55380 réponses à ce sujet

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"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.

And hard to dispute its prescience, given later events.

[Shacary]

I kinda think of Fenris' bias like attending dentists... if you haev experienced pain discomfort with 9/10 dentists you might be inclined to believe they are all painful and nasty... It is only in discovering the " one" whom hasnt caused this pain/discomfort that starts to put them aside the catagory of his mind, So altho mages in general are... problmeatic for him, I think the fact that Hawke and Bethany dont exhibit those painful/discomfort factors , its reasonable to infer respect and perhaps appreciation.. the ability to see beyond the characteristic [ mage] and see the person to appear.
As for the outbursts during heavy emotional tangents.. umm I defy anyone nto to have said something in anger that they certainly didnt always intriscialy believe. I have once as a kid told my Mum I hated her... did I hate her? NEVER! so I find anyone that feels becuz he said it in an angry moment he really meant it and it is his true personality. Bitterness over trauma and past wrongs seeps thru, but it does not mean that person views the person they are venting on AS the cause or even deserving of said statement.He apologizes. Its up to the player to decide if his friendship/love is worth that little slight in a moment of anger / depression.
Actually on my first PT as a warrior, I pretty much had to agree with his assessments, the mages in Kirkwall [ mb cuz they are closer to tevinter and often obviously do busines with its denizens] have internalized the same properties btu they were pretty much disgusting examples of mages imo.
I can never say things as i wish I could but there are so many here that are eloquent. lookign forward to the responses

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

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"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.

I assume the bolded part is what you're pointing out.

He's saying that he keeps finding evidence that it IS true, i.e. that the mages they meet keep ending up acting like Danarius, i.e. abusing their power. What's supposed to be inaccurate about that?

[Ryzaki]

NVM. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

Hekateras wrote...

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?

I actually think you're cherry picking aspects of Fenris' character a bit here.

I mentioned before in the previous argument that if Hawke says something Fenris doesn't like, but we're in say a calm environment such as a discussion in his mansion and he disapproves, he doesn't really complain or react that much.  He might gain Rivalry but he's going to brush it off, because he's calm.  You've said this is realistic behavior, and a credit to the writing.

The argument that the moments he explodes reveals aspects of his character that are under that veneer of stoic calm - is a reasonable one, because someone or something has provoked him to shed his usual demeanor. 

That the things he says when he explodes share a lot in common with what he says when he's being sarcastic, or even collected and rational is evidence in support of that theory, not contradicting it.

lizzbee wrote...

And hard to dispute its prescience, given later events.

Hekateras wrote...

What's supposed to be inaccurate about that?

Whether or not he's proven right or not doesn't seem to be the point, does it?  Kirkwall is a giant mess.  Would what Fenris said have been as true if he was saying it in Denerim?  He's making sweeping statements when he says these things, he isn't limiting himself to the madness that is Kirkwall.

And actually, the line Merrill has about how Fenris is impossible to talk to is to me, just as revealing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[ipgd]

Hekateras wrote...

He thinks that all but the strongest of mages WILL succumb to the temptation of abusing their power if backed into a corner. This feels more like prejudice, but that assumption is based not on some perceived fault of mages, but on the very nature of human(oid) beings in general - that they generally WILL fight with all the means available to them if survival is at stake. This as well is true in the vast majority of cases, so going from "People will fight for their lives with all available means" to the corollary of "Mages will fight for their lives with all available means" seems perfectly logical. It's a reasonable assumption. I don't see prejudice there.

A lot of prejudices are based in fact. That doesn't make them not prejudices. For instance, it is unquestionably true that crime rates are higher among blacks and that non-whites are disproportionally represented in the penal system. That can raise a lot of questions about cultural attitudes, class, etc., but when you skip the argument and draw the conclusion "I fear/hate black people/non-whites because they're more likely to hurt others" you are prejudiced.

And yes, mages aren't black people because black people aren't actually born with anything that unquestionably makes them more dangerous like mages are. Black people aren't the comparison, just the nature of that prejudice. Still, it's interesting that that exact reason (i.e. the belief that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence in a way white people are not) was and still sometimes is used by bigots to justify a hatred of blacks in America. This is also true of other ethnic minorities in other countries.

It's a lot more often that truths are twisted and exaggerated in order to justify hatreds after the fact than they are an actual basis for those hatreds. It may be true that mages are inherently dangerous in a way mundane people are not, but it's pretty clear that that is something Fenris uses to reinforce the prejudices he holds, and that his prejudice originates from somewhere else (read: Danarius).

I think Fenris's prejudice against mages is one of the more interesting things about his character and it seems sort of odd to me that people try to handwave it. Does it need to be justified?

Modifié par ipgd, 22 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[MelRedux]

Upsettingshorts 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.

So would Mel Gibson.  He was just drunk.

I admit.  I lol'd.

[Helen0rz]

I think he 'hates' the wielder more than the magic itself. Magic does not kill unless you command it to kill, to harm, or heal for that matter. He had seen what magic had done to people with weak minds that cannot resist temptation. He has a strong prejustice against mages because all the ones he came across are either weak or they're strong enough to resist but chose not to, and instead use it to their advantage. I do believe the 'hate' is directed to the magic users themselves and not to the power, and he'll judge you for it. He'll judge you based on the power you (if you're a Mage) wield and your potential of becoming a blood mage. He doesn't care about the reasoning behind it, to him there's no justification when it comes to dealing with demons and it's inexcusable. I don't think he fears it exactly, but it is associated with bad memories.

If you're a Mage he'll automatically put you under that category. He has no desire to kill you, not yet at least, but he's waiting. The moment you use bloodmagic he won't hesitate, he'll kill you on the spot. It's up to you, as Mage, to change his mind about YOU and no one else. There is no way for you to change his views about mages, but you can change his mind about you. You see that with the conversation between Anders and Fenris about how Hawke/Bethany are strong mages, but he didn't think Anders belonged to that category. And in the end if you side with the mages, he sides with you/Hawke, not the mages

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Whether or not he's proven right or not doesn't seem to be the point, does it?

And actually, the line Merrill has about how Fenris is impossible to talk to is to me, just as revealing.

I think it shows an equally valid point-- that Fenris and Thedas as a whole aren't exactly blowing smoke when they distrust mages.  Distrust and prejudice easily stem from trauma, and if there's someone who's ever had trauma, it's Fenris.  Talk to a person who's been beaten within an inch of his/her life by a mentally ill person, and then ask them to show compassion and understanding for the disturbed in society.  You'd have to be a complete idiot to expect them to agree with you.  And if they agreed with you, chances are they're more than a little borked in the head themselves.

And why would Fenris want to talk about anything with a mage who has pretty much proven to be everything he's been conditioned to despise?  I think the fact that she's walking around with him and he's even speaking at all without showing the glowy fist is pretty remarkable in and of itself.

[ejoslin]

Helen0rz wrote...

I think he 'hates' the wielder more than the magic itself. Magic does not kill unless you command it to kill, to harm, or heal for that matter. He had seen what magic had done to people with weak minds that cannot resist temptation. He has a strong prejustice against mages because all the ones he came across are either weak or they're strong enough to resist but chose not to, and instead use it to their advantage. I do believe the 'hate' is directed to the magic users themselves and not to the power, and he'll judge you for it. He'll judge you based on the power you (if you're a Mage) wield and your potential of becoming a blood mage. He doesn't care about the reasoning behind it, to him there's no justification when it comes to dealing with demons and it's inexcusable. I don't think he fears it exactly, but it is associated with bad memories.

If you're a Mage he'll automatically put you under that category. He has no desire to kill you, not yet at least, but he's waiting. The moment you use bloodmagic he won't hesitate, he'll kill you on the spot. It's up to you, as Mage, to change his mind about YOU and no one else. There is no way for you to change his views about mages, but you can change his mind about you. You see that with the conversation between Anders and Fenris about how Hawke/Bethany are strong mages, but he didn't think Anders belonged to that category. And in the end if you side with the mages, he sides with you/Hawke, not the mages

Fenris doesn't kill a bloodmage Hawke.  it's never mentioned.

[SurrealSadi]

sinus headache refuses to let me catch up.. so....

I've determined that the Title Update did NOT fix the range on Panacea(Anders' version of Healing Aura). It's still only about a meter and a half. I'm assuming the same is true for Healing Aura.

[Shacary]

I think I seen a mod that adjusts the healing aura situation on Danexus.... I cna look for the link if you like and if it is not against the forum regulations to link off another website?

[MorningBird]

Hekateras wrote...

...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.

In the case of Fenris?  Yes.  I would consider it a huge waste of resources if every instance Fenris vocalized his 'hatred' of mages could be written off as nothing more than angry sputterings that he didn't really mean in retrospect.

Hekateras wrote...
would consider it a waste of resources.  If the soul purpose of having Fenris vocally  an awful lot of effort being put in to make a guy looks 'really really may'

... what?

Hekateras wrote...
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".

Care to supply why it's an inferior theory?

EDIT:  Ah, I misread.

I wouldn't say I consider it inferior.  It's certainly possible that that was the writer's intention.  I would, however, be disappointed if that was all there was too it.

Which is why I said, "I disagree" as opposed to, "LOL YOUR IDEAS ARE STUPID."

Hekateras wrote...
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).

Okay...

Hekateras wrote...
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?

And... I don't see having a deeply rooted/buried predjudice against mages as 'breaking character'.  There are plenty of moments--even when calm--that Fenris straddles the line of 'voice of caution' and 'predujice', it just comes out a lot clearer when he's angry.

Modifié par MorningBird, 22 avril 2011 - 10:44 .

[tankgirly]

Cute moment break: by saurien.

[Dr. Doctor]

SurrealSadi wrote...

sinus headache refuses to let me catch up.. so....

I've determined that the Title Update did NOT fix the range on Panacea(Anders' version of Healing Aura). It's still only about a meter and a half. I'm assuming the same is true for Healing Aura.

It's short ranged to me too. In most of my playthroughs Anders' only purpose is to stand around keeping Elemental Weapons, Heroic Aura, and Panacea running. He's what I like to call "The Angry Elf Delivery Mage" his only job is to keep Fenris alive.

[Helen0rz]

@ejoslin

Ah, sorry, I shouldve clarified, when I said you I meant mages in general. And perhaps he wont immidately kill you? I dont know, i just think if you're not a part of ther gang he wouldnt hesitate to kill you, because he obviously did not kill merrill or anders. And you're absolutely right, it was never mentioned what he does if Hawke is a bloodmage and THAT i think it's a failure on Bioware. There should be a reaction, a consequence, an acknowledgement, something!! It's like you're a Mage and you're walking around in the Gallows with yor staff on your back and no one notices?

[SurrealSadi]

Shacary wrote...

I think I seen a mod that adjusts the healing aura situation on Danexus.... I cna look for the link if you like and if it is not against the forum regulations to link off another website?

I can't mod on a PS3.

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hekateras wrote...

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?

I actually think you're cherry picking aspects of Fenris' character a bit here.

I mentioned before in the previous argument that if Hawke says something Fenris doesn't like, but we're in say a calm environment such as a discussion in his mansion and he disapproves, he doesn't really complain or react that much.  He might gain Rivalry but he's going to brush it off, because he's calm.  You've said this is realistic behavior, and a credit to the writing.

The argument that the moments he explodes reveals aspects of his character that are under that veneer of stoic calm - is a reasonable one, because someone or something has provoked him to shed his usual demeanor. 

That the things he says when he explodes share a lot in common with what he says when he's being sarcastic, or even collected and rational is evidence in support of that theory, not contradicting it.

I don't see how they share a lot in common. When he's calm, he inevitably talks, very reasonably, about how mages can be good but they're all dangerous, how it would be better if magic didn't exist because the potential and consequences of abuse are too devastating, how it only takes a few weak mages to create horrors. His explosions of temper, on the other hand, are very uncompromising. There's a vast gulf there - the former arguments sound thoroughly reasoned and even potentially convincing, even if you don't agree with them. The "arguments" brought on by emotion, by contrast, are just hatefests.

Why would someone like Fenris, who is so blunt and straightforward, even bother creating such an elaborately reasoned facade if he doesn't hold to it?

Whether or not he's proven right or not doesn't seem to be the point, does it?  Kirkwall is a giant mess.  Would what Fenris said have been true if he was saying it in Denerim?  He's making sweeping statements when he says these things, he isn't limiting himself to the madness that is Kirkwall.

Personally, I wasn't talking about Fenris being proven right AFTER his statement. I was talking about the number of blood mages Fenris has faced at the time of that statement - cases failing to provide proof that "not all of them are like Danarius". Speculating whether it would've been true if he'd said it in Denerim defeats the purpose because he might not have said it in Denerim. as there wouldn't have been such an abundance of examples to draw on.

And actually, the line Merrill has about how Fenris is impossible to talk to is to me, just as revealing.

Fenris destroys her argument that the Keepers are different as in not submitting to temptation because they do submit to tempation. Merrill - being naive, prone to worship of her ways and a bloodmage herself, doesn't like that. Surprise?

[Shacary]

ahh sorry Surreal, I dont mod much on pc version cept the early champ armor.. just so I can save money for books and weapons lol

[upsettingshorts]

Hekateras wrote...

Why would someone like Fenris, who is so blunt and straightforward, even bother creating such an elaborately reasoned facade if he doesn't hold to it?

It's not that elaborate.  It's quite simple, and it explains the difference between the arguments he makes when angry and the ones he makes when calm:

The difference is politeness.

Which is something I would reasonably expect from a slave, to be conditioned not to cause offense and bury his objections inside.  When he's shaken out of his complacency by events or people, this politeness vanishes.

Hekateras wrote...

Speculating whether it would've been true if he'd said it in Denerim defeats the purpose because he might not have said it in Denerim. as there wouldn't have been such an abundance of examples to draw on.

I'm guessing he would have.  I don't see a reading of his dialogue as listed that makes it come off as situational in the least, but I don't expect us to find common ground there.

Hekateras wrote...

Fenris destroys her argument

Not really.  Her point is that his answer to everything mage is abomination/blood magic/demon.   Again that it happened to be true in Marathari's case doesn't matter to me, because nothing about Fenris' character ever leads me to believe he wouldn't have said basically the same thing had it not been true.

Again, Kirkwall is a cluster****, no question.  But Fenris is mouthing off about these things starting in Act 1 before any of this becomes overwhelmingly obvious to the player, who has near perfect knowledge compared to Fenris.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 10:49 .

[SurrealSadi]

Shacary wrote...

ahh sorry Surreal, I dont mod much on pc version cept the early champ armor.. just so I can save money for books and weapons lol

It's okay. I just have to wait and see if they decide to fix that on the next Title Update.

[Hekateras]

ipgd wrote...
A lot of prejudices are based in fact. That doesn't make them not prejudices. For instance, it is unquestionably true that crime rates are higher among blacks and that non-whites are disproportionally represented in the penal system. That can raise a lot of questions about cultural attitudes, class, etc., but when you skip the argument and draw the conclusion "I fear/hate black people/non-whites because they're more likely to hurt others" you are prejudiced.

Incorrect comparison.

Crime rates are on average higher among blacks, okay. But if you look at an individual black, you can't know if he's a criminal or not. He might be, or he might not be, because it is possible for a black not to be a criminal. Being a criminal doesn't automatically come as part of the package of being black. A higher genetic predisposition allows you to make sweeping statements about all blacks in general, but doesn't tell you one thing about the black standing in front of you. Therefore, assuming that he is a criminal because blacks have higher crime rates is prejudice.

Compare mages. If you meet a mage, you can automatically know beyond a shadow of doubt that he IS capable of casting spells and he DOES have a connection to the Fade and he CAN turn to blood magic or become an abomination. It's part of the mage package, because there is not one mage on Thedas (as far as we know) for whom this is not the case. Acknowledging the inveitable consequence of being a mage is not prejudice.

I think Fenris's prejudice against mages is one of the more interesting things about his character and it seems sort of odd to me that people try to handwave it. Does it need to be justified?

I'd hardly call the last few pages of debate "handwaving" it.

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 11:08 .

[Addai]

Helen0rz wrote...
If you're a Mage he'll automatically put you under that category. He has no desire to kill you, not yet at least, but he's waiting. The moment you use bloodmagic he won't hesitate, he'll kill you on the spot. It's up to you, as Mage, to change his mind about YOU and no one else.

He doesn't go around killing any blood mage he meets.    Not Merrill, not even Anders whom he calls an abomination.

[upsettingshorts]

How on Earth is the distinction you're making here:

Hekateras wrote...

A higher genetic predisposition allows you to make sweeping statements about all blacks in general, but doesn't tell you one thing about the black standing in front of you. Therefore, assuming that he is a criminal because blacks have higher crime rates is prejudice.

Different from the one you're making here:

Hekateras wrote...

Compare mages. If you meet a mage, you can automatically know beyond a shadow of doubt that he IS capable of casting spells and he DOES have a connection to the Fade and he CAN turn to blood magic or become an abomination.

[ipgd]

Hekateras wrote...

ipgd wrote...
A lot of prejudices are based in fact. That doesn't make them not prejudices. For instance, it is unquestionably true that crime rates are higher among blacks and that non-whites are disproportionally represented in the penal system. That can raise a lot of questions about cultural attitudes, class, etc., but when you skip the argument and draw the conclusion "I fear/hate black people/non-whites because they're more likely to hurt others" you are prejudiced.

Incorrect comparison.

Crime rates are on average higher among blacks, okay. But if you look at an individual black, you can't know if he's a criminal or not. He might be, or he might not be, because it is possible for a black to be a criminal. Being a criminal doesn't automatically come as part of the package of being black. A higher genetic predisposition allows you to make sweeping statements about all blacks in general, but doesn't tell you one thing about the black standing in front of you. Therefore, assuming that he is a criminal because blacks have higher crime rates is prejudice.

Compare mages. If you meet a mage, you can automatically know beyond a shadow of doubt that he IS capable of casting spells and he DOES have a connection to the Fade and he CAN turn to blood magic or become an abomination. It's part of the mage package, because there is not one mage on Thedas (as far as we know) for whom this is not the case. Acknowledging the inveitable consequence of being a mage is not prejudice.

As I said:

And yes, mages aren't black people because black people aren't actually born with anything that  unquestionably makes them more dangerous like mages are. Black people aren't the comparison, just the nature of that prejudice.

I'd hardly call the last few pages of debate "handwaving" it.

Poor word choice. Still, people seem opposed to the idea that he is prejudiced, which I just find curious, since I like that about him as a character. It seems more like some people are trying to defend his value as a person rather than his value as a character.

Modifié par ipgd, 22 avril 2011 - 10:59 .