55380 réponses à ce sujet

[Ghost_Nappa]

Bah when I hear the words hairless...I expect to be nary a sign of hair on em. So imagine that if you will....completely Hairless Fenris. *shudders and laughs*

If if Im not asssinated for pushing the bearded elf agenda...just think of him as the dread pirates robert from The Princess Bride.

[Dutchess]

Lol, all this talking about body hair... what a topic, haha. I think elves are not completely hairless on their entire body... they have hair on their head, eyebrows and eyelashes as well after all.



Another chesthair comic by Fishmas.

And because we also need a pretty-drawn, sexy Fenris:



by CarrotCakeBandit

I am staring at Hawke's chest hair now as well.... xD

Modifié par renjility, 28 février 2012 - 10:49 .

[CuriousArtemis]

I like the little dots Fenris' tats have in that one ... makes them look like flowers or berries, and the rest of it vines xDDD Pretttyyy *_*

[aldien]

renjility wrote...

Lol, all this talking about body hair... what a topic, haha. I think elves are not completely hairless on their entire body... they have hair on their head, eyebrows and eyelashes as well after all.



Another chesthair comic by Fishmas.

And because we also need a pretty-drawn, sexy Fenris:



by CarrotCakeBandit

I am staring at Hawke's chest hair now as well.... xD

Ya know, you outdid yourself this time Ren. Hairy bottom? ROFL! Ack, I love Varric but I never thought about that. :lol:

Modifié par aldien, 29 février 2012 - 12:01 .

[aldien]

Okay I was thinking about something tonight. Yeah, I know. Shush. I'm going to inflict it on y'all anyway.

This is... a touchy subject. I'll just warn everyone now.

What did you think about slavery and how it was handled in DAII?

My opinion: I felt it was trivialized. I did not like how it was handled. It seems to be so easy to dismiss slavery as some sort of fantasy history, but the truth is it existed and it still does today. We may call it something different to make ourselves feel better, but it still exists.

I did not like that you could sell Fenris back to Danarius. It was flippant. Getting a -10 dislike by your companions does not make the player actually consider the wrongs of slavery. I can picture some of the thought processes when it came to this decision:

Let's make three sovereign and sell him back. I hate Fenris so I'm going to sell him to Danarius.

I feel like the devs took something morally wrong and made it into a cheap way to define your Hawke. There are very strict rules about children and what can be done in games. I feel like this particular subject should also have strict rules. There could have been slight things like: letting slavers go. It didn't need to come to actually selling a person. It went too far in my opinion.

I know it is a game, but still ... It is also a mindset. It can easily become the norm in every roleplaying game and that disturbs me.

What do you think? Interested to read opinions.

[AbsoluteApril]

just posting this from the wiki:
"Slavery is currently practiced by the Tevinter Imperium. It is one of the few places where elves are still literal slaves (as opposed to alienage elves, who are not technically slaves, but still tend to take the jobs at the bottom of society), and it is common practice for alienage elves to sell themselves or each other into slavery to provide for their families. Because of this, the condition of alienage elves in the Imperium is slightly better, but for the slaves it is significantly worse, compared to the elves of other countries. Slave hunters may capture elves in other nations (where, for the most part, slavery is illegal) and smuggle them into the Imperium, but those who are caught doing so are executed and made an example of. Those slaves who are sold on the black market are considered "non-contract" slaves, and have the worst living conditions of all.

Although slavery is illegal in Orlais, it is still not unheard of for wealthy nobles to own elven slaves. In recent years, though, the laws against slavery have become more strictly upheld. Empress Celene may have been instrumental in this change of policy."

****

Even though I morally object to slavery, it is part of the culture of Thedas and part of the story and I believe should be in he game. I didn't feel it was trivialized, beyond the paultry sum you receive from Danarius, which I would take more as showing what an arse his character is, if many slaves are 'worth' 100 soverigns a piece, then Fenris would be above the average. Does that make sense?

We do get to kill quite a few slavers in the game

Modifié par AbsoluteApril, 29 février 2012 - 12:55 .

[Harle Cerulean]

I think that overall, it's well-handled in that it's portrayed as an extremely bad thing done by the corrupt and wicked. However, I do agree that being able to sell Fenris back to Danarius and get so little consequence was a huge misstep. I think it would have been a fantastic "crisis point" for the characters closest to Fenris - Aveline and Sebastian in particular, possibly Isabela as well since we know how pro-freedom she is, and she's potentially in a relationship with Fenris at that point. Sell Fenris and lose half your available party in one swoop as they react with horror and disgust to what you did to a supposed friend.

It's entirely unnecessary as well. There's many ways to "lose" Fenris, if you don't want him around; refuse to help him with Hadriana, and he'll leave. Help him with Danarius and then tell him he should leave, and he'll leave. Hell, he's completely optional from the start, and even if you do his initial quest for the treasure and experience, you can tell him you don't need him afterwards and you'll never hear from him again.

But, on the other hand, it doesn't really surprise me. David Gaider wrote him, after all, and we know what he's like. XD If he can pack tragedy and betrayal in, it'll be there in spades.

Modifié par Harle Cerulean, 29 février 2012 - 12:36 .

[AbsoluteApril]

Harle Cerulean wrote...
David Gaider wrote him, after all, and we know what he's like. XD If he can pack tragedy and betrayal in, it'll be there in spades.

(side note - it struck me the other day on my recent DAO PT how both Alistair and Fenris have quests involving a 'lost' sister)

[CuriousArtemis]

I do think it was trivialized, and I'm disappointed that we didn't hear more about what sort of things are done to slaves in this universe. Slavery is so trivialized in DA2 that Fenris is accused by many, many people of "whining." If players understood just what exactly Fenris had gone through, I don't think any person with an ounce of empathy would categorize him as such.

About selling Fenris back to Danarius -- I think it is okay to let players "play" with the idea of playing an evil (however that's defined) character. But I agree that the consequences should have been more severe, just as they would be in real life.

[kemz19691]

motomotogirl wrote...

That's just not Fenris' style.  Fenris is shy and reserved; he also doubts himself in a way that Anders doesn't.  Both men have traumatic pasts, but I feel it's more their personalities that shape how they handle love than just their pasts.

Could we discuss the "both men have traumatic pasts" comment? Here's the wiki on Anders:

"When [Anders] started to exhibit magical abilities and set a barn on fire, his
father grew afraid of him. At the age of twelve he was handcuffed and
taken by the templars to the Ferelden Circle Tower.
The only personal possession he was allowed to keep was a pillow hand
embroidered by his mother. Anders despised the Circle and compared it to
a prison. He made at least seven and at most dozens attempts to escape the tower, each time being returned and punished by the templars. Yet First Enchanter Irving believed that Anders, however reckless, posed no true threat.
Anders' next-to-last escape earned him a year of solitary confinement,
in which the only company he had most days was the tower's mouser named
Mr. Wiggums. The final time he managed to run away was prior to Uldred's uprising."

I understand this was traumatizing for Anders - as is for most magi who end up in the Circle. I see, however, as a mage mistreated and abused by Templars and having witnessed injustices couldn't ignore it anymore.

I wouldn't loop their traumas together since Fenris' trauma, by far, overshadows Anders'.

I think Anders is more mature in his convictions and resolutions against the Chantry than Fenris' with magi in general.  I think his decision to sacrifice himself by attacking the Kirkwall Chantry was heroic, brave and without indecision. I love Fenris more btw, but I realized at the end of the game that Fenris was very indecisive and that his hatred of magic blinded him to real truths of trust, friendship and loyalty (if he betrays Hawke in the end and waffles on this decision).  

I don't prefer Anders because he's a "sacrifice" - a sucide bomber if you will, and their loyalty/allegiance is always to the more lofty ideal.  I think people give Anders a bad time because the misleads and malignment of Hawke's trust. However, I really think Anders has more conviction for justice than Sebastian has for his belief in Andraste.

I don't see Anders as so traumatized - I see Anders as a brave soul willing to lend himself to the flame to bring about freedom for the magi.  That's admirable. :wub:I don't like to romance him because Fenris is sexier and less intense in dialogue.  Plus, I don't like the pressure Anders puts Hawke under - to move in the Arnell mansion. I kept skipping through the dialogue because the press is way too strong. <_<

[kemz19691]

renjility wrote...

And because we also need a pretty-drawn, sexy Fenris:



by CarrotCakeBandit

This is singularly the most beautifully captured moments between Hawke and Fenris. How beautiful - how tender . What I wouldn't give to be a mouse in that room 

[kemz19691]

aldien wrote...

Okay I was thinking about something tonight. Yeah, I know. Shush. I'm going to inflict it on y'all anyway.

This is... a touchy subject. I'll just warn everyone now.

What did you think about slavery and how it was handled in DAII?

My opinion: I felt it was trivialized. I did not like how it was handled. It seems to be so easy to dismiss slavery as some sort of fantasy history, but the truth is it existed and it still does today. We may call it something different to make ourselves feel better, but it still exists.

I did not like that you could sell Fenris back to Danarius. It was flippant. Getting a -10 dislike by your companions does not make the player actually consider the wrongs of slavery. I can picture some of the thought processes when it came to this decision:

Let's make three sovereign and sell him back. I hate Fenris so I'm going to sell him to Danarius.

I feel like the devs took something morally wrong and made it into a cheap way to define your Hawke. There are very strict rules about children and what can be done in games. I feel like this particular subject should also have strict rules. There could have been slight things like: letting slavers go. It didn't need to come to actually selling a person. It went too far in my opinion.

I know it is a game, but still ... It is also a mindset. It can easily become the norm in every roleplaying game and that disturbs me.

What do you think? Interested to read opinions.

When you enter Kirkwall and realize you'll have to choose between smuggling and murder to provide for your family, you soon realize morality will not be a companion character in this game.

I think Bioware gave a good treatment of slavery. Slavery differs widely and is cultural - from bonded slavery to chattel slavery, you can have a different experience altogether.  Tevinter was similar to the old Roman empire and their treatment of slaves is well recorded. Fenris talks a lot about slavery and his experience as one to a strong magister. 

I think the game suggests Fenris fought in some kind of gladiator-style competition - since he "fought for it" and won a boon which he used to free his family. During the time of Julius Ceasar, many senators sought to put a limit on the amount of slaves in the empire, since they were taking jobs away from free citizens. This is simiilar to what Varania may have experienced as a freed elf - she and their mother had a hard time surviving - probably becauses had slaves.

[CuriousArtemis]

I wasn't really playing the "let's compare traumas!" game, more just saying that their approach to relationships is more based on personality than past experience

And sure, experience shapes personality to some degree, but I think Anders was always going to be an outgoing, determined sort of man, whereas Fenris was always going to be a little on the reserved side.

[Ghost_Nappa]

This came in before fenurary was over...god how I love this woman! By Enerjak

Modifié par Ghost_Nappa, 29 février 2012 - 04:26 .

[dangereusegirl]

I agree that there should have been more repercussions from giving Fenris to Danarius. For a group of people that apparently cared for him, the other companions were surprising mum when it came to returning Fenris. Well except for Anders, but I don't really want to talk about that

I think the issue of slavery was adequately presented in DA2. Not perfect, mind you, but there was enough of it present that had more of an impact on me than it did in DAO. It will be interesting to see if the devs use this issue in future installments. Slaves played a part in the war against the Imperium, so maybe they can play a part in the Mage/Templar fight as well.

I apologize for bringing this back, but a few pages back, there was talk about Fenris and the future. In my own personal head!canon, if Fenris is in a relationship with Hawke (as is the case in two of my major playthroughs) then he and Hawke would probably find some quiet little village where they could live in relative peace. My Hawkes would be tired of the fighting and would want to get as close to a normal life as they could. In terms of marriage, Temperance would probably be up for it only if Fenris was comfortable with the idea. However, she'd be uncomfortable with the idea of children because she is a mage, and with all of the trouble happening, she wouldn't want to bring an innocent life into all that. On the other hand, Samia, my rogue, would probably be the one with kids. They'd be unplanned, seeing as how she wouldn't be thinking about birth control, and Fenris would probably feel compelled to marry her so that she wouldn't have to live with the shame (in his opinion) of being the mother of an elf's bastard children.

If not romanced, I could see Fenris possibly getting involved in the war, but not as a major player. Or he could go and help Sebastian in Starkhaven. Either way works. If the relationship with Isabela didn't turn more serious, he'd probably find some girl (or guy) that challenged him in ways he hadn't been since joining with Hawke. It'd be fun to see, if I didn't consider Fenris my canon LI.

Fenris is a lot more reserved than Anders, as you can see from the way their romances can play out. Anders flirts with you almost immediately, and only after a few nice comments from Hawke. He'll continue to do so, unless you shut him down. He'll come to you for some lovin' then ask to move in almost right after.

Fenris, on the other hand, doesn't really flirt with you unless you initiate it. The romance scene happens spontaneously; Fenris comes to you to apologize for his earlier actions, not to get into your pants. He also doesn't ask to move in, although I think this has more to do with his need for independence than with being with Hawke.

The two characters seem to be two sides of the same coin, and this sort of thing tends to show why.

[Arquen]

I am very tired and rather snarly from working non-stop and getting my arse kicked, but thought I would check in since it's been a few pages and a few discussions later.

Personally I disagree with practically everything Kemz says. I am actually finding myself agreeing with practically everything Harle has said, AND I am constantly intrigued by how people can see such vastly different things from the same story and character.

I'll not touch the Anders vs. Fenris argument because it is a moot point. They are different characters altogether and simply because they are antagonistic and "foils" for each other doesn't mean they should be compared. I think they are different enough to warrant discussion without being compared to each other. EVERYONE in Dragon Age has a traumatic past. Shall we compare Morrigan's past to Fenris's? Alistair's to Anders? That's nothing new, and yet each one is a unique character with a unique view on the world.

Alas, ranting now.

To come to the topic at hand... the issue of Slavery and "the option we do not speak of." Well, I'm with Harle.. I think it's a pointless option and more than that it is not necessary or prudent in any sense. It provides no benefit, makes no sense to do, and basically goes off the "I HATE FENRIS! SELL HIM BaCK!" *rage* mentality people so easily fall into, or the "WHO CARES? I'm an *evil* Hawke .. SELL HIM BaCK!" mentality. Which, even as an *evil* Hawke makes little sense since you gain more benefit by keeping the lyrium warrior around than by accepting a few measly sovereigns off a magister. Better (and more evil actually) to kill the magister and his entourage, take everything from him, and keep his property. So, honestly it's a ridiculous option in all aspects.

As for Slavery -- in DA2 I actually think it is less glaring and seems more of a distant problem than in DA:O. The alienage elves that you rescue from the Tevinter slaver truly made you appreciate slavery a bit more, and honestly made you think about what these elves and these people are going through and being forced into. Slavery is a part of the culture, but let us not forget it is illegal in most of Thedas and only in Tevinter does it thrive. I think it is handled quite well, and only someone who glosses over the information provided or simply doesn't wish to see the horrors of slavery misses the poignancy of it. Fenris provides many examples of how slavery works in Tevinter. In DA:O you have the examples of slavery and what elves go through. In DA2 you have various slavers and people who are in the black market of slavery who tell you pretty much blatantly what they are doing and try to deal with you. It is never suggested slavery is a good thing, it is never suggested that slaves are treated well. In fact, it is always suggested that to permit slavery or participate in slavery is a bad thing. Even giving the boat to Isabela and letting Castillon go (in which it is understood he will continue his slave trades) is a morally grey choice and very difficult to make. Isabela lets slaves go because it is the "right" thing to do, and she sees how they are being transported and treated -- "even children..."

No, slavery is handled as slavery should be. It isn't taken lightly, it isn't glossed over, and in all cases it is regarded as a morally wrong choice and a BAD thing. Which is exactly how it should be.

[gingergen]

AbsoluteApril wrote...

Even though I morally object to slavery, it is part of the culture of Thedas and part of the story and I believe should be in he game. I didn't feel it was trivialized, beyond the paultry sum you receive from Danarius, which I would take more as showing what an arse his character is, if many slaves are 'worth' 100 soverigns a piece, then Fenris would be above the average. Does that make sense?

We do get to kill quite a few slavers in the game

I agree with this.

I also thing kemz19691 had a good point here:

When you enter Kirkwall and realize you'll have to choose between smuggling and murder to provide for your family, you soon realize morality will not be a companion character in this game.

Kirkwall is a pretty awful place. Even if you're playing a good/diplomatic character, you have to make unpleasant choices. Really, the main conflict of the game is based around an unpleasant choice, between mages and the chantry/templars. NEITHER side is right, in my opinion -- what they need to do is attempt to work together and compromise, but the situation is too far gone to make that happen.

dangereusegirl - I liked your observations on the Fenris in the future question.

Aldien - thanks for the link! off to read now!

[Dutchess]

I don't think slavery is taken lightly in the game. It actually focuses on how bad it is, and it is seen as something evil.

I understand why they haven't chosen to let half your party leave when you hand Fenris over. I suppose people would be very angry and discontent if they lost so much more companions when they simply hate Fenris and want to get rid of him in this mean, mean way. It would just be too extreme in terms of gameplay, although I agree it's a good option in theory.
But I think not that many people give him to Danarius in the first place. It's probably a small minority.


On another subject: we know Fenris has flashbacks of his old life when he sleeps with Hawke for the first time. I wonder whether the same will happen when they finally get back together in act 3? So will Fenris get (part of) his memory back everytime he makes love with Hawke? I imagine that migt actually be quite painful and hard. But perhaps after several times Fenris will be able to keep remembering some of those things?
Perhaps sleeping with Hawke will eventually result in the complete return of his memory?

[dangereusegirl]

I don't think so, ren.

To me, sleeping with Hawke was the catalyst for Fenris to remember. There he was, an escaped slave, starting to develop an attachment and attraction to another person. To have those feelings reciprocated, and to become connected both mentally, physically, and possibly spiritually to Hawke had a metaphorical switch flick on in Fenris' brain. Suddenly, he's flooded with all of these memories, and is unable to make sense of them all. After leaving Hawke, Fenris probably stews over what he remembers. I think that over time, he gradually regains his memories. Not all at once, because he certainly didn't know where to find his family in Tevinter.

Keep in mind that he remembers playing with his sister when they were kids, this before he resumes a relationship with Hawke. Of course, one could attribute that to being one of the things he remembers, but I don't believe that is the case.


Something did just occur to me. If you do not recruit Fenris, or he leaves after being attacked by Hadriana's people in Act 2, do you think he actually manages to solve his own problems? Does he take care of Danarius and Hadriana? Or is Hawke the defining factor in his survivability?

[Dutchess]

I think Hawke is essential for killing Hadriana and Danarius. Fenris says as much in rivalry when you choose the option that leads to handing him over to Danarius: "I can't fight him without you," he pleas. Without Hawke's help, Fenris has no hope of defeating a powerful Tevinter magister. Hadriana would most likely already have succeeded in capturing Fenris if he had gone to the caverns by himself.

So yes, I believe Hawke is the defining factor in Fenris' survivability. That's why Fenris feels he owes Hawke.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I take the memory thing that he actually relaxed enough afterward to sleep soundly and dream of his life before. That explains why he got some back after Hadriana was gone and, knowing Hawke really will protect him and help him helps as well.

[aldien]

My biggest complaint about slavery: being allowed to sell Fenris back to Danarius without serious repercussions. Actually, I think the fact you can do it at all is deplorable, and it was not needed, and in the context of the game it makes no sense!

Am I right in saying that slavery is illegal in Kirkwall? So, when you give Fenris to Danarius it is completely unlawful and the captain of the guard let's you???

Danarius has no jurisdiction in the city. If anything, you would think the templars would be more than happy to cart him off to the gallows. It is one big plot hole that allows the player (keep in mind that some of the people who play this game are much younger than us) to flippantly sell someone without it really having any consequence.

Of all the things in the game that tried to portray how bad slavery was and why it's wrong, THIS should have been the one thing that really drove the point home. But it wasn't. Here have him Danarius. Thank you. Okay, now I am a really evil character. Yay me. It just gets to me that you can actually participate in slave trading! Ah! It's a bad example to set.

Maybe instead of losing your companions you lose the respect of the city. Something more than getting 3 sovereigns, -10 popularity with companions, and a note from Danarius telling you he is now going to wipe Fenris's memory. Uggggg.... even after reading some very good arguments I still can't be convinced it was handled properly. I'll just agree to disagree.

Someone said that Anders makes a comment when you give Fenris back. What is it? I tried to find it but I refuse to watch the video of Fenris being handed over. I was looking for the actual quote.

[Dutchess]

 Anders: "I thought I was the only one thinking that.":happy:

Modifié par renjility, 29 février 2012 - 06:38 .

[Harle Cerulean]

And then he gives you friendship points.

Way to support freedom for everyone, Anders.

[Dutchess]

Yeah, I honestly don't understand this reaction. Sure, he doesn't like Fenris, may hate him even, but this is so out of proportion. And even if Anders wouldn't mind handing Fenris over, what about Justice? Surely letting a slaver take his escaped slave back is not justice, or is Justice about the rights of customers now? Danarius gets his rightfully owned property back? That's justice?