422 réponses à ce sujet

[ReiSilver]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is where I feel Anders fails so hard at explaining his point. He makes it so much more clearly when speaking with Hawke (ironically, especially RivalManceHawke, who is not going to listen to a single thing you say, m'dear), and even then he makes it less well than he made it in Awakenings (Oh DA:A Anders, how I mourn you. However, I blame the Chantry for your death, not you.)

For my ex-Templar-in-training-but-loves-mages Hawke, the first step is getting someone to watch Mages who doesn't think they are a punishment from the Maker. Hell, if that is the ONLY thing that gets accomplished, it will be a net win for the universe. These problems aren't caused because mages are monitored, they're caused because they are hated and abused. If you had, say, the Dwarves in charge of watching for blood magic, you would have fewer children getting lead away from their families in manacles, and fewer mages committing suicide. The Dwarfish Atheists woud do such a better job, it's mind-boggling.

If you just had some kind of a United Chantry of Andrasteism, or Objectionist Andrasteism (if you get THAT reference you get every cookie. All of them), some reform movement that can just eliminate the hatred... then, yes, things could get better.

Without that, the only hope is to watch it burn, and hope that something better rises from the ashes.

If Anders had started small, like with "Hey, maybe mages should at least not be actively tortured? Can we start there?" he would have gotten a whole lot goddamn further.

I've actually been thinking on the mage situation for the last few days. I don't think a reform or different staff would help matters. The problem as I see it is you have a bunch of people being convicted to life in prison for a crime they might commit. They are effectively prisoners who get allowed parole every now and then if the circle is a nice one and they're really well behaved. If not look forward to a life in a tower and maybe getting outside to go to war when we need you as a weapon. Add to that the inherent power structure of a circle is that of a prison and just as you get mages who turn to demons/blood magic you will get Templars abusing their authority because they can, power corrupts and all that.

After talking to Alistair in DAO again I am honestly starting to think that Templar skills are the key, if you were able to train your city guard to mana drain etc you take away a lot of what makes a criminal mage worse then your average criminal. From there mages are less threatening and stop being treated as premptively-guilty, once the pressure comes off, mages become less desperate and your instances of possession and such would go down
The problem is the Templars are the Chantry's army, which control the circle, making the mages part of the chantry army as well. The Chantry they don't want their power spreading to those not under chantry control thus the close guarding of templar abilities and lyrium control.

[Nameless2345]

ReiSilver wrote...
Because Ander's whole deal has been that 'mages are people too and shouldn't be imprisoned'
It's the hight of hypocrisy to then turn around and say "imprisoning and enslaving this guy I don't like and doing horrible things to his brain is FINE BY ME."
It makes Ander's whole freedom diatribes nothing but selfishness, his arguments about basic human rights fall flat if you can't hold them up for even people you don't like. People who have fought by your side and not betrayed you to the templars even though they don't like you and have had six years to do so.

Anders doesn't go and inform Danarius about Fenris' location, so Templar analogy is invalid. Saying that he should be grateful to Fenris for not maliciously harming him is strange.
Anders doesn't even objects if H. decides to help Fenris - and Fenris would, were the situation reversed. Hell, Fenris easily betrays even H. in the end just to kill some mages. So Anders stance is more like "I'm not all that eager to risk my life for someone who belieives that imprisoning and enslaving mages and doing horrible things to their brains is  HOW THE WORLD SHOULD WORK. If his own enslavement taught him nothing... well, why should I spill my blood to spare the bastard a repeat of that lesson?"

And Anders and Fenris fighting side-by-side for six years is just one possible turn of events. Not most likely one, too.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't want to get too offtopic.

My cannon Hawke has a similar historyish to Alistair... went into the Chantry (partially to take suspicion off of her family... nobody would suspect a Templar's sister of being a mage!), did not like how things were done there, left with the appropriate skills. Bing bang boom. Some of my references don't translate (seeing as the second reference is probably the most obscure thing I've ever posted on this board, I can't blame anyone), but essentially we're  on similar pages. Alistair believes in the maker, but questions things and doens't internalize the hate.

I think it's pretty telling that we haven't gotten a full-on-unrepentant Templar in our group, but we have gotten a full-on-unrepentant apostate. Several, in fact. The closest we get to the Templar PoV is Fenris, and he has a legitimate axe to grind. If you look at the actual reality of being a Templar, the sourceless hate, I'm betting it's pretty stark.

There's a conversation in DA:O that is so telling I want to cry:
Alistair: You know, of all the mages I've met you have to be the first one I can honestly say I've really liked.
Wynne: Why thank you, Alistair. I am quite touched. I like you, too, Alistair. I imagine my son would have grown up to be someone like you.
Alistair: Your son? I thought you said you were never married?
Wynne: That's true. I never have been.
Alistair: I... oh. Then this wasn't... before you joined the circle?
Wynne: I joined the Circle at the age of nine. So, no. Do you still like me?
Alistair: Err... yes? Why wouldn't I?
Wynne: Good. It appears you got away from the Chantry just in time.

So yeah. Send 'em to get their Templar training, just stop them before they get any further than Alistair. That's a good plan.

Never gonna happen without a war, though. Hence, war.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 30 mai 2011 - 06:34 .

[Nameless2345]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I think it's pretty telling that we haven't gotten a full-on-unrepentant Templar in our group, but we have gotten a full-on-unrepentant apostate. Several, in fact. The closest we get to the Templar PoV is Fenris, and he has a legitimate axe to grind. If you look at the actual reality of being a Templar, the sourceless hate, I'm betting it's pretty stark.

Err.. no. It is wrong. "Sourceless hate" is a wrong attitude even for a prison guard, who works with actual criminals. Ideally, Templars have to protect people from mages, but also mages from "sourceless hate", and exactly Wynne says as much, if memory serves. Kirkwall Circle just went straight to hell under Meredith and Orsino command, but it is not normal, I think. 

And positions of various Templars (Cullen, Meredith, Thrask) are explained. Actually, better in some aspects than Anders' point of view since he never says just how Circle-less society will work. I assume he had some ideas, otherwise he is not just crazy but a fool as well.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 30 mai 2011 - 06:45 .

[Arquen]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
*SNIP*

So, first to answer the argument about the Dalish. It isn't just Merrill. It is all Dalish Fenris does not like for the very reason that they do nothing for anyone except themselves. Not only that but Fenris feels they act "superior" - sure you can join them, but you have to embrace their culture and way of life. Fenris hates Merrill for squandering that away, I agree there. Yet his dislike of the Dalish stems from more than just Merrill.

Merrill: You've probably never met a Dalish before, have you?
Fenris: I wouldn't know.
Merrill: I'm sure you'd be able to tell. Dalish aren't much like the elves in the cities.
Fenris: The smug sense of superiority does give you away.

Even when Fenris enters the Dalish camp he remarks to the comment the hunters make.

Hunter: We are the last of the Elvan.
Fenris: So you say, frequently.
Hunter: we remember who the people truly are, even as you city elves forget.

This says to me Fenris just doesn't like the Dalish in general. They are elitist in his eyes, trying to reclaim a history that has no meaning for him or place in his world. As he says the Tevinter elves don't care about the Dalish, and the Dalish don't care about them. It's not really a hate of the Dalish, but a strong dislike towards what they represent.

As far as mages and Anders and all that: I really didn't get to finish my argument, but your right in the sense that Anders completely fails at proving his point here. However, my focus was on Fenris' thoughts about mages. As for the circle in Kirkwall, well...

Anders: Do you still support the Knight-Commander?
Fenris: I don't care a fig for her. But she's the only one holding back the madness in this city.
Anders: Holding back? She's howling at the bloody moon!
Anders: Even her own people think she's lost it.Anders: What will it take for you to see that she's crazy?
Fenris: Mages in glass houses shouldn't throw fireballs.

He's right, that metaphor basically meaning that when you are being watched so closely by templars, Meredith and even the Divine (as we come to find out later) the worst thing you can do is attract attention to yourself by say... blowing up the chantry? When Fenris answers with this it makes it obvious that he isn't blind the Meredith's injustices or craziness, but that there is no better way at the moment. He absolutely believes mages cannot rule themselves, and so in an ideal world there would be just and sympathetic rulers, but "it is not that simple."

The gallows conversation is my favorite for this argument. I bring Anders and Fenris and watch them argue points.

Fenris: It is to easy for a mage to resort to blood magic if they feel the need is 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.
Fenris: A mage can desire power, justice, revenge, protection... any cause will do, and then they are lost.

Furthermore, when confronted about the circle not working Fenris replies...

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

I mean, take it from someone who knows what true oppression is, right? It isn't that he promotes the circle or wants a cirlce like Meredith's, but he is not willing to accept the alternative. He will not accept that mages should or could rule themselves. As he also says at the gallows "The Tevinter Imperium offers no answer."

So no, he doesn't hate mages, but he does hate the potential in every mage. The potential of a demon to control someone's power just because they are weak is at the core of his argument. He hates magisters, but not all mages. For every 100 mages there is maybe 1 like Hawke who can master or control themselves, but it only takes 1 to "go to far."

[berelinde]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't want to get too offtopic.

I don't either, but how about a little swerve?

I think it's pretty telling that we haven't gotten a full-on-unrepentant Templar in our group...

I wish we did. And I wish that person was romanceable and had an attractive model. A sympathetic templar companion NPC might go a long way toward making a pro-templar run more appealing. Of course, that would mean playing the whole game without a mage. Unless you could recruit Bethany back from the Circle under the supervision of the new NPC.

[Arquen]

LOL, where are the Knight-Captain Cullen fangirls when we need them. They have been arguing for him to be romanceable companion since... forever?

[Nameless2345]

Arquen wrote...

Fenris: what is the alternative?

Fenris: Freedom is a noble ideal, but I see no oppression here. I see fear...
and danger.

I mean, take it from someone who knows what true oppression is, right? It isn't
that he promotes the circle or wants a cirlce like Meredith's, but he is not
willing to accept the alternative. He will not accept that mages should or
could rule themselves. As he also says at the gallows "The Tevinter
Imperium offers no answer."

As I've pointed before, my main problem with Fenris is that he is an illiterate amnesiac who knows nothing about even himself. But despite that he constantly displays incredible confidence in his knowledge and judgments (more so than even Anders, who shows doubts often, and he is a possessed fanatic).  

In your example he throws a glance at the Gallows and concludes that there is "no oppression".   There are, however, corporal punishments, rapes, and magical lobotomy on a whim (in one case, it seems, for having a
love affair). Templar squads torture Dalish elves (not even part of Kirkwall society) because "no one can defy Knight Commander". They attempt to kill people on the streets without any formal trial. Finally, in Act III, Templars begin to assassinate nobles for peacefully discussing options to decrease Meredith's power. That's oppression, I'd say,  and not merely oppression of mages.  Of course, it is not immediately obvious, and it cannot be. Fenris making conclusions based on a short walk and arguing with Anders (former Circle mage, actually educated, has at least twice experience in years)  and H. (child of a former Circle mage) is hilariously obnoxious. 

"  He will not accept that mages should or could rule themselves" . "rule themselves" is a very ambiguous term. I
don't understand it for two reasons.  

1)We are talking about medieval society here. Most people, peasants, for a start, do NOT rule themselves. That's what nobility does. 

2)Even democracy is all about choosing people who will rule over others AND providing counterbalances to make sure they don't go too far. There are police to control people and Internal affairs to control police. 

In short, what group of people is suppossed to “rule themselves” with no outside control? Absolute monarchs? 

Modifié par Nameless2345, 30 mai 2011 - 07:51 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

/cough Dalish? /cough.

Pretty much the Dalish are the only people who can remotely be said to rule themeslves. Hehe.

[Arquen]

 Nobody going to go for this one? Nobody? LOL, umm.. okay...

First argument is Fenris is illiterate and has amnesia therefore he cannot possibly understand or comprehend the mage/templars/circle/world around him.

I've seen this argument come up before, albeit not as poorly worded as that. The fact that Fenris is illiterate does not mean he is ignorant, stupid, or blind to the world around him. Simply because someone cannot read does not mean they are ignorant. It seems the argument is using illiterate and ignorant interchangeably. That is not true in any way. Also, Fenris only has amnesia from HIS personal past, not the past in general. He can remember and recall the ritual that gave him his markings and everything from that moment to his time with Danarius and after his escape from Danarius. He was on the run for 3 years before he met Hawke. He is far from ignorant. Not to mention he was a bodyguard for Danarius so he often went with Danarius to different places, and also had contact at least indirectly with many different types of people. Danarius discussed the magisters and used blood magic indiscriminately in front of Fenris. Just by seeing is he can understand what it means, and he doesn't have to read to learn from his experiences.

As far as the argument "he knows nothing even about himself." That simply is not true. He knows a lot about himself. He knows he was a slave, he knows what it takes to escape Danarius, he knows what magisters and mages are capable of. He knows what oppression and slavery and brutality means and even moreso lived through it. Simply because he doesn't know how to read does not mean he cannot speak up for ideals and thoughts he has gained through his personal experiences with mages and magisters. He speaks and acts and judges based on values that he gained, albeit tainted, by magisters and even moreso, magic.

"In a society where mages rule, they find many ways to justify their need for power."

So, literally if we are talking about a ruling class then Fenris is right to use the word "rule." Tevinter is a society where the powerful nobles, senators, and magisters are the political and ruling class of the Imperium. The "peasants" in Fenris' society are anyone who isn't powerful enough to be a magister, an elf (who are mostly slaves anyways), and any normal, non-mage persons. The mages that try to do good -- The archon who tried to free the slaves for instance, was quickly assassinated. "Tevinter would crumble without its slaves." So, yes.. rule is the right word. If mages were left to "rule" themselves they would become the Tevinter imperium -- subjugate anyone who could stand in their way, and justify their need for power by any means necessary to get ahead.

Now, what Anders wants is for mages to be completely free and POLICE themselves. That is, not rule themselves as in a societal monarchy, but instead of Templars and Chantry allow mages to simply manage their own much as the Dalish manage their own mages. If one of the Dalish mages becomes an abomination they are hunted down and killed by the keeper and other mages. This allows any mage to have the simple freedoms that "normal" people enjoy, but if they step out of line another mage will put them down.

Problem is, this is all fine and dandy IN THEORY, but it is never that simple. One mage becoming an abomination has entirely to much power, and can achieve mass destruction at the behest of a demon. Again, at the gallows Fenris says "how many times can you tempt a man before he gives in?" -- Mages, according to Fenris, are not capable of resisting the power a demon offers. He has seen first hand with the magisters do with their power and magic in Tevinter, and his point is valid. His judgements are valid because they are based in real world examples. He sees the gallows for what they are, and is indeed awed by them, and does not argue that it is the best, happiest solution, but that the alternative is not better, and mages need a circle, or something like it. They cannot govern or police themselves.

As for the whole brutality of mages paragraph. I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. It seems it is all hyperbole and exaggeration based on assumption.

"There are, however, corporal punishments, rapes, and magical lobotomy on a whim (in one case, it seems, for having a love affair). Templar squads torture Dalish elves (not even part of Kirkwall society) because "no one can defy Knight Commander". They attempt to kill people on the streets without any formal trial. Finally, in Act III, Templars begin to assassinate nobles for peacefully discussing options to decrease Meredith's power. That's oppression, I'd say,  and not merely oppression of mages.  Of course, it is not immediately obvious, and it cannot be."

I just don't see any of this happening. The "tranquil solution" was not the work of Meredith, but of Sir Ulric, and the Chantry and the Templars rejected the idea of this. They don't want every mage brutalized. In fact, the mages have Cullen and Thrask on their side (until blood mages F that up too). The rapes and lobotomies are narrowed to one person and Hawke took care of him. As for Karl (the love affair?). He was made tranquil "because he was to rebelious," and it was wrong since he was past his harrowing. Yet I don't think it is as simple as "because he was having a love affair." The only way I can see that the mages are truly oppressed is when the tranquil solution comes up. The mages who are being "lobotamized" even past their harrowing. That is only the scheme of one man -- Sir Ulric.

Yet, it still stands -- "I see no oppression here. I see fear.. and danger." I don't see the outright brutality and oppression your speaking of. The rapes and labotamies are not the work of the Templars as a group, but a faction within, and moreso a person within the Templars who is a criminal and is treated accordingly. According to Cullen and Thrask the circle should be policed by Templars who respect and care about their "charges." Yet, Cullen is the first to agree that becoming to lenient and complacent with mages leads to terrible consequences. After all he was in the tower of Ferelden and was one of the only surviving Templars. Still, outright brutality, slavery, oppression does not exist in the circle any more than it exists in the outside world. Fenris would argue that the Templars may not be right, but neither is it right to just let the mages go and do as they wish. "When backed into a corner they have options that the rest of us don't," one of my favorite quotes from Samson of all people, lol.

As for the whole coup d'etat that the nobles plan on Meredith, that is just treasonous action against the Knight-commander and so of course they will be assasinated by her troops. That really has nothing to do with the mages.

In summary, Fenris is not ignorant. Illiterate perhaps, but he is not intellectually stunted. He can learn from his surroundings, first hand experiences, and what he has been throuh both with Danarius and afterwards. Also, his judgements are just as valid as anyone else's and even moreso because he comes from the polar opposite of Kirkwall. What happens when there is no circle, no chantry, no templars. Mages create their own government where they rule and they oppress others and are even more dangerous because they use whatever means necessary to be the most powerful. Finally, the oppression of mages in Kirkwall, according to Fenris, is not as horrible as Anders would make it out to be. To him, the alternative society is much worse. Mages will resort to blood magic, they will become the Tevinter Imperium if uncontrolled or unchecked, and other mages cannot be trusted to police their own. He has seen how that goes, the true oppression of magic and how magisters deal with people who would stand in their way even for just causes. "magic is meant to serve man and not to rule him... DO not believe it."

[Arquen]

holy wall of text -- Sorry about that long post >.>

[Meeszy Alexy]

Arquen: Meeszy-Alexy: Friendship +10 for saying what I was going to say. Especially about the "Illiterate does not equal Stupid" part. That's a baseless assumption that is quite frankly insulting to people that can't read. Why would a slave need to read? Fenris cannot read, but not due to stupidity of any sort, but because he was simply never taught.

[OSUfan12121]

I hated Fenris with a passion. I just found his character boring and uninspired even when I watched my fiance go thru the romance angle with him.

[Ryzaki]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This is where I feel Anders fails so hard at explaining his point. He makes it so much more clearly when speaking with Hawke (ironically, especially RivalManceHawke, who is not going to listen to a single thing you say, m'dear), and even then he makes it less well than he made it in Awakenings (Oh DA:A Anders, how I mourn you. However, I blame the Chantry for your death, not you.)

For my ex-Templar-in-training-but-loves-mages Hawke, the first step is getting someone to watch Mages who doesn't think they are a punishment from the Maker. Hell, if that is the ONLY thing that gets accomplished, it will be a net win for the universe. These problems aren't caused because mages are monitored, they're caused because they are hated and abused. If you had, say, the Dwarves in charge of watching for blood magic, you would have fewer children getting lead away from their families in manacles, and fewer mages committing suicide. The Dwarfish Atheists woud do such a better job, it's mind-boggling.

If you just had some kind of a United Chantry of Andrasteism, or Objectionist Andrasteism (if you get THAT reference you get every cookie. All of them), some reform movement that can just eliminate the hatred... then, yes, things could get better.

Without that, the only hope is to watch it burn, and hope that something better rises from the ashes.

If Anders had started small, like with "Hey, maybe mages should at least not be actively tortured? Can we start there?" he would have gotten a whole lot goddamn further.

Maybe your rivalry Hawke didn't listen. Mine did and thought he had a point. He was just going about it all wrong. 

[themonty72]

To HEIDENREICH you made some good points about Merrill and Fenris, But like you said shes a child which is spoiled and naive.I knew she dibbled in blood magic but she still was a child  that's why I disliked Fenris treating her the way he did...like a big bully and she tried to be nice to this stone cold elf. It was somethings I knew my Hawk shouldn't did for Merrill but she was so adorable how could my Hawk say no. Anders was right about Merill mirror being behest with a demon I did her quest anyway hell who didnt.
   It wasnt justified why this elf hated Merrill when she didnt do any harm towards him but tried treating him wiith kindness and he throw it her face.Hell, he even called your sister a viper without even knowing her. YOU HARBOR A VIPER IN YOUR MIST.
  Yes his past was tragic, but every damn mage isnt evil that something he couldnt understand  what so ever. I dont know who was worse Fenris or Anders with this mage templar thang. Anders just went out with a boom in Last Straw.  

Modifié par themonty72, 31 mai 2011 - 02:46 .

[Dante Angelo]

I liked Fenris even though he could be a douche sometimes. Although the main thing I didn't like about him was his attitude towards mages but I realized that I would hate mages too if I had to go through everything he went through

Modifié par Dante Angelo, 31 mai 2011 - 02:06 .

[Nameless2345]

[quote]Arquen wrote...

The fact that Fenris is illiterate does not mean he is ignorant, stupid, or blind to the world around him. ...Also, Fenris only has amnesia from HIS personal past, not the past in general. He can remember and recall the ritual that gave him his markings and everything from that moment to his time with Danarius and after his escape from Danarius. He was on the run for 3 years before he met Hawke.
[/quote]
Together it boils down to one simple fact: he has personal memory span of a teenager (I’m being generous here) and had no means to expand his knowledge through self-education (assuming he has the drive: it seems unlikely). It IS ignorance no matter how you look. Saying that he knows the world from such pathetic knowledge... No. That's like old parable with an elephant. He touched its tail and is absolutely, unshakably certain that an elephant is a long rope.

[quote] As far as the argument "he knows nothing even about himself." That simply is not true. He knows a lot about himself. He knows he was a slave, he knows what it takes to escape Danarius, he knows what magisters and mages are capable of.
[/quote] Yes, and he knows that he has two legs, I guess. And part after "slave" isn't about even "himself".
He doesn't know his real name, he doesn't know that he had family, he doesn't know that he got lyrium markings willingly (competed for them), and boy, does he whine about them. He doesn’t know the defining facts of his own life or has them wrong. How can his opinion on the lives of the others be valid?

[quote]
So, literally if we are talking about a ruling class then Fenris is right to use the word "rule." Tevinter is a society where the powerful nobles, senators, and magisters are the political and ruling class of the Imperium. The "peasants" in Fenris' society are anyone who isn't powerful enough to be a magister, an elf (who are mostly slaves anyways), and any normal, non-mage persons. The mages that try to do good -- The archon who tried to free the slaves for instance, was quickly assassinated. "Tevinter would crumble without its slaves." So, yes.. rule is the right word. If mages were left to "rule" themselves they would become the Tevinter imperium -- subjugate anyone who could stand in their way, and justify their need for power by any means necessary to get ahead.
[/quote]
My point was that almost no one "rules themselves" without controls and counterbalances in most societies. I haven't heard Anders saying that mages should be above laws (he actually never explains his ideal society and I'm not sure he gave it thought, being who he is). And the "peasant" in most feudal societies is any normal, non-noble person, actually. Magic provides a social mobility, it seems, in Tevinter (see Fenris' sister). But other than that Tevinter is merely an empire+slavery. IRL quite common thing. Fenris running away from Roman senator could have bring much more tragic tales, too. What surprised me most in his tales is how easy he had it compared to some things I've read. 

[quote]
If one of the Dalish mages becomes an abomination they are hunted down and killed by the keeper and other mages. This allows any mage to have the simple freedoms that "normal" people enjoy, but if they step out of line another mage will put them down.
[/quote]
According to Merrill, abominations are hunted down by clan hunters primarily. Other mages... what other mages? Marethari's clan had two, if memory serves, Keeper and her First, and the latter had to “imported” from another clan. And contact between clans is sporadic.

[quote]
Problem is, this is all fine and dandy IN THEORY, but it is never that simple. One mage becoming an abomination has entirely to much power, and can achieve mass destruction at the behest of a demon. Again, at the gallows Fenris says "how many times can you tempt a man before he gives in?" -- Mages, according to Fenris, are not capable of resisting the power a demon offers.
[/quote]
It works for Dalish. Tevinter Imperium, using magic, became the most powerful country in Thedas history once, and it means that they were able to manage abomination problem somehow. They still can, since their ruling class has to be more or less stable. There are no statistics on "turning into abomination" rate, but Anders notes that it is less common than suicide. If so, most mages are entirely capable to resist demon offers their whole lives. Fenris personal beliefs are just that. He is not a mage, he never was close enough to a mage to have a friendly talk, he couldn’t even read anything on the issue. If he believes that temptations can’t be resisted… well, that says a lot about Fenris himself.
Anyway, I’m not prepared to discuss seriously how an _ideal_ society with magic should work. Partially because no mage in game offers his ideas in any cohesive form. Partially because it is off-topic here. Mostly because I don’t believe there is enough data and I’m not even interested in this topic.

[quote]
He has seen first hand with the magisters do with their power and magic in Tevinter, and his point is valid. His judgements are valid because they are based in real world examples. He sees the gallows for what they are, and is indeed awed by them, and does not argue that it is the best, happiest solution, but that the alternative is not better, and mages need a circle, or something like it. They cannot govern or police themselves.
[/quote] No group of people can or should " govern or police themselves. " without creating special structures inside, basically society-within-society. I don't remember anyone sane claiming that mages should be an exception for some reasons or that they should be allowed to create their own independent society as opposed to being part of the current. And what he saw in Tevinter... he saw slavery. It is never pretty. It never was in our history.

[quote]
"There are, however, corporal punishments, rapes, and magical lobotomy on a whim (in one case, it seems, for having a love affair). Templar squads torture Dalish elves (not even part of Kirkwall society) because "no one can defy Knight Commander". They attempt to kill people on the streets without any formal trial. Finally, in Act III, Templars begin to assassinate nobles for peacefully discussing options to decrease Meredith's power. That's oppression, I'd say, and not merely oppression of mages. Of course, it is not immediately obvious, and it cannot be."
I just don't see any of this happening.
[/quote]

Then you didn’t pay attention. Okay, examples, if you wish. Corporal punishments? Cousin of an escaped mage notes that she was whipped and half-starved. I wouldn’t fault a dog for running from such nice owners, by the way.
Rapes? Sir Alric and sir Karras. Although the latter could sneak to Alain in night to tell bedtime stories, I guess. And threatened Tranquility just in case.
Tortures? Go to Dalish in the Act II before starting Night Terrors. I gave you a real quote showing the attitude of the templar in charge.
Death squads? Oppose Meredith in the Act III and here they go. Mind you, even witch-hunts usually had a trial and a formal procedure. And the tone of a Templar who prepares to cut down a defenseless woman has to be heard to be believed. That’s a sadist at work, third one in a row after Alric and Karras.
Tranquility on a whim? 3 Starkhaven mages, according to Alain, were chosen randomly and made Tranquil. And Cullen is not on the mages side until the late Act III and even then only in comparison with psychopath. He actually says that mages are not people and if they view Tranquility as something worse than death...well, it's because they wish to be free from any control.

[quote] As for Karl (the love affair?). He was made tranquil "because he was to rebelious," and it was wrong since he was past his harrowing.
[/quote]
I was not talking about Karl. I'm talking about woman in Gallows (Act II) who says effectively to another mage that they had an affair, it was somewhat illegal, and that she, being made Tranquil, belongs to Alric now. She says it open and loudly right in front of Cullen and other Tempars who are completely OK with such abuses.

[quote]
Yet, it still stands -- "I see no oppression here. I see fear.. and danger." I don't see the outright brutality and oppression your speaking of. The rapes and labotamies are not the work of the Templars as a group, but a faction within, and more so a person within the Templars who is a criminal and is treated accordingly.
[/quote]
"Lobotomies", as I called them, are constant practice for Templars and in Kirkwall it was openly used unlawfully even by their standards without any repercussions. Of course, rape is not activity of a whole group (it rarely is), but two named examples in game participate in it and they are not policed by anyone. Sir Alric is "treated accordingly" not by any form of authority, but merely by vigilantes: Anders and H. Same with Karras. No one within Templar order stopped systematic abuses or even tried to. In essence, Templars obviously fail to "rule themselves". Like any group with an unlimited power over someone would, in fact. In Tevinter, that’s slave owners. In Kirkwall – Templars. There is a famous psychological experiment on that topic, by the way.

[quote]
As for the whole coup d'etat that the nobles plan on Meredith, that is just treasonous action against the Knight-commander and so of course they will be assassinated by her troops. That really has nothing to do with the mages.
[/quote]
I said that it was oppression, and not merely of the mages. Treasonous action? Where and when did nobles, including H. , swear any sort of fealty to Knight-Commander? She is merely a head of a local branch of military order within the Chantry who became too power-hungry for her own good. "Of course...assassinated". There is nothing "of course" here. In what kind of a society killing high-ranked people on the streets for having a talk without any trial is "of course"? Even kings rarely acted that way dealing with nobility. If that's not oppression, in your opinion, what is? And if nobles, normally outside of Templar jurisdiction, are treated that way, how much does mage's life depend on a whim of nearby templar? The answer in Kirkwall seems "completely".

[quote]
In summary, Fenris is not ignorant. Illiterate perhaps, but he is not intellectually stunted. He can learn from his surroundings, first hand experiences, and what he has been throuh both with Danarius and afterwards. Also, his judgments are just as valid as anyone else's … Finally, the oppression of mages in Kirkwall, according to Fenris, is not as horrible as Anders would make it out to be.
[/quote]
You are mixing ignorance (lack of knowledge/experience/education) and mental deficiency here. Please don’t. Fenris’ judgments are as valid as judgments of an illiterate teenager who makes no attempts to educate himself (or to do anything productive with his freedom) can be, yes. Not the kind of person who should be listened to in complex issues. Not the kind of person who should be trusted with making life and death decisions even concerning himself, actually (hell, even his fans here agree that he needs an outside guidance to have a chance at normal life). Exactly the kind of person I would call ignorant, especially compared to Anders or to anyone else in the party. His estimate of an oppression in Gallows is based on a short walk it its outer ring, as opposed to Anders who actually lived in another Circle and had friends and acquaintances in Gallows.  It's like someone taking short walk in a prison courtyard and immediately deciding that no, there are no abuses, wardens are fair, prisoners are treated nicely, none of appropriate laws was repeatedly broken, etc, etc. The very fact that Fenris dares to form any conclusions at all so fast is disgusting. As I said before, ignorance + unshakeable confidence + self-righteousness. Common, but unappealing.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 31 mai 2011 - 06:22 .

[turian councilor Knockout]

I did i hated them all, Ooops sorry wrong thread.

[Fault Girl]

Arquen wrote...

/SNIPPED DUE TO LENGTH/

I mean, take it from someone who knows what true oppression is, right? It isn't that he promotes the circle or wants a cirlce like Meredith's, but he is not willing to accept the alternative. He will not accept that mages should or could rule themselves. As he also says at the gallows "The Tevinter Imperium offers no answer."

So no, he doesn't hate mages, but he does hate the potential in every mage. The potential of a demon to control someone's power just because they are weak is at the core of his argument. He hates magisters, but not all mages. For every 100 mages there is maybe 1 like Hawke who can master or control themselves, but it only takes 1 to "go to far."

+1

I agree with most of your points. Your other post was very insightful too

That is how I see the situation.


I love Fenris even though I think he is harsh on Merrill but she needs it. Cos my Hawke can't be mean to her

Everytime he was rude to Hawke, he would always apologise, I think he let's his anger rule first before sense. If that makes sense at all.

Modifié par ZombieGeisha, 31 mai 2011 - 07:48 .

[Heidenreich]

themonty72 wrote...

To HEIDENREICH:

you made some good points about Merrill and Fenris, But like you said shes a child which is spoiled and naive.I knew she dibbled in blood magic but she still was a child  that's why I disliked Fenris treating her the way he did...like a big bully and she tried to be nice to this stone cold elf. It was somethings I knew my Hawk shouldn't did for Merrill but she was so adorable how could my Hawk say no. Anders was right about Merill mirror being behest with a demon I did her quest anyway hell who didnt.

   It wasnt justified why this elf hated Merrill when she didnt do any harm towards him but tried treating him wiith kindness and he throw it her face.Hell, he even called your sister a viper without even knowing her. YOU HARBOR A VIPER IN YOUR MIST.

  Yes his past was tragic, but every damn mage isnt evil that something he couldnt understand  what so ever. I dont know who was worse Fenris or Anders with this mage templar thang. Anders just went out with a boom in Last Straw.  

K so I broke this up a little bit so I can respond in kind, since it was addressed to me

This whole thing isn't about what -I- think of Merrill. I think she's adorable and should be hugged. It's about what Fenris thinks, and weither his partiular hatred towards her is Justified. Disliking him for treating her, and I'm going to bold this for emphasis, like the idiot he believes she is, is silly. It doesn't matter if your hawke is in love with merrill. It only matters that Fenris looks at her and see's something he dislikes. Thus, on principle of the things he dislikes, he's justified in his meanness.

On top of that, his anger could be taken as his personal way of showing Merrill that the path she's walking is wrong -- he's LIVING PROOF of the kind of depravity that comes from using Blood Magic. He can easily observe that her own Keeper - a woman who's powerful, smart, and kind - wasn't able to "lovingly talk" Merrill out of her choice. He can observe that Anders isn't able to (by example of posession) talk her out of using blood magic. He can easy see that Hawke's gentle coddling isn't working to convince her (At least in the earlier acts, later on rival hawke strong-arms the issue). So maybe he feels that Cold shouldering her into realizing its dangerous might be a better course of action.

Yes, she's a child. Except she's not. She's a grown woman who's powerful in her own right, well educated and smart. Because of this simple fact, her "I'm oblivious to the whole worrrrrrrrrrld, weeeeeeee" act pisses Fenris off.

She was trained to be a Dalish Keeper. Thus she should be held to a standard above other mages and other elves. Obviously, she's a person and people make mistakes, but Keepers are in charage of WHOLE CLANS of people. Women, children, hunters.. making sure you're in a safe place, making sure there's pleanty of food to eat. Except, she acts like a child, throwing a temper tantrum because no one is seeing things her way. This pisses Fenris off.

She uses blood magic, having made a deal with a demon WILLINGLY. He's seen first hand, is the living by-product, of what blood magic is capable of. He knows it's dangerous. Everyone else knows its dangerous. The only person not getting that its dangerous, is Merrill. This pisses Fenris off.

So, yes, his reasons for disliking her are valid and justifiable. They may not be right in your eyes, because from what we know of him, he's not a stable person.. but they are valid, they are justifiable, and they are even understandable, when you think of the person that its comming from.

Because of this, the reasoning "I hate fenris because he's mean to merrill", is invalid. He's mean to Merrill because he thinks she should be better then that. Her choices disgust him. In his eyes, she of all people, should know better.

"I dislike Fenris, because while he's a good counter to Ander's, his character is lacking at best, and at worst he's a throw away character with little to contribute to the game. I could play the game with out him and not lose the story." is a much better reason to dislike him. Or maybe, "I don't get his personal brand of humor. He seems dry and stale, and grates on my nerves."

but saying "I dislike him because he dislikes someone I like" is like saying "I dont like someone because they hate pink. I love pink. How can they not like pink!"

Sure, you can disagree with him. You like Merrill. That doesn't mean HE has to like Merrill. That's what makes the character, and the game itself, wonderful.. because the characters are their own people. They don't have to like the things you like. They can like what they like and dislike what they like and still be your friends. Just like in real life.

Its glorious.

Modifié par Heidenreich, 31 mai 2011 - 01:23 .

[themonty72]

Alright i get it she really did not see nothing wrong with this blood magic thing while others did mostly Anders he told her get rid of the damn mirror. Fenris was more blunt  about the blood magic thing towards Merrill than Anders calling her a witch and a monster. I said why is the man calling Merrill those names, but I guess Fenris was just being Fenris. The Blood magic thing really did turn her people against her but Bioware made her so kind, adorable and sweet that the player was blind to her will at blood magic, but I mean really but...hold on ...wait a minute....forgot this part she was dipping in blood magic because she thought she was helping her people...thats why my Hawk was helping her maybe Fenris and anders just looked at as blood magic.
  Yes you right  it dont matter how I see Merrill but how he sees her... still dont like the elf, well maybe I do when hes not around Merrill.

Modifié par themonty72, 31 mai 2011 - 02:21 .

[Arquen]

------------------ FORGIVE LONG POST! I really tried to truncate it 

Ignorant can mean knowing little to nothing, or it may mean being uninformed about a particular subject. In Fenris' case he is ignorant of reading. Untutored, untaught, uninstructed in READING. To interchange the meaning of illiterate for ignorance is still false. Therefore, this argument is still based on false premise.

     Saying Fenris had no means to expand his knowledge through self education is false. He states in the scene where Hawke gives him A Slave's Life that "Of course [he] knows about [Shartan]. What [does Hawke] take [him] for?" This supports that he does gain knowledge about history and the world around him. Furthermore, he states "I certainly didn't learn from books" which further proves that he does have a drive for self-education and is not blind to the world around him, and absorbs knowledge from experiences. Since the world around him is that of magisters, mages, magic, oppression, and general debauchery and brutality he gains an understanding of these things. Perhaps more of an understanding because he saw them first hand, and did not just read a book about them. He lived them, in the same way that Anders lived through the circle, Fenris lived through the oppression of powerful magisters. It cannot be said that he did not learn anything from these experiences, and that he remains or should remain a simpleton without capacity to learn because he cannot read.

     One doesn't need books to educate themselves on a subject. Apprenticeships were created because books alone don't teach values, replace experience, or make someone wise on a subject. Books only serve as tools to educate and correlate to real world events and instruction. Simply listening or participating in a conversation can serve the same purpose as reading a book on the subject. Simply because someone cannot read does not make them intellectually stunted as stated before. To say "pathetic knowledge" is gained when one cannot read is baseless and insulting. That is akin to saying that the only way someone can become a functional, mature being is by knowing how to read. If a person does not have that skill then they may never progress past the knowledge of a teenager. This is utterly false.

     Furthermore, the claim Fenris has the "personal memory span of a teenager" has no merit, and is not fact. If it is simply based off of years then it is completely false. To say because Fenris' spent 10 years in Danarius' service, has 10 years worth of memories and is therefore 10 years old makes no sense. If one is looking at emotional growth and maturity one does not need to look at physical age. Fenris is not the mental equivalent of a teenager. In fact if one were to place him on Erikson's psychosocial development stages he would be in the intimacy vs isolation phase and progress throughout the game to the generativity vs. stagnation stage. That being he already has a sense of identity. He has already gained a sense of independence and self awareness. He has been on the run for 3 years, and has not been a slave, but has been a hunted man for that time. His sense of self and his identity has been hindered because he was a slave for so long, but he still progresses to the next stage where he seeks companions and comrades because he realizes he needs them in order to succeed.

   So, he does know a lot about himself. The argument is that because he does not know his family, his name, his past history means he cannot define himself. It is not personal roots that define a person, but the experiences and life they lead. This is the old nature vs nurture argument. Sure, Fenris doesn't remember his family or that he competed for the markings, but that doesn't change the fact that the ritual he endured was not something he enjoyed or felt rewarded for. His "family" is willing to sell him out for a chance at power. His sister is probably the best example of Tevinter policy one can envision. Fenris' spends time, coin, and effort to try and reunite them because he does want to connect with a family, but in the end she is just willing to sell him out. "I would have given you everything," he says before killing her. A family history and memory of childhood does not make a person. To say that because he doesn't know these things means he cannot find a sense of identity is false. People grow and mature based on experiences, values, and the world around them. Fenris is not "Leto," he is Fenris -- Leto died with the ritual. Whoever Leto was doesn't matter to Fenris, because it has no bearing on who he became after the ritual or what experiences he had. To say he competed for the markings just makes it more tragic, but doesn't whitewash the fact that he suffered from those markings, and still does.     About the dalish mages -- I will concede the point that it isn't simply Dalish mages that go after abominations in the Dalish. Hunters would no doubt be the better choice, and most likely are. The Dalish also do not have large populations. Their clans are small, and so it would be easier to isolate the mage turned abomination and hunt/kill it. In a large city an abomination could decimate the population before it could be killed. Look at what happened to the circle in Ferelden. 

     As far as the Tevinter Imperium, it had a cirlce, "Then it changed. The magisters were permitted to watch over their own, and templars kept only to enforce the law. What happened next was inevitable. The magisters rule again, as powerful as they ever were." So, Templars do exist in Tevinter, but really have no power and are at the whim of the Archon apparently. As for the abominations cropping up in Tevinter, nobody knows those statistics, but it would be safe to assume that they handle abominations either through the templars or through other magisters. That still doesn't cover the fact that magic in Tevinter is viewed differently. Fenris says "blood magic is everywhere in Tevinter. From the lowest apprentice to the archon himself... Of course they say it is forbidden. Behind the smiles and closed doors, however, it's a different matter." So, basically blood magic is a way to become more powerful and get ahead in Tevinter, and so everyone uses it. Anders wants mages to police themselves. If rivaling Anders he reads part of his manifesto to Hawke, and basically states that he wants mages to live as any other person, and to basically control their own population. As stated before, this only leads to the most powerful mage wins control. It leads right back to the strongest mage subjugates the weaker mages and people. Who then protects people from the mages who refuse to control themselves? Other mages? It degenerates into a society much like the Tevinter Imperium, that is what Fenris' point is.

     So that leaves the crux of the matter, the mage oppression. The statement Fenris makes about how "he sees no oppression here.. only fear.. and danger." Okay, so without going into the ideal mage society argument either it remains that his statement is not baseless assumption from "walking around a prison ground." Fenris has seen mage oppression, and has seen true oppression of slavery. He has lived through these situations and seen what magisters do with their uncontrolled, unrestricted powers. This makes him perfectly capable of being taken seriously when he speaks up about the mages. This argument has a tendency to move away from Fenris' statements though and into the mage/templar argument. I simply mean to prove that Fenris' is right in stating that there is no overt systematic oppression, but there is fear, and there is danger. The examples of brutality and oppression that were mentioned still revolve around Ser Alrik. Ser Kerras is a templar hunting blood mages from starkhaven, all the mages from starkhaven in the caves are fugitives and so the punishment is death in his eyes. Thrask believes differently and sticks up for Alain, but only because he never used blood magic. Of course Ser Kerras isn't a very likeable character, and meant to show what power can do in the wrong hands, but his actions do not prove systematic oppression or the general thoughts of all Templars. Also, the examples are more of fear and danger, but not outright systematic oppression. They ignore the basic things about the cirlce that aren't oppression. Orsino for instance fights for the mages and exposes both blood magic and templar brutality to protect the mages. Bethany actually goes to the circle if left out of the deep roads, and her interpretation is that the Templars are doing their jobs, and actually treat their charges with a lot of respect. It is just one or two Templars that she avoids. The love affair is the strongest statement there, but even then it is at the whim of Ser Alrik, not Meredith, not the Templars as a whole, but Alrik.

     The final thought is that Fenris' judgements do not have much value, if any at all because they come from an uneducated source. This is simply not true. Fenris' is very much a source of information and his insights and opinons are as valid as anyone else's in the party. He lived through the polar opposite of Kirkwall - what happens when mages are left to rule themselves. "I don't doubt some of them are decent and honorable men, but how many times can you tempt a man before he gives in." Furthermore, "Absolute power corrupts, as they say." Fenris has keen insight into the issues that are going on in Kirkwall because he has lived through it and seen it before. It isn't rash or blind accusation, it is based on years of experience living in a world where magic is power and people who wield it do it indiscriminately and brutally. It is baseless to say that because he cannot read, he is therefore incapable of making decisions, because he was a slave he cannot understand complex issues. He has seen the world of mages and it is revolting. "The Tevinter Imperium offers no answers." That is what he states about whether or not there should be a cirlce at all. That is his judgement, and his opinion stands as valid as Anders or anyone. Anders didn't read a book or educate himself about the circle, he lived it. Likewise, Fenris lived the life of a slave in a world where mages ruled themselves freely. He knows what oppression is and he knows what can happen if mages remain uncontrolled and unchecked. "Freedom is a noble ideal," but that is exactly what it is, an Ideal. He has every right and capacity to speak up about this issue as anyone. As is said he isn't mentally deficient and he is not ignorant because he can and does learn and self educate without books.

[Teh Blasta]

Getting Fenris, Merril and Anders in a party makes the play through. Romancing one will lead to the other two overreacting and the end game scenario can be priceless. The Fenris/Merril/Anders rivalry is a much welcomed change from previous stagnate dialogue of party members from BioWare. I find all three of the in-canon controversy brigade to be all equally interesting.

[IthicaYY]

I adored Fenris from the start, even though his tirade against mages did become tiresome at times. Fenris grows as a character; he learns to read, he learns to trust and to even love. He develops friendships among some of the other companions and with Aveline's husband Donnic. And he doesn't betray Hawke in the end; even though he rants against mages throughout the game he still sides with Hawke and fights FOR the mages if that's what she does...(given you romanced him to the max) But then you would have to actually use him to get that going, so not having him in the party makes you miss his development and simply see him as the jerk he starts out as.

[themonty72]

Ill play this game again just to pay more attention to Fenris , maybe I was harsh on the the dud saying I dislike him because Of Merril.l I did defend him against his former slave master and did all his quest and pick all the friendship lines so he could become my friend. Man I hate slaves masters. In real life they are going to be so many in hell that its not going to be funny.