55380 réponses à ce sujet

[tankgirly]

[offtopic]

Since Mr. Emery (who occasionally visit this thread), I just learned that Mr. Greg Ellis also a lurker in BSN. Now he post the link on his FB. Arh....I wonder if they watch our discussion? (panic)

[/offtopic]

EDIT for TOP:

repost


by enchantedtiki

Modifié par tankgirly, 22 avril 2011 - 11:06 .

[lizzbee]

MorningBird wrote...
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.

Dunno-- you really think Mama Hawke meant it when she blamed Hawke for [insert Hawke sibling name]'s death at the beginning of the game?  She clearly apologizes later, and none of her subsequent actions seem to indicate she actually feels that way.  Hurtful, awful things are said in moments of extreme pain, and most of the time, they're not meant.  Your resources argument doesn't really seem to hold water here.

I think it's fair to say that Fenris hates magic itself, but not necessarily the mages who wield it.  He's wary and distrustful, and for very valid reasons, many of them stemming from his personal experience.

[Helen0rz]

@addai

Yeah I explained myself few posts up. If you scroll up a little I said 'you' as in generalized matter. And really, it was a poor way of describing it on my end; too extreme and I do realize he doesn't go about killing blood mages. I guess my point was that he would do it. It doss surprise me that he doesn't do anything about it though

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

But Fenris doesn't go to great lengths to be polite in general. He says what's on his mind. The party banters are the most obvious examples. Off the top of my head, "It is pathetic... and admirable" is what he says of Aveline's attempts to court Donnic. He generally doesn't hold back on what to say.

I do agree that the slave mentality and not causing offense have a part in some of his interactions, but in his normal speech? He sounds more like he's emulating the Fog Warriors than anything else. In short, he doesn't feel that hung-up on not being offensive in casual conversation to me, but I can accept that it's a matter of interpretation.

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.

Her point was that not all mages are "horrible men" like Danarius, and cites the Keepers as an example, basically saying that all the Keepers are good. He points out that, by the criteria he uses, they aren't, because they can and do turn to blood magic et cetera. You're right that Merrill and Fenris are using different criteria there. Merrill, obviously, doesn't consider blood magic to be intrinsically horrible, but she's pretty clearly the oddball there, even among mages. It seems generally agreed that anything with the power to use up lives as mana batteries and control people's very bodies is simply beyond the pale. Fenris shares that view - likely not helped by memories of children being slaughtered to power party tricks.

Yes, it's a telling line, because it tells us Fenris thinks the same of blood magic/demons/abominations as most of the rest of Thedas, whereas Merrill doesn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with that, though, if anything.

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.

Fenris comes from Tevinter, a place ruled by bloodmages outscheming other bloodmages. I'm not sure how he isn't supposed to mouth off about all mages ending up the same if it's all he's ever known at that point.

[upsettingshorts]

lizzbee wrote...

Dunno-- you really think Mama Hawke meant it when she blamed Hawke for [insert Hawke sibling name]'s death at the beginning of the game?  She clearly apologizes later, and none of her subsequent actions seem to indicate she actually feels that way.  Hurtful, awful things are said in moments of extreme pain, and most of the time, they're not meant.  Your resources argument doesn't really seem to hold water here.

I would think she meant it if she made softer versions of the same argument, or her sarcastic quips during conversation hinted at blaming Hawke too.  But they don't.  Fenris' opinions on mages and magic are leaking out all over the place, all the time.  

Mama Hawke was simply in hysterics, because her indictment of Hawke for the death of the sibling isn't ever reinforced again.

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

A black person may be dangerous, or might not be.

A mage is dangerous. Period.

[upsettingshorts]

Hekateras wrote...

A black person may be dangerous, or might not be.

A mage is dangerous. Period.

That seems... prejudicial.

...and this seems like a good time to go get dinner.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 11:14 .

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

lizzbee wrote...

Dunno-- you really think Mama Hawke meant it when she blamed Hawke for [insert Hawke sibling name]'s death at the beginning of the game?  She clearly apologizes later, and none of her subsequent actions seem to indicate she actually feels that way.  Hurtful, awful things are said in moments of extreme pain, and most of the time, they're not meant.  Your resources argument doesn't really seem to hold water here.

I would think she meant it if she made softer versions of the same argument, or her sarcastic quips during conversation hinted at blaming Hawke too.  But they don't.  Fenris' opinions on mages and magic are leaking out all over the place, all the time.  

Mama Hawke was simply in hysterics, because her indictment of Hawke for the death of the sibling isn't ever reinforced again.

There is a point where a softer version of the same argument isn't the same argument anymore.

"Magic can be useful, but it's also very dangerous" isnt' a softer version of "Magic TAINTS everything it touches!". It's a completely different bird altogether.

[MorningBird]

lizzbee wrote...

Dunno-- you really think Mama Hawke meant it when she blamed Hawke for [insert Hawke sibling name]'s death at the beginning of the game?  She clearly apologizes later, and none of her subsequent actions seem to indicate she actually feels that way.  Hurtful, awful things are said in moments of extreme pain, and most of the time, they're not meant.  Your resources argument doesn't really seem to hold water here.

The difference between Leandra and Fenris is that Leandra (to my knowledge) doesn't spent the entire game passive-aggressively attacking Hawke over the loss of Carver/Bethany.

If she did, yes, I would draw the same conclusion.  Namely, that she possessed a buried resentment of Hawke for 'allowing Carver/Bethany to rush off and die.'

Fenris on the other hand, as mentioned previously (by both myself and others) is not only straddling the line between 'word of caution' and 'prejudice' throughout the game, but has a few outbursts that make you question whether or not he's truly 'just keeping a watchful eye.'

Modifié par MorningBird, 22 avril 2011 - 11:19 .

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hekateras wrote...

A black person may be dangerous, or might not be.

A mage is dangerous. Period.

That seems... prejudicial.

...and this seems like a good time to go get dinner.

Like Samson said in the game. When you back them into a corner, "they got options we don't".

You meet a black person, you don't know if they're criminal or not, so it'd be prejudicial to act like they are.

You meet a mage, you know they DO have the ability to turn into abominations, and accounting for that option in your plans is just common sense.

MorningBird wrote...
Fenris on the other hand, as mentioned
previously (by both myself and others) is not only straddling the line
between 'word of caution' and 'prejudice' throughout the game, but has a
few outbursts that make you question whether or not he's truly 'just
keeping a watchful eye.'

Considering the fact that he
doesn't try to cut down Anders then and there if he kills that mage
girl in Dissent, I'd argue that Fenris is doing even less than keeping a
watchful eye.

That's what I feel is really odd - that he doesn't
go slashy-slashy or, barring that, confront Hawke about it. But I
suppose it's one of those things left on the cutting room floor...

Nevertheless, if he were anywhere as vehement as you suggest, you'd think he'd show it in action more.

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 11:26 .

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

lizzbee wrote...

Dunno-- you really think Mama Hawke meant it when she blamed Hawke for [insert Hawke sibling name]'s death at the beginning of the game?  She clearly apologizes later, and none of her subsequent actions seem to indicate she actually feels that way.  Hurtful, awful things are said in moments of extreme pain, and most of the time, they're not meant.  Your resources argument doesn't really seem to hold water here.

I would think she meant it if she made softer versions of the same argument, or her sarcastic quips during conversation hinted at blaming Hawke too.  But they don't.  Fenris' opinions on mages and magic are leaking out all over the place, all the time.  

Mama Hawke was simply in hysterics, because her indictment of Hawke for the death of the sibling isn't ever reinforced again.

It's hard to make a coherent statement of view when you're disagreeing with minor points here and there, so here's my personal assessment of Fenris and his relationship vis a vis magic, a little sketched out for brevity's sake.  I honestly think his opinion evolves over time and moderates.

ACT 1: Fenris, ambushed by slaver mages and his master.  His main concern is survival, and he sees one thing: people out to get him and return him to slavery.  His enemy: MAGES, as a bloc, since they're responsible for his enslavement, and all those that serve MAGES.  Mages are a monolith to him, not individuals, and they all want the same ultimate thing: power.

ACT 2: Fenris has spent a lot of time among a few mages who aren't like the MAGES he's come to know in the Imperium.  None have as yet betrayed him or become so horribly possessed (even Anders), though he's seen plenty who have.  Hawke can be one, or Bethany.  Anders hasn't done anything truly awful that has endangered him yet.  Merrill, is, well, Merrill.  She's done nasty stuff that's hurt her one of her clanmates, but nothing directly harmful to him or Hawke's companions.  He wipes out one of the MAGES who has been hunting him, and he's starting to feel a little more secure in his freedom.  Maybe all mages aren't MAGES as he knows them, even if they all have the potential to become them.  Magic as the tool to corrupt any mage is still just as vile.

ACT 3: Danarius is gone, and the last real threat to Fenris.  The last MAGE, as it were.  More nuance in his mage-and-magic thinking.  A gradual acceptance that not all mages are the same, but there is a lot of lingering fear and prejudice.  But he starts thinking of mages as individuals-- granted, individuals who can do a lot of harm-- rather than something to automatically dismiss.

He's definitely prejudiced against mages, but it lessens over time.  And most of his prejudice comes from trauma, as does his hatred.  It's a hell of a lot easier to let go of hatred when the thing you hate and hunts you is gone.

Modifié par lizzbee, 22 avril 2011 - 11:30 .

[DarthMael]

"Mage this, templar that... Is there anyone in here who doesn't talk about it?"
"Opinions are like testicles - kick them hard enough, doesn't matter how many you've got."
These are some very appropriate quotes, I think. For it seems the mage-templar conflict came out of DA2 and taken a new form in this thread. But, thankfully there's no Anders here - so a compromise can still be reached without everything getting out of hand.

Modifié par DarthMael, 22 avril 2011 - 11:39 .

[MorningBird]

Hekateras wrote...
Considering the fact that he doesn't try to cut down Anders then and there if he kills that mage girl in Dissent, I'd argue that Fenris is doing even less than keeping a watchful eye.

He cuts Anders down all the time with words.

Hekateras wrote...
That's what I feel is really odd - that he doesn't go slashy-slashy or, barring that, confront Hawke about it. But I suppose it's one of those things left on the cutting room floor...

Possibly, though I would argue that one need not react with violence to be prejudice. =/

Hekateras wrote...
Nevertheless, if he were anywhere as vehement as you suggest, you'd think he'd show it in action more.

I suggested that his 'hatred of mages' is most noticeable during fits of rage.

That being said, you don't have to react with violence to be 'vehemently' prejudice.

One side of my family is littered with prejudice of the: "your daughter can marry a white guy, but it's not happening in MY family" variety.

Just because these particular members of my family haven't hit/killed anyone yet doesn't mean they're not prejudice, or that they haven't had 'vehement' discussions with each other.

[tankgirly]

lizzbee wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

lizzbee wrote...

Dunno-- you really think Mama Hawke meant it when she blamed Hawke for [insert Hawke sibling name]'s death at the beginning of the game?  She clearly apologizes later, and none of her subsequent actions seem to indicate she actually feels that way.  Hurtful, awful things are said in moments of extreme pain, and most of the time, they're not meant.  Your resources argument doesn't really seem to hold water here.

I would think she meant it if she made softer versions of the same argument, or her sarcastic quips during conversation hinted at blaming Hawke too.  But they don't.  Fenris' opinions on mages and magic are leaking out all over the place, all the time.  

Mama Hawke was simply in hysterics, because her indictment of Hawke for the death of the sibling isn't ever reinforced again.

It's hard to make a coherent statement of view when you're disagreeing with minor points here and there, so here's my personal assessment of Fenris and his relationship vis a vis magic, a little sketched out for brevity's sake.  I honestly think his opinion evolves over time and moderates.

ACT 1: Fenris, ambushed by slaver mages and his master.  His main concern is survival, and he sees one thing: people out to get him and return him to slavery.  His enemy: MAGES, as a bloc, since they're responsible for his enslavement, and all those that serve MAGES.  Mages are a monolith to him, not individuals, and they all want the same ultimate thing: power.

ACT 2: Fenris has spent a lot of time among a few mages who aren't like the MAGES he's come to know in the Imperium.  None have as yet betrayed him or become so horribly possessed (even Anders), though he's seen plenty who have.  Hawke can be one, or Bethany.  Anders hasn't done anything truly awful that has endangered him yet.  Merrill, is, well, Merrill.  She's done nasty stuff that's hurt her one of her clanmates, but nothing directly harmful to him or Hawke's companions.  He wipes out one of the MAGES who has been hunting him, and he's starting to feel a little more secure in his freedom.  Maybe all mages aren't MAGES as he knows them, even if they all have the potential to become them.  Magic as the tool to corrupt any mage is still just as vile.

ACT 3: Danarius is gone, and the last real threat to Fenris.  The last MAGE, as it were.  More nuance in his mage-and-magic thinking.  A gradual acceptance that not all mages are the same, but there is a lot of lingering fear and prejudice.  But he starts thinking of mages as individuals-- granted, individuals who can do a lot of harm-- rather than something to automatically dismiss.

He's definitely prejudiced against mages, but it lessens over time.  And most of his prejudice comes from trauma, as does his hatred.  It's a hell of a lot easier to let go of hatred when the thing you hate and hunts you is gone.

This.

[ipgd]

Hekateras wrote...

Like Samson said in the game. When you back them into a corner, "they got options we don't".

You meet a black person, you don't know if they're criminal or not, so it'd be prejudicial to act like they are.

You meet a mage, you know they DO have the ability to turn into abominations, and accounting for that option in your plans is just common sense.

Again, that's not the argument. My point was that (and since people seem to be bringing up the "he's like a real person" thing a lot) Fenris's own justifications for his position on mages seems to mirror that of real world prejudiced people; he is taking a negative truth about mages and using that to justify a hatred that already existed and would exist indepedantly of that fact, because that hatred originates from a place that he self-acknowledges as irrational and in need of extraneous justification, however tenuous. He actively searches for things that reinforce what he already believes, and discards things that do not (such as his friendship with Hawke).

There is a tangentially related case that can be made for support of the oppression of mages separate from prejudice, but the intensity with which Fenris holds his opinions makes me reluctant to agree that he is not prejudiced in the way I would if, say, Aveline made similar comments about the dangers of magic.

[Ryzaki]

I'm not trying to get into the debate.

But Aveline also has something to say about the dangers of mages if you take her into the fade and she falls prey to the demon.

That convo was a real eyeopener for my mage.

[MorningBird]

lizzbee wrote...
It's hard to make a coherent statement of view when you're disagreeing with minor points here and there, so here's my personal assessment of Fenris and his relationship vis a vis magic, a little sketched out for brevity's sake.  I honestly think his opinion evolves over time and moderates.

ACT 1: Fenris, ambushed by slaver mages and his master.  His main concern is survival, and he sees one thing: people out to get him and return him to slavery.  His enemy: MAGES, as a bloc, since they're responsible for his enslavement, and all those that serve MAGES.  Mages are a monolith to him, not individuals, and they all want the same ultimate thing: power.

ACT 2: Fenris has spent a lot of time among a few mages who aren't like the MAGES he's come to know in the Imperium.  None have as yet betrayed him or become so horribly possessed (even Anders), though he's seen plenty who have.  Hawke can be one, or Bethany.  Anders hasn't done anything truly awful that has endangered him yet.  Merrill, is, well, Merrill.  She's done nasty stuff that's hurt her one of her clanmates, but nothing directly harmful to him or Hawke's companions.  He wipes out one of the MAGES who has been hunting him, and he's starting to feel a little more secure in his freedom.  Maybe all mages aren't MAGES as he knows them, even if they all have the potential to become them.  Magic as the tool to corrupt any mage is still just as vile.

ACT 3: Danarius is gone, and the last real threat to Fenris.  The last MAGE, as it were.  More nuance in his mage-and-magic thinking.  A gradual acceptance that not all mages are the same, but there is a lot of lingering fear and prejudice.  But he starts thinking of mages as individuals-- granted, individuals who can do a lot of harm-- rather than something to automatically dismiss.

He's definitely prejudiced against mages, but it lessens over time.  And most of his prejudice comes from trauma, as does his hatred.  It's a hell of a lot easier to let go of hatred when the thing you hate and hunts you is gone.

I actually agree with most of this.

In fact, I think I said somewhere (last page maybe?) that my impression of Fenris was that he seemed to be trying to reign in his prejudicial tendencies throughout the game (thus the visage of polite calm hiding his 'raw' prejudice.)

Ultimately, however, I believe his past experiences were too damaging for his resentment to be 'cured' in the span of DA2 (but this is just my opinion, hardly fact.)

That being said, some people seem to be under the impression that Fenris simply has no prejudices.

[ejoslin]

Fenris is never "cured" of his fear of mages. I do not get why this is being equated to racial prejudice.

If mages weren't dangerous, if the risk of possession wasn't real, if mages didn't have the ability to burn cities down, if mages couldn't call on the power of demons, if mages couldn't tear the veil, perhaps you could equate his fear to nothing more than being prejudice. But not only can they, you SEE them doing it repeatedly in the game.

And you see the abuses of mages when they have no power. You hear about Tevinter, where the mages DO have power, and it is hideous. The few, the minority of mages there I'm sure, are magisters. They have power, they want more power, and they do hideous things to obtain that power.

Fenris does NOT believe that all mages will succumb to temptation. As he says, it doesn't take all mages. All it takes is one. Look at what happened in Ferelden when Uldred let himself get possessed.

Now, that doesn't mean that I think that the standard solution in Thedas is the correct one. I do think abuses by templars in Kirkwell lead to more mages becoming desperate and trying to escape and turning to forbidden magic. You could argue that they're fighting for their lives. But that does not change the fact that mages really are inherently dangerous and are far more powerful than your average person.

[legbamel]

Total sidetrack to a non-serious thing:

Inzhuna wrote...
Is it ok to post NSFW pics in this thread? Not sure. So just a link. http://fc03.devianta...ian-d3emamz.jpg

[Oghren] HOT. [/Oghren]

ETA: http://fc06.devianta...tty-d3cv8sc.jpg

Truly, the temperature has gone up about twenty degrees.

[lizzbee]

MorningBird wrote...

I actually agree with most of this.

In fact, I think I said somewhere (last page maybe?) that my impression of Fenris was that he seemed to be trying to reign in his prejudicial tendencies throughout the game (thus the visage of polite calm hiding his 'raw' prejudice.)

Ultimately, however, I believe his past experiences were too damaging for his resentment to be 'cured' in the span of DA2 (but this is just my opinion, hardly fact.)

That being said, some people seem to be under the impression that Fenris simply has no prejudices.

I think people are disputing that Fenris has an active, consuming hatred of mages, which I'll argue to death.  I don't think he actually does.  Prejudice isn't always hatred.  Sometimes it's wariness, and sometimes ignorance based on beliefs that have been handed down to you from society or parents.  In Fenris' case, it was experience and trauma.  And I'll also argue that I think a lot of Fenris' outbursts do reflect his prejudice, but are more fueled by his otherwise introverted nature and his frustration with himself that has built to unbearable levels.

[Ryzaki]

lizzbee wrote...

I think people are disputing that Fenris has an active, consuming hatred of mages, which I'll argue to death.  I don't think he actually does.  Prejudice isn't always hatred.  Sometimes it's wariness, and sometimes ignorance based on beliefs that have been handed down to you from society or parents.  In Fenris' case, it was experience and trauma.  And I'll also argue that I think a lot of Fenris' outbursts do reflect his prejudice, but are more fueled by his otherwise introverted nature and his frustration with himself that has built to unbearable levels.

Agreed but especially the bolded. I find it hard to find anyone without prejudice in them. I myself have a prejudice of men I don't know. I distrust them on sheer principle. It's not hateful just plain wariness based off what I've seen. If I don't know someone I'm inclined to think the worst of them until they prove me wrong (or right). 

It's a defense mechanism. Nothing more nothing less. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 avril 2011 - 12:26 .

[Addai]

Helen0rz wrote...

@addai

Yeah I explained myself few posts up. If you scroll up a little I said 'you' as in generalized matter. And really, it was a poor way of describing it on my end; too extreme and I do realize he doesn't go about killing blood mages. I guess my point was that he would do it. It doss surprise me that he doesn't do anything about it though

He only kills mages in the same circumstance that my PC would- when they are killing other people or generally gone to ****.

I actually think that Anders might be on to something in his dickish comment during Alone- I wonder if Fenris' mother or father was a mage, so he has reactions to mages that are more deeply seated than just what he's seen in Tevinter.  I have no qualms in calling it a prejudice.  However, mages really are predisposed to demon possession and can be very destructive.  That's just a fact.  He's more pessmistic than most about it (heh- understatement), but as he says, he has his reasons.

[lizzbee]

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm not trying to get into the debate.

But Aveline also has something to say about the dangers of mages if you take her into the fade and she falls prey to the demon.

That convo was a real eyeopener for my mage.

Yeah, that surprised me too, even playing a rogue.  You'd think you'd come out of that with a little more appreciation for what temptations mages regularly resist if you're not magically inclined and have never faced any mage-based problems.  Instead, her blanket, "Lock 'em all up" reaction took me aback.

[lizzbee]

Ryzaki wrote...

Agreed but especially the bolded. I find it hard to find anyone without prejudice in them. I myself have a prejudice of men I don't know. I distrust them on sheer principle. It's not hateful just plain wariness based off what I've seen. If I don't know someone I'm inclined to think the worst of them until they prove me wrong (or right). 

It's a defense mechanism. Nothing more nothing less. 

Yeah, I'll admit I have my own set of prejudices, especially involving the extremely religious.  A lot of it stems from my own experience living in a heavily fundamentalist area.  It's not easy when you're an atheist.  And that's about all I'll say about that.

[Hekateras]

MorningBird wrote...

Hekateras wrote...
Considering the fact that he doesn't try to cut down Anders then and there if he kills that mage girl in Dissent, I'd argue that Fenris is doing even less than keeping a watchful eye.

He cuts Anders down all the time with words.

Words won't necessarily stop someone from killing an innocent. Stabbing them or selling them out to the Templars would. I just find it odd that Ander's outburst doesn't even come up in your conversations with Fenris afterwards.

That being said, you don't have to react with violence to be 'vehemently' prejudice.

One side of my family is littered with prejudice of the: "your daughter can marry a white guy, but it's not happening in MY family" variety.

Just because these particular members of my family haven't hit/killed anyone yet doesn't mean they're not prejudice, or that they haven't had 'vehement' discussions with each other.

I never said you have to react with violence. I said that, in my opinion, you have to react with action. (In my example, talking to Hawke about it would've been action but not necessarily violence, I don't know why you read over that.) In your example, restricting one's personal freedom about who to marry is a hefty example of such action.

If you mistrust a certain group but do NOT let it affect your actions in any way, I honestly don't see the point of calling it prejudice. The examples above sort of fit: If we extend the term "prejudice" to cover something such trivial and normal things as as such survival mechanisms or going by general knowledge of what people are sometimes like, the word becomes as good as useless.

Lizzbee's post is very well-thought out too, however.

Still, as one of the crazy people who apparently claim that Fenris isn't prejudiced, I'd like to restate that the basic definition, the origin of the word, is that you judge people before you meet them. The assumptions (i.e. strokes of judgement) Fenris makes about mages don't strike me as unreasonable given their inherent nature in DA2.

In an attempt to simplify this further:

Cats are non-mages, dogs are mages.

Dogs have huge fangs with which they might maul people. Cats don't, and at worst can scratch you. (Yeah, just bear with me there.) Any cat or dog has the potential to be vicious or mellow. However, a vicious dog can maul you, a cat couldn't do that much damage if it tried. So if you approach a cat or dog, either way you can't know if they're vicious or mellow, but you do know that a dog is much more dangerous if it's vicious. Thus, it's better to be more careful around a dog and take measures against the possibility of it mauling you.

Prejudice would be assuming that, because some dogs are vicious, this dog WILL maul you, and shooting it at sight. But simply approaching it with more caution than one would a cat? That's common sense.

Modifié par Hekateras, 23 avril 2011 - 12:49 .