That is a great point; he is indeed very damaged. But it's simply wrong, canonically wrong to say he hates all mages and wants to kill them.
I like fenris but sadly he indeed hates all mages. He hasn't lost it to go on a killing spree however he is sane enough. His views are changed forever because of he went through and I doubt they will ever change.
The weird thing is, before I played DA2, I thought Fenris WAS a mage. O_o
Wow. I have to disagree with you about Fenris. When he is not being psychologically tortured by a ****** like Hadriana, he's actually very rational and understanding about the Mage issue. He does not think all mages should be killed; where on earth did you get that? He simply believes in the importance of the Circle. He even respects mages like Bethany.
The thing about Fenris is not that he hates all mages -- it's that he deeply, deeply fears all magic. He comes from a place of pain and fear on the issue, not mindless hatred.
You know, I liked Fenris, but I do not like his character as it relates to the whole mage issue. I think he detracts from the pro-Order side more than not.
Here's my issue there... when making any kind of argument, it's imperative to keep your cool while doing so. If you display anger, then others will only see you and think: "oh man, this guy's angry" and whatever point you're trying to make will be lost. That's my beef with Fenris. While he may occasionally make good points on this topic while maintaining a level-head, those moments are few and far between all the instances where he comes off as vitriol- and spite-motivated. So unless you care for him deeply, or can overlook the vitriol, Fenris is not effective in arguing for the already-less-sympathetic side of this issue.
Worse yet, Fenris's writer also wrote Meredith, and then posts on his Tumblr how he wants to keep the mage/Templar thing grey. You don't make things grey by giving one side supporters who are very hard to like or sympathize with. Up to this point, that sums up most pro-Order types -- including Fenris, I'm afraid.
And again, I'm a fan, and pretty evenly split on the mage/Templar issue.
I like fenris but sadly he indeed hates all mages. He hasn't lost it to go on a killing spree however he is sane enough. His views are changed forever because of he went through and I doubt they will ever change.
Look, I don't know why you guys are harping on this. It's not that difficult to play through the game and actually listen to what he has to say. I'm on my lunch break at work, so I don't have the time to do the work for you guys; I can only give some paraphrases/summaries. When Hawke asks him if all magisters in Tevinter are evil blood mages, he replies that he has "no doubt some are good and noble men," but then he wonders how much power can you tempt someone with before they go over the edge? (a paraphrase). Here he's suggesting that mages are not inherently evil men and women; it's the temptation of power (and demons) that makes freedom for mages ("A noble thing," he admits) something he just is not willing to condone.
Fenris believes that mages should remain in the Circle -- not be slaughtered -- where they can be looked after so that they don't harm others or themselves. So that they are not tempted by demons.
It doesn't really matter if I agree or disagree with him; I find the dilemma interesting, and I love playing different characters with different beliefs. But you are deliberately misreading the character when you say he "hates all mages" and "wants to kill them all."
Fenris has his angry moments just like anyone else; he has moments when he's stewing in his own anger and fear and hatred, but most of the time he is a thoughtful, rational individual.
As for the comment about Bethany, it's not when she is in the party. It is a banter between himself and Anders, I believe. Anders asks him sarcastically if he likes ANY mages, and Fenris replies that he likes and respects Hawke's sister. Or, if Hawke is a mage, he will say he likes and respects Hawke.
Here's my issue there... when making any kind of argument, it's imperative to keep your cool while doing so. If you display anger, then others will only see you and think: "oh man, this guy's angry" and whatever point you're trying to make will be lost. That's my beef with Fenris. While he may occasionally make good points on this topic while maintaining a level-head, those moments are few and far between all the instances where he comes off as vitriol- and spite-motivated. So unless you care for him deeply, or can overlook the vitriol, Fenris is not effective in arguing for the already-less-sympathetic side of this issue.
Of course he is not effective in arguing his point; he is a victim of torture, slavery, and rape by the people the opposing side want to let go free.
It's not about which side is right or wrong; it's a game. It's about creating characters who make interesting choices, and about meeting characters who represent different sides and situations.
My own experience is that this isn't quite true. Fenris seems to need maxed Rivalry (Or perhaps to have the final Questioning Beliefs quest completed I think) to side against Meredith, but needs less for Friendship to work.
I think you get a bit more of a cushion if you romance him. Then it's about 80 rivalry that'll do the trick.
Look, I don't know why you guys are harping on this. It's not that difficult to play through the game and actually listen to what he has to say. I'm on my lunch break at work, so I don't have the time to do the work for you guys; I can only give some paraphrases/summaries. When Hawke asks him if all magisters in Tevinter are evil blood mages, he replies that he has "no doubt some are good and noble men," but then he wonders how much power can you tempt someone with before they go over the edge? (a paraphrase). Here he's suggesting that mages are not inherently evil men and women; it's the temptation of power (and demons) that makes freedom for mages ("A noble thing," he admits) something he just is not willing to condone.
Fenris believes that mages should remain in the Circle -- not be slaughtered -- where they can be looked after so that they don't harm others or themselves. So that they are not tempted by demons.
It doesn't really matter if I agree or disagree with him; I find the dilemma interesting, and I love playing different characters with different beliefs. But you are deliberately misreading the character when you say he "hates all mages" and "wants to kill them all."
Fenris has his angry moments just like anyone else; he has moments when he's stewing in his own anger and fear and hatred, but most of the time he is a thoughtful, rational individual.
As for the comment about Bethany, it's not when she is in the party. It is a banter between himself and Anders, I believe. Anders asks him sarcastically if he likes ANY mages, and Fenris replies that he likes and respects Hawke's sister. Or, if Hawke is a mage, he will say he likes and respects Hawke.
Fenris really does respect Hawke, there is no question there. I often see him as the most loyal companion. But his angry times were my focus. He blames magic for everything that has happened to him.
In order to build friendship with Fenris you should agree with him in those angry times when he says magic ruins everything it touches, magic is a curse etc... so generally I rival him because it seems much more natural, to me anyway. I adore him nonetheless 
Of course he is not effective in arguing his point; he is a victim of torture, slavery, and rape by the people the opposing side want to let go free.
"Of course" not? To me, that's exactly the kind of person would be the perfect candidate for arguing against mages' freedom (at least on paper).
It's a bit telling that you think otherwise, indicating that his past took legitimacy away from his position in your eyes, because it made him biased (if I'm getting you right). That's only because the approach with his character was wrong from the start -- attacking the pro-mage side from a position of spitefulness and other such feelings more frequently than those of legitimate concern. I mean, what legitimate concerns does he have with: (1) keeping Thrask's secret? (2) refusing to hand over Grace to the Circle upon seeing hearing how openly-merciless Ser Karass plans to be with them? (3) telling Cullen to accept Keran back into the order after having Anders or Merrill verify he isn't posessed? (4) Emile DuLauncet?
Fenris could definitely have been effective, though, had they approached things differently. In truth, I think the writers hold back a bit with anti-mage positions on two fronts: (1) gameplay; (2) they want to keep the issue "grey," it would become very difficult to support mages much at all if they didn't.
It's not about which side is right or wrong; it's a game. It's about creating characters who make interesting choices, and about meeting characters who represent different sides and situations.
Nor should there be, IMO. Thing is, characters go a long way in balancing the portrayal of the two sides on any given in-game topic. Sadly, even David Gaider doesn't seem to fully realize this. He claims to want to keep the mage issue grey, but he didn't do the pro-Order side any favors by writing Fenris and Meredith.
As for the comment about Bethany, it's not when she is in the party. It is a banter between himself and Anders, I believe. Anders asks him sarcastically if he likes ANY mages, and Fenris replies that he likes and respects Hawke's sister. Or, if Hawke is a mage, he will say he likes and respects Hawke.
That's a slight distortion; he says they aren't "weak."
Also, DA2's rivalry really need not include torture your companion/LI. When I romanced Merrill, I was predominantly on her friendship path, until I refused to support her with the eluvian and the arulin'holm, and that was really enough to plunge her deep, deep into rivalry.
My success at creating a giant swastika out of angry faces to express the actual depth of my feelings on this matter has, thus far, been limited, so I shall leave you with this for now: 
Nor should there be, IMO. Thing is, characters go a long way in balancing the portrayal of the two sides on any given in-game topic. Sadly, even David Gaider doesn't seem to fully realize this. He claims to want to keep the mage issue grey, but he didn't do the pro-Order side any favors by writing Fenris and Meredith.
Gray has never necessarily meant equal.
Yeah yeah Xili. Your angry face doesn't stop me from rivalmancing Merrill nor her remaining at my Hawke's side so angry face away
You know this isn't the first Nazi reference you've made on these forums that I have found highly inappropriate, but this is the first one, that I have seen, directed at another person. I do not appreciate you implying that I am some kind of Nazi for simply having a different opinion than you. I just find that so incredibly offensive it's just unbelievable.
Xili is a rather...special person to put it lightly.
Nazi references are only the tip of the ice berg.
At this point it's like water off a duck's back. Just roll with the crazy.
Oh wow, we can type out "Nazi" now!? Now I can finally stop trying to come up with awkward synonyms.
That's a slight distortion; he says they aren't "weak."
Gray has never necessarily meant equal.
Fenris does like and respect Bethany. It's apparent in most of his interactions with her, especially the DLC.
Despite what you think, mages and templars are not written intentionally to be the heroes and villains, respectively, of the story.
You get to make Anders fight WITH Templars AGAINST Mages.
Poetic Irony.
Fenris respects Mage hawke as well. Whether he likes him or not is up to friendship/rivalry.
I am home from an awful day at work so I will reply to this, since talking about Fenris brings me great joy 
"Of course" not? To me, that's exactly the kind of person would be the perfect candidate for arguing against mages' freedom (at least on paper).
He can't even come to the table without leaving his pain and suffering behind. He can't engage in the argument on a philosophical level. He's always going to be understandably biased.
But I'm not sure why that matters, whether he's a good or bad candidate for arguing that position.
It's a bit telling that you think otherwise, indicating that his past took legitimacy away from his position in your eyes, because it made him biased (if I'm getting you right).
Right 
Poor Fenris 
That's only because the approach with his character was wrong from the start -- attacking the pro-mage side from a position of spitefulness and other such feelings more frequently than those of legitimate concern.
I don't understand this. How is the approach to his character wrong? Does he not seem genuine to you? I find him a deeply complex and damaged character; it's why he is my favorite Dragon Age character. Fenris is not someone who can be easily "fixed"; I think he will always have these fears hovering over him. That said, he's a strong person; I think he will go on to live a healthy life, especially if my Hawke is around to help him out from time to time 
I mean, what legitimate concerns does he have with: (1) keeping Thrask's secret? (2) refusing to hand over Grace to the Circle upon seeing hearing how openly-merciless Ser Karass plans to be with them? (3) telling Cullen to accept Keran back into the order after having Anders or Merrill verify he isn't posessed? (4) Emile DuLauncet?
1. He thinks Thrask deserves to be blackmailed for being a hypocrite.
2. He believes all mages belong in the Circle.
3. He believes Keran could be possessed by a demon.
4. He believes all mages belong in the Circle.
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate" as I'm not sure who is supposed to be deciding what is and isn't legitimate. The player? But this is what Fenris believes; his beliefs are part of what make him such a complex character.
He is not a bad person; he cherishes the notion of freedom. He is conflicted when he sees the Gallows. It strikes him how much it still looks like a gallows. But by the end of his discussion with Hawke he basically squares his shoulders and says that it's necessary. He really believes this, even though a part of him detests holding people in cages like animals. Fear and his previous experiences make him a deeply conflicted character.
Fenris could definitely have been effective, though, had they approached things differently. In truth, I think the writers hold back a bit with anti-mage positions on two fronts: (1) gameplay; (2) they want to keep the issue "grey," it would become very difficult to support mages much at all if they didn't.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "effective"; I find him a lovingly and brilliantly written character. I think when it comes to "supporting mages" it's rarely so black and white for the characters. Each character has his or her own reasons for why they think the Circle should 1. Continue, 2. Be broken, or 3. Not be broken, but changed/fixed in some way.
Some aren't really sure what they think about it, so they avoid talking about it (Varric, for example). That says something about that character as well.
"Thing is, characters go a long way in balancing the portrayal of the two sides on any given in-game topic. Sadly, even David Gaider doesn't seem to fully realize this. He claims to want to keep the mage issue grey, but he didn't do the pro-Order side any favors by writing Fenris and Meredith."
Oh, I see. Well, I don't think the writers intend to make us choose one side or the other. When I'm watching Game of Thrones, I don't feel as if I'm supposed to pick who to support, the Stark's, the Lannister's, or the Targaryen's. I'm just enjoying an amazing show with well-written, nuanced characters. It's the same with Dragon Age. I don't support the mages or the templars. I'm just creating characters and playing in this amazing world and interacting with these great characters.
I mean, narratively speaking, the situation has to be complex enough that I, the player/reader, believe that it's a truly complex issue that shapes the lives of these characters. And I do, so, job well done to the writers for that.
Rivalry is important when you must stand against your friends, sometimes for their own good. (<----Neville Longbottom (+15))
Remember Merrill? Her obsession with the mirror could've made her release the demon in the mirror and transform her into an abomination. What then? She would slaughter her friends, her clan and who knows what other innocents.
This is why I prefer to have a rival relationship with her, even if I wish I could coddle her and comfort her for being away from all she's ever known to be home. In the end, if you have maxed rivalry with her, she eventually breaks the mirror, stating you were "right all along". And it's likely she'll never dabble in blood magic again.
The same thing happens to Anders. If you believe he's being misled by Vengeance, regardless of how true his complaints concerning the abuses of templars are, then becoming his rival will finally allow him to see this by the end of Act 3. He will still perform his terrorist attack, but he can be convinced to join the templars and fight the blood mages. He also gives up on his idea to become a fugitive, I guess, although his future after this is uncertain.
Regarding Isabela or Aveline, your rivalry with them depends not much on your political position (pro or anti mage/templar), but on your moral inclination. Are you a gangsta Hawke? Do you hate the law in general, doesn't mind getting your hands dirty, has a selfish attitude all the time and prefers to blackmail and corrupt people around you than to be fair and just? Then you'll earn rivalry points from Aveline, but approval from Isabela.
You know this isn't the first Nazi reference you've made on these forums that I have found highly inappropriate, but this is the first one, that I have seen, directed at another person. I do not appreciate you implying that I am some kind of Nazi for simply having a different opinion than you. I just find that so incredibly offensive it's just unbelievable.
My apologies. It's a symbol solely of my own rage, not an implication at you in particular. I went to it purely because it seemed relatively easy to make in ASCII as opposed to a skull or something more generic, but it didn't format properly.
CuriousArtemis has already done a fine job of explaining Fenris' attitudes and defend his honor, but I can resist adding my two cents. 
In my play through every time mages were dealt with he pretty much condemned them all. I wanted to tell him to shut up half the time. I didn't ride with bethany much so perhaps I missed this. I rode with anders and sometimes Merrill and Fenris and all he did was lash out at them and condemn them. Perhaps I missed it because I didn't bring bethany which I will this time until she's gone just to see if there is balance. But in my first game, he was a hater. He was pretty much Cullen right before you deal with Uldred though less ranty and obvious about his hate. It was still there and at EVERY turn he makes a comment that supports this. Perhaps if bethany hadn't been taken soon soon after he was acquired and I had a chance to ride with her more, I'd have seen this, but once I acquire Fenris I basically run with him, Anders and then switch off between Merrill, Varric (when necessary) and Isabel or Aveline. So from the group I take, I hear nothing but crap coming out of his mouth at every turn. Give it a go and tell me I'm wrong. With Merrill and Anders you hear it all the time. He's just too far gone given his history which makes him a weak link because he has no balance. Same as anders except you aren't really defending Templars for most of the game, are you? It's only at the end where things go truly south with him.
Anders is an abomination and a nutcase, who despite this thinks he is still a perfect example of how all mages should be free. Merrill is a blood mage. Those two illustrate EXACTLY what Fenris fears will go wrong when you let mages do as they please. They merge with demons and risk hurting others and/or they turn to dark magic that, again, can harm people in a nasty way by mind-controlling them, among other unpleasant things. So, yeah, he is not going to trust those people or agree with their POV.
"Of course" not? To me, that's exactly the kind of person would be the perfect candidate for arguing against mages' freedom (at least on paper).
What legitimate concerns does he have with:
(1) keeping Thrask's secret?
(2) refusing to hand over Grace to the Circle upon seeing hearing how openly-merciless Ser Karass plans to be with them?
(3) telling Cullen to accept Keran back into the order after having Anders or Merrill verify he isn't posessed?
(4) Emile DuLauncet?
I find Fenris pretty rational in the conversation you have with him when you bring him to the Gallows for the first time. He does not think mages are all evil or inherently bad persons. His only concern is that they're human (or elvhen, but whatever) and that means that most of them will cross a line (i.e., turn to blood magic) when pushed into a corner. It can be to save themselves, or someone they care about, or because they want power, or because they did not like what they got for dinner that evening. Doesn't matter. He thinks that every mage (meaning every man and woman) has a price. And honestly, I think he's right. How many people wouldn't do anything to save someone they love, even if it means doing something morally wrong? I know my Hawkes would not have hesitated to use blood magic if it could have saved their family. That's not evil, that's human. But it can still be dangerous.
Now, reasons:
1. Thrask kept the abilities of his daughter a secret and in the end she turned into an abomination. As a templar, he has a duty to protect others from mages running free and potentially causing harm. Apparently he has neglected this duty, and it would be better to expose this than protect Thrask.
2. Grace was the lover of a blood mage, hiding in a cave with more blood mages, who all attacked on sight. She could very well be a blood mage and lying about it to save her own hide. Oh, and guess what? Fenris was actually right! As can be seen in Act 3.
3. Merrill and Anders are not the most trustworthy sources as far he is concerned, and their methods to test Keran are not guaranteed to be fool-proof. Keran could still be posessed, or his mind altered by blood magic.
4. He outright tells you why. He thinks Emile is acting innocent and dumb to deceive you and let him go free. Might be true or not, we never get 100% certainty in this one. But even if he is not a blood mage, he should be in the Circle as far as Fenris is concerned. If he is actually as dumb as he acts, he can easily end up harming others in the end.
Man, I wanna add my opinion to this thread but other people keep typing it out better than I could have.
*I'm cutting these quotes down considerably. Sorry about your day BTW Artemis.
I don't understand this. How is the approach to his character wrong? Does he not seem genuine to you? I find him a deeply complex and damaged character; it's why he is my favorite Dragon Age character. Fenris is not someone who can be easily "fixed"; I think he will always have these fears hovering over him. That said, he's a strong person; I think he will go on to live a healthy life, especially if my Hawke is around to help him out from time to time
He is not a bad person; he cherishes the notion of freedom. He is conflicted when he sees the Gallows. It strikes him how much it still looks like a gallows. But by the end of his discussion with Hawke he basically squares his shoulders and says that it's necessary. He really believes this, even though a part of him detests holding people in cages like animals. Fear and his previous experiences make him a deeply conflicted character.
Again, no problem with his character per se. Just feel like the writers did a bad job arguing the other side (of the mage issue) through him, that's all.
Don't know if you played Mass Effect 3, but I'd liken him to the salarian dalatrass. Fenris is not quite as bad, but at times he reminds me of her in the wrong ways. The dalatrass was arguing for the other side of the genophage issue, and while she made some fair points, she mostly came across to people as spiteful and a bully. Fenris has his moments where he makes compelling cases against freeing mages, but they're buried underneath many instances where he comes across as vitriolic and passive-aggressive about it. And perhaps I've interpreted him to be hostile in cases where he actually isn't, but if I have, it's because he comes off that way from habitually acting like it. It leads one, in turn, to attribute his position more to his negative feelings and biases rather than any rational points he has to offer.
Basically, if he were on my debate team, I'd take him to task a bit on his tone and connotation.
Oh, I see. Well, I don't think the writers intend to make us choose one side or the other. When I'm watching Game of Thrones, I don't feel as if I'm supposed to pick who to support, the Stark's, the Lannister's, or the Targaryen's. I'm just enjoying an amazing show with well-written, nuanced characters. It's the same with Dragon Age. I don't support the mages or the templars. I'm just creating characters and playing in this amazing world and interacting with these great characters.
It's fine for a TV show, but this is a role-playing game where that particular issue is central to the game -- it even ends with you choosing a side. =\
I find Fenris pretty rational in the conversation you have with him when you bring him to the Gallows for the first time. He does not think mages are all evil or inherently bad persons. His only concern is that they're human (or elvhen, but whatever) and that means that most of them will cross a line (i.e., turn to blood magic) when pushed into a corner. It can be to save themselves, or someone they care about, or because they want power, or because they did not like what they got for dinner that evening. Doesn't matter. He thinks that every mage (meaning every man and woman) has a price. And honestly, I think he's right. How many people wouldn't do anything to save someone they love, even if it means doing something morally wrong? I know my Hawkes would not have hesitated to use blood magic if it could have saved their family. That's not evil, that's human. But it can still be dangerous.
You don't have to convince me of his position. I actually agree with it, for the most part.
Thing is, Fenris was initially one of the things in the game that detracted me from that position rather than getting me to understand it.
1. He thinks Thrask deserves to be blackmailed for being a hypocrite.
2. He believes all mages belong in the Circle.
3. He believes Keran could be possessed by a demon.
4. He believes all mages belong in the Circle.
Now, reasons:
1. Thrask kept the abilities of his daughter a secret and in the end she turned into an abomination. As a templar, he has a duty to protect others from mages running free and potentially causing harm. Apparently he has neglected this duty, and it would be better to expose this than protect Thrask.
2. Grace was the lover of a blood mage, hiding in a cave with more blood mages, who all attacked on sight. She could very well be a blood mage and lying about it to save her own hide. Oh, and guess what? Fenris was actually right! As can be seen in Act 3.
3. Merrill and Anders are not the most trustworthy sources as far he is concerned, and their methods to test Keran are not guaranteed to be fool-proof. Keran could still be posessed, or his mind altered by blood magic.
4. He outright tells you why. He thinks Emile is acting innocent and dumb to deceive you and let him go free. Might be true or not, we never get 100% certainty in this one. But even if he is not a blood mage, he should be in the Circle as far as Fenris is concerned. If he is actually as dumb as he acts, he can easily end up harming others in the end.
1.) And what good does blackmail do in response to an uncommitted/negligent Templar, aside from turning his misconduct into your profit? The problem-Templar remains free to continue violating his duty, and his superiors remain unaware of it. All you've done is make him feel like he might lose some coin over his mage sympathy if he's found out, and to be more careful in covering his tracks. He is not, however, confronted directly for not doing his job.
It comes off as really passive-aggressive for him to support it.
2.) Grace was an abomination come Act 3, which may well have come long after Act of Mercy has been completed, so I wouldn't call him "right" on that. In fact, if life in the Circle under the Templars is what pushed her over the edge, I would even argue that he was wrong!
3.) Does he actually have sound reason to believe their tests are flawed, other than the ad hominem at hand surrounding Anders/Merrill?
4.) See, that's kind of the whole problem I have with him in a nutshell. There are several, valid concerns one can raise in the scenario with Emile DuLauncet to support sending him back to the Circle. What you get from Fenris, however, is a far-fetched accusation that's utterly unconvincing.
You get to make Anders fight WITH Templars AGAINST Mages.
Poetic Irony.
The joke is on you. You need to help him destroy the chantry and you must complete that quest otherwise Anders will refuse to fight mages.
Eh it happens anyway even if you tell Cullen so the joke's more on DA2's joke of a plot.
1.) And what good does blackmail do in response to an uncommitted/negligent Templar, aside from turning his misconduct into your profit? The problem-Templar remains free to continue violating his duty, and his superiors remain unaware of it. All you've done is make him feel like he might lose some coin over his mage sympathy if he's found out, and to be more careful in covering his tracks. He is not, however, confronted directly for not doing his job.
The original argument was about keeping Thrask's secret. I suppose you can blame the game for not allowing a third option, namely exposing him (that would mean more handwaving in Act 3, as Thrask is needed there). I don't really see Fenris as a type to always favor blackmail, so I suppose his friendship points stem partially from the fact that it is only a binary choice and blackmailing at least means you are not feeling compassionate for a templar who neglects his important duty.
It comes off as really passive-aggressive for him to support it.
2.) Grace was an abomination come Act 3, which may well have come long after Act of Mercy has been completed, so I wouldn't call him "right" on that. In fact, if life in the Circle under the Templars is what pushed her over the edge, I would even argue that he was wrong!
Wrong? He was dead right! She says that Decimus taught her everything there was to learn, which means she was already a blood mage when you first encounter her in Act 1. Which means she lied, as Fenris suspected. The abomination part may have come later, but she was never innocent to begin with.
3.) Does he actually have sound reason to believe their tests are flawed, other than the ad hominem at hand surrounding Anders/Merrill?
Cullen doesn't seem to know about any reliable tests, and you'd think that templars know a lot about uncovering possession (and the use of blood magic). Also, the possession of the recruits was not the way things normally go (i.e. they are not mages). What Wilmod had become remained unnoticed until he exposed himself. So perhaps Merrill does not sense a demonic presence in Keran's blood because it's different this time? Or he has become possessed by one of the more intelligent demons, one who knows not to respond to Anders' little test? Perhaps he is not possessed at the moment, but Tarohne's magic has somehow created a means for demons to take over later on? Who knows with those experiments? And even if Keran is not possessed, he had been held captive by those blood mages for quite some time. It is possible that his mind has been addled with blood magic, so he can still end up doing harm.
4.) See, that's kind of the whole problem I have with him in a nutshell. There are several, valid concerns one can raise in the scenario with Emile DuLauncet to support sending him back to the Circle. What you get from Fenris, however, is a far-fetched accusation that's utterly unconvincing.
I don't think it's that far-fetched, especially considering the previous encounters you have had with blood mages playing innocent. Grace dramatically swears to you that she "has had no truck with demons" and even that sweet dark-skinned mage (Elain, I think?) who never wanted anything to do with all of it turns out to be a blood mage. Emile's stupidity was rather extreme, so you could question how genuine it is.
Edit: damnit, this new layout completely messes stuff up when I'm trying to split one quote. I'm sorry. 
Retour en haut