68 réponses à ce sujet

[SleepyBird]

Ryzaki wrote...
[…]Frankly I I'm glad it's ambigious because if it was directly stated romancing him with mage Hawke would strain my credibility. (Particulary a rivalrymance). It would look more like a odd return of his relationship with Danarius in some twisted way.  

Even the best intentioned friendmance of Fenris still has echoes of a return to a subservient relationship with a dominating personality. And I think this makes perfect sense for Fenris' character. In romancing a mage he is both rejecting his past and returning to familiar patterns at the same time. It's human nature to gravitate to familiar situations, even if those situations are difficult or repulsive. It's up to the player to decide whether the relationship will become a supportive partnership between equals or not.

If one wants to see his past with Denarius as having been sexually abusive in addition to physically and mentally abusive, that can be interpreted as more rather than less reason for him to become sexually involved with a rival Hawke. People who have a history of abuse tend to find themselves in abusive relationships again and again. It's depressing, but very true to life. This isn't how I like to see my game personally, but it makes sense from a certain point of view.

[Tyrium]

I certainly got a sexual abuse vibe from that scene. It just fits in with all the other implications:

The most obvious one is the girl begging the templars in Dissent, the way Alrik talked, it was as clear as it could be without actually saying it. Then Anders talking to Sebastian about the templars raping the mages, and he was fortunate to escape that. There are also the two ambient dialogues with Alain, about Ser Krass threatening to make him tranquil if he told anyone he'd been in his bedchamber, and the one about them making him do things.

The Tevinter Imperium is presented as a reversal of the rest of Thedas, with mages abusing non-mages. So yeah, I do interpret it as Danarius abusing his power over Fenris in every possible way, but I do acknowledge that is is open to interpretation, and other people may not see it that way. Therefore what is canon for someone's playthrough is however they interpret it.

[Addai]

Ryzaki wrote...
Frankly I I'm glad it's ambigious because if it was directly stated romancing him with mage Hawke would strain my credibility. (Particulary a rivalrymance). It would look more like a odd return of his relationship with Danarius in some twisted way.  

Aversion to touch could be explained by physical abuse. (I can see Hardriana as the type to knock him around becausehe can't do anything to her and feeling power over the fact) 

What?  In rivalry he and Hawke are going toe to toe.  I would rather think a "subservient" dynamic would have him agreeing with everything Hawke said.  Moreover it's obvious that there is mutual respect and not simply hating one another.  But I'm getting sick of saying this and starting to sound like a broken record.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...
What?  In rivalry he and Hawke are going toe to toe.  I would rather think a "subservient" dynamic would have him agreeing with everything Hawke said.  Moreover it's obvious that there is mutual respect and not simply hating one another.  But I'm getting sick of saying this and starting to sound like a broken record.

Where did I say he was subservient? I'm certainly not seeing it.

Also toe to toe? Not in my rivalrymance. He just did a lot of screaming and snarling and my Hawke remained rather stoic and "yeah whatever stop b*tching and blaming magic. Not my problem you had a bad life." at him. My Hawke also took the slave girl and no matter how much he spat he still slept with my Hawke 5 minutes later.

Really mutual respect is also variable by how you play. I have a Hawke that sees Fenris as a petulant child that needs to calm down. I have one that sees a very angry individual whose button he can't resist pushing. (That's where my Danarius comparisons come in.) He uses Fenris whenever he needs something done, prods him just to get his hackles risen among other things.

Everyone doesn't see the romance the way you do. There's no need to repeat yourself just because someone doesn't agree.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 avril 2011 - 10:48 .

[Addai]

That's your roleplay conception. It's not in the game dynamic- unless you'd like to point out something I'm missing.

And why do people like playing creepy, abusive characters? I'll never get it.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

That's your roleplay conception. It's not in the game dynamic- unless you'd like to point out something I'm missing.

And why do people like playing creepy, abusive characters? I'll never get it.

I saw it play out perfectly fine in game nothing contradicted it. Not once did my Hawke get angry at Fenris other than a shrug or a "okay let's get going." he had a very uncaring attitude. There is no toe-to-toe forced in game. Also gave Fenris' "this was a mistake." dialogue a new dimension.

And if you don't get it it's pointless for me to explain. I like playing all kinds of characters from good guys to complete monsters. It's fun.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 avril 2011 - 10:54 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

Tyrium wrote...

I certainly got a sexual abuse vibe from that scene. It just fits in with all the other implications:

There are also the two ambient dialogues with Alain, about Ser Krass threatening to make him tranquil if he told anyone he'd been in his bedchamber, and the one about them making him do things.

This is slightly off topic, but this is the second time I've seen this incident mentioned.  What are the conditions for having this conversation as I seem to have completely missed it! ...
Poor Alain

[ejoslin]

Village Idiot wrote...

Tyrium wrote...

I certainly got a sexual abuse vibe from that scene. It just fits in with all the other implications:

There are also the two ambient dialogues with Alain, about Ser Krass threatening to make him tranquil if he told anyone he'd been in his bedchamber, and the one about them making him do things.

This is slightly off topic, but this is the second time I've seen this incident mentioned.  What are the conditions for having this conversation as I seem to have completely missed it! ...
Poor Alain

The line is in the talk table. You have to have Ser Karass alive, but the talk table doesn't state what conditions are needed for it to trigger.

[ejoslin]

TripLight wrote...

I just got the impression that Danarius was goading him, Fenris can't stand being referred as something less then a person. Danarius knows this, thus he struck at Fenris to hurt him emotionally.

I don't think he was sexually abused, physically and emotionally, oh yes.

If you really want to know just PM Gaider, I am sure he would shed light on the subject...or give another ambigously cryptic explanation, it can't hurt.

I don't think DG would answer this -- if he wanted it clear either way, it would be in the game.

I'm in the camp of belief that Fenris was used however Denarius felt like using him at that moment and that it was all just a normal state of being.  Fenris is physically beautiful which makes it hard to believe that in a depraved society that that wouldn't be something he were called upon to do, at least occasionally.

BUT I also believe this was left ambiguous on purpose.

[Sherbet Lemon]

ejoslin wrote...

The line is in the talk table. You have to have Ser Karass alive, but the talk table doesn't state what conditions are needed for it to trigger.

Ah, I see.  The first two play throughs, Ser Karass was dead dead dead, but in the last two he was alive.  I don't think I clicked on Alain that much when I saw him in the Gallows later.  Thanks for the answer!

[Emperor Iaius I]

Tyrium wrote...
The Tevinter Imperium is presented as a reversal of the rest of Thedas, with mages abusing non-mages. So yeah, I do interpret it as Danarius abusing his power over Fenris in every possible way, but I do acknowledge that is is open to interpretation, and other people may not see it that way. Therefore what is canon for someone's playthrough is however they interpret it.

I'm bothered by the notion of "canon for somebody's playthrough"--while people are free to interpret things as they wish, and I'm sure it's by design, it seems like a bit of invention too. It's not "canon" when you have to imagine it--then it's fanfiction. People are entitled to it, of course, but it's a different matter.

On another level, I find it hard to agree with the notion that "templars rape mages, so mages must do the same to non-mages." Do the magisters make people tranquil, too? Do they steal children? Just because one group does somethign while they are in power doesn't mean the oppressed group acts the same way in different circumstances.

[Ryzaki]

onthat note are there any mods that change Danarius' appearence? He looks pretty bleh.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 avril 2011 - 12:05 .

[Maria Caliban]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Tyrium wrote...
The Tevinter Imperium is presented as a reversal of the rest of Thedas, with mages abusing non-mages. So yeah, I do interpret it as Danarius abusing his power over Fenris in every possible way, but I do acknowledge that is is open to interpretation, and other people may not see it that way. Therefore what is canon for someone's playthrough is however they interpret it.

I'm bothered by the notion of "canon for somebody's playthrough"--while people are free to interpret things as they wish, and I'm sure it's by design, it seems like a bit of invention too. It's not "canon" when you have to imagine it--then it's fanfiction. People are entitled to it, of course, but it's a different matter.

I think she's referring to head-canon, which simply means 'the story that works best for me.' While head-canon and fanfiction are two different things, both of them can involve events absent from or contrary to the source material.

On another level, I find it hard to agree with the notion that "templars rape mages, so mages must do the same to non-mages." Do the magisters make people tranquil, too? Do they steal children? Just because one group does somethign while they are in power doesn't mean the oppressed group acts the same way in different circumstances.

I have no problem believing that the Magisters tranquil people or remove children from their homes. I have no problem seeing the Qunari doing the same.

People in power will do whatever they wish unless there's a limit placed on their power.

[Addai]

Ryzaki wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

That's your roleplay conception. It's not in the game dynamic- unless you'd like to point out something I'm missing.

And why do people like playing creepy, abusive characters? I'll never get it.

I saw it play out perfectly fine in game nothing contradicted it. Not once did my Hawke get angry at Fenris other than a shrug or a "okay let's get going." he had a very uncaring attitude. There is no toe-to-toe forced in game. Also gave Fenris' "this was a mistake." dialogue a new dimension.

And if you don't get it it's pointless for me to explain. I like playing all kinds of characters from good guys to complete monsters. It's fun.

I mean a dynamic of Hawke being abusive to Fenris, Danarius-like.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...
I mean a dynamic of Hawke being abusive to Fenris, Danarius-like.

And my response was eaten. Damn comp.

Though no there is no dynamic of Hawke leashing Fenris and embedding his skin with lyrium. That wasn't what I was suggesting. I meant more of a Hawke having nearly all the power in the relationship, being the one in more control of his emotions, Fenris natrually finding himself wanting to keep Hawke's affection. Fenris acquiesing to Hawke's wishes despite his better judgement and ignoring some of the monsterish actions Hawkes takes as long as Hawke continues to show him affection. (Like making Orana a slave and going "lol jk" when threatening to hand Fenris over to Danarius.)

Hawke could regain the mental control Danarius held over Fenris. Control so strong that Fenris crumbles without Hawke's support because only Hawke's can compete with it.

Doesn't *have* to be seen that way. But it can be.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 avril 2011 - 01:04 .

[Fruit of the Doom]

I think the only question that really matters is this:

Did he glisten?

[SleepyBird]

ejoslin wrote...

[...] BUT I also believe this was left ambiguous on purpose.

This exactly.  I think there are very deliberate clues left to lead player to believe exactly as much happened as you want to think happened.  Things are very specifically IMPLIED in both directions, leaving the player to fill in the blanks in whatever way seems most fitting to their own story.
On the one hand Fenris tells Isabella he was just a bodyguard and tells (romanced female)Hawke he has no menory of having been intimate with another.  If you are they type of player who would prefer to belive nothing happened, there is clear evidence to support you.
On the other hand Danarius makes some pretty damn creepy and leering intimations.  Sex certainly seems to be something slaves are sometimes called upon for.  Again, it is completely reasonable to come to the conclusion that perhaps sexual abuse did occur.
But in the end there is no absolute moment where either side can say what did or did not happen.  We can argue about it all day, but whatever conclusion each of us comes to individually IS the correct conclusion for each of us individually.

[Fruit of the Doom]

SleepyBird wrote...
We can argue about it all day, but whatever conclusion each of us comes to individually IS the correct conclusion for each of us individually.

Especially when it is all fiction to begin with! 

[TripLight]

ejoslin wrote...

TripLight wrote...

I just got the impression that Danarius was goading him, Fenris can't stand being referred as something less then a person. Danarius knows this, thus he struck at Fenris to hurt him emotionally.

I don't think he was sexually abused, physically and emotionally, oh yes.

If you really want to know just PM Gaider, I am sure he would shed light on the subject...or give another ambigously cryptic explanation, it can't hurt.

I don't think DG would answer this -- if he wanted it clear either way, it would be in the game.

I'm in the camp of belief that Fenris was used however Denarius felt like using him at that moment and that it was all just a normal state of being.  Fenris is physically beautiful which makes it hard to believe that in a depraved society that that wouldn't be something he were called upon to do, at least occasionally.

BUT I also believe this was left ambiguous on purpose.

I am starting to think this as well, especially when so many people in this thread viewed that scene and took away so many different impressions about it. Perception and impressions are key, and of course not everyone is going to think alike.