422 réponses à ce sujet

[Riona45]

Heidenreich wrote...
At the end of the day, the only conclusion anyone can come to is that THE CHARACTER IS WRITTEN WELL. All of the DA2 charactes are written well. They're three dimentional, living, breathing people. It's absolutly wonderful thing.

Indeed--I know people have some issues with DA2, but IMO the companions are something they got right.  I wasn't sure I'd like Fenris at first, but as I got to know him, he won me over completely.

[Nameless2345]

Arquen wrote...

I know it's been said before, but I just had to reiterate it because I realized how much time I was spending writing those posts, LOL. Never done that on a forum before. I reread where this all started and the thread has taken on a life of its own. It's great.

Same here. I may dislike F. as a "person", but it seems Gaider crafted a good game character to provoke such different strong reactions. I too don't  normally  have a habit of writing long texts in foreign language on purely fictional beings. Especially given how much such beings can change in expansion/DA3. 
Actually, though I don't follow forums that closely, I remember seeing 5+ pages thread on Merrill with a similar title and there were 20+ pages on Anders' "balm for the soul" nearby recently. 

Modifié par Nameless2345, 06 juin 2011 - 04:22 .

[Nameless2345]

To Arquen, here goes another way too long post.

Since impersonal manner was dropped from the last post, allow me to consider myself free from that restriction. Yes, posts are too long and I kind of doubt that anyone else actually reads them. Since another person joined the discussion it practically doubled amount of required reading.

About _functional_ member of society/being (as was used originally by you on page 4): I don’t consider it important in this context. As one example, crippled person can cease to be functional while still having valid and well-founded opinions in some areas. As another, H's mabari can be named a functional being and it will be correct, I think.  
There is a separate discussion referring to Fenris’ fate after the game, but a) we seem to be in agreement (mercenary) b)that’s just pointless speculations, DA:A->DA2 Anders is a fine example. Let’s consider this closed with agreement that Fenris "functions" (without giving a strict definition) during the game and only developers can know what will happen in later installments.

About other issues and length… Hm. I wrote another blob of text and starting to have doubts about continuing in this manner. We are running close in some issues to, as someone put it, “reading more between the lines than it was expected/ lines themselves contain”, or something like this. A cut/bugged conversation/quest could change much. But, as it is written anyway…
About self-education… it descended into something horribly general and we clearly use the same words for different things. [quote]a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, and choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes." [/quote] Hm. I wouldn’t call rather fundamental definition outdated due to being 30 years old (if anything, since it refers to press, it may be too modern for Thedas: do newspapers exist?). Also I don’t see really USSR brand of communistic ideology in that definition and I know what it looks like. But, no matter. Even your definition, in short, implies conscious planned effort, not merely walking around with open eyes. Certainly, just as I’ve said, activity, not merely ability.

To put your arguments on self-education in concise form, you are saying that “self-education” gained without any system, any strategies, any supervision is equal in worth to systematic education. You are saying that apprenticeship without tutor (?!) or system is equal to normal apprenticeship and, hence, equal to formal education. If it was even remotely close to truth, no apprenticeship institutes would exist for there would be no need. All your explanations on why Fenris is on par with an educated experienced person are such that they deny any applicable and noticeable difference between people in general when it comes to gained knowledge and experience, which is not true. All the words about “different learning strategies” are misleading, because having different strategies does not mean that they have the same result or even the same applicable areas. Again, by using such broad definitions you defeat your own argument: the only way to call Fenris “learned” and “educated” is to use definitions that would let to call 7-years old child the very same things. Is it possible for someone to learn more in 10 years of being a slave/on the run without any form of formal education, without access to books, than an average person would in 30 years without such limitations? In theory, yes, but we are no longer talking about average human beings here, I’m afraid. And there are no signs that Fenris is a genius. We see what resources he had, we see him and we can make likely conclusion about depth of his knowledge or lack of it. As I told before, you are trying to prove that Fenris knows more than 0. I never denied that. You are telling that _something_ can be learned without books. I never denied that, and it is obvious. The issue, I repeat again and again, is COMPARISON. Especially in global, complex issues.

What I view as an education Fenris lacked, is what was called classical education. World history, even in basic form. Literature. Basics of logic/phylosophy. Something that allows to at least try to put personal experiences about the world in a broad picture. Something that provides frame of reference. Something that allows to see dependencies, precedents, examples, counter-examples, etc, not being based solely on a personal experiences and hearsay, which are always limited and especially so for Fenris. 
2) [quote] Also, the argument has changed from "mental span of a teenager and illiterate" to "lacks a formal education and is illiterate with no drive for education." So, the original argument premise dispatched then? Revised? [/quote] No. According to you, he has a memory span of a ten-years old, but that was merely an estimation, I think. Why would I change an argument? Fenris does have a memory span of a teenager at best. It is fact. He is illiterate until at least Act II and perhaps later. It is fact. Both statements I view as valid and they do not contradict each other. Since you decided to use apprenticeship argument (it went like this: “reading is not important for education, because there are systems based on tutors, and so, Fenris is educated even though he had no tutors”), I added that no, there are no signs that Fenris had any education at all. Nor there are signs that he actively, by his own initiative (see your definition), tried to learn anything new during his ten years in Kirkwall which makes me reasonably doubt that he was any different in the past.
4) [quote] Parables mean nothing. [/quote]I gave an example from setting’s lore, a parable and a very crude example from approximations. All three are about why one single experience, one single point worth very little in making a conclusion. See more in my answer to phyreblade74 why limited personal experience is, well, limited. I fail to see in what other ways I can explain this thing. I could probably find some quotes, but wouldn’t that be an appeal to authority?
5) [quote] To say because one person is not from the same country as someone else, therefore his opinons are not valid, therefore nobody would hire such a person because of this. Talk about logical leaps. [/quote]  You simplify an argument to the point of changing it and talk about absolutes while I deal in relative qualities. I have to quote myself yet again: “who would really take opinions of an illiterate amnesiac _foreigner_ on _their_ society/profession/anything just as seriously as opinions of educated experienced person from their country”. If you don’t like discussion in the form of questions (Greece philosophers you mentioned would disagree, I’m afraid), you can change it into a statement. 
While argument about “hiring” really referred mostly to modern times, it was a (wasted, it seems) attempt to demonstrate on the most simple and common ground that quality and depth of education, knowledge and experience should indeed be taken into account when estimating someone’s authority since I saw no signs that even such basic thing is acknowledged.
6) [quote] That means to accept that Anders, Hawke, and all other companions are the "university-educated men," and Fenris is left out why? Again because of formal education? Illiteracy? Memories of childhood? This suggests one needs a formal education in what.. the circle? The chantry? Read Anders' manifestos? To be able to participate in discussion about mages and templars. [/quote] “Universities” obviously shouldn’t be taken literally, since the quote isn’t even from Thedas lore. But essentially yes. No formal education, very limited memory span, no literacy=person who has the right to voice his opinion, but should usually defer to other people who have no such limitations. Once this person decides to enforce his opinions with violence…
7) [quote] to say that only someone like Orsino and Meredith have the right to debate Templar/Mage problem in Kirkwall[/quote] Not only, again absolutes. They have much, much more knowledge and insight than someone like Fenris, yes. Can he voice his opinion? Yes, of course. He may even believe that they are the most valid one, which is rarely a  good quality, by the way, but no one else has good reasons to agree with him. Yes, both Orsino and Meredith screwed up in their own ways (who didn’t in Kirkwall, after all). But if Fenris ends following his own knowledge and opinions, as opposed to H.’s, they actually lead him to Meredith’s camp and he ends up screwed too. 
8) [quote] Lets clarify this statement: "hard stance on the side of the Templars in discussion/opinion." [/quote]  In that particular discussion, yes, although he takes hard stance on 'no opression' way too fast. But swords talk much louder than words in the end. And in every quest in mage/templar confrontation Fenris takes, AFAIK, templar’s side. In the final confrontation he accepts the right of someone distrusted by even her underlings to kill a bunch of mages with only pathetic “people will demand blood” justification. That’s a hard stance here, especially compared to lazy discussion. You are saying that he isn’t sure what the ideal solution is, but in his deeds Fenris supports the current one. Also, [quote] Fenris will choose survival over Hawke. Therefore, he will choose the side of the Templars because he feels this is the only way to regain order[/quote] Discussing Meredith’s decision is a good way to increase post’s length, but in the most careful form, Fenris’ survival wasn’t threatened in any way unless he challenged H. or joined him (hm… the morale of DA2 is that being around CRPG protagonist is bad for your health, it seems). He could stay away or, like most of the city guards, according to Aveline, protect regular citizens from becoming collateral damage. It’s not like Circle was rising in a prepared revolution, they were on a defensive. Unlike Fenris. And personally I tend to look suspiciously on preemptive mass killings.
9) [quote] He isn't close to Hawke in this case[/quote] H. is the person who helped him kill one or both of his enemies in this case. Aveline is someone who covered Fenris for 7+ years. It is funny how some view Anders’ _unwillingness_ to risk his life for Fenris as utterly reprehensible yet consider an open attack with lethal force on H. and other members of the party completely justified.
10) [quote] Someone who has not had these experiences could not hope to understand what it is like for Fenris and if they were to offer opinions about the experiences of a Tevinter slave they would be considered worth less than Fenris' opinions and descriptions by far[/quote] We are talking about his opinions on Thedas, Circles, etc, not on a life of a Tevinter slave. No one questions that he has _some_ memories and experiences, merely that they worth much in discussed context.
11)[quote] Therefore, compared to a well read person this person is worthless? It degenerates into conclusion based on nothing.[/quote] No. I have to repeat myself, but it is conclusion that opinions of an illiterate uneducated amnesiac from another country are worth just as much as opinions of local literate educated adult persons is based on nothing, and in my opinion it should be obvious. Fenris fits the definition of an ignorant person (“lack of knowledge, education, or awareness”, merriam-webster) like a glove. The only arguments you give are about Fenris having _capability_ to learn at least _something_. Which is both obvious and irrelevant.
12) [quote] He is not competent in what? Compared to what….Why is there a comparison of Fenris to anyone?.... He is quite competent in being a warrior. [/quote] Since the point of discussion seems to be forgotten quickly, I have to quote myself once again: “Now, again, why opinions of such a person on complex sociological and political issues should be worth, well, anything? Why someone like this feels entitled to give opinions in such a categorical tone?” Is there any reason except incredibly general statements about how every person can learn at least something by looking around?
And yes, Fenris is a competent killing machine. It is his only skill you could name, the only job he could’ve been hired for. Same can be said, by the way, about DA:O mabari (I miss overwhelm), but it didn’t make it entitled to giving advices.
13) [quote] There can be no doubt, however, that the ritual was not something he wanted, and nobody in their right mind would. [/quote] There is no reasonable doubt that he competed for the ritual. Whenever or not he and even Danarius knew all the consequences is unknown.
14) [quote] Okay, so personal opinion here is what is being argued[/quote]. No, highly subjective topic is being argued, the one that depends on culture, country and time. What constitutes suffering? What mistreatments are minor? When bullying by a superior becomes something worst? There is no universal answer, in my knowledge. There are only extreme cases, and even they aren’t always obvious.
15) [quote] There are plenty of examples of Fenris' suffering under Danarius. Plenty of implied examples of abuses akin to those suffered by slaves in any setting. [/quote]. In case you didn’t notice, I multiple times pointed out _exactly_ that compared to what horrible abuses slaves suffered Fenris’ tale seems quite tame. You basically take suffering of other slaves and assign it to Fenris only because he is a slave too. Should I name this fallacy or it is obvious enough?
16) [quote] "Hadrianna denied him meals, hounded his sleep." In prisons this is how people torture prisoners. It is a psychological and physical torture that has been used for many years as a torture technique. [/quote] The former is also how disobedient children were commonly punished until modern times. The latter … “hounded his sleep”!=” total sleep deprivation”. Again, exaggerations. It could’ve been as bad as you put it, actually, but Fenris’ words neither confirm nor deny it. We only know what he says and it is a sad justification for such temper tantrum of supposedly adult person.
17) [quote] A conclusion based on information presented. [/quote] – yes, information presented in the game and just condensed in one place. That’s why I liked that you formulated it yourself.
18) [quote] So, the argument then becomes that Fenris is not a productive member of society. Mercenary jobs would probably be the best future for Fenris, not disagreeing there. He would make an excellent assassin. [/quote] I see we are mostly in agreement here. I’d like to remind once more that most mercenaries we see in Kirkwall are, basically, hired killers and ask, whether or not you consider them productive members of a society, morally significantly superior to a slaver, or, say, Grey Warden blood mage.
19) [quote] To say one cannot see anything in someone like Fenris because he isn't a paragon, saint, saving kittens from trees and orphans from burning buildings is just once again misreading his character. [/quote] Once again, absolutes and exaggerations. I said “Yet Fenris himself never helps anyone [compared to other party members]. I don’t remember a single act of compassion (except condolences to H. after “All that remains”), mercy, altruism or honor.” And I asked for counter-examples. I was even serious here, suspecting that maybe I missed something about him… All I got was “but he isn’t a saint”. There are no saints/paragons in game. Again only in the most broad terms it is possible to say anything good about Fenris.
20) [quote] To equate him with Flint mercenaries or CRPG "fodder" is insulting to his skill as a warrior. [/quote] Why? In confrontation with Fenris the game assigns him, if memory serves, less rank than an average commanding unit has. So yes, he actually becomes “CRPG fodder”. More seriously, I was referring not to skill, but to the fact that mercenaries tend to be acceptable XP sources, though slightly less popular than criminals, rats and animated corpses.
21) [quote] He is probably the least selfish companion of the bunch because he has no alterior motives[/quote] Wrong. He openly states after the final quest that he stayed with H. to secure H.’s aid against Danarius at least as much as out of loyalty (rivalry path). That’s an ulterior motive. The least selfish is probably Aveline, after becoming guard-captain. She even has to break the law by covering apostates, blood mages, elves, squatting in Hightown mansions, and H.’s antics. That’s her career at stake.
22) [quote] Fenris is a loyal and dedicated companion. [/quote] No, that’s Varric, for example. Fenris is one of companions fully capable of betraying H. and follow the madwoman against the rest of the party. You, essentially, acknowledge him as a part of H.’s “entourage” (party, family, Sandal, Orana, Bodahn). Again, only most broad terms… I thought it was clear that I’m aware of his status and asked for more points in his favor.
23) [quote] That is hardly someone "begging" for help all the time. [/quote]. You change even my words, put them in quotes and talk about logical fallacies. I said “And he constantly _asks_ for help.” Every time he needed to do something, he came to H. or Aveline for help. Every personal quest, and not only. Lost in gambling and played in debt? He borrows from H. Squatting in mansion in Hightown? He asks Aveline to ignore her duties. Gained freedom? Why, he asks H. what to do with it. You may say that he isn’t that different from other party members in regard to personal quests, but only Merrill depends on the others so much and returns so little. And she is, well, Merrill. Cute morality pet for other party members.
24) [quote] He responds to people who constantly ask him about them in the party banter.[/quote] His typical responds are complaints and it goes like this: “Let’s tear someone’s heart for calling me a slave! What, Carver? Markings?, Oh, woe me, they curse me with the ability to tear hearts! What, Hawke? Need me to threaten someone? Markings to the rescue, let’s do more cavitary surgery!”. Whining is a subjective term, yes, but no one else, to my memory, complains nearly as much or as often about personal plights. Not even Anders or immature Merrill.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 06 juin 2011 - 04:25 .

[Arquen]

 

All your explanations on why Fenris is on par with an educated experienced person are such that they deny any applicable and noticeable difference between people in general when it comes to gained knowledge and experience, which is not true. All the words about “different learning strategies” are misleading, because having different strategies does not mean that they have the same result or even the same applicable areas.

It also does not mean that they are of less value than a formal education. The core of the indirect education (or self-directed education) argument vs the formal education argument is that people who undergo either can offer valid opinions and be called educated. In fact, the argument states that formal education alone cannot provide true learning because human beings require self directed learning to assimilate knowledge. The best is obviously a mix of the two together. Fenris has participated in an indirect education, and it is enough to make his opinons and views valid. Arguably more valid in some areas such as Tevinter, slavery, and oppression than other party members who have not had any experiences in these things at the same scale Fenris has.

Not arguing the age old abyssal well of indirect vs formal education because there are volumes on the subject already. Even gave references in other post. Each side has its strengths and weakness, but that is not the point. The point to be proven is that Fenris' knowledge gained indirectly is JUST as valid as anyone else in the party. Likewise, it has already been proven that he has drive for self directed learning because he has absorbed a lot of knowledge already. Whether this is accepted or not is now based purely on personal bias it seems. He did not need a formal education to learn the things he knows, and the facts he knows are truth. The opinions he offers are based in these truths and his personal experience.

Again, by using such broad definitions you defeat your own argument: the only way to call Fenris “learned” and “educated” is to use definitions that would let to call 7-years old child the very same things. Is it possible for someone to learn more in 10 years of being a slave/on the run without any form of formal education, without access to books, than an average person would in 30 years without such limitations? In theory, yes, but we are no longer talking about average human beings here, I’m afraid.

Again, not the point. General knowledge and formal education is not the argument. Fenris does not have a formal education, nor did he sit in an institution for 30+ years studying the mage/templar solution. Neither did ANY_OTHER_PARTY_MEMBER. Also, yes Fenris learned more in "10 years of being a slave/on the run..." about slavery, oppression, magic, cruelty of mages and magisters than someone with 30 years of experience in an institution undergoing a formal education about these things. First hand experience in a subject trumps any simple book reading or formal education on the subject. A scholar on Tevinter culture and slavery has no concept of what being a slave actually means. A person who has a formal education as a magister does not know what it is like to suffer as a non-mage slave in a society where magisters are the ruling class. The argument is that Fenris' knoweldge and the way he aquired it allow him to make valid conclusions, participate in the mage/templar discussion and be taken as seriously as any other party member because he has a right, like anyone else, to convey his experiences and knowledge gained from them. It has been substantially proven over and over again that one does not need books to aquire learning, to gain education, or to be taken seriously.

The issue, I repeat again and again, is COMPARISON. Especially in global, complex issues.

So, again, comparison to what? whom? Fenris does not know as much about living in the circle as Orsino. True. Fenris does not know as much as Anders when it comes to actually living in a circle. True. Fenris does not have the right to comment or act on his beliefs and experiences because he cannot read and has not lived in a circle or in Kirkwall? False. Fenris knows more about being a slave under mages and being brutalized by magic than either Anders or Orsino or anyone else in the party. He can say " the moment they are free, mages will make themselves magisters," because he has experienced and observed this many times over.  Fenris knows the capability of mages' power especially when they are in a free society. He has seen "powerful mages, spirits, and abominations," and what they are capable of. So, in comparison to lets say all other party members he actually knows more about how mages in a free society act and what they do to others, and how dangerous it can be.  If a circle provides the control of mages needed to protect people from them then it is better than the alternative. The circle is not the best solution, but better than a society of free mages, and that is what Fenris believes. Hence, Fenris makes conclusions based off of this belief, and they are not wrong. This is painfully true at end game where if Hawke sides with the mages all of them turn to blood magic, even Orsino, just as Fenris said they would.

Fenris does have a memory span of a teenager at best. It is fact.

It is assumption, not fact. Just as I used the 10-year old example to illustrate this argument before to clarify that this statement has no validity. There is no evidence to support Fenris lived with Danarius for 10 years, 20 years, or any amount of time really. Also, again this is comparing physical memory of years to worth. That means that the older someone is and the more memory they have the more they can be taken seriously. This is not true.
 

He is illiterate until at least Act II and perhaps later. It is fact. Both statements I view as valid and they do not contradict each other. Since you decided to use apprenticeship argument (it went like this: “reading is not important for education, because there are systems based on tutors, and so, Fenris is educated even though he had no tutors”), I added that no, there are no signs that Fenris had any education at all. Nor there are signs that he actively, by his own initiative (see your definition), tried to learn anything new during his ten years in Kirkwall which makes me reasonably doubt that he was any different in the past.

I quote myself: "Fenris never was an apprentice, not arguing that, but he did learn in much the same way. He observed, experienced, and reflected. If he were to actually attempt to gain knowledge as a slave he would have been killed. However, his time with the Fog Warriors was much like an apprenticeship, and his time beyond that was autonomous self-directed learning through living life as a hunted slave." So, yes he did gain an education without formal tutors, as stated before. It isn't that reading is not important, it is not the end-all path to wisdom, and is a tool, not an absolute necessecity for knowledge. As far as that last part about "trying to learn anything new," well he did learn quite a lot of new things living in Kirkwall. He also solves some of the problems he has been dealing with his whole life. 

To say he learned nothing or had the drive to learn nothing has no proof. Nothing being reading? Well, he does learn reading, and if Hawke never offers to teach him then one doesn't even know he is illiterate and therefore can make no assumptions on his learning. Nothing being scholarly pursuits? What constitutes "learning anything new?" He learns a lot about himself during his stay in Kirkwall. There is no information surrounding his time away from the story where he is alone in his mansion or wherever he is when he is not there. It cannot be assumed that he "learned nothing." As far as the information that is known through cutscenes and conversations it can be seen that In fact, his whole life view changes over the course of his time in Kirkwall. He finally sees himself as more than just a slave on the run for the first time especially after dealing with Danarius. He even gradually progresses to a different psychological development state as stated before. He goes from looking at his past and constantly expecting a trap to looking for a place for himself in the future. He even learns to let go of some of the hate he has stating that it is "poison, yet I continues to swallow it." So, yes, he does learn A LOT. This is apparent in his cutscenes and character growth. To say he learns nothing because he isn't actively seeking tutors and schools and "classical education" is not valid.

[I] attempt to demonstrate on the most simple and common ground that quality and depth of education, knowledge and experience should indeed be taken into account when estimating someone’s authority since I saw no signs that even such basic thing is acknowledged.... [Orsino and Meredith] have much, much more knowledge and insight than someone like Fenris, yes. Can he voice his opinion? Yes, of course. He may even believe that they are the most valid one, which is rarely a  good quality, by the way, but no one else has good reasons to agree with him. Yes, both Orsino and Meredith screwed up in their own ways (who didn’t in Kirkwall, after all). But if Fenris ends following his own knowledge and opinions, as opposed to H.’s, they actually lead him to Meredith’s camp and he ends up screwed too.  

Put these together because they pretty much belong in the same thought.

The illiterate foreigner for hire statement has already been answered and addressed. Also, this new statement really has no relevance. Authority is irrelevant. Fenris does not presume authority in anything. He is a follower, and states as much. "I am no leader." Knowledge and experiences should indeed be taken into account, that is the point. Fenris has knowledge and experiences and makes statements based off of them. The depth and quality is subjective and apparantly still cloaked in personal bias whether one chooses to listen or not. Again go back to the quality of indirect vs formal education. Fenris' knowledge and experiences have quality and depth and therefore are valid. So, the illiterate amnesiac foreigner still has valuable knowledge and experiences to share, and should be at least listened to and considered when making decisions. 

The second part of that pretty much argues that Fenris has opinions that should be expressed. Is it that "no one else has good reasons to agree with him" or his opinion is not valid? There are plenty of good reasons to agree with Fenris. "I would just like to go one week without meeting and insane mage, just one week..." says Hawke. In every situation where mages are concerned they turn to blood magic, and most of them end up abominations. Fenris' opinions are biased LIKE_EVERYONE_ELSE, but that does not make him wrong. Nor does it make him any less of a valid opinion to be listened to. As far as "the most valid one," there is NEVER a suggestion that Fenris believes his opinion IS the most valid one.

In case you didn’t notice, I multiple times pointed out _exactly_ that compared to what horrible abuses slaves suffered Fenris’ tale seems quite tame. You basically take suffering of other slaves and assign it to Fenris only because he is a slave too. Should I name this fallacy or it is obvious enough?

Skipping some of this other stuff because the argument is becoming circular. Same argument, same proofs, around and around and around again. It needs to be stripped down further.

This is plain lack of knowledge about Fenris and labeled fallacy. Perhaps burden of proof since the posts are so long I didn't want to add length with all the proof in the game of Fenris' suffering. Now as far as "assign suffering of other slaves and assign it to Fenris." NO, Fenris in many examples explains how his slavery worked. Even more so take the lore that Tevinter was based off of Rome and the slavery there was based off of how Romans treated their slaves and one can make the logical conclusion. Furthermore, Fenris acts as a victim of abuse and as a victim of slavery. His aversion to touch, for example is a condition suffered by people who have been abused. His statement "I was a slave, I propped up the furniture if need be," is most telling. Also, "paraded me around in a collar like a qunari mage." Called me his "pet." There are instances where Fenris speaks of slaves being beaten in the streets. Killed, etc. etc. He lived a life debased (felt he had no worth), abused (both physically and psychologically), and oppressed (never dreamed of freedom). These are clear examples of true suffering akin to "other slaves," and maybe even more brutal because real slaves did not have to suffer under powerful magisters. Different experience in slavery does not make it better or more "tame." Any research into Fenris' dialogue and character reveals that it wasn't "tame" suffering he endured.
As far as the rest of it -- Hadrianna, and especially the compassionate side of Fenris. Fenris is an example of an Anti-Hero character. His compassion and reliability on others. It degenerates into almost a rant about what a "miserable" person Fenris is. The argument that Fenris is "selfish" is another matter. It is yet one more argument to lengthen this ordeal. The game mechanics of "assigning rank" to Fenris if he turns on Hawke is irrelevant to his character and skill by any means. All companions, if they turn on Hawke are assigned no rank. The mercenary thing is dropped. Plus the begging for help and his whining can be addressed as a separate argument. It is becoming a new branch to the discussion, and will cause more length.

So, here are some good examples of who Fenris is and what he cares about. He uses his marking with abandon against slavers. Not really mages, but slavers and murderers. His scenes where he can help Hawke by "doing more cavity surgery" (that is great, btw) are either Slavers or the psychotic elf child murderer Keldor. Since Fenris is an anti-hero he has no qualms committing evil to stop evil.He speaks up for Hawke to Anders saying "If you break his/her heart, I will kill you." Very protective personality with a fierce loyalty. He has genuine concern for the slave Orana and gets angry if Hawke decides to take her as a slave or even hire her as a servant. He also respects Isabela for freeing slaves and will form an implied romance with her if neither is romanced. Even after his "kick the dog" moment to Merrill when the Keeper dies he will admit that the Keeper must have truly cared for her if she was willing to sacrifice herself for her, and encourages Merrill (albeit most people miss it because it is Fenris' way) to live up to her memory. One of the best things he says is to Anders after Dissent. If Anders killed the mage girl, then Fenris will say (paraphrasing can't find exact quote) 'Perhaps it is a good lesson to learn one's limitations.' This is an olive branch statement to an adversary. Anders doesn't take it so well, saying "oh yes, kick someone while they are down," but honestly that was Fenris' way of offering condolence to Anders (someone he hates, presumably).

There are plenty of examples of Fenris' character. In the other post it was presumed that he had to be some kind of selfless, honorable, charitable person in order to be taken seriously as a productive or likeable character. That he had to in essence, be a hero. He is nothing like a hero, he is an anti-hero. Yet it is personal preference if anti-hero is something one likes or hates, especially one like Fenris who does not mind going to extremes for the greater good.

[Sister Goldring]

And on a much shorter note.....

In my book a sexy, lyrium tattooed, angst-ridden elf = AWESOME!

[happy_daiz]

Sister Goldring wrote...

And on a much shorter note.....

In my book a sexy, lyrium tattooed, angst-ridden elf = AWESOME!

Agreed!

[LobselVith8]

jlb524 wrote...

Merrill is a witch.

I disagree. Merrill is one of the few proactive characters in the story who actually tries to help her people while Hawke is wearing silk robes and being so reactive that he never bothers to even investigate his own mother's death, even though he has a letter written to Quentin by an accomplice.

jlb524 wrote...
Wait till you hear him call her a 'monster'....oh yeah, now we're talking.   

And despite all the hatred Merrill receives from Fenris, she disagrees strongly with letting Danarius enslave Fenris.

ReiSilver wrote...

I really like Fenris, probably helped that I friended Merrill and then wanted to shake her after the end of her last quest when all she had to say was "Why wouldn't they let me help them?" for the creators sake Merrill you weren't helping them! You still can't admit you were wrong? AAAAAAHHHHH!

Merrill is a mage who is trying to help the People by restoring an important part of their history, which people seem to disagree with despite being completely ignorant of what she's actually doing. Gaider already stated Merrill was building the Eluvian based on lore she gathered and information she extrapolated from the shard. Why do people think Merrill should have done absolutely nothing instead of being proactive in helping the elves? It'd odd how many people claim Merrill is wrong but have no actual facts to back it up.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

I would like Fenris quite a bit actually. I agree with most of the things he says, his only huge flaw is that he killed all of those fog warriors that he admired and that had rescued him just because Denarius told him to. That is his big black mark and why I can't really trust the guy.

Fenris was a slave who had no memory and his morality was based around a malevolent Tevinter Magister who ordered him once to kill a boy simply for amusement - how was Fenris supposed to know right and wrong when these basic experiences were completely foreign to him?

I don't agree with Fenris' views on blood magic, mages, or Merrill, but he's struggling to build a life for himself based on such limited experiences and memories. He's not the same person who betrayed the Fog Warriors because he didn't know any better; Fenris is the one who tells Sebastian that he won't help him turn in the apostates in Hawke's group, so he's clearly not the same person who killed the Fog Warriors.

Heidenreich wrote...

Fenris is Awesome. Disliking him because he HATES blood magic and can see this naive little twit who twirls on her toes and plays with butterflies , acting as if she has no idea of its corrupting properties is silly. Anders is just as mean to her, if not more.

You mean the same type of blood magic that's responsible for the existance of the Grey Wardens, and giving the order the only means of stopping the Blight and the Archdemon? I don't see why everyone tries to act like blood magic is evil incarnate when we see how beneficial it can be, and even Duncan admits that some Grey Wardens use blood magic to combat the darkspawn more effectively.

As for Merrill, she is well aware of the dangers of magic, which is clear when she warns Hawke to be careful if he deals with demons, and tells Anders that there's no such thing as a good spirit. I understand Fenris is concerned about mages and magic because of his experience with Danarius, but that doesn't mean he's correct about Merrill simply because of his experiences with the senator.

Heidenreich wrote...

No that's false.

He had seen FIRST HAND what free mages do with their freedom. Thus, through that experience tries to explain to Hawke and his(her) co-horts that mages are NOT slaves, they're prisoners, and RIGHTLY SO, because mages, when given ultimate freedom, will always seek power..

This isn't factually accurate, since Fenris never says mages aren't slaves, and he sides with Hawke if the Champion uses the argument that the Circle mages are slaves of the Chantry. The scene you referenced is where Fenris says he sees no oppression at the Kirkwall Circle after less than two minutes of stepping into the Gallows, and his statement is neglecting the fact that the Magisters enslave mages and non-mages alike. We only need to look to the Avvar tribes, the Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, and the kingdom of Rivain to see that free mages don't become the Imperium by default.

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.

Merrill is spoiled and naive? She's living in a ghetto and is willing to die for technology that could benefit their people across the continent, and before that she was living with a clan that was constantly on the move because the Dalish are hunted by the templars.

[Treasure Woman]

I hate him. But not enough to hand him over to that douche Denarius.

Edit: Hmmm. Actually, for me I think it's more of a I hate you one minute, then I like you the next, then I hate you again sort of thing. :/

Modifié par Treasure Woman, 07 juin 2011 - 09:44 .

[Heidenreich]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

Fenris is Awesome. Disliking him because he HATES blood magic and can see this naive little twit who twirls on her toes and plays with butterflies , acting as if she has no idea of its corrupting properties is silly. Anders is just as mean to her, if not more.

You mean the same type of blood magic that's responsible for the existance of the Grey Wardens, and giving the order the only means of stopping the Blight and the Archdemon? I don't see why everyone tries to act like blood magic is evil incarnate when we see how beneficial it can be, and even Duncan admits that some Grey Wardens use blood magic to combat the darkspawn more effectively.

As for Merrill, she is well aware of the dangers of magic, which is clear when she warns Hawke to be careful if he deals with demons, and tells Anders that there's no such thing as a good spirit. I understand Fenris is concerned about mages and magic because of his experience with Danarius, but that doesn't mean he's correct about Merrill simply because of his experiences with the senator.

Heidenreich wrote...

No that's false.

He had seen FIRST HAND what free mages do with their freedom. Thus, through that experience tries to explain to Hawke and his(her) co-horts that mages are NOT slaves, they're prisoners, and RIGHTLY SO, because mages, when given ultimate freedom, will always seek power..

This isn't factually accurate, since Fenris never says mages aren't slaves, and he sides with Hawke if the Champion uses the argument that the Circle mages are slaves of the Chantry. The scene you referenced is where Fenris says he sees no oppression at the Kirkwall Circle after less than two minutes of stepping into the Gallows, and his statement is neglecting the fact that the Magisters enslave mages and non-mages alike. We only need to look to the Avvar tribes, the Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, and the kingdom of Rivain to see that free mages don't become the Imperium by default.

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.

Merrill is spoiled and naive? She's living in a ghetto and is willing to die for technology that could benefit their people across the continent, and before that she was living with a clan that was constantly on the move because the Dalish are hunted by the templars.

K, snipping the bits that weren't directed at my posts

1. My argument was simply that stating you hate someone for having an opinion that differs from your own, personal opinion with out taking the time to find out what that opposite oppinion might be, is, effectively silly. Please, try to remember that I'm Not not not not not bashing Merrill. She's a wonderful character, well writen and full of the beautiful depth we've been privlaged to be introduced to in this world.

<3

Now, the topic at hand:

Fenris does not hate Merrill. He dislikes her due to a number of different reasons. Mind you these reasons are colored soully upon the fact that his experiences are limited.. but, he does have reasonable and understandable, even if they're not completely agreeable, reasons for this dislike. 

It doesn't matter that you like merrill. It only matters that He does not enjoy her company.
 
Fenris see's Merrill as a naive child who's been sheltered in the woods all her life with no real idea of how life outside of the Dalish works. He knows that the Dalish mages are well trained. He knows that they don't condone blood magic. Hell, he can (and does in my playthroughs) even witness on several dozen occasions where her Whole Clan, as well as Hawke and Company warn her repeatedly just how very dangerous blood magic can be.

This isn't to say that she isn't already aware of the dangers. It also isn't to say that blood magic is actually bad. It is just easily abused, and Fenris being.. well, Fenris believes that all mages will eventually sacrifice everything in order for that power.

And he's not wrong. Why? Because until he meets Hawke (be it a mage Hawke, or Bethany), he litterally has never, not once, ever in all of the years he can remember, has he ever met a mage who did not abuse blood magic for their own personal gain.

Let me repeat this: Fenris, in all the time that he can remember, has never, not once, ever, has he ever met a mage who did not abuse blood magic for their own personal gain.

This doesn't mean that there are no mages who are strong enough not to abuse the power. Blood magic has a bigger influence in Thedas then the common folk ever get to know about. If you remember, no one but the Gray Wardens, and employees, know of the Gray Warden ritiual. I'd wager 3/4ths of the population of Thedas have no idea how Templars track mages.

So Yes, for an outsider, who can see the overall view, Blood Magic isn't a completely terrible thing. But Fenris and Merrill don't have a top-down view of the world, like the player does. There's no option for Fenris or Merrill to meta-game.

So, to Fenris, Merrill is every thing he dislikes. He dislikes mages, he deffinately dislikes blood mages, and to top it all off, she's Dalish and throwing everything she's been freely given (Remember this, because he's an ex-slave, and has never had anything that was freely given before meeting Hawke.) because she's insisting she needs blood magic.

To the ex-slave, Merrill is WILLINGLY and STUPIDLY throwing away her freedoms, her heritage, her family.. for blood magic. She might say she knows the dangers, but to Fenris, she has absolutely no clue.



As for Fenris thinking or not thinking mages are slaves.. well, to put it lightly, he doesn't think they're slaves. Not in Act1 when he walks into the Gallows. If by the time you've gotten to Act 3 and he choses the templars over your friendship with him, then you didn't do a good enough job showing him that you think they are.

If you've put in the effort with him (be it F or R scale) to prove your opinion that mages are "slaves", then he sides with you, completely with out question. Even if he doesn't believe he's siding with you. Because he trusts in you, and if you think they deserve to be defended, then he'll defend them.

Just remember, David Gaider himself said that mages were in fact not slaves. Mages are prisoners. It's not the same thing.


See? Depth and demention. I love this game.<3

Modifié par Heidenreich, 07 juin 2011 - 09:49 .

[Arquen]

Well said Heidenreich. The "top down view" is the exact problem. The player can say "but blood magic does this and does that," and in "Origins it was like this and that", but the point is that each character has a personal viewpoint with personal experiences and knowledge gained in their life. To expect them to know things the player knows and make conclusions based off of that is hypocritical at least.

The point is to understand each character for who and what they are and what they believe and why. I honestly hate Merrill as a character, but when I'm playing the game I try to see things from her perspective to try and understand where she is coming from. That is really how the depth and layers of the game become apparent to the point where the player goes "man, there is something new every time!"

Modifié par Arquen, 08 juin 2011 - 03:08 .

[ReiSilver]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ReiSilver wrote...

I really like Fenris, probably helped that I friended Merrill and then wanted to shake her after the end of her last quest when all she had to say was "Why wouldn't they let me help them?" for the creators sake Merrill you weren't helping them! You still can't admit you were wrong? AAAAAAHHHHH!

Merrill is a mage who is trying to help the People by restoring an important part of their history, which people seem to disagree with despite being completely ignorant of what she's actually doing. Gaider already stated Merrill was building the Eluvian based on lore she gathered and information she extrapolated from the shard. Why do people think Merrill should have done absolutely nothing instead of being proactive in helping the elves? It'd odd how many people claim Merrill is wrong but have no actual facts to back it up.

Maybe because her Keeper kept trying to reason with her that she didn't know what she was dealing with? Like I said, I played a Hawke that put faith in Merrill, who trusted her to know what she was doing around fade spirits more then he did Anders to be honest. This goes on for years with the Keeper hoping she'll come around, waiting for her to realise what would happen if she kept relying on the fade spirit to help her fix an interdenominational portal. Even my Hawke who trusted her started thinking it was a bad idea by act 3 but no, Merrill wont listen to gentle advice or reason and charges ahead, ready to foolishly kill herself. Which would leave everyone with an open gateway and the one person who knew about it being dead at best. Great way to 'help' anyone that is.

That she still doesn't get this after Merathari sacrifices herself to save her and everyone else is infuriating to me.

She doesn't listen to reason when the very people she claims to be trying to help, keep telling her not to do it. When she comes from a culture that tells you not to go off taking risks and think of the clan, and your responsibility and your importantce to that clan, first (dalish origin). For this reason I have to theorise that helping her people isn't her real motivation, even if she tells herself it is.
There are other artefacts, other ruins she could explore and find lore in, instead she focuses on the Eluvian that took two of her clan mates. She's trying to gain control over something that hurt her, to turn it from something that caused her pain to something that she could control and use for good. However well intentioned it is selfish and about helping herself more then her clan.
Thus I want to shake some sense into her when she STILL DOES NOT GET IT and does not take responsibility for her actions.

Modifié par ReiSilver, 08 juin 2011 - 11:32 .

[themonty72]

I agree with both Heindenreich And ResiSliver. (On another play thru Im not going tell anyone how many times Ive played this game) Merrill was plain out stupid even though adorable. She was really obsessed with that damn mirror and demon. That demon must have been her lover or god or something the way she carried on.She wouldnt listen to anyone about blood magic expect Merill. Yes she still didnt get it when the keeper sacrifices herself for her i was like Merill wake the f@@k up.Now I see why Fernis gave this girl a hard time. I still love her but i can finally understand why Fenris dislikes her. TO HEINDENRICH I WAS WRONG ABOUT FENRIS.

Modifié par themonty72, 08 juin 2011 - 05:36 .

[Nameless2345]

To Arquen:
[quote]Fenris has participated in an indirect education, and it is enough to make his opinions and views valid. [/quote] “Indirect education” means here that he just walked around with open eyes, nothing more. I already explained in a previous post what I consider an important education. “Self-directed education” also assumes drive and purpose to learn, something Fenris hasn’t exhibited. As I’ve said, all words about “Self-directed/indirect education”, “learning strategies”, etc. merely obstruct the fact there are no signs that, except for martial arts, Fenris had any education or formed any strategies to get it. I can use all these words describing 5 years old kid and cite that he learned to speak and to walk as an examples. You are still using horribly broad definitions that allow to put professor and stone age savage on the same level – and you are actually using them for a similar purpose.
[quote] Arguably more valid in some areas such as Tevinter, slavery, and oppression [/quote] He has no education even in this areas, all he has is a short personal experience. I already explained using an example in a post to phyreblade74 why it is limited. His memories don’t give a valid basis to form conclusions, no matter what Fenris himself believes. And being a slave doesn’t give an insight on why and how slavery exists, its roots and strong/weak points, or in what countries it exists or existed. All it gives, really, is a handful of morbid tales and a damaged person.
[quote] Fenris' knowledge gained indirectly is JUST as valid as anyone else in the party. Likewise, it has already been proven that he has drive for self directed learning because he has absorbed a lot of knowledge already. [/quote] Nothing was proven here. Had he drive for self-directed learning he would learn to read long before his third year in Kirkwall. Most of the things he knows about Tevinter are common knowledge even in Ferelden/Kirkwall. Sole exception is a widespread of blood magic. With Qunary he shows that he knows a common greeting (just like everyone living in a country for a day would) and some basic facts about their society and its interactions with foreigners. It doesn’t show any drive whatsoever, it merely shows that Fenris isn’t a potato. In game itself Fenris shows only enormous confidence in all his conclusions and views which is usually a counterproductive to learning. First-hand knowledge, things Fenris saw personally, is valid. Fenris’ opinions, even based on that knowledge, due to lack of general knowledge, experience, erudition, frame of reference, worth little.
[quote] 30+ years …studying the mage/templar solution… Neither did ANY_OTHER_PARTY_MEMBER [/quote] Again, exaggerations. The only thing Fenris did study systematically is fighting (at best). Any other party member is highly likely literate, had some form of systematic base education, except for maybe Isabela, and is more experienced due to longer memory span. And no, no one was exactly coach potato compared to Fenris. In fact, there is only one ‘native’ Kirkwaller in the party…and he is a dwarf.
[quote]Also, yes Fenris learned more in "10 years of being a slave/on the run..." about slavery, oppression, magic, cruelty of mages and magisters than someone with 30 years of experience in an institution undergoing a formal education about these things. [/quote] Laughable. Being a slave for a 100 years would teach nothing at all about history of slavery in a world, about how widespread on endemic it is, about its real roots in customs/religion, about its economic strong and weak points. Bolt in a turbine knows nothing about plane. Illiterate medieval foot-soldier, even free, knows little about wars he fights in, their real reasons and grand strategies.
[quote]First hand experience in a subject trumps any simple book reading or formal education on the subject. [/quote] “First hand experience” in watching lighting strike is trumped by reading a book on elementary physics. Former typically leads only to stories about gods and spirits warring in heavens. “First hand” experience in getting a head trauma doesn’t transform a person into a neuro-surgeon or even a paramedic. "First hand" experience in, say, getting lead poisoning doesn't even grant any knowledge, only health problems.
[quote]A scholar on Tevinter culture and slavery has no concept of what being a slave actually means. [/quote] Yet when talking about how to prevent slavery, how to make in economically unfeasible, how it has originated, how it is maintained globally, I’d choose a scholar every time. Actual slave would just tell some unpleasant stories and give, at best, some half-assed ideas.
[quote] he has a right, like anyone else, to convey his experiences and knowledge gained from them. It has been substantially proven over and over again that one does not need books to aquire learning, to gain education, or to be taken seriously. [/quote]  No one ever argued that education can be gained, for example, via tutors (not necessarily apprenticeship). There was nothing to prove here. I’d like to see examples though of extensive education in any area with limited or impossible experimental approach gained without books and tutors. In fact, I already asked for such examples once.  
As I’ve said,
 your arguments that lack of any formal education and literacy shouldn’t be viewed as a serious flaw when estimating an authority are such that they remove any distinction between various forms of education and knowledge and even between educated human and a non-comatose cat. Fenris has, of course, right to retell his experience and even give his opinions. My point was that the former is limited and the latter is practically worthless. 
[quote] Comparison to what? whom? [/quote] To any literate and educated party member/person without amnesia.
[quote] Fenris does not have the right to comment or act on his beliefs and experiences because he cannot read and has not lived in a circle or in Kirkwall? False. [/quote] He has _right_, and I explicitly said it in a previous post. Freedom of speech isn’t really a modern concept.
[quote] He can say " the moment they are free, mages will make themselves magisters," because he has experienced and observed this many times over. [/quote] Good example, really…for me. And the truth of it is that Fenris knows, really knows, only two things here: he was a slave and his master was a mage. Your words imply that he had seen or gained information from authoritative sources (like, monograph or historical course) about multiple societies/historical cases of “free mages”. Nothing even close. He has exactly 0 first-hand experience in this area for he never witnessed such transformation. He had no access to trustworthy sources even on Tevinter, lacking both education and literacy. All he ever could have were, basically, parts of conversations on Tevinter history. Gossips. He is retelling what he had heard from god-knows who and when, like in a game of broken phone, and believes that others have to take such garbage seriously. Had he actually any form of education he would know that freedom is not a yes/no condition to begin with. He would know that even in his meaning (no Circle) mages ARE free among the Dalish, Rivainy and Chasind, yet there are no replicas of Tevinter. He would know that slavery isn’t even limited to Tevinter and that slave to a non-mage is still a slave. In short, he can say only that he was a slave to a mage. Everything his else are conjectures of uneducated amnesiac on human nature and historical laws, and there are no reasons at all to take them seriously.
[quote] Hawke sides with the mages all of them turn to blood magic[/quote]
[quote]In every situation where mages are concerned they turn to blood magic, and most of them end up abominations. [/quote]
Wrong in two aspects. First, in street-battles in both forces of _Circle_ mages (near Meredith and massive templar-mages confrontation later) no single Circle mage uses blood magic. That makes around 20-30 of them. Attack on the Gallows (cut-scene)? Around ten at least mages, no blood magic. Attack on an inner chamber? Again, no blood magic, around ten Circle mages. There are several blood mages on the streets in the final quest, but all in all, they are in minority. Even though there are no reasons for a sane person not to use every source they have when cornered by their would-be murderers. Fenris, with his constantly used markings, created by a blood mage and slaver, is the last person to take morally high ground here. Second, the very point that mage shouldn’t use his own blood to empower magic is highly debatable. Also, let's not forget that in the Templar ending H.'s best ally, supposedly loyal knght of the Maker, attacks H. with a corrupted sword forged from a heathen idol in a deranged attempt to usurp all power in Kirkwall. H. also gains a fine knowledge that he has helped a psychopath and enemy to commit a mass murder despite having numerous warnings from, almost everyone including Cullen, that there is something very wrong with Meredith.  
[quote] It is assumption, not fact. Just as I used the 10-year old example to illustrate this argument before to clarify that this statement has no validity. [/quote] Correct. It is an assumption. Judging by appearance, Fenris is in his early thirties (at most), like his sister. Given that he competed for markings, it is safe to conclude that the competition was martial in nature and that he was at least teenager/young adult at the time to show some skill. He also mentions that he doesn’t remember his childhood or something to such effect. Combined – memory span of a teenager, most likely.
[quote] That means that the older someone is and the more memory they have the more they can be taken seriously. This is not true. [/quote] Really? Would you take opinions of Fenris with one minute worth of memories seriously? With one day? One week? One month? What is the magical number when actual experience ceases to matter?
[quote]I quote myself: "Fenris never was an apprentice, not arguing that, but he did learn in much the same way. He observed, experienced, and reflected. [/quote] No, it is not the same way. Tutor is a key to apprenticeship. Saying that ‘he observed, experienced and reflected’ and equal it in worth to actual apprenticeship is wrong and based on nothing. Any single human being ‘observed, experienced and reflected’. It doesn’t make knowledge and authority of every human the same. [quote]well he did learn quite a lot of new things living in Kirkwall[/quote] What, you mean in Act I he didn’t know everything from a glance like he did in Gallows?
[quote]To say he learned nothing or had the drive to learn nothing has no proof. Nothing being reading? Well, he does learn reading, and if Hawke never offers to teach him then one doesn't even know he is illiterate and therefore can make no assumptions on his learning. [/quote]. Negative statements are usually harder to prove. I can also ask you to prove that he wasn’t, say, a serial killer/rapist since Act I. He spent 3 years in Kirkwall without learning to read and showed no initiative to start learning on his own. Then presented with a book he doesn’t even mention willingness to study. That’s a valid basis for assumptions. These are signs of his attitude. However, assumption that he somehow learns to read later or has some drive for self-education is truly baseless and without proof.
[quote] He learns a lot about himself during his stay in Kirkwall….[/quote]. Psychological development and gaining knowledge are different things. Even the former is, actually, not that significant, since only in the end of Act III he says those words about poison and still has no idea what to do with his freedom.
[quote]Fenris does not presume authority in anything. He is a follower, and states as much. "I am no leader." [/quote]
&
[quote]As far as "the most valid one," there is NEVER a suggestion that Fenris believes his opinion IS the most valid one. [/quote]
He gives his opinions with supreme confidence in them (more often than not a mark of ignoramus), and in every discussion is completely unwilling to acknowledge even a possibility of being wrong. It should be noted also that it is possible to change minds of Anders(!), Merrill, Sebastian and Aveline on rivalry paths, but not Fenris. He is more fanatical than a literally possessed by vengeance suicidal terrorist, which says a lot. In the end he is quite willing to kill his only allies in the city to enforce his opinions. Doesn’t ' 
believe his opinion IS the most valid one '? Riiight. 
[quote]So, the illiterate amnesiac foreigner still has valuable knowledge and experiences to share, and should be at least listened to and considered when making decisions. [/quote]. Listen to his first-hand experiences – yes, with a grain of salt. Even with an example with a foreigner I never denied it. Why with a grain of salt? Well, first, no human is perfect recording device; perceptions/prejudices change memories at least subtly. Second, as I’ve pointed multiple times, at least one thing from Fenris’ ‘experience’, his markings, is not exactly what he says (he explicitly states ‘against my will’). My point, however, was always “who would really take opinions of an illiterate amnesiac foreigner on their society/profession/anything just as seriously as opinions of educated experienced person from their country.”. Quite typically instead of arguing that (it is difficult to disagree with obvious) you say essentially that foreigner still knows _something_. Why, of course.
[quote]"I would just like to go one week without meeting and insane mage, just one week..." says Hawke. [/quote] Which is obviously an exaggeration of a tired man. He could also say “I would like to go one week without meeting a templar who is a rapist/torturer/murderer/insane”.
[quote]Fenris' opinions are biased LIKE_EVERYONE_ELSE, but that does not make him wrong. [/quote] Automatically – no, it doesn’t. Strong, fanatical bias gives one good reason to doubt, though. Traumas in the past give another. Relative (to everyone else) ignorance gives a third reason. The inhuman speed with which he makes his conclusions, like in Gallows, makes four. When he bothers to explain his conclusions (like ~‘no one can resist temptations for long’ or ~‘magic and slavery are together in Tevinter, so it will be like this always’) his reasoning isn’t even remotely convincing. Remind me, are there any good reasons to trust his opinions? I know I wouldn’t listen to anyone like this IRL.
[quote] NO, Fenris in many examples explains how his slavery worked. Even more so take the lore that Tevinter was based off of Rome and the slavery there was based off of how Romans treated their slaves and one can make the logical conclusion. [/quote] Ah, yes, exactly my analogies. So when I think of what constitutes suffering in such place and time, I think of Rome. And I think that slave who was a prized possession and whose sister was given an opportunity to join a ruling class was immensely LUCKY compared to almost any other slave.
[quote] His aversion to touch, for example is a condition suffered by people who have been abused. His statement "I was a slave, I propped up the furniture if need be," is most telling. [/quote] And I move the furniture if need be, oh my god. Truly, suffering. Aversion to touch – not sure, I interpreted it as a sensitive skin due to markings.
[quote] Also, "paraded me around in a collar like a qunari mage." Called me his "pet." There are instances where Fenris speaks of slaves being beaten in the streets. Killed, etc. etc. [/quote] Oh, yes. Other slaves suffered indeed. Fenris? Come on, being called ‘a pet’ is nothing unusual for a slave.
[quote] Any research into Fenris' dialogue and character reveals that it wasn't "tame" suffering he endured. [/quote] Once again, comparison. In this case to other slaves. No one argues that being a slave is a joyful pastime. I never said it was. I said that according to Fenris’ words, not opinions, he had it relatively easy.
[quote]Fenris is an example of an Anti-Hero character. [/quote] Actually, repeated twice.
[quote] In the other post it was presumed that he had to be some kind of selfless, honorable, charitable person in order to be taken seriously as a productive or likeable character…hero [/quote]
The only one making presumptions about this issue was you.
I didn’t ask to prove that Fenris is ‘selfless’. I asked for a single display of altruism.
I didn’t ask to prove that Fenris is ‘honorable’. I asked for a single act of honor.
I didn’t ask to prove that Fenris is ‘charitable’. I asked for a single act of compassion or even mercy. Not for a couple of non-hostile phrases, mind you.
And no, I didn’t say that Fenris has to be a hero to be taken seriously. I didn’t compare him to heroes, to begin with.
This issue is actually a fine illustration of the whole discussion. I asked (non-rhetorically) for an example of any Fenris’ act that would show admirable moral qualities. At first I was answered that Fenris is no kitten-saving saint. Now I receive an answer that no, Fenris is no hero. At no point ever absence of such examples was honestly admitted (if they are really absent - I'm honestly in doubt here), but there is abundance of statements general to the point of irrelevancy. Fenris is, indeed, no saint and no pure hero. No one in DA series was. In fact, such characters are simply rare in [modern] fiction and even more so in life. I repeat myself, but again and again only an incredibly broad generalization allows saying anything good about Fenris. 
About anti-hero… Where to begin.
First, we are discussing Fenris as a person, not a combination of literary tropes. To define situation more clearly through exaggeration, imagine this scene: we are discussing an antagonist A. I ask what good qualities do you see in A., given that he is, basically, a monster and a criminal. You answer that as a villain A. is supposed to be all these things. Not only it is not really true, it doesn’t somehow make A. a better person. A. remains a disgusting bastard, stating that he is a “villain” merely notes that such was the author’s intention.
Second, term 'antihero' is usually applied to a protagonist, and definition on, say, merriam-webster (or wiki), though very lacking, explicitly states so. But I disagree here, for example on the basis that story doesn't have to have a single protagonist. Hm... Can it be said to a certain degree about DA2 story given that Isabela and Anders influence it at least as much as H.? 
Third, no, antihero isn’t someone without any heroic qualities. One of the definitions is “The Antihero is someone with some of the qualities of a villain, up to and including brutality, cynicism, and ruthlessness, but with the soul or motivations of a more conventional Hero”.  Some examples of anti-heroes in modern fiction? 
Films: Han Solo. Main character in “Firefly” (forgot his full name). Dexter, AFAIK. 
Literature: Philip Marlowe. Elric of Melnibone. Roland (“The Dark Tower”). 
What is common for them? Well, to begin with, my original question (“example of a single act…”) would be answered immediately and with several examples. What is more, most of them actually have positive morality and their negative morality is usually more complex than “slavery is bad”. Saying that Fenris is an anti-hero isn’t exactly incorrect, and yet it is once again very broad definition with many different sub-types and one that is used usually to describe far better persons. Why, Simmons in “The Anti-Hero in the American Novel” actually refers to a serious discussion about Christ as an anti-hero (although I’m not getting it, probably American thing). And looking at the definition above, I agree that Fenris has all 3 listed qualities of a “villain”, but I fail to see anything heroic in his soul/motivations. The only point in his favor is hatred of slavery, and that's not much.
On a personal preference… I actually like antiheroes for being “striped”, as I call it, beings. Persons with good and bad sides to them. Varric is an antihero, yes. Anders. Leliana, if returned to her "bard" personality. Oghren...doubtful, though. Sten, for he possesses both qunary brand of honor and selflessness. Garrus. Thane. H., perhaps. Fenris? He is an ignorant egocentric ruthless killing machine.  Can he be called an anti-hero simply because he is a character & not a hero & not a villain? Perhaps. Still rather unsympathetic one in my opinion. 
[quote]‘Rank’… plus the begging for help and his whining can be addressed as a separate argument. [/quote] OK. Whining is highly subjective and is a personal interpretation. Rank is irrelevant: initial argument was about morality, not fighting skill, the rest was me being petty.
[quote]So, here are some good examples of who Fenris is and what he cares about. He uses his marking with abandon against slavers. [/quote] That’s merely a negative morality with only one postulate. Extended vengeance, I’d say.
[quote]Very protective personality with a fierce loyalty. [/quote] I discussed his ‘fierce’ loyalty before. And here he threatens to kill Anders if mage does something… very similar to what Fenris already did by running away. This is hypocritical. He also puts his nose into something that is no longer his business, especially since H. can take of him/herself. This is rude to say the least. Your interpretation of “protectiveness” is possible, but I’d interpret such threat as merely a way to voice jealousy and aggression without sounding as a malicious fool.
[quote]He has genuine concern for the slave Orana [/quote] He does genuinely nothing for her. Even H. who ‘enslaves’ her (makes her serve for food and quarter, to put it more correctly) does immensely more. Fenris’ ‘concern’ leads only to him ****ing at H. Again, I see that he hates slavery, but I don’t see him really caring about slaves.
[quote] Isabela…Merrill [/quote] I asked for admirable _actions_. You tell me merely that Fenris agrees that slavery is bad. And that when Fenris ‘kicks the dog’ he actually means to encourage it, although even that is merely your interpretation and even if true ironically NOT the good way to encourage an actual dog. Cruelty is rarely a good way.
[quote] One of the best things he says is to Anders after Dissent.[/quote]It is probably the only non-hostile thing he ever says to Anders. Or to Anders and Merrill combined. Or to Anders, Merrill and mage H.-who-sides-with-mages-and-doesn't-romance-fenris combined. It is very telling that when talking about Fenris positively every _non-insult_ has to be presented as a point in his favor. Although yes, he is unexpectedly non-offensive in that conversation.
 
P.S. I'm getting an impression that you're somewhat fed up with these huge posts. I know I'm. My suggestions:
1)Argue 1-2 points at a time.
2)Agree to disagree on most points and argue 1-2 ONLY.
3)Agree to disagree. The way I see it we're unlikely to come to a total agreement and intepretations of fictional characters always vary. 
4)? 

Modifié par Nameless2345, 08 juin 2011 - 08:01 .

[Arquen]

This has now become an argument that says "I hate Fenris because his opinions and observations do not jive with my own."

The argument is now moving away from its origin to personal opinion. Point being proved and agreed that Fenris has valid opinions and should be listened to. Even if it is with a grain of salt.

[Teh Blasta]

This thread should be renamed "Stroking the writer's ego with every new post". I know I would be proud if others were getting this deep into the philosophical ideals and personality of a character I just made up for a game. Seriously guys, I like Fenris but even Aristotle would call this a tad overkill. A few of you treat this like a UN summit.

[Nameless2345]

Valid opinions? Very, very doubtful. I pointed out why multiple times. And received only counter-arguments like "but he is a human being and hence has a _capacity_ for learning! So, his opinions and conjectures are as valid as anyone else's". Which is garbage. Humans are not equal in this regard.  
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance ", to quote Marthin Luther King. 

Valid first-hand _experience_? Why, yes, a few things he saw personally and still remembers can be trusted...with a grain of salt though since at least in one case thing he states as a fact is anything but.

In short, giving opinions worth listening to requires having some sort of intellectual and/or moral authority. Fenris shows no signs of having one or even striving to.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 09 juin 2011 - 04:27 .

[Teh Blasta]

Nameless2345 wrote...
In short, giving opinions worth listening to requires having some sort of intellectual and/or moral authority. Fenris shows no signs of having one or even striving to.

Can you tell me which characters would be worth listening to based on those merits?

[phyreblade74]

Teh Blasta wrote...

Nameless2345 wrote...
In short, giving opinions worth listening to requires having some sort of intellectual and/or moral authority. Fenris shows no signs of having one or even striving to.

Can you tell me which characters would be worth listening to based on those merits?

HAWKE wouldn't be worth listening to based on those merits. 

Modifié par phyreblade74, 09 juin 2011 - 03:45 .

[Arquen]

I think if david gaider was reading this thread I might fangirl squee. I have a habit of being overly analytical and philosophical on everything. I take stuff apart reassemble it, and try to see it from all different angles. These long posts are just to much though the argument is now circular like I said. I wont argue that anyone should like Fenris. Its fine to hate him. I just like to see why ppl hate him.

[Teh Blasta]

If David Gaider was reading over this thread I'm pretty sure he would have locked it at this point. Uncountable speculative philosophic discussions has to be against forum rules. What we should be doing instead is making obscene innuendos and fallacy filled debates about Origins being better than Mass Effect.

[Arquen]

Lmao yes how dare we have a civilized debate in a forum! Trololololol where is the real discussion about how Fenris is basically estrogen magnet, lol.

[Nameless2345]

Teh Blasta wrote...

Nameless2345 wrote...
In short, giving opinions worth listening to requires having some sort of intellectual and/or moral authority. Fenris shows no signs of having one or even striving to.

Can you tell me which characters would be worth listening to based on those merits?

Like most things, authority is relative. As such, the real question is who has more authority than Fenris. 
Intellectual? Pretty much anyone with education/literacy/without amnesia, in other words, not ignorant according to basic definition. Fenris’s words are wrong even when he talks about what supposed to be first-hand experiences at least once. His information on things he didn’t witness personally is highly suspect being most likely based on hearsay. I listed above several reasons why his opinions are even less likely to be correct. I repeat myself, but honestly, who is "less" worth listening to than illiterate uneducated former slave with amnesia? Fenris is almost (Shale) uniquely limited person in that regard in both games. 

Moral? Pretty much everyone who demonstrated at least once some admirable moral qualities (I listed possible examples of actions before). It means at least Varric, Aveline, Merrill, Anders, Isabella, H. (depending on playthrough, ofc.) and I don't want to list non-companions.  
In other words, no, I don't have high standards here. The problem is that Fenris' measures low on most  conceivable scale compared to most other party members. That's why Arquen consistently tried to use such  scales and comparisons both in ethics ("no saint/hero") and learning (definitions that apply to everyone) that would disallow finding any difference at all between various humans.  

P.S. We should probably start cussing DA2, Bioware, Laidlaw and Gaider to be less offensive. And, of course, ME.

Modifié par Nameless2345, 10 juin 2011 - 03:11 .

[kglaser]

I didn't hate Fenris. I just thought he was overrated by many. I found him a bit "meh".
I found his voice slightly grating, and since he hated me, I didn't have much motivation to get to know him. I brought Aveline instead most of the time.

[Teh Blasta]

Nameless2345 wrote...
snip

Well I guess arguing intelligence would be a waste since you are indeed correct Fenris has little to no formal education to speak of. However would compassion and/or tolerance be worthy enough qualties towards morality? I've seen Fenris display both at several points in the game. Granted most were in Act 3 if I remember correctly but regardless of when the moments occur they do exist. You could even argue Fenris' choice when it comes to killing/sparing his own sister was based on the decisions of Hawke more so than his own perception of "right". The real example I would offer would be him accepting the role of defending mages at the end of Act 3. Bear in mind I do realize this is also due to Hawke but when asked about why exactly the choice was made Fenris shows he hasn't changed his mindset yet is willing to help by showing admirable restraint in his previous dispositions. That my friend is tolerance, and while it may be not the same as being actually accepting I would argue it is still a positive moral choice on his behalf. So for the most part you are right but Fenris isn't entirely devoid of morality.

Modifié par Teh Blasta, 10 juin 2011 - 04:42 .