55380 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not if you're arguing the prejudice exists, and is the term that should be applied to Fenris' position on mages.

Well, technically since prejudice is supposed to be "preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience" it could be argued that since Fenris' position is based on personal experience, it's not actually that. The term i'd apply instead is generalization, which is a different animal.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well, technically since prejudice is supposed to be "preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience" it could be argued that since Fenris' position is based on personal experience, it's not actually that.

That's one of the definitions of the term, sure.  But I'd also argue your interpretation misses what it implies.

Fenris has experience with some mages.  He prejudges all future mages he meets and encounters based upon that previous experience negatively.   He also uses absolute terms when condemning mages rather frequently such as "always" and "is there nothing" and so forth.

But this is semantics. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 09:39 .

[Twofold Black]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Twofold Black wrote...

Ah, I see the disconnect here. I dislike "hatred of mages = homophobia" because, if you walk it in reverse, it's a problematic commentary on homophobia.

Which is problematic regardless of the parallel drawn - be it sexism, racism, homophobia, etc - so it's best not to walk it in reverse at all.  Reasonable people should be able to do that because its use as an example is simply to demonstrate prejudice and why certain exceptions and excuses used to rationalize it away may not work.

I have a specific beef with this particular variant of the "hatred of mages = a specific variety of real-world prejudice" meme because it's the most popular one but yes, all variants I've personally encountered are objectionable. And no, the problematic overtones don't just go away because they get in the way of your argument. It's always going to be a comparison between a group of regular joes and a group of people inherently more susceptible to demonic possession than the average person and enjoying absolute privilege in part of the world.

Modifié par Twofold Black, 22 avril 2011 - 09:39 .

[MorningBird]

leggywillow wrote...
Mine too.  And I actually don't have a problem with that aspect of his character at all.  Hate the mages, Fenris.  Hate 'em all day long; it just makes you more interesting.  But it does make it very difficult for me to romance him as a mage, because there's really NO dialogue that addresses this.  And given his vocal opinions about mages, it should be a very major part of his romance with a mage.  Especially since dialogue like "What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?" is during Act 3, right around the time he and Hawke can reconcile.

I could only imagine my mage Hawke saying "What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?!  Your genitals, buddy-o.  But noooooo."

Ditto that. 

I just believe that those 'cracks' in his demeanor where--for lack of a better phrase--he flies off the handle are placed there for a reason, to provide the player/Hawke with insight into his 'real thoughts' as opposed to the opinion he 'projects' to the party.  Basically, that there's a very real hatred of mages inside of him.

I'm not going to argue whether or not his hatred is 'justified' (as the topic seems to be whether or not that hatred exists) but I will say that I got the impression Fenris was trying to break free of that hatred, at least during my play-through.

Overall, I don't think he was very successful, but once again, that's just my opinion.

[ejoslin]

leggywillow wrote...

MorningBird wrote...
I actually agree with this assessment, in a sense.  Fenris does say things that--on their own--sound weary/cautious instead of hateful, but the moments where he slips into a rage and (imo) puts his 'true colors' on display have me convinced that he really does hate mages.

When he's calm and collected, Fenris just sounds like he's keeping an eye out for 'trouble', but when he's angry, well, he says stuff like this:

"What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?"

This (to me) sounds like his 'true thoughts' bubbling to the surface and spilling out into words.

But that's just my impression.

Mine too.  And I actually don't have a problem with that aspect of his character at all.  Hate the mages, Fenris.  Hate 'em all day long; it just makes you more interesting.  But it does make it very difficult for me to romance him as a mage, because there's really NO dialogue that addresses this.  And given his vocal opinions about mages, it should be a very major part of his romance with a mage.  Especially since dialogue like "What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?" is during Act 3, right around the time he and Hawke can reconcile.

I could only imagine my mage Hawke saying "What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?!  Your genitals, buddy-o.  But noooooo."

He says that in act 2, about his sister.  He's worried about what the magisters have done to her.

What he says in act 3 is, "Magic has tainted that, too. There is nothing for me to reclaim." and you can call him on it.

Modifié par ejoslin, 22 avril 2011 - 09:42 .

[Hekateras]

Ashera wrote...

Yeah, that is why the whole "mage Hawke is a mage, but s/he's different!" thing he does really makes me feel unsettled. I think it is pretty clear he's a bigot regarding mages given that in the course of the game you come across a number of mages that aren't evil bastards (and, of course a lot more that are... thank you, thin/ rent Veil in Kirkwall) and it doesn't seem to impact his thoughts too much about mages.

I just don't get this. You yourself just said that, even in the game, there are quantatively more prompts for Fenris NOT to change his mind than to CHANGE his mind.

Aside from that, he doesn't let a few examples of good mages impact his position because his position already accounts for the possibility of good mages. It's one of the first things he tells you. "I'm not blind, I know magic has its uses, and some mages undoubtedly have good intentions." But he believes that most will still turn to evil for more power or when made desperate or when they consider themselves made desperate. Everything he sees with you in the game - hordes of bloodmages and abominations, a few rare strong ones - fits his position to a T. Why would anything need to change about it?

He does have his moments of black and white generalisation, along the lines of "What has magic touched that it hasn't spoiled?". There are two interpretations there, as mentioned here already:

1) It's a result of anger and impulsiveness. His reasoned opinion in a calm state is his real opinion.
2) It's "showing his true colours". His reasoned opinion in a calm state is just him being cautions or trying to be tactful.

With all respect, the second interpretation feels ridiculous to me. Fenris doesn't do tact - he's about blunt honesty and getting through to people. Additionally, saying stuff you don't mean when angry is something every person here has undoubtedly done, and particularly easy to envision for someone of Fenris's bottled anger temperament.


Also, there is just no way the "gay people in the West" analogy is going to work, or pretty much any real-life analogy at all. Prejudice is wrong because it ties certain characteristics to other characteristics (e.g. he's Jewish, so he must be greedy) when there is, in fact, no objective relation between them.

This is not the case with mages.

Mages do, down to the last one of them, possess certain qualities that are related to them being mages and to nothing else. Acting in accordance with that fact isn't prejudice, it's as logical as saying "It's a green plant; it can create oxygen".

Why do we need allegories, anyway?

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 09:53 .

[Affably]

The difference being that a mage's choices have the distinct possibility of causing direct and devastating harm - that they can't control.

Edit: clarification.

Modifié par Affably, 22 avril 2011 - 09:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Twofold Black wrote...

I have a specific beef with this particular variant of the "hatred of mages = a specific variety of real-world prejudice" meme

Your describing of it as a meme bothers me.  It's a legitimate comparison to draw, that you don't like it is a personal pet peeve and not really an objection I find compelling.

If you were to give a "better" example, and we can work with that.

Twofold Black wrote...

And no, the problematic overtones don't just go away because they get in the way of your argument. It's always going to be a comparison between a group of regular joes and a group of people inherently more susceptible to demonic possession than the average person and enjoying absolute privilege in part of the world.

I disagree that it matters. 

Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.  That's what the argument is about. That we don't have magic using ubermensch in the world to make a 1:1 comparison is just something we'll have to deal with.  But no one is making a 1:1 comparison, your reading into it to assume that implication is an issue for you to deal with, and one that actively prevents reasonable discussion on the terms the argument attempts to present.

*has no problem playing referee in this debate because it's for sure going to need one*

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fenris has experience with some mages.  He prejudges all future mages he meets and encounters based upon that previous experience negatively.   He also uses absolute terms when condemning mages rather frequently such as "always" and "is there nothing" and so forth.

Yes, that's why it's a generalization -- he derives general concept from particulars . Now you could argue this generalization is both sweeping and unfair and you'll get no argument from me over that. Still, that's not prejudice, and it's his personal experience that does make the difference between the two.

And yes, it is semantics obviously, but that's to be expected in discussion over what term to apply to his behaviour?

[upsettingshorts]

@tmp7704:

It's not really one of the definitions of prejudice. It is two other ones though.

I'd argue that sweeping negative generalization is prejudice.

[lizzbee]

Helen0rz wrote...

lizzbee wrote...

Helen0rz wrote...
Really?!

huh...interesting...
so I can assume that...it kinda like that for all companions? Well, not Aveline with The Long Road Home or whatever it's called, I heard she doesn't marry Donnic if you don't help her. 

It's definitely that way for Varric.  After playing his first companion quest on my first playthrough in Act 2, I decided I was done talking to him and left him in the inn untouched for all of Act 3.  I don't think the house thing ever happened at all.  I don't think I even got new codex entries for him.  Second playthrough, I deliberately refused to help him with both house quests and he dealt with them both himself per the codex.

It's nice to know that they're capable of dealing with things on their own when Hawke is 'too busy' to help them. That also makes me wonder though...if Fenris is capable of dealing with Danarius himself, why wouldn't he resist if you were to hand him back to him?

Just wanted to say thank you for not attacking me for answering the question-- it's kind of a nice change.

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.  That's what the argument is about. That we don't have magic using ubermensch in the world to make a 1:1 comparison is just something we'll have to deal with. 

Why should it be impossible to analyse something without real-life allegories? If an allegory doesn't work 1:1, then it doesn't work.

[Windariah]

MorningBird wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

That sounds kind of like the type of people you come across who say extremely homophobic things but say they are not homophobic because they have gay friends.

Replace "mages" with "any real life prejudged group" in his dialogue and you get... interesting results.

I actually agree with this assessment, in a sense.  Fenris does say things that--on their own--sound weary/cautious instead of hateful, but the moments where he slips into a rage and (imo) puts his 'true colors' on display have me convinced that he really does hate mages.

When he's calm and collected, Fenris just sounds like he's keeping an eye out for 'trouble', but when he's angry, well, he says stuff like this:

"What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?"

This (to me) sounds like his 'true thoughts' bubbling to the surface and spilling out into words.

But that's just my impression.

I have mostly just been lurking and reading this debate over the last couple of days, but I wanted to say I disagree with this bold statement in particularly.  I dont know about everyone else here, but I know when I am angry I will blow things out of proportion and make outlandish claims to make my case until a cooler head prevails.  I think the same thing applies to Fenris here, when he loses his temper he is blowing off steam and yelling anything that comes into his head as an accusation.  However, once he has a chance to settle down, he can and in some cases does apologize to Hawke.


*goes back to lurking*

Modifié par Windariah, 22 avril 2011 - 09:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

Hekateras wrote...

Why should it be impossible to analyse something without real-life allegories? If an allegory doesn't work 1:1, then it doesn't work.

I didn't say it was impossible, I even asked for a better example.

I'd strongly disagree that if a comparison doesn't work 1:1 it doesn't work at all.  It just needs to work on the terms it is presented under, and it does.

Windariah wrote...

I have mostly just been lurking and reading this debate over the last couple of days, but I wanted to say I disagree with this bold statement in particularly.

So would Mel Gibson.  He was just drunk.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 09:55 .

[Helen0rz]

@Lizzbee
I have no reasons to attack you :hug:

@Hekateras
God...I really wish I'm on my computer instead of on my phone so that I can quote your stuff and add my two cents with it. However, for the record I agree with Mostly everything you said

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd argue that sweeping negative generalization is prejudice.

Seeing how that isn't one of definitions of prejudice, i'd be hesitant to agree. I think the element of personal experience (or lack thereof) really plays a role here, larger one than you're willing to accept.

Since we've reached the point where it's down to opinions though, that's probably it.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Seeing how that isn't one of definitions of prejudice, i'd be hesitant to agree. I think the element of personal experience (or lack thereof) really plays a role here, larger one than you're willing to accept.

Since we've reached the point where it's down to opinions though, that's probably it.

Probably, I'd say I'm simply less concerned with the cause than I am the effect in this case. 

[sushismygen]

He doesn't hate mages he hates the power they are wielding. He is extremly distrustful of mages sure (and I can't honestly blame him) but it's use of magic itself he has a problem with. He says so himself "What has magic touched that it doesn't spoil?" Magic not mages. He sees it as the source of corruption, a power that many are to weak to possess. Slavers on the other hand...die on sight when Fenris is around. Now that's what I'd call hate.

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hekateras wrote...

Why should it be impossible to analyse something without real-life allegories? If an allegory doesn't work 1:1, then it doesn't work.

I didn't say it was impossible, I even asked for a better example.

I'd strongly disagree that if a comparison doesn't work 1:1 it doesn't work at all.  It just needs to work on the terms it is presented under, and it does.

It's just that IMO this particular allegory falls very, very short of working anywhere near 1:1. As I detailed above, there are crucial differences between "prejudice" against mages and "prejudice" against ethnic minorities.

I would consider a better allegory to be something like "She's a woman, so she'll probably get pregnant at some point." In this case, at least, the assumption about the second thing is derived from facts related to the first thing. Thus, IMO it's a closer allegory to "He's a mage, he'll probably turn to blood magic if his life depends on it" or the like. The woman is able to get pregnant because she's a woman, the mage is able to turn to blood magic because  he's a mage, and both may be driven to it by outside factors as well as general human nature.

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 10:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

@Hekateras:

I think the issue is people - which is wont to happen when real life examples are used - missing the forest for the trees.  

The example was posed in direct response to the presumption that due to the fact Fenris is capable of treating some mages with a begrudging and eventual mutual respect or even admiration does not in of itself excuse his opinions of them as a group.

Based on that criteria alone, the real world example is valid.  If it's used for anything beyond that, the problems you and others have listed begin to become problematic until the particular example becomes useless.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 10:07 .

[MorningBird]

Windariah wrote...
I have mostly just been lurking and reading this debate over the last couple of days, but I wanted to say I disagree with this bold statement in particularly.  I dont know about everyone else here, but I know when I am angry I will blow things out of proportion and make outlandish claims to make my case until a cooler head prevails.  I think the same thing applies to Fenris here, when he loses his temper he is blowing off steam and yelling anything that comes into his head as an accusation.  However, once he has a chance to settle down, he can and in some cases does apologize to Hawke.


*goes back to lurking*

And I disagree.

In real life, you can... throw a temper tantrum and lose nothing by it.

In video games, you have a budget and limited time and resources, and all have to/should be spent in a way that serves the game/story/characters.

Wasting time, money and resources recording lines of dialogue that illustrate... nothing (except that maybe Fenris can 'say stuff he doesn't mean'... frequently) seems like a collosal waste of potential.

This is why I stated that the 'cracks' in his armor are probably there for a purpose.  I'd rather not brush them aside under the comfort of Fenris 'just having another rage!fit' and instead believe that they're there to deliver buried insight.

Modifié par MorningBird, 22 avril 2011 - 10:10 .

[Dr. Doctor]

What I get from Fenris isn't so much a hatred of mages, so much as a hatred of magic. Magical power, like political power, or any form of power has the ability to corrupt those who wield it. He views the Magisters and other blood mages as "weak" because they are willing to sell themselves, and others out all in the name of gaining more power over others. His line "What has magic touched that it doesn't spoil" reflects this.

[upsettingshorts]

"What has magic touched that it doesn't spoil" is one of the more revealing lines, but it isn't the only one.

Here's another:

Dragon Age wiki...

* Merrill: Your master must have been a terrible man, to make you hate mages so.

If Alone has been completed

* Fenris: He was, now he's dead.

Otherwise

* Fenris: He is a terrible man. He's not dead.
* Merrill: We're not all like him.
* Fenris: How often I hear that, and yet, how often I find it's not true.
* Merrill: The Keepers are different. They exist to preserve the old ways, and to protect our people.
* Fenris: And none of them would ever fall prey to a demon. Or perform blood magic.
* Merrill: It's impossible to talk to you.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 10:11 .

[MelRedux]

MorningBird wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

That sounds kind of like the type of people you come across who say extremely homophobic things but say they are not homophobic because they have gay friends.

Replace "mages" with "any real life prejudged group" in his dialogue and you get... interesting results.

I actually agree with this assessment, in a sense.  Fenris does say things that--on their own--sound weary/cautious instead of hateful, but the moments where he slips into a rage and (imo) puts his 'true colors' on display have me convinced that he really does hate mages.

When he's calm and collected, Fenris just sounds like he's keeping an eye out for 'trouble', but when he's angry, well, he says stuff like this:

"What does magic touch that it doesn't spoil?"

This (to me) sounds like his 'true thoughts' bubbling to the surface and spilling out into words.

But that's just my impression.

I very much agree to this, and never thought about it before.  He may act like he doesn't *hate* mages,  but does he *really* feel that way?  All his ourbursts could be a good clue into who he really is, rather than just being a way to show "hey, he has a temper!"

[Hekateras]

MorningBird wrote...

Windariah wrote...
I have mostly just been lurking and reading this debate over the last couple of days, but I wanted to say I disagree with this bold statement in particularly.  I dont know about everyone else here, but I know when I am angry I will blow things out of proportion and make outlandish claims to make my case until a cooler head prevails.  I think the same thing applies to Fenris here, when he loses his temper he is blowing off steam and yelling anything that comes into his head as an accusation.  However, once he has a chance to settle down, he can and in some cases does apologize to Hawke.


*goes back to lurking*

And I disagree.

In real life, you can... throw a temper tantrum and lose nothing by it.

In video games, you have a budget and resources, and all have to/should be spent in a way that serves the game/story/characters.

Wasting time, money and resources recording lines of dialogue that illustrate... nothing (except that maybe Fenris can 'say stuff he doesn't mean'... frequently) seems like a collosal waste of potential.

This is why I stated that the 'cracks' in his armor are probably there for a purpose.  I'd rather not brush them aside under the comfort of Fenris 'just having another rage!fit' and believe that they're their to deliver buried insight.

...So if a game bothers to depict its characters acting realistically, as real people are wont to do, it's a waste of resources?

Uh-huh.

The bolded part - it seems you feel that "Fenris is more moderate and can get hateful in fits of emotion" is an inferior theory, somehow less insightful, than "Fenris is totally hateful but hides it except for when he has fits of emotion".

That sounds utterly baseless and a bit pretentious to me, honestly - sorry. Both are valid interpretations  (though, as I said, above, I don't think the "hiding it except for fits of emotion" fits the rest of his characterisation, namely the blunt honesty).

Also, Occam's Razor. Which is the simpler explanation - that he's acting like a real person, and the developers are trying to depict him as realistically as possible, or that the entire rest of his established persona is a fake and his true self only comes out in moments of rage?

Now you're assuming the worst about Fenris based on preconceptions.

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 10:18 .