422 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

Neminea wrote...
How does him not changing make him a hypocrite, from what the dictionary tells me that makes him the opposite really.

Fenris wants to come across as an advocate of freedom. There are people in the world that Fenris does not like. Fenris supports the imprisonment of said people, but still wants to come across as an advocate of freedom. This is where the hypocrisy starts. As I said before, Hawke can point his out by saying "I thought freedom from slavery meant something to you." in Act 3. If you have high enough Friendship/Rivalry, he will immediately switch sides and fight for the mages. Now, I don't agree that the situation the mages are in equates to slavery, but the statement is enough to make Fenris acknowledge his own hypocrisy. Since he admits this, I see no problem with calling him one.

And, could you avoid cluttering your posts with these dictionary entries in the future? If this is the first time you've heard of certain terms like 'oppresion' and 'hypocrite', please look it up on your own time.

[Neminea]

I do not agree with that. His banter is mostly about being against mages, not about sprouting about freedom rights. Even when he switches sides he still says it's a mistake.

I look them up because not everyone on this board is a native english speaker (me for example) and the way terms like hypocracy and oppression are sprouted around here makes me think there are people here who do not know the meaning of those words.

Nobody forces you to read any of the posts around here, if you do not appreciate the way a post is set up you can just chose to use your "own time" to do something else thank you very much.

[The Baconer]

Neminea wrote...

I do not agree with that. His banter is mostly about being against mages, not about sprouting about freedom rights. Even when he switches sides he still says it's a mistake.

He spends plenty of time talking about the injustices of slavery along with his 'Man, I really don't like mages' routine. Him calling it a mistake is just him deciding to be consistent, even if he doesn't agree that mages deserve freedom.

And then there are his rants about how mages 'abuse their power' and how they'd 'use any excuse to use it' but when offered the power to fight them as an equal (so essentially, be made a mage) he wouldn't say no? Pretty hypocritical.

I look them up because not everyone on this board is a native english
speaker (me for example) and the way terms like hypocracy and oppression
are sprouted around here makes me think there are people here who do
not know the meaning of those words.

Oh, so it was just a subtle attempt to suggest ignorance on my part? Color me surprised.

Modifié par The Baconer, 26 août 2011 - 11:29 .

[Neminea]

Not really, just me trying to use facts to back up my arguments, and to show how I got to whatever conclusions I draw. If your going to chose to take personal offense to that, then the chances of a mature discussion just dropped significantly and I will refrain from trying to continue this one.
I will await a response to this before getting back on topic, to see if I feel like it's something I want to invest anymore time in, since I am not here to "fight" or defend the way I reach conclusions when I discuss something.

[Nameless2345]

Neminea wrote...

He says: "Freedom is a noble ideal, but I see no opression here. I see fear, and danger"
....

Wether you agree with his opinion on if there is or isn't any opression in the circle, you can hardly call him a hypocrit for that imho.

It is not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with his opinion. In the dialogue Fenris enters the Gallows, looks around and immediately pronounces that there is no oppression. Even an inspection of, say, prison to determine
that the laws and regulations are being upheld requires a team and a time. Illiterate foreigner who pronounces such judgment from a glance? He says a different thing actually, namely "I'm a biased idiot".    



Now, Fenris and slavery. He is obviously against it, several examples:
1)In banter with Aveline it is shown that Fenris directed the guard to the slaver base and F. expresses delight when he learns that Aveline’s men killed them all. 

2)In banter with Isabela F. commends her for freeing a group
of slaves.

3)In “Wayward son” F. disapproves if H. agrees to spare the
slavers in the Darktown. Also he speaks against attempts at diplomacy in the Slaver
Caverns.

Hypocrisy: according to Merriam-Webster hypocrite is also “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”. For example, someone who hates slavery yet supports organization that commits
tortures, magical lobotomies and (mass) murders without any formal trial, in several cases on a whim. Or someone who gets all angry when a slave is sacrificed to power up defenses yet treats killing a bunch of people for a crime they didn’t commit as a good idea, most likely because it would make him feel more secure.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 27 août 2011 - 10:37 .

[ReiSilver]

Oh gees not with the illiteracy thing again. *facepalm* yes, how dare a character be so underprivileged as to not be taught to read and still dare to have an opinion despite his lack of privilege based on actual experience!

I can't believe people in this thread are making me argue the 'mages need to be controlled' side of the argument, because I actually by and large come down on the No They Don't, Not Like That side very firmly.
But.
The slavery that Fenris hates =/= the circle system as he has seen it and understands it. He admits, on his first time in the Gallows, that he does not know whether or not the Circle and Templars are the best solution, but that Tevinter offers no answer either, being a place where mages are free and happen to use their power to abuse others.
Fenris supports the idea of controlling those with power that a normal person couldn't hope to match. While gameplay treats blood-mages and abominations as cannon-fodder-mooks, the lore speaks of them as one-man-army type monsters, he supports the idea of protecting the general populace from these threats "Think about it Hawke... For every mage like you there are a dozen weak mages. Them I fear. As should you. As should anyone."
Slavers on the other hand are not taking people even under the guise of protecting others from them. They are taking people for others to use as things. Period.

I have yet to see any of the characters in-game make more solid arguments against the inherent danger mages pose; untrained mages hurting others by accident, a mage deciding to use their power to hurt others, mages using others in blood magic, mages becoming possessed. These are all real dangers in their world and so far the characters have yet to make arguments better then “It's wrong to oppress people for what they are.” and “Look; I'm in control and not hurting anyone.”
These are good points but do nothing to face the existing problem. No one is actively proposing a new solution, just admonishing the existing one. Thus we are left with a false dichotomy of free-mages vs. The Circle System. With no better solution Fenris will support the one that leaves things less like Tevinter.

The circle system is oppressive but it is more akin to wrongful imprisonment then slavery*. I think it's a horrible system rife with abuse. I believe in times of war, when the Chantry decides to use their mages as tools of war then it can become more akin to slavery, but even then we have seen mages in the fereldan circle given the choice to join the fight at ostagar, which a slave would never even be given the consideration of choice. As it is, mages are basically sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime they may commit in future.

Fenris isn't on a crusade, his quests and goals are personal in nature and his arch is one of self discovery. He's not out to free slaves everywhere, he's not actively working to imprison mages, or improve the lot of elves, but he will point out BS when he sees it.

---
*I'm pretty sure one of the writers has said as much, but I cannot find the quote, I just remember someone ages ago in the Anders Thread mentioning it, so I left it out of the main body text

[Nameless2345]

ReiSilver wrote...

Oh gees not with the illiteracy thing again. *facepalm* yes, how dare a character be so underprivileged as to not be taught to read and still dare to have an opinion despite his lack of privilege based on actual experience!

 
Ah, as always, the point is completely missed. And it was: "How dare a character who has NO actual experience about the Circles and NO ways to get reliable information about them make conclusions based on a mere glance?" And no, "he is a poor underprivileged dear" card isn't an answer.

Debate about mages is...lengthy , and I agree that no one, not even Anders, offers any alternative solutions. In fact I believe I've said it already in this topic. Obviously mages have to be controlled. Every human who has any sort of power has to be controlled. That's precisely how it works in RL. There are laws and organizations to control (i.e. keep in check) business, police, military, and, of course, politicians. I don't understand why people keep saying obvious things like "have to controlled", "can't rule themselves", etc. The general principle is not in question.  The  implementation is.   
However: 
1)F. may admit that he doesn't know whether or not the Circle is best solution (no one knows that about any political solution). It matters not, in every quest and conversation he supports templars. No matter what they do. Unless F/R was maxed he joins Meredith (as opposed to, say, walking away) in effectively mass murder planned and ordered by a psychopath who offers one and only one justification ~"people will demand blood". You are saying that F. doesn't like human sacrifices in Tevinter? He is eager to commit one in Kirkwall due to his own insecurities.   

2)"controlling those with power that a normal person couldn't hope to match". I've addressed it already, but do you realize that it is a very funny point of view in a medieval setting with hereditary royalty and aristocracy? There are people with power most of the population can't match, they get this power by the accident of birth and that's a social norm, especially in Orlais. It isn't even viewed yet as a problem.
  
3)"The circle system is oppressive but it is more akin to wrongful imprisonment then slavery*". The post you were referring to belongs to David Gaider. Yes, in the Ferelden Circle it may be (may be) this. Yes, it is not legal slavery. However the difference is very, very slim. What is slavery? According to www.thefreedictionary.com it is "a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune".
In DA2 a templar can do anything he wishes to a mage. Punishments, including death, are assigned based not on the laws but on a whim.  And, as someone already had pointed out, even F. agrees in the end (assuming high influence) that yes, slavery and Circles are quite similar.  
In fact, scratch "to a mage". In act 2, death-squad of the templars torture an elven boy with the justification ~"no one should defy the Knight Commander". In act 3 such death-squads (the most apt term) slaughter people, including nobles, on the streets without any formal trial. The question is, who controls the Templars? Because they desperately need it. And in Kirkwall they have FAR more power than mages.

4)

Fenris is not on crusade...self-discovery...  

 Yep. In other words Fenris cares primarily about himself and his freedom. Other slaves/mages? No, not really. That's a normal, understandable position for someone with his background. Usually I like characters with a dose of healthy self-interest. What annoys me is that F. manages to  combine egotistic position with self-righteousness from the start, when he sets up H. and Co and acts as if it was his right to force random people to risk their lives for his freedom. He likes to talk about mages willing to resort to anything in a critical situation, yet never proves himself any different. 

Modifié par Nameless2345, 27 août 2011 - 02:14 .

[Tainan7509]

Me and Anders.

[Arquen]

I fail to see Fenris' hypocrisy here. He does NOT believe the circle = slavery. Whether you agree or not is completely beside the point. He sees the Gallows he "wonders if it is more effective than the one in Tevinter." He looks around and sees "danger and fear." Not a perfect solution, but not slavery. Not what he has seen before in Tevinter. Which is slaves being beaten in the streets. Blood magic being performed by nearly everyone. Magisters (those in power) abusing their power.

You can't sit there in Act 1 and be like -- "But that guy over there rapes people!" because YOU DON'T KNOW YET. The point is he is not a hypocrit because he doesn't ever speak contradictory to his beliefs. Now, that isn't to say he isn't hypocritical at times.

The best example of this is the Demon's offer, and how yes he would take it. Contradicting everything he ever said about mages, yet he calls himself out on his own hypocrisy. On rivalry he will blame Hawke for not finding a better way and taking him to the fade in the first place saying he did not want to be there. On friendship he says he "hopes we don't face anything like that again," and says "maybe I am not as strong as I thought." He even remarks how it must be hard for mages to resist temptations, but that only cements his point further and draws him more to his core belief that mages need control.

He is not a hypocrit throughout the game. He is not hypocritical all the time. He has instances of hypocrisy. SO DOES EVERY OTHER COMPANION. Even HAWKE. Oh, shocker. Yet, to sit there and judge him based on one single dialogue? To say he is some crusader for Justice, I mean Freedom, I mean.. wait we are talking about Fenris right? He isn't Anders. He isn't on a crusade for anything except personal revenge, self discovery, and personal freedom. Yes he has personal reasons for doing things. Yet he does not ever force anyone to help him. He believes people are out for themselves. He says this when you first meet him.

In other words Fenris cares primarily about himself and his freedom.

I agree with this, but go on to say that it isn't some static belief either. He comes to care about Hawke and the other companions. That is apparent in banters and cutscenes. If he completely didn't care about the companions or Hawke or his life in Kirkwall he would have left long ago.

Fenris manages to combine egotistic position with self-righteousness from the start, when he sets up Hawke and Co and acts as if it was his right to force random people to risk their lives for his freedom.

This is not supported at all. At this point when you first meet him he says 1. "I appologize.. I did not think they would be so numerous." 2. "I don't usually ask for help, but I'm asking now." 3. You can choose to say "NO! I won't help you," and he will be on his merry way without you.

There is no suggestion of him acting self-righteous. This opinion is based on personal bias and the whole "you tried to kill me!" idea. Which he states "perhaps the deception was not necessary. If so, I am sorry. I have become too accustomed to hiding." He never acts like it was his right to do that. He never dotes it over you. He apologizes for the trouble, and is glad you survived. He came to help you, in fact. If he was offering some sacrificial lamb he would have just left you there and not intervened. He wouldn't have paid you. He wouldn't have offered his service because he now feels obliged and wants to repay the debt and make it up to you.

In fact I can't really think of any example of self-righteousness. He doesn't think he is superior to anyone. He doesn't see himself as better than anyone else. Hell, he has a hard time seeing himself as more than a slave.

His "egotistic position" is not from ego. One could say he is "egotistic" in that his motivations are selfish, but he isn't egotistic in the sense that he has a bloated, holier than thou ego. He doesn't have an excessive sense of self-importance. In fact he has the opposite.

I've touched on that Act 3 banter before. One could say it is an example of Fenris being hypocritical. Other than being the WORST argument in the history of the world. Hawke says "I thought freedom from slavery meant something to you." Fenris says "I've changed my mind human. I will stand with my friend." 1.) He doesn't admit slavery = circle, but just that he is willing to stand with his friend because THEY believe that. 2.) He still suggests at the end scene in the gallows that this is a mistake, and something he wasn't willing to do before Hawke. He admits to himself and everyone else that this is contradictory to what he believes. If fully friended/rivaly he will ALWAYS say "It is a mistake, but I will not abandon you."

I still think that when you ask him to side with you Hawke your appealing to his sense of loyalty not his beliefs. His sense of loyalty to Hawke and the others. If you choose sarcastic Hawke it says "I guess it's too much to ask for you to die fighting by my side," and he will then side with you.

If he betrays you and sides with the Templars he gives VERY good reasons why he does so when he comes to kill you.

Hawke: I thought freedom from slavery meant something to you
Fenris: It does. That is why I oppose what these mages hope to become.

Then later,
Fenris: Look at them. Backed into a corner they show their true colors. Why your defending them I'll never know. This is an old story that always ends the same way.
Hawke: They aren't your enemies, Fenris, and neither am I.
Fenris: You've never been to the Imperium. There the mages spit on us. They keep people like me as pets. You think I won't fight to stop that from happening here? Think again. I should have known better than to let you get so close. First rule of survival.

So, literally when he turns on you.. no hypocrisy at all. Of course, no waiver in his mages free = Imperium either.

Sorry but all this Fenris "hate" is coming from the assumption that he is WRONG. That is opinion, and biased colored by the player's knowledge. You can't expect Hawke or Fenris or anyone in game to have the knowledge about Alrik, mages, the circle, blood magic, demons, the fade, the history from the other games that the PLAYER does. Just because you disagree with Fenris, does not make his opinions worthless. Biased, yes, but not self righteous. Anders is self-righteous. Sebastian is self-righteous. Hell even Merrill and Aveline are self-righteous. Fenris is NOT. He doesn't have enough self-worth and ego to be self-righteous. He isn't arrogant. He doesn't take an "I'm better than you" approach to anything. He simply believes what he believes and has a damn good reason to do so.

[Giggles_Manically]

In my first game I did everything for Fenris.

Oh my poor guy I will kill all those slavers!
Yeah lets go kill Hadriana!
YEAH Denarius is dead! You are free bro!

But sadly I was only at 85% Rivalry since I said nice things to him and then got stuck before act 3 ended.

So then a person I had helped again and again for years.... then tries to kill me.
Not aided by the fact that he also tries to kill:
Varric: his best friend
Aveline: Another friend

AT THE SAME TIME.
I can see his fear, and know its justified... but that was stupid.
Yes I replayed my canon game now that I know where the F/R points are but my first game I honestly laughed at him and said:
Brood in hell Broody.

I have since changed my view, after having romanced him as a rival, seeing him side with the mages as a rival, and doing his friend romance right now. But if I was left with just that I would hate him.

Modifié par Giggles_Manically, 27 août 2011 - 02:30 .

[Nameless2345]

Arquen wrote...

I fail to see Fenris' hypocrisy here. He does NOT believe the circle = slavery. Whether you agree or not is completely beside the point. He sees the Gallows he "wonders if it is more effective than the one in Tevinter." He looks around and sees "danger and fear." Not a perfect solution, but not slavery. Not what he has seen before in Tevinter. Which is slaves being beaten in the streets. Blood magic being performed by nearly everyone. Magisters (those in power) abusing their power.

You can't sit there in Act 1 and be like -- "But that guy over there rapes people!" because YOU DON'T KNOW YET.

Oh, my. And here I thought I was completely clear in a previous post. Reference to the Act 1 dialogue isn't about hypocrisy. It is Precisely about lack of knowledge. It is about Fenris who looks at the Circle (non-Tevinter one, that is) FIRST time in his life. Who had NO way of learning about what it exactly supposed to be (which is most likely different from the mess in Kirkwall). Who had no ways of learning anything about situation in Kirkwall, including whether or not laws/regulations are maintained.  And who yet glances at the Circle and goes ~"I see no oppression, so let's send some apostates and this half-elven kid here. Bethany, you should consider joining too, they'll protect you".  F. knows nothing yet jumps to conclusions. And sticks to them at least until the Act III. I don't know how can I make this more clear. It is not about hypocrisy or about "assumption that he is WRONG". The way he makes decisions/conclusions is cringeworthy and can lead to right results only coincidentally ('even broken clock...').  
About the rest - later. Somewhen . Will have to search wiki.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 27 août 2011 - 03:36 .

[Arquen]

I love how that one sentence is taken out of context and applied as some.. "how can you not see the oppression!" statement.

Sure, argue all you want to Fenris that the oppression exists. He won't believe you. He won't believe you because he does not see the same systematic oppression he sees in Tevinter. It is simple, and I don't get how this becomes so complicated for people. As stated, whether you agree with him or not is irrelevant. This is what he believes.

Based on what? Allow me to put that statement back into context. That is the comparison of the Tevinter circle of magi to the gallows that Fenris/Hawke are standing in.

Fenris: This seems more like a prison. I wonder if it's more effective than the Circle I know?

Hawke: How is the circle different?

Fenris: Once upon a time it was as it is here. The Chantry watched the magisters closely for any signs of corruption or weakness. Then it changed. The magisters were permitted to watch over their own, and templars kept to enforce the law. What happened next was inevitable. The magisters rule again, as powerful as they ever were.

Hawke: You're saying the same thing could happen here.

Fenris: If the mages were permitted to be their own watchers? Of course. It is too easy for a mage to resort to blood magic if they feel the need great enough.

Anders: As easy as it is to resort to a sword! You were created as a living weapon. Should you not be trusted with your freedom?

Fenris: My powers are not controlled by a demon. A mage can desire power, Justice, revenge, protection... any cause will do, and then they are lost.

Hawke: Your saying that locking mages up is better?

Fenris: All I'm saying is the Imperium offers no answer. All that Andraste did long ago to end the tyranny of magic has been undone. Power corrupts, as they say, and mages have power enough already.

Hawke: You talk about the magisters as if they are all evil.

Fenris: I have no doubt that some are good and noble men, strong enough to resist temptation. But how many temptations do you wish to offer a man before he will give in? Blood magic is everywhere in Tevinter. From the lowliest apprentice up to the archon himself.

Hawke: You can't have seen this for yourself.

Fenris: hmph. Danarius talked about it often. Of course they say it's forbidden. Behind the smiles and closed doors, however, it's a different matter. To be a magister in Tevinter is to be glorious. To be a powerful magister in Tevinter.... that is worth any price.

Hawke: According to everything I've seen, the Circle can't control mages anyhow.

Fenris: And what is the alternative? Freedom is a noble ideal, but I see no oppression here. I see fear... and danger.

How is that not understood? We are talking about a circle that completely doesn't work to control or subdue mages, and a circle that Fenris admits is "like a prison." He has first hand knowledge, and admittedly some second hand from Danarius about Tevinter history, how things work, and how the cirlce there is different. It isn't some gossip and lies. It is facts based on how magisters understand them. It is because Danarius was a powerful magister in Tevinter.

We can't assume what he did and did not talk about. We also can't assume that Fenris wasn't present as a bodyguard in more than one important, knowledgeable conversation. Likewise it doesn't seem prudent to assume that all he ever heard was gossip, lies, and second hand/third hand stories.

So, he admittedly has first hand knowledge of the circle (he says "the circle I know") and the use of blood magic by mages (the story of the boy Danarius sacrifices) and the treatment of slaves and the many times he spent with Danarius as a bodyguard listening, learning, absorbing and seeing things as a primary source. This is knowledge in its raw form. He isn't making assumptions about the Kirkwall circle, he is remarking it is NOT what he saw in Tevinter which was systematic oppression by the magisters to the slaves, commoners, lesser mages, etc.

When doing research this is the person you want to put as a primary source because it is literally a person who has perspective and truth that must be taken into consideration. Agreeing or not is beside the point. Yet people latch onto this and go "but but.. there is oppression! You fool! Look at the rapes, and the beatings, and the this and the that..."

Fenris sees no systematic oppression. NO mages being beaten in the streets, hung in the gallows, strewn about and sacrificed. This is clearly what he sees in Tevinter. In Kirkwall it isn't systemic oppression he sees like the one in Tevinter. That is all he is saying. Kirkwall not equal to Tevinter on level of brutality and oppression.

Take the whole thing in context. Kirkwall = more effective? It is a question not a condemnation. It is an alternative to what he knows, and what he knows is that Freedom is a noble ideal, but when mages become their own watchers they will inevitably seek to gain more power to get ahead. It's a "don't be naive" thing not a "lets lock them all up!" thing.

So with that.. I am done. I am just so sick of people taking one thing. ONE thing and condemning the whole character based on it because of comprehension failure.

Modifié par Arquen, 27 août 2011 - 07:11 .

[Ineffable Igor]

[Giggles_Manically]

So Fenris should be excused because... he cant grasp the obvious?
Because one type of oppression is not as overt as the one he is used to?

What?

In act 1 sure I can see him not thinking that the circle is really that bad.
But the stories just keep getting worse and worse as the acts progress.

Simply because things happen behind closed doors does not mean that they are worse then things that happen in the open.

Fenris wants to have one group oppressed to make sure it can oppress another group.
Historically... that does not work out well... like ever.

[Xilizhra]

Fenris sees no systematic oppression. NO mages being beaten in the streets, hung in the gallows, strewn about and sacrificed. This is clearly what he sees in Tevinter. In Kirkwall it isn't systemic oppression he sees like the one in Tevinter. That is all he is saying. Kirkwall not equal to Tevinter on level of brutality and oppression.

And he's completely wrong, and the reason is that he never gets any farther than the Gallows Courtyard. On the inside, it is very often just as bad as Tevinter, but he never accepts any mage saying things like that even though he has less information on the subject. I respect him in general, but on this point, he's pitifully blind.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 27 août 2011 - 10:06 .

[N7 Leto]

Why I (as my alter-ego Hawke in the game and IRL) loved Fenris (the person, not the party tank or damage dealer) . . .

Sigh . . . after reading pages and pages of discussion on Fenris in the Bioware forums, I finally signed up for an account just to post this.

In all of the media I have been experienced to that I can recall, there has been no other fictional character who touched my heart as much as Fenris did.

Not only is Fenris incredibly beautiful, but the backstory for him shows that he is a real paragon of humanity.  (Note that I am not saying that Fenris is the - fictional - living embodiment of perfection, although his body comes really close.)  Fenris has shown that although he endured one of the most dire and pathetic biographies of any character in any story (not just in a video game), he can (and is willing to) still learn to see the good in others.

How so?  Fenris endured years of slavery after having all memory of his past erased by his master.  Despite having been forced to be completely subservient to a mage who tried to forge him into a moral-less unquestioning living weapon, Fenris resisted to the bitter end.  When an opportunity for freedom presented itself, Fenris could have easily become like Jack, the biotic convict from Mass Effect 2 who, having been presented with an opportunity for freedom, went on a merciless trail of destruction killing for pleasure and for vengeance.  (I bring up Jack as an example partially because Fenris is often compared to Jack on these forums.)  When Mass Effect's Shepard met Jack, she had become the living persona of evil (a "living weapon"), living a life of a (part-time mercenary but mostly just ruthless) killer, taking immense pleasure in meaningless slaughter, and easily betraying others as was done to her.  (I am aware that Jack can - and maybe does, depending on how Shepard handles conversations with her - eventually learn and show that she has a soft-er side, but my original point remains the same: Jack got freedom and promptly engaged in violence as much as possible.)

Had Fenris desired so, he could have easily took the same route (and at that point, who could blame him if he did?) and become the physical embodiment of the term "living weapon".  He could have become the 
terror of Tevinter (the fictional country in which he grew up and was made a slave in) and butchered whomever he felt like and whenever he felt like, massacred the innocent and guilty alike with abandon, and 
betraying his word on a whim.  (The fact that Danarius erased Fenris's past and tried very hard to make Fenris incapable of moral judgment makes this course of action even more plausible, since history records 
plenty of individuals who were never taught right and wrong - and plenty of individuals who were - who chose to take actions like these.  I can think of a few - not perfect - examples: the peasants in the 
French Revolution, Adolph Hitler, terrorists, etc.)

Had Fenris chosen to do so, Hawke would most likely never have met him, because he would have ended up either perishing violently in a massive battle after leaving a horrific trail of blood and tears and showing no regret or remorse or living out life in the Tevinter equivalent of a maximum security prison after leaving a horrific trail 
of blood and tears and showing no regret or remorse.  (Sounds like what happened to Jack and how and where Shepard found her, right?)

Fenris has had multiple opportunities to, excuse my using a popular phrase, "turn to the dark side".

...

What has he actually done?

Fenris spent the three years before he met Hawke on the run trying desperately against all odds to make a new life for himself free from violence and bloodshed.  He did not try to emulate Danarius and become a slaver himself, nor did he become a ruthless murderer (mercenary?) killing everyone who came across his path whether for vengeance or for a love of bloodshed.

He tried to join the Fog Warriors and become an accepted member of their society, but Danarius pursued him.  (As an aside: yes, I am aware Fenris did kill the Fog Warriors who gave him a safe haven after Danarius returned and commanded him to do so, which is why I said he isn't perfect.  However, nobody is: not Hawke, not Aveline, not Thomas Jefferson, not even my Shepard from Mass Effect with 100% paragon in both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 - sorry, couldn't resist a few renegade points here and there.  Okay, to be honest, my Shepard from 
Mass Effect probably has more innocent blood on his hands than any of my other alter-egos from video games after the events of the Mass Effect 2 "Arrival" DLC.  I am still coming to terms with my Shepard initiating a chain of events leading to the deaths of 300,000+ people, even if they are Batarians and even if the Reapers would have 
destroyed the galaxy had he not done so.  Actually, returning to the topic of Fenris, it is perhaps more telling that he did not voluntarily kill the Fog Warriors or betray them while he was living with them and only took his - admittedly douche - action after Danarius commanded him.  Whether from fear of Danarius, from the lyrium infused in his skin causing him to on command from Danarius, or otherwise, Fenris shows immediately afterwards that he knows he did something very wrong.  His actions taken after carrying out the command from Danarius are possibly his defining moment: in that moment, Fenris has the choice to become the "living weapon" Danarius sought to turn him into and accept Danarius as his "wielder" or kill Danarius and begin a life as a "loose cannon" ... or run away.  Which did Fenris choose?  Would anybody have blamed him should he have chosen right then and there to kill his master and become a murdering psychopath?)

After running from Danarius, Fenris demonstrated repeatedly his intense desire to escape his past of violence and bloodshed.  In every town he passed through, he could have sown chaos and destruction trying to throw his pursuers off.  However, not only did Fenris not start ruthlessly killing innocents and terrorizing the countryside, the only times he does resort to violence is when he is cornered and about to be captured.

I doubt there are many people who could have endured the torture Fenris went through plus another three years of being hunted like a wild animal ... and yet still be hoping-against-hope that there is at least one good people left in the world.

People on these forums have said over and over that Fenris is cynical, dark, brooding, afraid of intimacy, lazy, messy, hypocritical, etc.  The thing that causes both me and my Hawke to love Fenris is that he still yearns for a different life free from violence and bloodshed.  Fenris responds to flirting from Hawke positively almost as soon as Hawke has proven that he is someone who can be trusted even a little (by helping Fenris besiege the mansion in Hightown where Danarius is staying in hopes of finally ending his years on the run).  

Does Fenris enjoy killing slavers?  Yes, he does, and I won't change my words based on that fact.  Had my Hawke not encountered Fenris in the game, my Hawke and I would still have enjoyed killing any and all slavers encountered and destroying their hideouts ... with Aveline the Captain of the Town Guard (the police force in the city) by my side.  A lot of people in real life (myself included) would enjoy removing those who make a living out of enslaving others from this world - see the movie "La Amistad" or the biographies or autobiographies of real heroes who liberated the **** concentration camps and African slave camps.  That does not mean that those people are bad people.

Why should Fenris not be cynical, bitter, brooding, afraid of intimacy, etc.?  The surprising thing is that he still yearns for redemption and a different life.  I would not have been surprised at all to have learned that Fenris feels no regret or remorse for anything he has done (including killing those who took him in) and indulges in wanton killing at the drop of a hat.  I would have had my Hawke boot him from my active party and only keep him around just to be able to say I collected all the available party members in the game.

Fenris could have easily been written to be a hardcore and merciless mercenary without morals or regret or remorse (again, the physical embodiment of the term "living weapon").  That he was not was a big pleasant surprise.  That he actually showed remorse, learned to trust Hawke, learned to overcome his fear of intimacy and open up to Hawke, and showed that he wanted to be at least a person who lives free and not in constant fear and wants to be accepted for being a good man instead of a weapon made him irresistable to both me and my alter-ego.

That is why both my Hawke and I love Fenris (and, if there was anyone IRL like Fenris, I would love that person too).  He has seen the worst of humanity and still searches for and wants to be a good man (he doesn't have to say this directly: his actions prove that he does).


P.S.: People have mentioned that Fenris often offers his opinions on matters for which he is seemingly not qualified for.  I will accept that maybe his opinions should taken with a grain of salt, but I must also insist that his words should be regarded carefully.  Fenris knows the hurt and anger he feels from his oppression at the hands of Danarius, and even if his words cannot be taken as fact, at the very least they should be included when making the final judgment or decision about whatever Fenris talks about.  To do otherwise is to show blatent disregard for a good man who witnessed the horrors of slavery and absolute power corrupting absolutely. 

Additional P.S.: I really hope Leto was his nickname rather than his real name.  To say Leto means "he who is happy" and then say that Leto was Fenris's original name means almost nothing.  It is highly improbable that Fenris's parents would have known how Fenris's disposition as a person would have turned out when he was just a baby.  However, if Leto was Fenris's nickname, there is a chance that he got that nickname by genuinely having a positive disposition in his youth.  Perhaps it was that positive disposition that survived in Fenris and kept him from "turning to the dark side" even after all he went through.

Modifié par N7 Leto, 28 août 2011 - 12:05 .

[Melca36]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fenris sees no systematic oppression. NO mages being beaten in the streets, hung in the gallows, strewn about and sacrificed. This is clearly what he sees in Tevinter. In Kirkwall it isn't systemic oppression he sees like the one in Tevinter. That is all he is saying. Kirkwall not equal to Tevinter on level of brutality and oppression.

And he's completely wrong, and the reason is that he never gets any farther than the Gallows Courtyard. On the inside, it is very often just as bad as Tevinter, but he never accepts any mage saying things like that even though he has less information on the subject. I respect him in general, but on this point, he's pitifully blind.

I hate how he salutes you as being the finest mage he has ever met after you did his quest in Act 2. He cant see beyond the mage. He wont see you as a man or a woman.

[Xilizhra]

How so? Fenris endured years of slavery after having all memory of his past erased by his master. Despite having been forced to be completely subservient to a mage who tried to forge him into a moral-less unquestioning living weapon, Fenris resisted to the bitter end.

I don't think this is accurate. Jack was raised to be purely a living weapon; Fenris had more duties. To quote him, "I was his slave. I propped up the furniture, when he was so inclined." Then there was serving drinks, and according to the developers, sexual abuse was involved as well. His being able to fight was important, but not drilled into him as the whole of his being like it was with Jack.

A lot of people in real life (myself included) would enjoy removing those who make a living out of enslaving others from this world - see the movie "La Amistad" or the biographies or autobiographies of real heroes who liberated the **** concentration camps and African slave camps. That does not mean that those people are bad people.

It depends. If they took pleasure just in accomplishing their goal, fine. If the killing itself was that enjoyable, I'd be somewhat more worried.

As I said, I don't hate Fenris. I do respect him. I just think his opinions on mages are twisted and wrongheaded, for understandable reasons, but they need to be corrected nonetheless.

[Sinaxi]

Arquen wrote...

I fail to see Fenris' hypocrisy here. He does NOT believe the circle = slavery. Whether you agree or not is completely beside the point. He sees the Gallows he "wonders if it is more effective than the one in Tevinter." He looks around and sees "danger and fear." Not a perfect solution, but not slavery. Not what he has seen before in Tevinter. Which is slaves being beaten in the streets. Blood magic being performed by nearly everyone. Magisters (those in power) abusing their power.

You can't sit there in Act 1 and be like -- "But that guy over there rapes people!" because YOU DON'T KNOW YET. The point is he is not a hypocrit because he doesn't ever speak contradictory to his beliefs. Now, that isn't to say he isn't hypocritical at times.

Sorry but all this Fenris "hate" is coming from the assumption that he is WRONG. That is opinion, and biased colored by the player's knowledge. You can't expect Hawke or Fenris or anyone in game to have the knowledge about Alrik, mages, the circle, blood magic, demons, the fade, the history from the other games that the PLAYER does. Just because you disagree with Fenris, does not make his opinions worthless. Biased, yes, but not self righteous. Anders is self-righteous. Sebastian is self-righteous. Hell even Merrill and Aveline are self-righteous. Fenris is NOT. He doesn't have enough self-worth and ego to be self-righteous. He isn't arrogant. He doesn't take an "I'm better than you" approach to anything. He simply believes what he believes and has a damn good reason to do so.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't see it that way. (which, he chooses not to of his own accord) It matters that you are saying his whole belief system of "slavery being wrong" is not hypocritical in regards to the Mages in the Circle. Him not seeing even a form of slavery there, is just ignorance and...once again, it doesn't matter if he chooses to not see it there. It's still there. I understand that in regards to the whole "hypocrisy" argument you are basing it all off the idea that a hypocrite is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". The reason why people disagree with you that he's not a hypocrite, is because he CHOOSES to blatantly ignore the similarities to slavery and the Circle despite seeing instances of it while running around with Hawke. Another "definition" of hypocrisy is pretty much that the person is just pretending to have these beliefs, virtues, etc...or that they simply fail to practice the virtues that they state to have. He preaches against slavery, yet chooses to ignore it in the Circle because he hates Mages.

It's not Fenris hate. It's the fact that he is ultimately hypocritical in his entire viewpoint, it doesn't matter if he realizes he is or not. He still is. I can agree that he chooses to fight with Hawke because of loyalty to them, but that does not in any way detract from the fact that even if he doesn't want to recognize the Circle as a form of slavery that he is "not being hypocritical". If you hate the word hypocrisy so much, I guess we could all say that he is willfully ignorant if you think that suits him better.

Also, I don't even know what "you can't expect Hawke to have this knowledge" means when you only garner this knowledge by running around as Hawke and stopping Alrik, listening to what the mages say in the Gallows...etc. The PLAYER, as you so put it, IS Hawke.

And lol @ saying Fenris is not self-righteous, or arrogant at all....errr...kay. If you think that isn't bias on YOUR part...you'd be uh, wrong. Being self-righteous doesn't just mean he thinks himself superior, but he damn well thinks his BELIEFS are superior. He is exceedingly narrow-minded when it comes to any talk about Mages, and frequently shows himself being averse to the Mages opinions/mere presence in the party.

Modifié par Tidra, 28 août 2011 - 12:37 .

[K_Tabris]

I hated him at first, but then he grew on me.

He's still a total jerkface, though.

[Arquen]

I will quote myself because I pretty much answered all this.

Sorry but all this Fenris "hate" is coming from the assumption that he is WRONG. That is opinion, and biased colored by the player's knowledge. You can't expect Hawke or Fenris or anyone in game to have the knowledge about Alrik, mages, the circle, blood magic, demons, the fade, the history from the other games that the PLAYER does. Just because you disagree with Fenris, does not make his opinions worthless. Biased, yes, but not self righteous. Anders is self-righteous. Sebastian is self-righteous. Hell even Merrill and Aveline are self-righteous. Fenris is NOT. He doesn't have enough self-worth and ego to be self-righteous. He isn't arrogant. He doesn't take an "I'm better than you" approach to anything. He simply believes what he believes and has a damn good reason to do so.

To clarify further. You cannot call someone a hypocrit because you believe in something so fervently that you think it must be correct and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Fenris does not believe slavery is akin to the circle. He won't believe that. So, because "it is true" regardless makes him a hypocrit because he is "willfully ignorant" of the "fact" that the circle is slavery. That doesn't make sense. It isn't "truth" it is opinion. Sure, point out similarities, point out the horrors in the circle. Once again, context. In act 1 this statement is made. It basically is saying "This isn't Tevinter. This isn't slavery. This is fear... and danger." Also, "this is a prison."

One can make similarities all they want. Point them out all they want, but Fenris was the one who lived as a slave. He is the one who knows what slavery is like, and your not going to convince him that what the circle mages go through is remotely equivalent or on the same degree as what he went through and saw every day in Tevinter. That isn't to say he supports Meredith or the Templars. In fact he "doesn't care a fig for her," but when the end comes he clearly tells you he "opposes what these mages hope to become." This is perfectly relevant, and yes biased because it is based on his experiences and life, but not hypocritical.

As far as the self-righteous thing. Fenris is not egotistical and that was my point, and apparently that was agreed. So now it has changed to he is self righteous because he thinks his beliefs are superior. As I said before, he believes what he believes and has a damn good reason to do so. That being said I don't particularly see him as being narrow minded. This is because he also is willing to listen to the other side. He only states when you free Grace and the others "I hope you know what your doing." He states numerous times that he does not think all magisters are evil, all mages are evil, and that the circle is the solution. He isn't being arrogant with his beliefs. If he was it would be more akin to Anders where it is all or nothing. With me or against me.

He isn't like that. He considers both sides, he yields somewhat on his bias in that he doesn't sit there and condemn all mages. He doesn't go on a mage killing rampage. He speaks highly of Hawke. He speaks highly of Bethany. He despises Merrill and Anders because they prove his point that mages resort to the forbidden if they have enough need. He even seems to have empathy for Ketojan - the Qunari mage stating "I know that kind of blind loyalty." If he truly thought he was superior in his beliefs then there would be no instances of him NOT siding with the Templars because Hawke is wrong and stupid and ignorant and can't see the "truth" that he is right. As stated it is a "don't be naive," and a "try to see it my way" thing not a "Kill them all," "condemn them all" and "lock them all up!" thing.

As far as arrogance. I think people often mistake Fenris' inherent pride with arrogance. Common. Fenris, despite everything does have pride. He refuses to hide. Refuses to change his armor. Refuses to live among the elves in the alienage. This is not to say he is arrogant.

He does not hold his beliefs over anyone. He doesn't sit there and say that Hawke should or should not do something. He sticks to his personal belief systems, but he doesn't try to force them on Hawke. He simply states what he believes, and hopes you take it into consideration. He will stand by you regardless if you max F/R and he will tell you "I don't understand" why your doing it if he betrays you. It isn't arrogance. Arrogance holds to a bloated sense of self and the idea that you are right and everyone is wrong. He doesn't argue for the circle. He argues that magic and mages should not be something to be naive about. He says over and over "think about it.." and examples of what he has seen and lived through, but I don't see him actively trying to convince you that the circle is right or that Hawke should send all mages to their death or to the circle. He doesn't really speak up at all when you do send a mage to the circle. He doesn't say "good choice!" he doesn't go "yeah F that mage!" He just remains quiet regardless. If he was arrogant he would not hesitate to speak up about you being on "his side." Which, his side isn't the circle or the templars. He simply poses the question "what is the alternative?" and don't be naive about magic because that is dangerous.

[berelinde]

There comes a point when you have to accept that the other side just isn't going to get it. Which ever side they're on. It's human nature to want to "win" an argument, but when it comes to opinion or personal interpretations of a third party's words or actions, there is no winning or losing. There is only endless debate. The person with the greatest endurance in the face of ever-lengthening walls of text gets the last word, but that does not make them right. Nor does it make them wrong. It's opinion.

And then you reach the point where you have to ask yourself whether you are still arguing because 1) you have a point to make that you haven't stated before, 2) you love debate and can never get enough of it, 3) you cannot bear to hear a beloved character or idea criticized, 4) you're just too stubborn to walk away.

Personally, arguments stress me out. I would rather just say "Fine, you won" and walk away thinking "Good lord, how wrong can you be?" than get angsty because somebody else doesn't like the characters I like. I won't get the dubious satisfaction of "winning" a war of attrition, but it's better for the blood pressure.

[Xilizhra]

One can make similarities all they want. Point them out all they want, but Fenris was the one who lived as a slave. He is the one who knows what slavery is like, and your not going to convince him that what the circle mages go through is remotely equivalent or on the same degree as what he went through and saw every day in Tevinter.

True, he'd need to talk to an actual Circle mage other than Bethany. Something he's apparently not interested in doing.

That being said I don't particularly see him as being narrow minded. This is because he also is willing to listen to the other side. He only states when you free Grace and the others "I hope you know what your doing." He states numerous times that he does not think all magisters are evil, all mages are evil, and that the circle is the solution. He isn't being arrogant with his beliefs. If he was it would be more akin to Anders where it is all or nothing. With me or against me.

Maybe so, but regardless of any evidence presented, he refuses to change his mind.

He despises Merrill and Anders because they prove his point that mages resort to the forbidden if they have enough need.

Which is stupid because Anders doesn't resort to the forbidden (he's arguably an abomination, but it seems a bit odd that he'd hate abominations so much because it wasn't abominations who enslaved him) and Merrill's never hurt anyone. I think he just hates Anders' politics.

Now, granted, I can see Fenris' point of view better than I can any templar's. However, it's still based much more on lifelong trauma than measured logic and has many, many holes in it.

[Sinaxi]

Arquen wrote...
To clarify further. You cannot call someone a hypocrit because you believe in something so fervently that you think it must be correct and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Fenris does not believe slavery is akin to the circle. He won't believe that. So, because "it is true" regardless makes him a hypocrit because he is "willfully ignorant" of the "fact" that the circle is slavery. That doesn't make sense. It isn't "truth" it is opinion. Sure, point out similarities, point out the horrors in the circle. Once again, context. In act 1 this statement is made. It basically is saying "This isn't Tevinter. This isn't slavery. This is fear... and danger." Also, "this is a prison."

Not really. If you were taken by birth, from your family, and placed somewhere where you were told you couldn't leave and if you tried to you'd be hunted back down, captured, and returned....uhhhh yeah...that is slavery. The Circle is a prison, and being forced to remain somewhere with little rights on how to live your life for absolutely zero crime other than being born means these Circles = slavery. The Mages are bound to the Circles also as a form of servitude, they spend their lives there and the Tranquil don't do much other than "spin their wares" as a cog in the endless Chantry machine. They are subservient to Templars, who are technically their "Masters". If the Templars randomly decide a Mage did something wrong (even if they didn't) they are the ones who give out the punishment, they don't get trials, they don't have the law on their side. Many are forced into becoming Tranquil for fear that they won't pass their Harrowing. Huh. Absolutely everything I have said falls under a category of what "slavery" essentially is.

So, no, it's not about opinion, it's a fact that people love to ignore - those people include Fenris. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not "Mages are dangerous" or if you think the Circle is necessary - it can still be classified as slavery and imprisonment because that's what it is. If it were a place where Mages could go to learn, but also lead their daily lives it would be different. Everything the Circle is, as it stands now, is akin to slavery and slavery in itself is imprisonment. The "context" doesn't matter when he is blatantly wrong.

Modifié par Tidra, 28 août 2011 - 02:36 .

[Arquen]

berelinde wrote...

There comes a point when you have to accept that the other side just isn't going to get it. Which ever side they're on. It's human nature to want to "win" an argument, but when it comes to opinion or personal interpretations of a third party's words or actions, there is no winning or losing. There is only endless debate. The person with the greatest endurance in the face of ever-lengthening walls of text gets the last word, but that does not make them right. Nor does it make them wrong. It's opinion.

And then you reach the point where you have to ask yourself whether you are still arguing because 1) you have a point to make that you haven't stated before, 2) you love debate and can never get enough of it, 3) you cannot bear to hear a beloved character or idea criticized, 4) you're just too stubborn to walk away.

Oh, so much this! Very well said berelinde!

Personally, I think i'm between 2 and 4. I just enjoy bouncing ideas around, arguing devil's advocate. Landing on opposite side of debates. Challenging my beliefs. Then again, I'm slightly insane, and philosophical, and overly analytical.

I rarely take anything personally. I admit these long drawn out debates can sometimes just adhere to my stubborness, but I don't personally get angry or hurt. There is no "win" button, but it is just interesting to see fresh perspectives, different opinions, and something besides the same old same old. In essence, FUN! Except when people start getting bulgy veins in their forehead and start mud slinging. Then I gracefully bow out because that is just FLAME ON! Wars that I don't really give a flying fig about.

I've written volumes in this thread. Me and nameless have a rivalry going. It's good times, but yeah in the end we just get exhausted and nobody "wins," but I think the true value is what you take from it. Open your mind to new ideas and hell, maybe even adobt a new theory or two and learn something new.

As for Tidra.. your preaching to the choir. Yet that still doesn't have anything to do with Fenris but is another argument that not everyone is going to agree with, and therefore I still maintain that it is opinion. Opinion based on a lot of premises sure, but it isn't going to fly with Fenris, and it isn't going to fly with people who don't believe it. They have their own proofs too that the circle is nothing like slavery. I'm sure Fenris would have quite a few personal examples about how the circle is nothing like slavery in Tevinter. Still, that argument much like the mage/templar thing moves away from the core argument about Fenris.