30 réponses à ce sujet

[phoray]

I played a rogue in both DA:O and DA:2. Played mage in DA:I.

 

DA: O:: As  person who played Origins as a rogue TWICE, and saved the Circle Mage Tower TWICE, I had barely any idea what was going on with those mages. I'm pro rebellion in general, so I was pro mage support in general, but it was never personal. Wynn seems cool and wise, she didn't hate Tower life. Morrigan was a kooky superior to the point of snooty (not unwarranted, she's awesome) mage from the wilds who had a special training history that just wasn't applicable to the rest of society.

 

Gregoir seemed real level headed and allowed me to save them twice. He and Irving had very respectful almost friends talks in front of me. Alastair had nothing bad to say about the Templars but neither was he passionate about them. Jowan seemed like the one off stupid blood mage who screwed things up in Redcliffe with that equally stupid bimbo, Isolde. Tranquils just seemed weird and you spent very little time interacting with the two? that you could even interact with. The blood mages inside doing the stupid stuff just seemed like silly pawns that got flamed into a mini rebellion by a power hungry dude that got a lot of people killed. I read most of the Codexes and letters in that tower, and that is just how I read it. And then Cullen, jesus CULLEN WAS BLOOD SEEKING AND INSANE and I was glad to shut him down both times via level headed Gregoire in spite of all his PTSD.  My experience? Level headed Templars (apart from Cullen) and some mages are unhappy and I wish there were more options but dude, I'm kinda focused on saving the world from the Blight and a Civil War so...whatever.

 

In Awakening, it really just seems like Anders has major issues with being in a Tower. Maybe some other mages are grumpy about it, but when Wynn says to Anders that they are thinking of dissolving the Circle Towers, he actually says that's a BAD IDEA.

 

So, DA:2 comes up. I play Rogue again (I love DA:2 Rogue play). So, brother dies. Then my sister is a mage. But she's super bland and I don't play with her any longer the minute I get Anders.  I'm really whatever about my sister being a Mage except for some reason this makes us "on the run." I mean, Apostate was thrown around like a curse word in Origins but seemed to only apply to blood mages, so it was odd that my sister was referring to herself that way. Then I learn from Anders that apostate is applied to any non Circle mage but...

 

Let me tell you, I honestly believed it was only being used this way because Kirkwall was totally full of assholes. One crappy Templar after another followed by one stupid mage after another. There were legitimately no good representations of either side of the fight in Kirkwall. It was really frustrating. Again, I'm pro freedom as a rule, let anybody do what they want to do so long as it doesn't hurt others. Merril was going on about how blood magery could be done responsibly, Anders was possessed and a bit of a violent hypocrite whether he was a blood mage or not, and Bethany was bland as hell and then just gone; off to the Circle. And she didn't complain about Tower life either, very much. More kind of pining to be home with me and mum, but not depressed and suicidal.

 

Then mages kill my mum; omg, none of my playthroughs have I ever not had a mom that didn't die, but Leandra dying made me honestly cry with my family focused Hawke. Brother and mother dead, my sister in the circle.... what the hell had I gotten that mansion for if it wasn't to live with my family? The feels, people. The feels.

 

Templars are doing the rite of tranqulity for funsies (Karl was horrifying, but my dialogue choices led to a very short interaction in all the hub bub) and the whole of Kirkwall is just a giant confusing mess of jerks. Both sides need to be burned and cleaned in that place. If it weren't for my pro freedom leaning self, honestly, I wouldn't have sided with ANYONE. I would have grabbed Bethany from the circle, the only remaining relative that gives a crap about my family focused Hawke and boated back to Ferelden. And I loved Anders, and chose to be by his side as a friend mance, but only because the boating back to Ferelden wasn't an option. The feeling I had at the end of the game was that I'd thrown too much to the side of the mages, even gotten essentially married to one, to turn to the Templars at that moment.

 

So, to sum up thoughts so far;

 

DA: O Templars and Mages have a respectful if guarded regard for each other with a few people being unhappy in a system that works 95% of the time.

 

DA:2 Everyone is freaking crazy in Kirkwall and it's so extreme that there is absolutely no way this represents the bulk of the Circles in any of the other countries; Free Marches, Orlais, OR Ferelden. Anders is especially passionate and extreme but you can disregard that because he's possessed by a spirit that turned a personal "Towers are not for me" feeling into "Mages must be FREEEEEEE or else eviiiiiiil."

 

I play DA:I as a mage (only because I read online that you should play as a mage so you have skin in the conflict).... with this feeling; confusion about why the Circles of the World dissolved at all except maybe everyone got way more upset about the one off Chantry explosion than I ever would have thought possible. My mage is a moderate who knows that there are some abuses in the Circle, is sad she didn't get a relationship with her parents but also feels really distant from them at this point.... but that Towers work 95% of the time. Dorian believes that mages shouldn't have too much power, Vivienne freaking loves the circles (although I hate her, personally) and Solas is a weird forest elf mage who again, like Morrigan, just has completely different training history that is not even possibly applicable to a very mortal society ;so his way is not the way.  Fiona is so amazingly stupid with her choice to enslave her people that I almost reloaded and picked the Templars but Ander's passion was so fresh on my mind that I couldn't do it. 

 

I allied with the Mages, and then the Grey Wardens, dissolving neither of them because bad leadership is bad leadership, I should judge the individual not the group. Also, I saved Hawke, so killing the senior grey warden and then exiling them just seemed double shitty. AND THEN FIONA SAYS BS ABOUT HOW THE WARDENS ARE DANGEROUS AND I WANT TO BACKHAND HER SO HARD.

 

So, right now I am a week done with Inquisition and have no access to either of the three games for another week. Totally obsessed, I watch all sorts of Other people's playthroughs and choices in all the three games.

 

And wow. Did I miss out on a CRAP TON of important content on the Templar/Mage conflict.

 

As a mage in Origins, you are put through a Harrowing that you knew nothing about before you got there. What is up with that secrecy? Makes no sense to me. Then I find out that if you don't "hurry up" they might just kill you anyway. Really? WTF mate, that is screwed up. You get out of that, randomly meet Duncan.  You wake up from your Harrowing and omg, Jowan, I didn't even know you had any scenes or story before Redcliff. Same thing for Cullen; wow, adorable. And even though Jowan's still a jerk, he is totally a sympathethic character. The person I watched playing played total loyalist mage, told Irving everything, and at his bidding, totally set Lili and Jowan up to have irrefutable evidence that both of them were involved. I wouldn't have played it that way. But it highlights either bad writing or just how wrong I was about both Irving and Gregoir to see this side of it.

 

See, Irving puts you up to this subterfuge in a twisted Orlais "The Game" sort of way. Getting Lili's life destroyed is supposed to point out that mages aren't always the only "bad guys." Wow, Irving. You are a dick. And then, even after doing everything Irving explicitly told you to do, Gregoir has a Cullen moment and implies that you simply being in the presence of a blood mage and being in the "no no" rooms you had to visit to create the irrefutable evidence makes you highly suspect. Like, he stops short of just killing you on the spot. And if it weren't for Duncan insisting, you would at least have been tried and probably found guilty, to be honest. But Duncan insists and conscripts you, at worst, a SUSPECT of blood magery, into the Grey Wardens. There you go; whether your are sympathetic or loyal, your life in the Circle is totally screwed and you get a death sentence with the Grey Wardens. Also, possibly the worst conscription back story to be honest; if you help Irving against Jowan, and there is literally no reason for you to be conscripted other than Gregoir Templar lunacy.

 

So what I missed in DA:O  that is pretty darn crucial:

• Jowan's fear of tranquility, which made a huge difference to me retrospectively.
• other non mages being outright sympathetic to Jowan (Lili)
• people's fanatical fear of mages, not just blood mages, and not just from NON mages.
• Templar extremism from a senior Templar who supposedly has a good working relationship with Irving
• That Irving is working/playing The Game inside a broken system.

Next game, DA:2

 

As a Rogue who friend manced Anders, there is a LOT of content you don't see. See, when you are a mage that rival mances Anders? He goes on and on into passionate monologues trying to get you to change your mind about Circles and just in general being upset and sadly confused that a mage can't see what he sees. As a rogue, only your bland sister is "on the run" and then get's caught and it's not even all that bad.

 

 All I got as a friendly rogue was access to his Manifesto. Which, honestly, I didn't read (if you could even read it?). I was more respectful of his passion and emotions than interested. Due to this feeling is probably why I never saw the Terrorist plans behind his words. Again, retrospectively, after watching a mage rival mance Anders, I really see how clearly awful it is for all mages, although especially for the ones in Kirkwall. I believe in his passion, support mage freedom, not just respect his passion and support mage freedom as an abstract idea. funnily enough, or maybe bad writing? I would never have gotten a rival Anders romance, because I would have had to disagree with the overall premise of mage freedom to ever hear these things. But I'm always pro freedom.  But hearing these things feels integral and crucial to understanding the Templar Mage Conflict and I didn't get the content. Because I didn't play a mage and didn't argue with people about mage freedom, I spent 220 hours in the world of Dragon Age not really FEELING what all the upset was about. People are unhappy about circles, but I'm just trying to live my life (in Kirkwall) and save the world (Origins and DA:I) and it's never really touched me. 

 

And as a mage in Inquisition, at least a human one? (I've only done one playthrough.) The mage/templar conflict never touches you personally. Because of the mark, you are totally above the problems of being a political apostate by technical definition (rather than a legitimate one.) If anything, playing as a human mage in Inquisition as I did, I felt less and less sympathetic to the mages and more and more sympathetic to the Chantry getting the Templars on lyrium and using them for political and military gain. Your fellow mages, except for Solas the forest elf with special training, think the Circles should be there, and Fiona is a hypocritical idiot.

 

So here I am, finally feeling the importance of the Mage/Templar conflict. A conflict I never felt even after 220 hours of gameplay. Stuff I would potentially never have found out without watching hours of content of other people's playthroughs because my pro freedom rogue loving ways kept me away from a major conflict/theme spanning three games. Seriously. That shouldn't happen, Bioware.

 

Did anyone else go through this or was I unique in this problem of just being confused by that whole conflict?

 

P.S. Somewhat unrelated; "seeing" Cullen have a crush on a mage, talk with her during his PTSD moment gave me backstory I never got about his Character that I think was also rather important to painting him as a sympathethic character. I went into DA2, meeting Cullen again, hardly realizing they were the same person, and then being totally shocked when he turned on Meredith. Because to me, his PTSD "Kill them all" speeches were seared into my mind. It was only this action, his standing up to Meredith in the face of total ridiculouslness that made me interested in him AT ALL as a romance option in DA:I. Just saying, not playing as a mage in DA:O really skewed my view of him.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The main reason you play as a Rogue is because it allows you to play the role of the outsider. You are neither a mage and your training precludes you from the possibility of being a Templar.

[GoldenGail3]

The main reason you play as a Rogue is because it allows you to play the role of the outsider. You are neither a mage and your training precludes you from the possibility of being a Templar.

I like playing a Warrior/Mage the best though, lol. 

[Jedi Comedian]

The main reason you play as a Rogue is because it allows you to play the role of the outsider. You are neither a mage and your training precludes you from the possibility of being a Templar.

And if Bethany dies in the Deep Roads, Hawke is completely freed from the burden of magic (except for the fact he's still living in Crazy Town Kirkwall).

[nightscrawl]

I can't really answer your question about confusion since I've read all the novels and a mage was my canon (but not first) play for DAO and DA2, and the first (but not canon) play for DAI. Going into DAI I was already very familiar with all of the various aspects of the conflicts. Even so, I will say that I consider my mage characters to be moderates.

 

You do raise a good point about how different plays can shape the player's experience and views on the different aspects of Thedosian society. The first play is especially significant as that can set the stage for one's opinion moving forward. I think it's one thing that many people fail to consider when they get into arguments about this or that thing; each person experiences the world differently based on the choices they make, so they might not even be aware of whatever aspect that is being used as the basis for another player's argument.

[Gervaise]

You will always get different perspectives depending on your play through.   Do the city elf origin and you will have a totally different perspective about the way elves are treated from a personal viewpoint, which you will not have as a human or dwarf noble.  A castless dwarf might have some sympathy will their situation but it would not be personal.   Playing as a mage will also make the issues more personal.    You will also find that people will make statements about characters based on their play through which gives them access to information that you did not have.  The same is true of information in source books or novels. 

 

An example is Anders.   If you romance him as a guy you are told by him that Karl was his lover, which makes the whole incident with Karl have a much greater significance.   Then if you read his back story in World of Thedas 2 you discover that Karl was the reason Anders kept running away from the Circle because he was trying to get back to him.   When Karl was at the tower in Ferelden, Anders seemed happy enough and never tried to escape.   These things are important to the way Anders develops as a character but my female Hawke was aware of non of these things.  

 

How Hawke reacted to Cullen was based on my experience of him in the game, not any knowledge I had of him from my mage Warden.    Then in DAI my reaction to him was based off my interaction with him in that game, not what I knew of him from DAO and DA2 because my PC had not been involved with these events.

 

Much of the reason for the dissolution of the Circles is found in the novel Asunder.   I enjoyed reading this but I have to admit I had to put it from my mind when playing DAI because my PC would not necessarily know these things unless, of course, they were a human mage because specifically you were in the Circle.      So really, if you are fully role playing each new PC,  how your previous PC connected with the world should not be relevant as there is no way they should know any of these things.   

 

For example, my Dalish mage would have no direct experience of the Circles; they may have been subjected to Templar harassment and it is possible that refugee mages from the Circle may have been given sanctuary by my clan.   However, in terms of stories told in the clans, the biggest bad will always have been Tevinter, which is why my Dalish tend towards asking the Templars for their assistance (specifically I am not siding with their point of view, just using them and then conscripting/disbanding them as an order) because the humans mages running off and signing up with Tevinter seems to demonstrate just how untrustworthy they are if they are willing to place themselves under the control of a foreign power and sell out the people who gave them sanctuary.   People keep telling me they had no choice but the Dalish would rather die than be enslaved.   Also I had never heard of anyone doing time magic so Dorian's tale seems pretty far fetched.    If I am going to enter the lair of a powerful Tevinter Magister with hundreds of mages under his command (likely through blood magic because that is what I know Tevinter is famed for) then I want some magic negating experts at my disposal.      A human mage could share many of these sentiments or have completely different ones.

 

So what I am trying to say, is that when it comes to discussing the issues generally on these boards, then I will use what I have learned from the various play throughs I have made and reading source material but when it comes to my PC I try very hard to put previous play throughs from my mind and approach it from their perspective.  To help me with this, if not given a proper back story, as in DAO and DA2, then I try to come up with one of my own, which is why the approach of my Dalish may well differ from that of other people because I have made my own interpretation of the lore and how my clan operates within it.

[YourFunnyUncle]

I think the variety of perspectives is a strength of the DA games because it increases replayability, but I can see how it could be a hindrance to gaining a full understanding of the world if you only play through once. That said, it probably gives you a more realistic perspective in terms of roleplaying, as no one in the world is going to have full knowledge of all aspects of Theodosian society.

 

When you're well versed in all the lore, it can take effort to RP from a narrower perspective as Gervaise is suggesting, although it can be rewarding if you do.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I like playing a Warrior/Mage the best though, lol. 

 

I used to enjoy playing as a mage but have grown to like rogue the most. Here's why.

 

You are playing as character in a fantastical setting and there is all sorts of crap going on.

 

Personally, I find the notion of dealing with such problems by being cunning, by fighting dirty, by being unfair, by twisting the rules, by ignoring the rules is the best way to do it.

 

Most importantly, there is no chance of being possessed or becoming an abomination for simply fighting dirty or by going against the rules and no chance of being addicted to dragon's blood or titan's blood.

 

[YourFunnyUncle]

I enjoy rogues and mages pretty much equally. Both require brains as well as brawn. Mages can be used to control the battlefield whereas rogues tend to be hitmen disrupting the enemy by taking out key targets. Tanks soaking up damage and two handers swinging massive weapons are less interesting to me...

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I enjoy rogues and mages pretty much equally. Both require brains as well as brawn. Mages can be used to control the battlefield whereas rogues tend to be hitmen disrupting the enemy by taking out key targets. Tanks soaking up damage and two handers swinging massive weapons are less interesting to me...

 

 

There is also the fact that Warriors in Dragon Age are so hilariously ridiculous.

 

Relevant link:- http://www.thearma.o...ys/TopMyths.htm

 

TL;DR -

 

1) Warriors do not use heavy weapons or heavy armor since those things are not heavy to begin with. Heavy weapons and heavy armors are only used for ceremonial purposes, not for combat. The primary weapons used in melee combat were swords, spears, staves, dagger and poleaxes.

 

2) Large shields like the ones used by enemies in DAI are primarily used for sieges, not for open combat. Additionally, most people used dual-wielding, not sword and shield in combat and if they used shields, people primarily relied on bucklers though only for training.

 

3) When fighting someone who wears Plate Armor, one targets gaps in the armor instead of trying to crush the armor because wearing Plate Armor renders one practically immune from blade or blunt weapons.

 

4) Rapiers was also used by commoners, not just the nobility so the notion of non-Humans and non-nobles not using Rapiers is ridiculous.

 

5) Knightly combat was brutal, violent and bloody with little room for chivalrous honor and etiquette.

 

Yeah I know DA is fantasy but it would behoove Bioware to realize that Warriors are not slow meathead lumps of heavy metals but precise, skilled and sometimes fast combatants.

[YourFunnyUncle]

There is also the fact that Warriors in Dragon Age are so hilariously ridiculous.

 

Relevant link:- http://www.thearma.o...ys/TopMyths.htm

 

TL;DR -

 

1) Warriors do not use heavy weapons or heavy armor since those things are not heavy to begin with. Heavy weapons and heavy armors are only used for ceremonial purposes, not for combat. The primary weapons used in melee combat were swords, spears, staves, dagger and poleaxes.

 

2) Large shields like the ones used by enemies in DAI are primarily used for sieges, not for open combat. Additionally, most people used dual-wielding, not sword and shield in combat and if they used shields, people primarily relied on bucklers though only for training.

 

3) When fighting someone who wears Plate Armor, one targets gaps in the armor instead of trying to crush the armor because wearing Plate Armor renders one practically immune from blade or blunt weapons.

 

4) Rapiers was also used by commoners, not just the nobility so the notion of non-Humans and non-nobles not using Rapiers is ridiculous.

 

5) Knightly combat was brutal, violent and bloody with little room for chivalrous honor and etiquette.

 

Yeah I know DA is fantasy but it would behoove Bioware to realize that Warriors are not slow meathead lumps of heavy metals but precise, skilled and sometimes fast combatants.

I don't think it's about fantasy vs reality but about tactical videogame combat mechanics vs reality...

[Catilina]

Mostly I play as mage especially in DA series.
1. I like persecuted / rebellious character to play.
2. Mages have rough area damage effect.

[Sifr]

I don't think it's about fantasy vs reality but about tactical videogame combat mechanics vs reality...

 

Which is funny because the "unrealistic" speed of the two hand animation for DA2 was probably closer to the mark than rather sluggish ones in DAO and DAI... just check out this guy demonstrating that it's still possible to wield a greatsword that weights about 8lbs with a decent amount of speed.

[BansheeOwnage]

The main reason you play as a Rogue is because it allows you to play the role of the outsider. You are neither a mage and your training precludes you from the possibility of being a Templar.

What? No. Templars have "rogues" in their ranks. The class distinctions are gameplay-story segregation.

[BansheeOwnage]

Which is funny because the "unrealistic" speed of the two hand animation for DA2 was probably closer to the mark than rather sluggish ones in DAO and DAI... just check out this guy demonstrating that it's still possibly to wield a greatsword that weights about 8lbs with a decent amount of speed.

Huh. Also interesting is that he said that was heavy as far as greatswords go.

[nightscrawl]

Which is funny because the "unrealistic" speed of the two hand animation for DA2 was probably closer to the mark than rather sluggish ones in DAO and DAI... just check out this guy demonstrating that it's still possibly to wield a greatsword that weights about 8lbs with a decent amount of speed.

 

This is so awesome, thanks for linking it. I have to go watch all this guy's vids now. I'll add that people tend to forget that, once the initial momentum is going, it wouldn't be as bad as it seems, especially if you know how to move the sword to let its weight work for you, not against you.

[Sifr]

Huh. Also interesting is that he said that was heavy as far as greatswords go.

 

Yeah, it's apparently a myth that medieval greatswords weighed up to 40lbs.

 

Which makes sense, the whole point of a sword is to kill people and even a greatsword would have to be light and fast. What would be the advantage of a sword you can't use unless you get super-jacked, which is so heavy and slow you end up getting run through before you're able to even get it high enough to start your swing?

 

Being jacked like Bull would only help him not get tired as quickly and allow him to put more raw strength into the swing, that ends up making it easier for him to cut people in half.

[BansheeOwnage]

This is so awesome, thanks for linking it. I have to go watch all this guy's vids now. I'll add that people tend to forget that, once the initial momentum is going, it wouldn't be as bad as it seems, especially if you know how to move the sword to let its weight work for you, not against you.

 

Yeah, it's apparently a myth that medieval greatswords weighed up to 40lbs.

 

Which makes sense, the whole point of a sword is to kill people and even a greatsword would have to be light and fast. What would be the advantage of a sword you can't use unless you get super-jacked, which is so heavy and slow you end up getting run through before you're able to even get it high enough to start your swing?

 

Being jacked like Bull would only help him not get tired as quickly and allow him to put more raw strength into the swing, that ends up making it easier for him to cut people in half.

This makes it easier for me to believe an elf could be a two-hander (although DA does oversize nearly all of its weapons, to its detriment, making it look worse than it would in real life).

[GoldenGail3]

I used to enjoy playing as a mage but have grown to like rogue the most. Here's why.
 
You are playing as character in a fantastical setting and there is all sorts of crap going on.
 
Personally, I find the notion of dealing with such problems by being cunning, by fighting dirty, by being unfair, by twisting the rules, by ignoring the rules is the best way to do it.
 
Most importantly, there is no chance of being possessed or becoming an abomination for simply fighting dirty or by going against the rules and no chance of being addicted to dragon's blood or titan's blood.
 

I like to play Mages becuase they have awesome stats and their always relevant to the story... Although, I do get what you mean, I still play mages though; it's why my Canon has only one Warrior and two mages In it...

[Dlokir]

The realism arguing for combats/weapons/armor is quite out of topic, just an obvious trolling. Ha well I give up argue on such out of topic assault. :-)

[Dlokir]

I think the variety of perspectives is a strength of the DA games because it increases replayability, but I can see how it could be a hindrance to gaining a full understanding of the world if you only play through once. That said, it probably gives you a more realistic perspective in terms of roleplaying, as no one in the world is going to have full knowledge of all aspects of Theodosian society.

 

When you're well versed in all the lore, it can take effort to RP from a narrower perspective as Gervaise is suggesting, although it can be rewarding if you do.

I agree the different perspective are a support for role playing. But I bet many players like me don't really role play but play with their own mentality, morale, experience and judgments or non judgments.

 

For that single point of view, there's one truth one perspective, but different experiences coming from choice and character base. For sure it's not a bad design, and OP suggestion to provide a single full monolith information no matter the character played, isn't a good suggestion.

[robertmarilyn]

I really enjoyed the original poster's thoughts. I love being spoiled before I play games and I came to DAO and DA2 years after they were released. So I was able to watch videos of everything before I played, giving me a good understanding of everything. Getting to read a person's thoughts as they go through a lot of the dumb things that all the games throw at us was extra funny. These games have us and the NPCs do so many stupid and contradictory things but we have to just keep moving along because we have few choices along the way. 

 

Anyway, good post and interesting thread...I still love all three games but I also love to laugh at the games for how silly things can be. Oh, and I felt the same way about the books...I enjoy them but without being attached to the Dragon Age games, I'd have a hard time dealing with some of the dumbness of the people in the books...they make some very bad decisions for "plot", IMO. 

[Fylimar]

An interesting thread. My first playthrough was a Surana (elf circle mage) in DAO, so I got the whole backstory. I was a bit put off by Greagoir and Irving after the prologue too, but when I saw, how Greagoir reacted, when you bring back Irving alive and well, I changed my mind about them. They seem to have a mutual respect, but society force them into their roles of adversaries, depsite the fact, that it would be better, if templars and mages would work together more.

The fact, that Greagoir needed little convincing to wait with the right of annullment until you had your attempt to solve the problem says a lot about him. Imagine Meredith in his place - there would not have been a mage left to fight the archdemon in the end.

 

I played DA2 a couple of times as mage or rogue (I don't like playing warriors) and I felt the tension between mages and templars a lot. With my rogue I friendmanced Anders too, but I still got a lot of input from him - mostly when he was disussing mage issues with Fenris or Sebastian - the party banter can bring a lot of insight. And if I remember correctly, Anders tells you about Karl being more than a friend, before you even romance him. He jist gives hints, but to me, it was clear, what he meant. But I don't remember, if that was a dialogue with Hawke or party banter too.

 

In Inquisition I play a Dalish rogue (you can't get much more outsider than this, I guess - the Qunari probably, but that's it. As a surface dwarf you can at least be Andrastian) and the outside view on the whole templar-mage conflict is very insightful. So is the outside view on the chantry.

 

I guess, because I played the circle mage origin first, I feel as a player more connected with the whole mage/templar conflict. It's the same with elves: you only get the feeling, how bad elves are treated in human society, when you come to Denerim very late in the game. If you play the city elf origin, you know exactly how bad life for an elf in the alienage can be and it changes your view on the game a lot. Whenever someone called my character knifeear, I as the player got angry.

[kann.nix9mm]

There is also the fact that Warriors in Dragon Age are so hilariously ridiculous.

 

Relevant link:- http://www.thearma.o...ys/TopMyths.htm

 

TL;DR -

 

1) Warriors do not use heavy weapons or heavy armor since those things are not heavy to begin with. Heavy weapons and heavy armors are only used for ceremonial purposes, not for combat. The primary weapons used in melee combat were swords, spears, staves, dagger and poleaxes.

 

2) Large shields like the ones used by enemies in DAI are primarily used for sieges, not for open combat. Additionally, most people used dual-wielding, not sword and shield in combat and if they used shields, people primarily relied on bucklers though only for training.

 

3) When fighting someone who wears Plate Armor, one targets gaps in the armor instead of trying to crush the armor because wearing Plate Armor renders one practically immune from blade or blunt weapons.

 

4) Rapiers was also used by commoners, not just the nobility so the notion of non-Humans and non-nobles not using Rapiers is ridiculous.

 

5) Knightly combat was brutal, violent and bloody with little room for chivalrous honor and etiquette.

 

Yeah I know DA is fantasy but it would behoove Bioware to realize that Warriors are not slow meathead lumps of heavy metals but precise, skilled and sometimes fast combatants.

 

Really? I mean really? You are looking for 'realism' or whatever the case may be in a fantasy game? In a game where people set themselves on fire to be able to make leaping shots multiple times? O.o ...

 

1. You forgot maces and other blunt trauma weapons.

2. The use of shields like any weapon undergoes a sort of evolution. The Romans, Saxons and many other used frequently shields in combat, only in later years of human warfare became the shield somewhat obsolete.

3. Targeting gabs in Plate Armour is one way of fighting it. Two others were the use of weapons like an estoc, enough force behind a pointed weapon and you can even punch through the weaker parts of plate armour, or war-hammers, maces and other blunt force weapons.

4. Rapiers are not weapons featured in Da at this point ... why bring them up?

5. Even in the brutal world of the middle age battlefield knights and nobles tried to follow a certain code of conduct.

 

Nowhere in the DA games are warriors in Plate Armour shown to be slow turtles. Cassandra in full plate is beating the crap out of her enemies in somewhat fast paced combat.

[Melbella]

I guess, because I played the circle mage origin first, I feel as a player more connected with the whole mage/templar conflict. It's the same with elves: you only get the feeling, how bad elves are treated in human society, when you come to Denerim very late in the game. If you play the city elf origin, you know exactly how bad life for an elf in the alienage can be and it changes your view on the game a lot. Whenever someone called my character knifeear, I as the player got angry.

I had the same sort of thing happen in my first run through DAI. I played a Dalish, and when marking the landmarks in Exalted Plains, every time I came upon one talking about how evil the elves of the Dales were, I just got so mad. Each one was more insulting than the last...it was infuriating. Here is the Inquisitor, trying to save the sorry hides of all these people, and all she can see are reminders of how everyone hates her and her people, just for existing.

 

Next game I played an Andrastian human and the reaction to the Plains was, as expected, quite the opposite....she was inspired rather than insulted.