/background choice does not have much influence. Mainly there are just a handful of very brief early banters with NPCs remarking on it. Being a human and not a mage will make one aspect of a main story mission easier, and there is one situation later on where being a Trevelyan (not sure if it applies to mages too) presents a more favourable outcome to a political choice ... but that is just some fluff that doesn't have any actual effect.
The easier path is certainly a warrior or rogue because you don't have any of the Circle issues to personally deal with. But a mage is doable as well if you prefer that. Not all mages have the same experience so you can have a devout Circle mage. It just depends on how you work out the rp in your head.
Thanks for the answers guys. What do you exactly mean by stating that playing a human devout Andrastian non-mage is easier than playing a mage? I see 3 ways to explain it:
1) being both a mage and a devout Andrastian is morally hard, as the faith requires that you stay locked down for your entire life, so for a mage the moral choices, which you face in the game, are harder than for a non-mage (IMO it sounds challenging and fun).
2) Some part (or parts) of the main storyline are closed for a mage. Something like: suddenly in the middle of an important mission to collect some important artifact you stumble onto a big powerful demon which can sense mages and forces mage Inquisitor to fight, while non-mages can pass said demon undetected and without a fight (IMO can be fun and challenging or frustrating, depending on specifics of concrete story twist and personal preferences of the player).
3) The game can't handle being both a mage and a devout Andrastian and it feels just so wrong throughout the whole game, in the way being in DA2 mage Hawke, who sides with the templars. I mean, in DA2 you start the game as an apostate hiding from templars and from the beginning till the end you are forced into a narrative where you are a rebel mage. The templars absolutely don't care that you are a mage, whether you help them or not, and siding with them at the end just isn't explained well enough for a mage apostate Hawke. You had to do really hard mental gymnastics to justify that RP (IMO it's the worst option, as it is only a proof of a poor game design and a poor storytelling).
I will be grateful for making the above matter a bit more clear to me.
I was referring specifically to the roleplay aspects of it, which I suppose comes closest to your first point above.
As I see it, a non-mage Trev doesn't have the same type of internal conflict vis-a-vis being a mage and reconciling the southern Chantry's views of magic, and perhaps also in addition to the treatment (harsh or not) they may have experienced in the Circle system. For an actual game-world example we have the mage Keili from the DAO mage origin. She is very devout and as a result is a self-hating mage, thinks that her magic is a punishment, and goes so far as to be receptive the the option of tranquility if you (the player) suggest it.
But as someone who has played both a Trev mage and a warrior, I can tell you that, from a purely dialog option and game standpoint there is not any sort of conflict. Without giving away any spoilers, I don't think there is an issue at all regarding your second and third points. All classes and origins have dialog options unique to them, and whether you think they are interesting, or the best option for the scene, is a matter of perspective. I've only chosen the unique dialog options a few times as each class (that is, not every time they appear), and I don't consider them essential. (The one exception to this is a noble option during the Dorian romance, but I can't get into that without considerable spoilers, and again, it's my own preference.)
Even though the warrior Trev is my canon character, I will add that I think (strictly my own opinion) that a human mage Trev has the best, and most logical reason for being at the Conclave. The events directly concern that particular origin, whereas all of the rest have varying degrees of plausibility, some of which are rather lame. On the other hand, having the non-human non-mage player thrust into this role when their appearance at the Conclave was simply a fluke can also add to some interesting roleplay if you're of a mind to go that route.
Something that you might also want to consider is how your choice will match your chosen romance. None of the origins have any specific impact on the romance as far as how the LI reacts to your character, so you don't have to worry about that. Spoiler tag in case you want to be surprised, but I don't get too carried away.
Spoiler
I know you said you're going to romance Cassandra, but I'll talk about all the romance options open to you just in case...
You've said you're going to make a human male character. The romance choices open to you are Cassandra (straight), Josephine (bi), The Iron Bull (bi), and Dorian (gay). Both Cassandra and Iron Bull will have (as part of their character) issues with mages and magic because of their background. With Cassandra the impact is a bit more pronounced, especially at the beginning; with Iron Bull there is hardly any impact at all. With both Dorian and Josephine I tend to feel (again, my own opinion) that the non-mage noble origin fits them best because of their background, and gives the PC that minimal basis of understanding that years of confinement in the Circle does not, despite being of noble heritage -- although I did see one person who played as if their mage's experience was pretty easy going, even including visits home and whatnot.
With Dorian specifically, you may prefer the mage option simply because he is a mage from Tevinter and that is valued in his society (but makes no difference to him personally).
For the Cassandra romance, as a warrior you will have the option of picking the templar specialization, which sort of goes along with the whole Seeker thing. And in fact, Cassandra's spec is the templar spec. So that might be an appealing dynamic for you.
Again though, this choice has no real impact on the romance, so don't be concerned on that front.
Just thought I'd mention that it is perfectly plausible to play a devout Andrastrian human mage. For a start off you can be devout Andrastrian without being pro-Chantry. My Hawke was and to a large extent, so was Anders. Also it has been shown in DA2, in particular in a codex in MoA DLC, that the offspring of nobles can have a very different experience in the Circles to those of the children of commoners. Basically money and influence does have an effect. Not all mages were in favour of the rebellion either. Even before the Circles fell there were those who belonged to the loyalist fraternity. They continued to feel that way after the Circles fell. The dialogue options allow you role play such a mage.
I romanced Cassandra with an elf mage so a human mage would be okay. He sided with the mages but I've also played a loyalist human mage, who absolutely believed in their role as Herald and opted for siding with the Templars. Both of them became Knight Enchanters, which I personally found the most enjoyable of the mage specs. As it happens it is also very appropriate to a loyalist mage.
Thanks for the answers guys. What do you exactly mean by stating that playing a human devout Andrastian non-mage is easier than playing a mage? I see 3 ways to explain it:
1) Andrastian faith, if memory serves, only says that magic exists to serve instead of rule -- it doesn't mandate loathing mages or treating them as prisoners. It's a simple fact that mages are both at risk and a risk in a way that nobody else is, which can easily spark fear and prejudice. The Circle system, when it works, is actually a pretty decent system (by the standards of a medieval-ish fantasy world in which the concept of "human rights" does not exist) meant to protect both mages and non-mages ... though the Harrowing and Tranquility are problematic at the best of times. Of course, the big issue with the system is that it relies too much on each individual Knight Commander's (and the associated Revered Mother's/Grand Cleric's?) integrity, level-headedness and basic human decency. People are fallible, authority can easily get to your head. But abuse of that authority is still abuse, and that is where the Seekers are supposed to come in ... of course, they are fallible too.
It's possible and I think it's kind of implied that Ostwick was one of the better Circles. So a Trevelyan mage, a noble with a background of moderate/progressive faith, absolutely doesn't "need" to be all self-loathing -- though the RP challenge of reconciling "magic exists to serve man" with a position of such authority as the Inquisitor has remains. (And like many things, is not really picked up by the game as far as I know.)
2) Doesn't apply. Don't worry about that. I'll avoid spoilers, but to clarify what I said in my first post: there is a main story mission in which being both human and not a mage gives you an initial boost to how people view you. There are plenty of ways to increase (or lower) that general approval. A human warrior merely gets a headstart over, say, a qunari mage, but the qunari mage has the exact same results of the mission available to them as the human warrior.
3) Can't give my opinion on this since I have not played a mage. As I said, the game unfortunately gives many plot or character hooks a very shallow treatment that left me craving for more depth. But if you avoid the mistake of treating the Andrastian faith and/or the Circle system as a hateful, narrow-minded monolithic stereotype, there's no reason why a mage cannot also be a devout, moderate or progressive believer. Pretty early on, you'll meet a Chantry-affiliated NPC who is very frank about how some of the more negative biases and restrictions in the faith were based on politics and are not based on what remains of Andraste's own words.
Retour en haut
