301 réponses à ce sujet

[Exile Isan]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
What Hawke does or doesn't know is irrelevant. Reality is relevant. The reality is that Danarius likely wasn't "abusive."

You don't call carving Lyrium into someone's flesh "abusive"? Whether Fenris asked for it or not is irrelevant, the fact that Denarius was willing to do it at all makes him abusive.

Modifié par Exile Isan, 05 avril 2011 - 02:29 .

[mesmerizedish]

Exile Isan wrote...

You don't call carving Lyrium into someone's flesh "abusive"? Whether Fenris asked for it or not is irrelevant, the fact that Denarius was willing to do it at all makes him abusive.

That's absolutely not abusive. If it were not consensual, then it would be. But in the real world, people endure as much for science, for their health, for money, for any number of things. And it's not abuse, because they're willing.

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Exile Isan wrote...

You don't call carving Lyrium into someone's flesh "abusive"? Whether Fenris asked for it or not is irrelevant, the fact that Denarius was willing to do it at all makes him abusive.

That's absolutely not abusive. If it were not consensual, then it would be. But in the real world, people endure as much for science, for their health, for money, for any number of things. And it's not abuse, because they're willing.

I think the argument could be made, and would be valid, that he could not give consent considering his circumstances.

[mesmerizedish]

makenzieshepard wrote...

I think the argument could be made, and would be valid, that he could not give consent considering his circumstances.

He didn't just say "Okay, you can do it," though. He fought for it. He wanted it.

[Icy Magebane]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Was that question not towards everyone in general?

Absolutely. And at no one in particular. Specific individuals are irrelevant, because I'm talking about a collective.

]*rubs temples*

Please play the game again and listen to Fenris the second time. Just...do that and then say "likely wasn't abusive"

You're right. I can't. He clearly wasn't abusive. The branding was consensual.

Indeed. Sacking a city, being rude to it's leaders, planting himself in said city without an invitation. Plenty of what he did was douchey.

All of which was dictated by the Qun. He didn't put himself in Kirkwall, he was shipwrecked. Their enclave in Lowtown was a gift from the city. If you want to think that it's somehow douchey, feel free. But I disagree.

And I disagree. Handing a slave back to their master especially when said slave is begging you not to do it is a douche move.

And turning in a thief to the guards when the thief is begging you not to is a douche move too? Because the two situations are identical to my hypothetical character, who doesn't make value judgments about the merits of the law.

So I suppose leaving Shianni to Vaughn isn't douchey then? Let's just say Fereldan had a law that stated that human nobles could do whatever they wanted to the elves under their care. Is it then okay? 

Of course not. It's Tevinter law that's important.

ROFL... are you even serious?  How many times does Fenris need to explain his life and say that he didn't ask for or want the markings?  Consensual?  Sounds like you just want to be right... you are ignoring facts.

And saying that turning in a thief is the same as turing in a runaway slave??? Wow.  

That last comment makes me think this really is a joke.  You have to honor Tevinter law but not Ferelden law... okay.  None of this makes any sense.

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

I think the argument could be made, and would be valid, that he could not give consent considering his circumstances.

He didn't just say "Okay, you can do it," though. He fought for it. He wanted it.

Coercion

Because we all know linking to wikipedia is the ultimate I Win button   Seriously though unless I missed it he was a slave and thus not able to give uncoerced consent making it meaningless.

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 05 avril 2011 - 02:37 .

[mesmerizedish]

makenzieshepard wrote...

Coercion

Because we all know linking to wikipedia is the ultimate I Win button   Seriously though unless I missed it he was a slave and thus not able to give uncoerced consent making it meaningless.

It's insulting to say that slaves aren't allowed to have goals because they're slaves 

[EDIT] There's lots of times that Fenris did what he was told because his choice was less than his own. But fighting for the honor of the lyrium branding isn't one of them.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 02:38 .

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

Coercion

Because we all know linking to wikipedia is the ultimate I Win button   Seriously though unless I missed it he was a slave and thus not able to give uncoerced consent making it meaningless.

It's insulting to say that slaves aren't allowed to have goals because they're slaves ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png

[EDIT]
There's lots of times that Fenris did what he was told because his
choice was less than his own. But fighting for the honor of the lyrium
branding isn't one of them.

Duress is actually more akin to what I was looking for.

And no that's not what I said.   It does however mean that the motivation has to be examined

EDIT: I doubt Fenris would've fought for this had he not be under duress.  Yay I used the word of the day in a sentence! 

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 05 avril 2011 - 02:41 .

[mesmerizedish]

makenzieshepard wrote...

Duress is actually more akin to what I was looking for.

And no that's not what I said.   It does however mean that the motivation has to be examined

EDIT: I doubt Fenris would've fought for this had he not be under duress.  Yay I used the word of the day in a sentence! 

That's the word of the day? Neat!

He wanted it because it was an honor. Because afterward, he'd be better off than he was. And, he freed his family (though, look where that got him ). I think he fought for it not because Danarius conditioned him to, but because it would be an objective improvement for him.

[Masako52]

Danarius WAS abusive, at the very least emotionally abusive. He literally dragged Fenris around on a leash (as a mockery to qunari custom, but point being, Fenris was LITERALLY his pet). He forced Fenris to kill whoever, even the Fog Warriors who had become Fenris's friends. Fenris says he was constantly denied meals, humiliated, and "hounded in his sleep" by Hadriana, but there's no way Danarius wouldn't know about that so if it went on, it was likely encouraged - assuming Danarius didn't do the same to Fenris himself. Plus, Danarius's dialogue in Act 3 about asking Hawke if he was "jealous" in that weird tone... and calling Fenris all those pet names... it's not canon but I felt like I was getting slapped in the face with sexual innuendo. I thought the conversation was blatantly implying that Fenris might have been sexually abused.

Though frankly, I think keeping someone as a slave is, by definition, abusive.

Let's talk more about how great Anders and Fenris are as a pairing, though. That is a much better topic.

[mesmerizedish]

Icy Magebane wrote...

ROFL... are you even serious?  How many times does Fenris need to explain his life and say that he didn't ask for or want the markings?  Consensual?  Sounds like you just want to be right... you are ignoring facts.

When Fenris says he didn't ask for the markings, he doesn't remember that he did. You're ignoring facts.

And saying that turning in a thief is the same as turing in a runaway slave??? Wow.

It's exactly the same. Both have stolen property. The only difference is the runaway slave has stolen something likely of considerably greater value.

That last comment makes me think this really is a joke.  You have to honor Tevinter law but not Ferelden law... okay.  None of this makes any sense.

It absolutely does. I'm talking about the perspective of a character who believes strongly in justice, and whose sense of justice is defined by the laws of the Tevinter Imperium (likely because she grew up there).

Just because you or someone else despises slavery doesn't mean that this character is a douche. She's certainly not likely to grant you the moral highground when she sees alienages and elves that are universally treated even worse than slaves in the Imperium.

[Exile Isan]

makenzieshepard wrote...
Duress is actually more akin to what I was looking for.

And no that's not what I said.   It does however mean that the motivation has to be examined

EDIT: I doubt Fenris would've fought for this had he not be under duress.  Yay I used the word of the day in a sentence! 

I think desperation it actually the word you are looking for. Fenris did compete for the markings, but only because if he won he got a boon and he used the boon to free his mother and his sister from slavery. It was desperation from what I could see that lead him to do what he did. And I still say that willing or not to recieve them, what Denarius did to Fenris is inexcusable.

Masako52 wrote...
Though frankly, I think keeping someone as a slave is, by definition, abusive.

Also this.

Modifié par Exile Isan, 05 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[Sjofn]

Masako52 wrote... Plus, Danarius's dialogue in Act 3 about asking Hawke if he was "jealous" in that weird tone... and calling Fenris all those pet names... it's not canon but I felt like I was getting slapped in the face with sexual innuendo. I thought the conversation was blatantly implying that Fenris might have been sexually abused.  

I got that vibe too, especially because of Fenris' reaction. I mean, I know he's going to be all "shut up, jerk" to Denarius anyway, but something about the way he says it and the way he's animated there made me go, "Hm."

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
He wanted it because it was an honor. Because afterward, he'd be better off than he was. And, he freed his family (though, look where that got him ). I think he fought for it not because Danarius conditioned him to, but because it would be an objective improvement for him.

First two sentences true, no question .  Last mostly true.  There is no such thing as an unconditioned slave.  Unless Fenris was NOT a slave or otherwise coerced at the time of his agreement then the 'contract' is null and void because consent was coerced.  

[Ryzaki]

  

Okay so Fereldan law shouldn't be followed but Tevinter law should? 

I'm obviously wasting my time.  

Again answer the analogy. Is the CE a douche or not when s/he leaves Shianni behind because it's the "law" in the scenario I gave. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[Masako52]

Trophonius wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

This is why I demand a DLC where you can get Anders and Fenris screwing. Just think about it... screaming, ****slapping, hair pulling, name-calling, then on the floor naked. I like to interpret their terrible attitudes toward one another as HUGE SEXUAL TENSION.

(Then again, I would've also liked to be able to set up Alistair and Morrigan together, but nooo...)

Seconded. You just know it was supposed to happen in the first place. There should've been an option to tell Anders:

"Your wildest fantasies come true. Sex with Fenris."

I also ALWAYS picked that line with Alistair because I was always hoping I'd be able to catch something that blatantly implied that yes, Alistair did want to shove Morrigan against a wall and make demon babies. I was so stoked when I found out they could actually have sex in the game... but it's not happy hate!sex.  It's "doing my duty as a Gray Warden" sex. grr..

Point being, Bioware should take the next step in romance relationships.... PLAYING MATCHMAKER WITH YOUR COMPANIONS. Why did Fenris have to sleep with Isabella in Act 3? I want sexy character banter between him and Anders, dammit. <_<

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

  

Okay so Fereldan law shouldn't be followed but Tevinter law should? 

I'm obviously wasting my time.  

Or you don't understand what I'm talking about?

If this character were Fereldan, then she'd defend that law. But she would then not turn in Danarius, because from her perspective, Danarius is the criminal, not Fenris.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

  

Okay so Fereldan law shouldn't be followed but Tevinter law should? 

I'm obviously wasting my time.  

Or you don't understand what I'm talking about?

If this character were Fereldan, then she'd defend that law. But she would then not turn in Danarius, because from her perspective, Danarius is the criminal, not Fenris.

So she would leave Shianni to be raped then? 

And again something being lawful doesn't make it any less jerkish. 

The scenario wasn't complicated. It's lawful for Vaughn to do what he did (in the scenario I gave). You can choose to stop him but it's unlawful. 

And again. Your character isn't from Tevinter so why should my character have to be Fereldan? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:53 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

So she would leave Shianni to be raped then?

Were that the law, more than likely. Remember, this is someone who values laws simply because they're laws. She doesn't make value judgments of the contents of the laws.

But, Ferelden doesn't have such a law, so the point is less valid. Not invalid, because the whole thing is "what if?" But the fact is that slavery is actually the law in the Imperium.

[Ryzaki]

And turning in a thief to the guards when the thief is begging you not to is a douche move too? Because the two situations are identical to my hypothetical character, who doesn't make value judgments about the merits of the law.

To me it depends on what punishement awaits the thief. S/he usually would've put themselves in that predicament. A slave on the other hand...not so much. 
[

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So she would leave Shianni to be raped then?

Were that the law, more than likely. Remember, this is someone who values laws simply because they're laws. She doesn't make value judgments of the contents of the laws.

But, Ferelden doesn't have such a law, so the point is less valid. Not invalid, because the whole thing is "what if?" But the fact is that slavery is actually the law in the Imperium.

And that doesn't stop the action from being douchey. 

You're trying to argue that it's not. 

I don't care how lawful something is/isn't. It's a betrayal of Fenris' trust and is a douche move. Leaving Shianni with Vaughn is a slap in the face (especially since you ran all that way to get her and then turn around and leave with some gold in your pocket) and a douche move. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:57 .

[Masako52]

Sjofn wrote...

Masako52 wrote... Plus, Danarius's dialogue in Act 3 about asking Hawke if he was "jealous" in that weird tone... and calling Fenris all those pet names... it's not canon but I felt like I was getting slapped in the face with sexual innuendo. I thought the conversation was blatantly implying that Fenris might have been sexually abused.  

I got that vibe too, especially because of Fenris' reaction. I mean, I know he's going to be all "shut up, jerk" to Denarius anyway, but something about the way he says it and the way he's animated there made me go, "Hm."

Yeah, I know a lot of other people seem to get the same reaction from the Danarius scene, so it can't just be me. Honestly, I felt like it was obvious, especially since Fenris snaps at Danarius so defensively after Danarius says something like "he is quite skilled..." in that same dirty gross tone.

I know at one point in the game if you pursue romance with Fenris, he'll imply that he's never "done it" before, but I assumed at the time he meant he had never really had a lover. And it's understandable that if Danarius DID sexually abuse him,  he wouldn't consider that real sex. 

lol I totally forgot the topic of this thread was about Anders being a douche. He is, but I think Fenris is just as big of a douche. I can't even rank them like that. I love Fenris, but dammit I wish he'd lay off of Merrill. He's a beast to her, and Merrill is nothing but sweet and supportive of everyone. I don't think she ever said a cruel word back to Fenris or Anders, but they harass her incessantly.

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

And turning in a thief to the guards when the thief is begging you not to is a douche move too? Because the two situations are identical to my hypothetical character, who doesn't make value judgments about the merits of the law.

To me it depends on what punishement awaits the thief. S/he usually would've put themselves in that predicament. A slave on the other hand...not so much.

An escaped slave? Yes, absolutely.

Again, I should point out that all your arguments are based on "slavery is bad, even if it's the law." I agree. But that's a value judgment that we've established this character doesn't make.

She's consistent, she's firm in her beliefs, she's not unnecessarily cruel. She does what she believes to be right. You or I might think she's out of her mind, but she's not a douche.

[Ryzaki]

Oh yes she is. She had him with her for 6 years and never turned him into the slavers until that moment.  She waits until he is at his most vulnerable and expected her to have his back. She has talked to him, earned his trust and respect and takes him along with her to see his sister. 

She's a douche.

Sorry.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:59 .

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And turning in a thief to the guards when the thief is begging you not to is a douche move too? Because the two situations are identical to my hypothetical character, who doesn't make value judgments about the merits of the law.

To me it depends on what punishement awaits the thief. S/he usually would've put themselves in that predicament. A slave on the other hand...not so much.

An escaped slave? Yes, absolutely.

Again, I should point out that all your arguments are based on "slavery is bad, even if it's the law." I agree. But that's a value judgment that we've established this character doesn't make.

She's consistent, she's firm in her beliefs, she's not unnecessarily cruel. She does what she believes to be right. You or I might think she's out of her mind, but she's not a douche.

I'd have to disagree with that.  The charcter is consistent.  A consistent douche.  Which is better than an inconsistent douche.  I suppose.

Douche.
Sorry the word is starting to lose all meaning at this point