Noble or commoner human

I hope so. British accents are far more reasonable than the outrageous accents of the Orlesians! Although I imagine that Dorian's Kings English is more common for the upper class, while we have more modern English for the lower classes.
Here is hoping for a northerner protagonist.

Roleplay is an important factor in a roleplaying game, and it should never be ignored. People who don't like roleplaying shouldn't play a roleplaying game. 

As for background, I oppose a "slave" background merely because the Spartacus storyline has been done to death and I don't see it being spiced up just because there's magic everywhere. 

I'd prefer my background to be an Antivan Crow. It would allow me to be foreign enough to ask lore and worldbuilding questions, because Tevinter is said to be a foreign place to everyone else in Thedas, and because, according to Zevran, Antivan Crows can be killers in all matter of styles. Some make things look like accidents, others are more about poisons. It would allow us great freedom to play any sort of way, because Antivan Crows would assuredly have their own mages. Plus, you could have assassination sidequests. 

Lol. "Roleplaying".

Dragon Age doesn't let me do anything that I would actually want to do if I lived in the world of Thedas, and the people in here defending "roleplaying" now would immediately change their tune if I asked for the kinds of choices that reflect what I actually want to do, because of "realism" or "authenticity" or some other meaningless, totally arbitrary term like that.

Just admit that you don't want to be confronted by the reality of what choosing to kill innocent, defenseless people actually looks like.

The Assassin Creed games have done this for the last (three at least) games and don't appear to have suffered for it.  I wouldn't mind in the least not hearing an English or American accent  come out of the protagonists mouth.

Edit - anything but a New Zealand accent.  Because gross.

I'm not sure if it has ever been said that a citizen can't be stripped of their rights and made a slave. However, I do recall that if you sentence Erimond to be made tranquil he says: "You... you cannot. I am a Lord, you pissants (peasants?). I will not lose myself." We know from Dorian that mages can be made tranquil in Tevinter for antagonising the wrong people, which is effectively removing their citizenship and making them a slave of whoever controls them. Yet it would seem from what Erimond believes, this cannot be done to a Lord (Altus), so may be that is only ever done to Laetans, whose families are not sufficiently influential to prevent this.

Still it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that a similar thing couldn't happen to Soporati, with them being made a slave instead of tranquil. Whilst it is more likely that whether mage or mundane, if your offence is serious enough, you are more likely to just be executed, I assume the reason the mages are made tranquil rather than killed is to serve as a living warning to everyone else what the penalty is for crossing those in power, so making a Soporati a slave would likely serve the same purpose.

Also, I don't know at what age you are considered to become a citizen but poorer people among the Soporati have been known to sell their children into slavery in order to survive. In fact, Krem's father sold himself into slavery when he could no longer afford to live as a free man. He must definitely have been a citizen because Krem was a citizen. You aren't allowed to serve in the military if you are a slave or Liberati. Thus, at the very least a citizen is allowed to sell themselves into slavery but why shouldn't it also be a form of punishment by those in authority?

That is because, as Panda pointed out, they suddenly disappeared from the scene. Annuling a Circle means killing everyone inside that Circle without exception.  Certainly everyone capable of being possessed, which includes the child mages but possibly not the tranquil, although if they are possessed then they will no longer be tranquil. In DAO there are children there with Wynne when we first arrive. In DA2 we never see the children but we know from Bethany they are there. Where did they go? They weren't even shown in the cut scene of the Templars massacring everyone. You can argue that people can imagine it but the whole point is that I'm sure many players rationalise it that they are only killing dangerous people capable of defending themselves. as you seem to have done Zemgus, and that is simply not the case. Every Circle has children, so if you chose to Annul the Circle, you did slaughter innocents unable to defend themselves.

May be it was a case of rushed production and limited resources, but in DA2 the Sabrae clan not only lost all their halla since DAO but all their children too. Are we to assume they died on route as well? Or are we just to imagine they were there somewhere? Let's face it the number of adults we did see wasn't huge. So presumably, even if we didn't kill the children ourselves, it can be imagined they were left in alone and defenceless in the wilds of Sundermount, either to starve to death or be killed.

Interestingly, it would seem that PW decided retrospectively to deal with a similar problem from his novel Masked Empire. When Felassan lets Michael free Imshael, knowing the likely consequences of releasing an ancient demon on the clan, it didn't make either him or the rest of his group look that good. Even worse we learn afterwards that he ripped apart the entire clan in such a horrific way that even a seasoned warrior like Gaspard was appalled at the carnage. Now this wasn't just people capable of defending themselves but children as well. They were specifically mentioned in the text, albeit only small in number. I presume that PW must have taken to heart comments criticising his heroes because by WoT2 we are informed that Imshael didn't kill the children but dumped them on the nearest Dalish clan to be their problem. Which seems hard to credit considering the next nearest clan would have been miles away and not long after the massacre, Mihris, who has been possessed by Imshael, joins up with Gaspard's party.

I don't know if that means in the future the writers will not put us in a position where we could theoretically be killing children, even if we can't actually be confronted by that in game play, but it would seem the writers are certainly sensitive to the adverse reaction in even implying it, so it is more likely it will not be an option at all.

So, let me get this right: It is absolutely ok to help a bunch of people to kill innocent children, as long as you don't lift your hand yourself? That's a really weird logic there. And I could draw real life historical events, where evil people tried exactly this (and luckily lost), but I don't want to open that can of worms.

If this comment is meant for me I'm not arguing about what is wrong or right. My philosophy here is the more choices the better and I wholeheartedly support having realistic consequences to your actions (both the "good" and "bad"). But the players ability to roleplay must always be respected so it makes no sense to say that if the player chooses to help the templars they should also be forced to kill the innocents. That just makes no sense in a roleplaying game. Even if I was playing a templar I would need to have that choice: am I playing a lawful character who will do what they're told or are they more of a "softie" who can't deal with the reality of the situation they find themselves in? Or if I'm playing an evil character who doesn't see the mages as humans I might even enjoy the killing. That's roleplaying. 

People, me included, pointed out, that by enabling to help the templars with the annullment, you are helping to kill innocents and that is a fact. If you feel bad about it or not, is up to you.

Or we don't consider Chantry priests and Templars to be "innocent", for reasons we've shared that you've decided to ignore.

What doesn't make sense about it? DA games are RIFE with limitations and points of no return that lock players into choices they made even if they don't like the outcome. If requiring players to commit to something they *said they would do* in order to complete the game is "anti-roleplaying" then everything in DA is anti-roleplaying.

Game: "Okay, so this door is for defending the children, and if you go through this other door you will have to kill the children."

Player: "I pick the second door."

Game: "Okay, here are the children."

Player: "Wtf? I'm not doing it!"

Game: "But we warned you there were children."

Player: "I'm not doing it!"

Game: "Okay, well this is a critical path quest and we already locked the door behind you so if you want to move forward you have to kill the children."

How is that different from how literally any other video game mission works? Besides the fact that you don't like the content?