Come on. People are currently arguing that mage Hawke is believable because the templars are incompetent, so we can't go turning them into the super prepared planners of genius.
I would add: perhaps the "people" arguing that, but i said: Hawke do not use magic on Kirkwall's public street, and he does not seems mage. (He's not foolish and strong/experienced enought to fight without magic...) Few small evidence points to this: for example: the qunari scene (before the qunari's attack); and when Hawke meets with Feynriel's father, Hawke must show directly, that he is also a mage, because his apperance does not show it.
(Yes, he use magic and have staff on his back, for game mechanics. We can talk about that stupid technical solutions, not the incredible story)
And then there is that the point: in the Act1 he is totally unknown: a "little grungy refugee" in the Lowtown. (His fame only between criminals / mercenaries.)
The templars are not "incompetent" only they have much more problems than a "nobady refugee"... i think.
Later Hawke will have really influential defenders and strong position.





Nach oben









