This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > Fenris vs. Anders??
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2487 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

I always get mixed up and have a hard time choosing between my favorite character in DA2. I want to see other people's opinions, because i honestly think Fenris is pretty badass and would like to c him in DA3 again xXShadowBloodXx108.81.234.189 (talk) 01:37, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

How about both? I have both showing up in my novel. I'm not Hawke so I don't have to choose :P -Gabriellesig 02:36, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

How about neither? I don't know which one I would kill first.--Markurion (talk) 03:40, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Anders would be my first choice, however I always imagined Fenris' tattoos taste like York Peppermint Patties, truly a toss up. Tommyspa (talk) 03:54, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I would choose Fenris, because he's not a terrorist like Anders. Andy said he's more open-minded, but he denied it telling Fenris that he's just jealous about his sister. I rather brooding former slave than a possesed mass murderer. Fenris would free all slaves, that's good and Anders is no hero, he's a mad terrorist, who killed priests for idea and like every madman he wishes to change the world. All he did was start of that idiotic war.

Anders is already one of my favourite companions in all RPGverse, and since he still manages to piss people off, like the good sir/madam above who learned everything s/he knows about terrorism from TV, chances are your double-seated throne is shaking, Morte and Dr Solus. Fenris is a fangirl bait constructed for this particular purpose so blatantly that the seams shine brighter than his tattoos, and while I do enjoy some cliches, he ain't one. 'sides, every time he speaks my hand automatically reach towards 'mute'. ...hey, just look at the time - quarter to silly little flame war! :D Dorquemada (talk) 07:02, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly a fan of Fenris, but I absolutely loathed Anders, moreso than any other character in the series, so I'd take Fenris over him any day. Broody ex-slave > Slutty terrorist. -- (talk) 07:24, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

They just happen to be my 2 favourite characters from DA2 (with Varric as 3rd). But if I had to choose one, Anders would be it. Fenris does suffer a bit from his "fangirl bait" tag, even in my eyes. Still, even despite that, I do think he's an interesting character. It's just that he's not Anders. Nilfalasiel (talk) 09:18, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I hated Anders. Completely. Such a whiny little $%^&. Killing him was the only satisfying part of DA2 for me. Shame they changed him so much, cause I found him jovial and easy to like in Awakening. Fenris at least had the decency to keep his mouth shut more often. But both of them are just impossible to like. I only managed to finish the game once, but both of them died. But I will say this. Anders evoking that hate was very well done, if intentional, which I really am not sure it was intentional... Fenris is completely forgettable and useless as a character. Totally. Anders is IMPORTANT, like him or not. The Grey Unknown (talk) 11:39, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Dude, he blew up a building that, a) had a number of non-combatants in it, b) was pretty much a Grand Cathedral of the city - a landmark both of architectural and sacramental importance, c) visuals of its explosion deliberately and glaringly invoked 9/11. You cannot get more intentional than that - remember, it's Bioware we're talking about, they do subtle as well as rainbow colored rhinos do china shop infiltration. Dorquemada (talk) 12:00, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
That is actually a problem with most of the dramatic events in DA2. They're all in-your-face forced drama. The death of Hawke's mother is another example. They're simply forcing an event to create emotions which they could not generate by good writing/interesting characters.
And apparently ME3's ending had something similar before it was cut. Leaked videos show the deaths of squadmates who follow Shepard to the beam in the end, regardless of the readiness score.Diain (talk) 14:13, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
I was referring only to personality and not events, meaning his personality evoked that hate BEFORE he blew up stuff. Events is a whole different issue, but combined with his personality then Anders gets the murder knife every time. The Grey Unknown (talk) 17:34, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I liked Anders a lot more in Awakening, even though he was just an Alistair stand-in. But considering what he's gone through, I can understand why he turned into the Anders of DA2. Honestly, I bring him along because he's the only dedicated healer, unless you're playing a Mage Hawke.

I find Fenris to be a more compelling character, because he's the only principle cast member who has first-hand experience of life in Tevinter, but he's a pain in the ass to deal with. Gameplay-wise, I generally prefer to keep Aveline on hand as my party tank. Son Goharotto (talk) 12:50, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know, I'm not a huge fan of either. They both suffer from the broody fangirl type of personality, and are both way too one-dementional about the mage-templar thing. One one hand I hate how much Anders changed, sure he was pretty average in DA:Awakening but he was pretty cool and easy to like, so his rapid change was a but disheartening for me, all they had to do (much like DA2 should have done itself) is expand on his personality and not completely change it, also what Anders did was pretty darn unforgivable even if it was for a good cause. On the other hand, Fenris feels somewhat unnecessary and seems so much like a final fantasy character. But I overall like Fenris slightly better because when I saw him rip out that guys heart, and then promise his Hadriana he would spare her then did the same to her, I knew I was dealing with a "Don't fu** with me" kind of guy So I guess I respect him more than like him. MrRexfire (talk) 13:18, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

If it was Awakening Anders Vs. Fenris, I'd be rooting for Anders. DA2 Anders on the other hand, i'd be helping Fenris. Why? Because Anders blew up the bloody CHANTRY!! Plus breaking Hawke's Heart. They made Anders way too extreme (ok, he has a spirit of Justice in his head) I can understand it from his P.O.V and Fenris', but they are both extreme. Anders wanted complete freedom while, Fenris wants to imprison all mages.
Whenever they are having one of their bitching competitions, my Mage Hawke's there facepalming cos she knows there has to be an equilibium between templar's and mages.
DA:A Anders was sacastric, easy going and my warden may have had a crush on him (what? she was lonely Alistair had died a few months back and she missed him), while DA2 Anders "F**K TEMPLARS!!", tempermental, and a murderer, and most importantly a heart breaker.Phoenix96 (talk) 16:32, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'd kill them both, if they are crying pissy-boo-boo over human problems and not fighting the darkspawn, they are of no use to me. I am the 5% (talk) 16:42, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Anders over Fenris, at least I know Anders was a happy, skipping, loveable guy, before Justice ruined him and he ruined Justice... :( Why did they have to go and ruin each other! Out of friendship! I miss Ser Pounce-Alot! He was useful, and he came with Anders, and there is no more Ser Pounce-Alot... and Anders is whiny... but at least he is Fenris... --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 19:12, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Wait... Anders is a terrorist? Please elaborate. -Algol- (talk) 19:21, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, blowing up building means your a terrorist, since that's what terrorist do blow up things and scare us... because their terrorists
I wonder if dropping atomic bombs on places, where "said" number of innocent people live counts as terrorism... In that case, is the American Goverment during the world war 2 are terrorists... Just pondering, no mean to offend people --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 19:38, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Nope, the United States wasn't trying to "fear" the Japanese people into submission, instead it was (a very bloody) bluff to the Empire of Japan i.e. if you keep fighting, we have more atom bombs (when we didn't). That said Ander's actions were meant to inspire fear into the hearts of the Chantry leadership, in order to change their stance on mages. When in fact he's more or less damned all mages to die or become isolationists. Then again human problems in Thedas<Dem Darkspawn. I am the 5 % (talk) 19:53, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to make a point that people go round, shounting terrorist, when they don't full completely into that category, so to speak --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 05:44, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
Not really. He didn't want to impress the Chantry leadership because he - at that point already a chimera Janders, no longer Anders with a voice in his head - didn't believe the Chantry can offer any way out. He just wanted a full time war. Dorquemada (talk) 20:23, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, ok...

1)First of all, "terrorism", "terrorists" and other stuff are terms invented not long ago in real world. In a fictional world of Thedas, which is loosely based on Medieval Europe, no such terms existed. Moreover, people were engaging in practices, which are deemed by some as "acts of terrorism" today, on a daily basis. For example, A Brewing Conspiracy quest shows us, that taking hostages to scare their relatives into submission is a legitimate practice. From this point, the discussion on Anders' apparent "terrorism" can be closed, but just in case, I'll continue.

2)Some people think, that Anders blew up a building, full of innocent people. Not true. In case someone needs to refresh their memories, watch this video, or just skip to 2:54. In this cutscene we see Elthina and a bunch of templars getting a bit closer to the Maker. Now, if you like to use modern terms, I'd say, that all of them were valid targets.

So all in all, if you're unhappy with Anders for not being like Awakening version of himself, or for making a pass at your male Hawke (oh teh noes!), just freaking say so. Would have make much more sense, then calling him a "terrorist".-Algol- (talk) 21:05, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Huh, 200 years ago must not have been long for some folks, I guess they are immortals. Then again it isn't like the chantry is a multistory building in a densely packed city, and once it gets blown up has its fiery bits spread all over the city. I'm so glad people can think for themselves, however when they go into thinking their thoughts for me, I draw a line. (talk) 21:51, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Agol, are you for real? VALID TARGETS? That'd be like saying "Hey, the Swiss refused to get involved in WW2. We should've bombed them all to hell for it!" On top of that, the explosion of the Chantry itself would've flung debris which would invariably hit civilians as well. Even going further from there, Anders has essentially doomed every single mage to war, whether they want to or not. He is the perfect example of a terrorist: Make people believe me, by any means necessary. -- (talk) 23:01, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

In WW2, both the Allied forces and Nazi dropped bombs on each other, not knowing what they were hitting innocent people's homes or allied/nazi bases. Also, Anders hasn't doomed every mage to war, that is certainly an over statement --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 05:53, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
I am for real. The Templar Order commited numerous crimes against Kirkwall (and not only mages). As a leader of mages resistance (or what's left of it by the moment of Act3), Anders have chosen to start a guerilla war. Therefore, templars are valid targets, as is the Grand Cleric, because templars are a military arm of the Chantry, and the supreme commander of Kirkwall templars would be Elthina.
Abut debris flying around and all that stuff, would is the operative word of your sentence. We never actually see or read it during the game, so in the words of Saemus Dumar, "keep your assumptions". But if you like to bring up real life parallels, here's one.
About Anders apparently "dooming every single mage to war"... I don't even... Ok, ever heard about Loyalist Fraternity of Enchanters?-Algol- (talk) 08:44, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt the Seekers and the Templars asked "hello, what fraternity do you belong to?" before sliding a sword of mercy through the mage's guts. Indiscriminate murder is the norm in Thedas. I suppose Warden mages won't be involved, because of their policies, but I can't really think of any other mage groups that won't be involved in this.
And it is stated that MANY civilians died in the Battle of Kirkwall.
To be honest, I think Janders (words from Dorquemada) wasn't very good at tactics. Yes, the templars believe mages are dangerous, volatile people, so let's prove them wrong, that mages can self-govern with control and aren't dangerous, by blowing up a church, killing civilians, inciting a riot... and to be honest, not all mages were treated badly, just as not all templars hated mages. Bethany makes it clear that she rather likes it, and the Warden has numerous options to state that (s)he would like to return to the Circle. Wynne doesn't seem to hate it either. I really can't see what Janders had to whine about. Some circles may have been much, much worse, but as for Anders he was in the Circle Tower, which seemed a lot milder than say, the Gallows.
He almost seems like someone who is whining that gun control in Illinois is too restrictive, that he can handle guns so why would he need a license? As for the other "CIRCLE SUCKS" banner toter Morrigan... weeeeell, I'm fairly certain she'll throw me to the wolves if the occasion required it for her. She disapproves me for not drowning kittens. -Gabriellesig 10:01, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
Circles are not law enforcement, but bloody prisons for people who, while potentially lethal, haven't done anything wrong. Some of these prisons may have nice wardens, some have evil, but it doesn't change the fact itself. Both Anders and Janders wanted to destroy Circles as the institution, it's just that Anders as we knew him before Act 3 seemed to be somewhat inclined towards slow way of evolution via negotiation, proving mages ain't dangerous, etc., while radical Janders chose the "Here and now!" way of violent revolution. Makes sense, that all - Anders, while a free spirit with 9 "shore leaves" still had ~20 years of being brainwashed by the Chantry and therefore was hesitant about Circles' desctruction; Justice has no grasp of time, sees the world in black and white and is extremely single-minded and very driven, so as soon as he gets the upper hand, boom. Dorquemada (talk) 12:17, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
Yes Gabrielle, that's perhaps the best metaphor: Anders essentially just said "we need to be in control" by demonstrating to the people why mages are not to be trusted (Not personal opinion, but how it would look to the average person). It's like saying gun control is wrong, and proving it by going on a spree. As for people noting that the Templar are an instition of the Chantry, Ethina mentioned numerous times that they were no longer obeying her commands. That's like saying one cop goes bad so you decide to blow up city hall. Hey, same institution, right? -- (talk) 16:48, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
@Dorquemada: to be honest, I'm surprised the mages weren't all torched to death. We (as in, human beings) have done that without any substantiating proof that there was sorcery. Theodosians have them, and considering that half the mages in Kirkwall seem very eager to rip open a vein the moment they see a shadow... no, I don't blame the Chantry for making the Circles.
As Wynne said, "for every mage child, there are ten who weren't as fortunate". The Circle exists as a buffer for the terrified population, a sort of a trust from the average citizens. "He's a mage, but he's a Circle mage, so he can exert control" (remember, Circle mages do leave the Circles. Finn left, for instance). All Janders did was to remove that safeline; thanks to one man, more mage children will be killed just because they're mages. And "mages are scary" stigma won't go away.
Which would you prefer? Live in a dangerous world where a mage child will be killed just because of the "gift", or live in a prison where you can live and learn? I'm sorry, but I pick the Circle. Or perhaps you'd want the people to treat mages like the Qunari do instead? At least the Circle mages don't wear chains and get their mouths sewn shut.
The Circles didn't really agree with cessation anyway. The vote was cast, and they decided against it, despite Fiona going for it. A measure of control for the mages IS necessary; Uldred's type is always there. Maybe the Circle is a wrong FORM of control, but that could have been changed without inciting a full-continental war with many civilian deaths. No, I don't agree with Janders; he saw the Gallows and decided to blow it up, inciting a full-on war. And it's clear not everyone thought the templars were Nazis. Greagoir could have annulled the Circle; he didn't. The Gallows was an idea implemented wrongly because of a person's bigotry. There's no reason to punish others for one person's wrong.
And Janders is damn thankful for the education he received. For all we know, he might have ended up torched at the stake. -Gabriellesig 02:48, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
"How to control mages" is whole 'nother topic that was done to death here, so I'm not digging up this dead rotten horse just to beat it 'smore, just about torching people to death without proof there was sorcery - that's exactly why mobs were able to torch anyone - because of no sorcery! Now, when your potential torchee can set you on fire, it can make one wary. As for potentially killed mage kids, that only applies for ones with awful parents (or no parents) in backward shitholes. In which case they're pretty screwed anyway. Dorquemada (talk) 07:30, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

@Algol, did you even watch your video at the 3:14 mark? Four fires have start when the Chantry goes boom. Now, the only option for mages due to Anders actions is to hide as fighting will just get them killed. If he really wanted to free the mages from the Circle's grasp he should of found a way to rally the templars to his cause for they are just as much a prisoner as a mage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Fenris, was a boss. He ripped out souls with his fist and knew that- BADMAGE-RULES=DEAD PEOPLE, thus ALLMAGES-RULES=F#CK YOUR COUCH! Anders was a terrorist with a love of kittens. He is the most successful terrorist i have ever seen. You do his last quest? Blows up the chantery. You DON'T do his last quest. Blows up the chantery. You tell him to leave your party and never return? Blows up the chantery. He dies in Awakening? Blows up the chantery...-- (talk) 23:46, May 1, 2012 (UTC)Teal

These are actually my two least favorite characters in DA2. Although I must say it was really impressive how much they made me hate Anders, since I liked him in Awakening. So he almost edges out Fenris for the spot as second most hated character, but just can't quite manage it- Anders is #1 at hate-inspiring in my book.--Liam Sionnach (talk) 00:08, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

@GabrielleduVent "And it is stated that MANY civilians died in the Battle of Kirkwall" - uh-huh. Have you ever seen one dying from fires, caused by Chantry explosion? I don't think so. During the battle of Kirkwall templars were killing those, who shelter mages, looters were pillaging, abominations and demons were running loose. Guess that would cause a lot of death. But we don't see any civilians dying in fires, unlike, say, during the destruction of Amaranthine.

"blowing up a church, killing civilians, inciting a riot" - again, killing civilians... Why are you people so stuck on killing civilians? Proof, or it didn't happen.

"I really can't see what Janders had to whine about. Some circles may have been much, much worse, but as for Anders he was in the Circle Tower, which seemed a lot milder than say, the Gallows" - LOL! That was probably the best part, thank you. Imagine you're dragged to prison for no reasons, raped, brainwashed, and then told, that you shouldn't whine, because some people in a neighbouring country have it a bit better, then you. Really? XD

"At least the Circle mages don't wear chains and get their mouths sewn shut" - and that means what, exactly? That they should very grateful for it, or what? If it's their choice to rebel and win, then it's the right choice.

@Liam Sionnach "Although I must say it was really impressive how much they made me hate Anders, since I liked him in Awakening" - my point exactly. If one doesn't like him, because he's different, then in Awakening, then it's a preference, to which everyone is entitled. Why come up with imaginary "dead civilians", I cannot understand.

So all in all, if Anders really killed civilians in the explosion, I still would have supported him wholeheartedly, and it's a preference. The reason for this preference, is at Anders had the balls to stand for what he believed (though the methods were a bit sloppy), while Fenris never had them. Sorta on topic.-Algol- (talk) 08:43, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

That's my point, Algol. Anders wasn't raped. He wasn't beaten. I can understand if Anders was beaten, raped, starved in Kinloch Hold. He wasn't. I can understand if my Warden (who obeyed Irving, then nearly got punished) rebelled against the Circle.
Think about it. Wynne had her child taken away from her; this clearly changed her, as she states that the infant is often in her thoughts. Rhys was taken away from his mother. Those two have reasons to stand against the Circle. Jowan has the reason to stand against the Circle. But they do not (well, Jowan fled, then submitted to the Circle in most options).
I highly doubt you'd have supported Anders if your hard-working Chantry sister, whose earnings allowed you to put food on the table, was killed because some apostate blew up the Chantry. Do you honestly think all that chunks of rock missed the people below? The lay worshippers who were there to pray? Even Anders admits he killed innocents who had nothing to do with mages or templars.
I'd be swearing vengeance if my mother was at the Chantry and some apostate mage blew up the Chantry and killed her. I'd be even more irate if that caused a lunatic in charge to kill my sister, an apprentice in the Circle. And I'd be killing Anders with my bare hands if my templar brother, who became a templar to put food on the table, was killed in the battle. Anders understood this. Knew it was selfish.
If Anders set out to kill Meredith and Cullen, I might have supported him. If Anders blew up the ground floor of the Gallows, I might have cheered him on. But what he did was the same as blowing up the Chantry in Denerim because Greagoir considered annulling the Circle. Seriously, what did poor Joe Smith who was praying in the Chantry at that particularly wrong time do to the mages? Nothing. Anders deserves to be hated.
And I don't believe it's polite to laugh at others unless they were intentionally humorous, or there was a pun or a joke. Maybe you believe it's completely acceptable to laugh at others when they are in a polite discussion, but I do not. But maybe that's just me. -Gabriellesig 09:12, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
I kinda thought it was intended as a pun, but in case it wasn't, apologies, then:)
Now, you are saying, that Anders wasn't raped and beaten. Ok, so your point is, that being raped and beaten justifies extreme measures, but other things do not? Or what? Is there really is a clear distinction, of what justifies extremities, and what doesn't? Anders was told every day, that he has an inborn liability and he is "scum in the eyes of the Maker". Then he saw others being raped, beaten and turned tranquil. Boom. Makes sense.
"Think about it. Wynne had her child taken away from her; this clearly changed her, as she states that the infant is often in her thoughts. Rhys was taken away from his mother" - well, bad for them. If they didn't stand against the Circle, they were either unwilling or unable to do so. "Is submission preferable to destruction?" It's their choice to answer this question, but they lack perspective to judge those, who took a different path. Anders submitted for most, and took a stand once. People like Wynne never stood up, and that's why they are not very relevant comparison here.
Again, chunk of rock flying, lay worshippers dying... "Do you honestly think all that chunks of rock missed the people below?" - let's say... YES. Can you provide an example of gameplay video, where rocks actually kill someone? No mods, core game please. That's why dead civilians are imaginary, there are no evidence of them being dead because of the reasons you wrote, but you still want to put blame on Anders for things, that didn't happen. For the third time, the cutscene only shows Elthina and a bunch of templars dying. Want to prove someone else died? Videos, text excrepts, please.
"Even Anders admits he killed innocents who had nothing to do with mages or templars" - Can you provide a direct quotation?
"But what he did was the same as blowing up the Chantry in Denerim because Greagoir considered annulling the Circle" - if you're interested, I see nothing wrong with blowing up a Chantry in Denerim. Where you see a cult building, filled with innocent people, who just came to pray, I see an enemy base of operations. Now, if a purely hypothetical cutscene showed innocent people (including all my closest relatives, as you liked to give this example) dying, I'd certainly had very different feelings. But no such cutscene exists. No kittens were harmed.-Algol- (talk) 10:04, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
::"Even Anders admits he killed innocents who had nothing to do with mages or templars" - Can you provide a direct quotation?
Did you miss Anders's speech when Hawke goes "wtf did you do?!"? He clearly states that he wishes to be killed, seeing it as bringing justice to those who were sacrificed for his cause. Hepler states that the choice of keeping Anders alive as "poetic justice", as he would have to face and suffer the knowledge of the lives he took. She also states her belief that he wishes death so that the people whom he killed receive justice as well. I'm fairly certain he has no qualms about killing Meredith. To quote her:
my view of it is that Anders wants to blow up the Chantry AND wants to die for it -- that way he gets the revolution he/Justice believes is necessary, but still gives justice to those who died in the Chantry. Though I like the poetic justice of forcing him to live in the world his actions create.
"giving justice to those who died in the Chantry" implies that those who died in the Chantry died unjustly. Anders is VERY aware that he wrongfully killed people who shouldn't have been involved in this. -Gabriellesig 11:15, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
What I don't see here, is that exact body count of poor civilian virgins, killed in the explosion. Where are they? Anders talks about "those, who were sacrificed for his cause"?. It could have been Ella, it could have been members of the decimated mage resistance, it could have been Justice himself, as he is no longer Justice, but Vengeance. Were are the dead virgins in the Chantry? Were are mangled bodies, relatives crying over the dead, you know, the stuff, that happened in Amaranthine? The game doesn't show it. Instead the game shows this:
1)Barring the combat scenes, when the templars have arrived from elsewhere, the game doesn't show them in the Chantry for almost three acts. Instead, it shows sisters, mothers, kittens and other assorted civilians. That's exactly the reason people make assumptions, that all this bunch was there, when the bomb went off. A huge mistake. Because SUDDENLY, the final cutscene shows completely different people: Elthina and templars only, but people are not inclined to process this new information, they are sticking with the old.
2)This was a culmination of the game, and either the change of cast of those present in the Chantry happened for some existing, though unexplained, reason, OR it was just bad writing from BW. Either way, it doesn't matter. We have to deal with what we have. Fact being: no dead civilians. For the fourth time.
3)Hepler's opinion is appreciated as always, but it smells of current ME3 writers explaining, that there are survivors on the Citadel, on twitter. Thank you very much, I don't play twitter, I play Mass Effect, or in our case, Dragon Age. If it's not in the game, it didn't happen. Besides, Hepler is not even clear about who exactly Anders was referring to. "giving justice to those who died in the Chantry" - you say? Maybe Hepler meant Elthina or that templar#3, who may have been a good guy. She doesn't imply civilians or innocents. Again, it didn't happen.-Algol- (talk) 12:36, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
Or it may have happened, since you don't have ANY evidence that proves that NOTHING happened to the civilians, that the rocks did not hit one innocent Joe Smith. Tell me one instance in which a "successful" bombing did not involve non-belligerents. Wishful thinking on both sides, eh? -Gabriellesig 12:44, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
Er, Algol, I think the cutscenes, or game graphics in general, should be taken with a grain of salt. We don't see the citizens of Denerim slaughtered by darkspawn, yet we may be pretty sure it did happen, as well as we don't expect Hawke to live among bare walls with hardly any furniture, even though the game depicts the residence like that. Any RL cathedral of an importance equal to that of the Kirkwall Chantry would sport a steady flow of believers, practically regardless of the hour of day, plus a number of staff attending to the daily matters. Furthermore, since it is situated in a busy part of the town, there are bound to be lots of passers-by. Add to it the damage to the neighbouring structures, caused by the flying debris and collapsing walls, and tens to hundreds of casualties are a safe bet.--Ygrain (talk) 13:05, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Not to disrupt this lovely bitching. But isn't this meant to be a who do you like/hate more Fenris or Anders? Not 'lets discuss the classification of a Terrorist and Justice and how many people died during the battle of Kirkwall. Ok Anders caused alot of innocent deaths, but so did Isabela when she ran off with the Tome of Koslun, which helped cause the Qunari to attempt to convert Kirkwall to the Qun. Phoenix96 (talk) 16:43, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'd gladly cut off her head for that, as well.
- Alright, to get back on-topic: really dunno which one to choose, since I can't stand either.--Ygrain (talk) 17:16, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't bitching, but I did realise something during that long argument. I'm picking Fenris. Anders LIED to me, used me as bait, and didn't trust me when I trusted him. Fenris is whiny, moody, and annoying, but he doesn't do that. -Gabriellesig 17:40, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm already reading estimated numbers of imaginary "civilian casualties"??? O_o Ok, I'm out. -Algol- (talk) 17:36, May 2, 2012 (UTC) And completely ignoring my point I see, such class. (talk) 17:43, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're out, Algol, because you have no hope in hell of successfully arguing that point. Saying "because we didn't see it, it didn't happen" is naive in the extreme. If I packed C4 in to a skyscraper, sure, I may not see bodies, but I don't have to. An ounce of common sense would say it all. Gabrielle, you've provided me even more reason to hate Anders. As you said, Fenris could be a biased jerk, but ultimately he was still a friend - he trusted you. Anders essentially took one look at you and thought "Yeah, I can use this guy." -- (talk) 20:18, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think I ned to clarify this too: I'm out of explaining Gabrielle why "civilians" caught in the explosion are imaginary. Maybe she had some mods pre-installed in her game, maybe I had a demo-version, I don't know. If someone wants to see dead people, just with a little bit of imagination, there will be dead people.

But to you, anons, I'll gladly respond. If you don't mind, I'll take the liberty of naming the first responder to my last comment Anon#1, and the second Anon#2, to avoid confusion.

@Anon#1, which of your points did I ignore? Not that it is easy to see it in this whole text.

@Anon#2, I'll tell you what is common sense, and especially what is "naive to the extreme", and other words less flattering. Naive to the extreme is comparing videogames to real life. It's not even Counter Strike, it's Dragon Age, where "terrorists" do not f*cking exist. Hating a bunch of pixels goes right into the "common sense" section too. Especially blaming this bunch of pixels for something bad, when your own characters engage in homicide of astronomic proportions. It may be a shocking revelation, but dragons and magic do not exist in real world too. So if we are talking about fictional story, there are such things, as bringing this story to it's audience. If you packed a C4 somewhere, most of the world would have seen the bodies very soon. BUT! In a videogame, where writers create a narrative, they either show certain things during such important part as climax, or they don't. They did it in Awakening, during the destruction of Amaranthine. They didn't do it in DA2, for some reason. What some may consider a slight hint, or, in your case, undisputable truth, others may consider non-existent. Because fiction differs from real world greatly.

Actually, that gave me one more thought about why I prefer Anders as a character. His character is vital for DA2 story, while Fenris is completetly irrelevant, which makes an already sub-par story even weaker.-Algol- (talk) 21:26, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Anon#1 I am I think? Well if I thought it I am at least I'm not butter yet... Anyways at the video you posted at 3:14 you see fire swooping down on top of other buildings, and if I remember a certain peach-fuzz prince to be saying "Swooping is bad" (talk) 00:20, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

What would you compare games to then? Other games? That will only lead us back to square one. Real life is useful for the simple fact it takes the variables out of the equation and tends to have less misinterpretation. Then again, seems like you were hoping to use that as a strawman argument, so my apologies for ruining that. Now then, while we've obviously established that virtually anyone could acknowledge the difference between a comparison and assuming the two are the same (I can't believe I even have to say that), I'm going to go right back and use a fictional event, just for you. Imagine in real life, that every red-headed person was in danger of suddenly turning brutally violent against people around them (Say, as though they were possessed?). Now, the government has instructed the police to take these red-headed people and put them in asylums to protect both others, and themselves. Those who refused to co-operate would either be put down, or drugged in to submission. Would this be entirely fair? No, but it would be the safest solution until a proper one was fully established. Now, the public would likely sympathize with the red-head population, seeing not all of them as bad. But then one red-head goes and blows up city hall because the police are imprisoning red-heads. Now, do you think the average person would say: A) 'Geez, this makes me feel the red-heads are right, they are clearly too hard done by', or B) 'I guess the city was right, red-heads are psychos, we should tame and/or kill them'. 99.9% of people would instantly go to the latter train of thought. Which not only unites more people against the cause, but also screws anyone who wanted to co-operate and look for a mutually beneficial solution. Now their only option is war, whether they wanted that or not. And, regardless of whether or not it's a game, this is still based on the OPs question. No one cares that Anders isn't real. We all know he isn't real. But the question is still about his character, you'll notice. And people gave you very easy-to-understand reasons why they hate that character: Because he's an extremist. -- (talk) 03:11, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

@Anon#1 Ah, the 3:14 in the video. Didn't I sorta covered it previously? Yes, the fires start, but for some reason no one is shown dying in it. Unlike in Awakening. A question for you, then. Remember quite a few fights (mostly in Kirkwall itself), where various NPCs in the background have Firestorm spells pouring right on their heads, and continue standing in their places? Let's cast aside, that this in an obvious flaw of the game's design. Let's just use logic. From your point of view, are they killed by the fires from Hawke's or companions' spells?


In one word: WATH??? Does the stuff you wrote suppose to bear any remote relevance to my previous post? Next time please make some effort to quote what other people write, because I have this one feeling, that your post must have belonged to some other forum.
I'll try and make it a bit more clear: Yes, in this particular case I was comparing a videogame to 1)another videogame - DA: Awakening and 2)the same videogame - DA2. For the sake of not applying real-world criterias to fictional worlds, where they do not exist. I find it very interesting how you started using the word "extremist" instead of "terrorist". I hope you understand there are differences. Now, you have also brought up a fictional event. I realize, that you have put some effort into writing it down, but one point at a time. "In a videogame, where writers create a narrative, they either show certain things during such important part as climax, or they don't" - can you respond to this first?
"And people gave you very easy-to-understand reasons why they hate that character" - Sure. And in the start of the topic I already said, that I'm completely ok, that people hate him. Hate doesn't even need a real reason. What I did though, is expressed doubts in certain accusations people made against him. Those very accusations you haven't proven to be true yet.
One more thing. "Now their only option is war, whether they wanted that or not", and all the talk how Anders apparently "dragged all mages in Thedas in the war they didn't want to fight"... What game were you playing, again? I played DA2. In this game the narrator says, that after the Kirkwall Circle fought the templars, ahem, read ve-e-ery carefully: The Champion's name became a rallying cry. The reminder, that the mighty templars could be defied [...] The Circles rose up and set the world on fire. In a pro-templar playthrough, the last sentence is the same. So all the other 12 (Twelve!) Circles in Thedas fought unwillingly? I doubt they'd pose a unified front if they didn't want that.-Algol- (talk) 16:40, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

- @Algol; depends on the difficulty, on Nightmare computer controlled Mage's AoE attacks always end up hitting me (maybe the templars are one to something), and given how they can kill me, I'm under the assumption that non-hostile NPC's that grew up in Kirkwall are in-fact super-beings and born and bred Ferelden humans are the weakest out there. And things often do happen off-screen for example in DA:O I lied to an elf and stole a sword he was to give to a knight, ergo I can reasonably expect Ser Garlen dying a horrible death. Or leaving Sten locked up in a cage will lead to his, yet we never see these examples. But really poor game design is no excuse for what can reasonably or logically expect to happen I've encountered bugs in which someone I've decapitated got up and threatened me again (yes, without them having a head they spoke) All I'm saying is they don't put anything (regardless of quality) in games unless they are supposed to mean something. (talk) 16:45, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Also is it bad I want to slice up Justice and see what makes him tick? I'm still trying to figure out where the magic bomb spell can come from given how creatures of the fade can only imitate things they've seen. So that means someone somewhere is capable of doing such a thing which begs me to ask where is the fellow and why aren't they doing that magic bombing in the deep roads where it will do some good? (talk) 16:50, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's not bad, but a tad unrealistic, given how Justice is incorporeal. The bomb recipe probably was googled up by Anders, as for imitating things, wasn't that a quote from Holy Scripture of Makerites or whatever their schlock is officially titled? In that case, it can be pure bullshit - the Chantry is somewhat...biased against denizens of the Fade. Also, not quite magic, but bombs all the same are used in Deep Roads - by, say, Dvorkin Glavonak in Awakenings, or Nate's crew in DA2. Dorquemada (talk) 19:29, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

For me it's Anders. Hands down. But I am also on the mages side and have the same problem he does about freedom of mages. If he wouldn't have blown the Chantry sky high I would have done it myself. Plus when Justice isn't trying to take over Anders in a way is his normal self from Awakening. It's only when Justice is showing his ugly head that Anders is off.

Fenris I never was a big fan. For maker sakes your not a slave anymore so quit crying about it! Your free so you should be happy dangit! Plus with him it's a one night stand. You and him have "private" time then he leaves. What the f***. The only thing I liked about a Fenris romance was at the end when he finally showed that he did somewhat care about you. He says something like "Promise me you wont die I couldn't stand the thought of living without you." Emmalee (talk) 22:21, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of romances, something just dawned on me. If Fenris just fucks and leaves, it's all fine. But if you pursue that storyline further...hoo boy. Fenris dwelling on his failed relationship for years is very much in character, because it's made clear that the dude never lets go. But Hawke pining three or something years after the man who abruptly and crudely dumped her? Waiting for him to change his mind? It's Twilight, people. That's right, enjoy your Hawke and Fenris reenacting the fucking Twilight. I don't know what atrocity Anders must commit to top (bottom) that. Dorquemada (talk) 07:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Anders all the way.
Btw, about many civillians - read this please. Asherinka (talk) 07:49, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

By modern standards, blowing up the chantry would definitely be a war crime, and thus quite close to the definition of terrorism, (if we call Anders a soldier, not a common criminal) given that he was specifically targeting noncombatants (Elthina and the other Clergy. Also, the praying templars would probably count as hors de combat). Also I'm pretty sure we see some unarmed corpses during The Last Straw. Given that, and that a large proportion of the city being on fire I think we can assume that `many civilian casualties` is probably accurate.

Returning to the original point, despite (or maybe because of) hating Anders absolutely, I would like to see him come back if he didn't die, as (thanks to blowing up the chantry) he's important character and I'd probably get another chance to kill him. I'd want both to return if possible, but, evil or not, Anders does have a bigger effect on Thedas. TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 11:10, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Also by the same modern standards, imprisoning people for their genetic is a violation of basic human rights. But for some highly mysterious reasons modern standards are exclusively used to brand Anders a terrorist (pretty modern term, too). When talking Circles, it's instantly "dark ages, medieval mindset, torches and pitchforks, no other way to control yadda yadda". Either we judge both by the same set of rules or neither, wouldn't that be fairer? Dorquemada (talk) 11:34, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to stick to medieval standards, destruction of a church/chantry/whatever (especially with the worshippers still inside) was considered one of the most disgusting crimes possible, and would probably have merited in our world burning at the stake. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume similar standards applied in DA. And actually, we do imprison people based on conditions and suchlike that they do not choose to have: that's why mental institutions and the like exist. And in fact, if DA style mages existed in real life, I would support something like the Circle (though more lenient). When you have people who can, at will, cause massive explosions, rip people apart from the inside out, and affect others minds (often without consciously wanting to - Wynne apparently accidentally set someone on fire as a child), and have a distressing tendency to be possessed by none-too-friendly demons, I think putting them in a place where they can be taught how to control these abilities would be beneficial. The Circle is far too harsh, true, and has a tendency to allow abuses of power by it's guards, but it is what is there and is the lesser evil. And finally, even were the Templars tranquil solutionificating left and right, that doesn't give Anders reason for his actions, by modern or medieval standards. The horrific crimes committed by the Nazis didn't merit the horrific crimes committed on POWs by the Red Army, and vice versa. The atrocities of the Viet Cong didn't merit My Lai. Halabja didn't merit Abu Graib. Whether the date is 1012 or 2012 AD, or 9:37 Dragon, atrocities do not merit atrocities, especially against those not directly responsible. That's why I hate Anders. TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 16:04, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is about Anders and Fenris and not Templars and mages (we have got a separate thread for that with the same name), so that is why these violations are not mentioned. I do, however, agree that we should use the same set of rules to judge all characters, with no double standards. As such, here is a message to -Algol-; if Anders is not a terrorist because the Middle Ages didn't have that definition, then Meredith is not a war criminal either, as the latter term is also very modern.

Some other flaws in your argument:

Saying that you prefer Anders over Fenris because he had the strength to stand up for his beliefs is very hazardous: one could say the same about Meredith and Loghain in-game, and about Bin Laden and Breivik in real life.

Just to highlight the flaws in your assertion that no civilians died due to the destruction of the Chantry, here is my argument that none of the soldiers you see dead inside the Tower of Ishal were killed by the darkspawn because the cutscene only shows soldiers dying on the battlefield, not inside the tower! Alistair and Tower Guard only say that the tower was "taken" by the darkspawn, this doesn't mean that they had to kill people in there! This is a video game and designers decide what happens, so they could have had all suicided and there is no proof otherwise, so it is likely true! You can't say that this wouldn't ever happen in real life because it is incorrect to compare the game to real life! The corpses are unaffected by the Death Magic and Death Syphon, therefore they must have had been killed days ago and couldn't have been the work of darkspawn!

Now count the similarities between my spoof argument and one offered by Algol. 4Ferelden (talk) 12:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, we see no bodies after the destruction of the Chantry. Neither do we see who was inside before its destruction apart from that short cutscene. Moreover, none of the DA characters, codex entries, books, comics etc ever mentions who the victims were. May be it was done intentionally, because Hawke has no way to learn that when (s)he has to make the decisions as (s)he is standing outside.
During the entire game we see no more than 5-7 people praying in the Chantry building at a time, a woman below Elthina, another woman with marriage arrangements, that funny guy with his itch :) and I think some men chatting upstairs as well. We don't see all the "internal rooms" of the Chantry, but I'm not inclined to believe that someone but priests dwells there. So I'd say Elthina + templars we see during the cutscene + some priests and lay sisters\brothers in those internal rooms + anywhere from zero to 5-7 people who came to pray (the camera angle doesn't allow us to see who was upstairs) would be a reasonable assumption. Asherinka (talk) 12:44, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, u try to keep everyone on topic and they go off on another tangent, this time about how many bleeding people died. LOOK, U HAVE DEMONS, ANBOMINATIONS AND BLOOD MAGES (PLUS KILL CRAZY TEMPLARS), they are going to go around killing innocents.
Where do you think blood mages get their power from?
Also if anyone was trying to protect mages e.g joe bloggs protecting his niece, the templars will just kill him as he is in their way.
Also debris may have hit some people
In reply to tower of Ishal, i think suciade is frowned on and of course the darkspawn killed the soliders!! What DO YOU think happened they all sat down o a card game or had a danceoff, While the warden and blondie lit the fire???
Please consider this and move this argument to another forum!!!
Phoenix96 (talk) 20:58, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ah the tangents people go off on in these forums make me giggle. Staying on topic however, I chose Fenris, simply because, to Anders, you will never be first. His cause will ALWAYS come first. To Fenris, you will be first.Devilkat (talk) 22:47, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Heh, him having these priorities is one of the main reasons why I'll always prefer Anders. When your world centers around your lover, I'd say your life is a bit limited, not to mention the whole over the top melodramatic feel. Dorquemada (talk) 12:25, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix96: I suggest you re-read my comment carefully, because then you would understand the point of that "argument".

Asherinka: thanks for your estimate. However, you left out the casualties from the fires, rubble and other knock-on effects of the explosion. I would say they could be anywhere from zero to 15-20, which can give us the maximum of 50 people killed. 4Ferelden (talk) 10:27, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

And a minimum of zero.. ;) As I've written above, I think Bioware do not reveal the number of victims intentionally. One sentence from Gaider would be enough to end this debate that was going on for more than a year now. Yet, he would refuse to tell.
By the way, Hawke and Anders discussing the "events." :) Asherinka (talk) 12:04, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
This was what I heard:

Yubetrayd da LAW!!!

Me: ... dafuq? -Gabriellesig 12:26, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I find that funny. I'm weird, I know :P Asherinka (talk) 12:36, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ok the point i was trying to make about the tower of ishal, was do you really think the soliders had bodies and guts as decoration?? And it's common sense that there are bodies and there are darkspawn, what wll everyone decide what happened? And if the Darkspawn didn't kill them,who did?? Loghain??Phoenix96 (talk) 16:01, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

You just don't understand sarcasm, do you? the only reason I came up with that argument is to run counter to the idea that no-one died due to the Chantry's explosion: it is just as weak as the idea that darkspawn didn't kill soldiers inside the Tower of Ishal. I don't believe in either of these ideas and that argument was more of a thought experiment than anything else. 4Ferelden (talk) 10:04, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Fenris = fangirl squeal. XD

It's a real tough choice to choose between Anders and Fenris, I mean I just hate them both so much. If we had just had the option of not accepting them into our party as we had in DA:O or kill them outright it would have made everything so much simpler. -rphb- (talk) 18:04, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want Fenris, you could just not do the quest that introduces him. ----Isolationistmagi 19:51, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well as my brother would happily kill Anders, if he ever bothers playing DA2. To quote 'He wouldn't even get past Hello'.
Phoenix96 (talk) 15:52, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I would choose Anders, he destroyed that worthless chantry. Go Anders go! All hail Darkside. (talk) 00:42, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop with the "All hail the Darkside" thing? Everyone knows that the Darkside don't say stupid things like that! Well apart from you... --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 19:19, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
Please don't stop, it helps distinguish you from the countless other anons. ----Isolationistmagi 02:29, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Why in the name of ass is everyone comparing Anders to real life "terrorists" (I use quotations because an act of war isn't really terrorism the way the americans say)? Last I checked, people from the Middle East are not locked up for being born with magic by a tyranical religion. To answer the question, Fenris because he is a complete badass and my favorite character in DA2. I don't hate Anders however, he was still my friend in the game and I spared him over that piece of shit prince that has no place being in my party.--R0B45 (talk) 10:19, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

How the hell do you like Fenris? at the moment, I'm in "turn around and punch him" mood. I know Merril is naive, but she's not monster, unlike someone who killed a group of people that were only helping him! That's more worthy of monster title... Though, I still want to make Anders and Fenris kiss, they have so much in common, just get over the mage part and they'll make best friends. --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 19:19, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why alot of people hate Fenris, to be honest. My good friend, my sister and I all think he's totally kickass, could you elaborate why you detest him so much?--R0B45 (talk) 07:08, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
I find him like a bad copy of Jack from Mass Effect 2. Plus like I said before he goes and calls Merril a monster, for what? using Blood Magic? That isn't evil, it's a tool like a sword or a shovel. I also wish he'll shut up about being a slave, I mean really, there are far worse out there which can happen to people than being a slave. Plus what kind of person admits to killing a bunch of people, who nursed him back to health, just because his master said so, and then goes and has the cheek to call other people "monsters". --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 18:47, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you on the Merril thing, but he has had a terrible past with mages using blood magic and his hatred is justified. He does admit that there are worse things than being a slave in a conversation with Anders though. It's hard to empathise with someone who was a slave, so I can see why you feel that way.--R0B45 (talk) 21:47, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
You do realize there's been more than one case of terrorism throughout the years, right? The IRA devolved into terrorists, for example. Also, keep your political views to yourself, this isn't the place for them (Especially with such an immature case of stereotyping). Now, the reason most people refer to Anders as a terrorist, is because he perfectly fulfills the definition of a terrorist: RomeoReject (talk) 19:40, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
What definition? A very loose real-world definition fits the world of Thedas, where terrorists don't even exist? Because set of morals of those "medieval" people differs greatly from ours. For example, this common practice in Ferelden involves taking hostages, so they noble relatives wouldn't plot against you. This fits the "definition" (note the quotation marks) too, but it is perfectly okay in Thedas.
People, please get your mind right and stop applying real-world criteria to the fictional video-game. Especially when you do not seem to understand what terrorism is. -Algol- (talk) 23:55, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
I would gladly keep my political views to myself, as this is a bloody Dragon Age forum, but I simply stated how you people doing this annoys me and stated how the "terrorist" comparison doesn't apply anyway. This is a fantasy RPG setting, so "terrorism" doesn't apply no matter how you look at it.--R0B45 (talk) 07:08, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Could we please stop leading this forum off topic with the Anders' terrorist discussion? ----Isolationistmagi 02:49, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
It isn't off-topic. It's relevent as to why many dislike Anders. Couldn't be more on-topic, really. And Algol, that logic is utterly ridiculous. I'm using real-life terms to describe Anders because, gasp, I LIVE IN REAL LIFE! Likewise, if someone from Dragon Age abducted someone for ransom, I'd refer to them as a kidnapper. Or, if someone killed another in cold-blood, I'd call them a murderer. The universe doesn't exist outside the english language. As such, Anders IS a terrorist (Beyond the other faults I hate about him), and I dispise him for it. Fenris all the way. RomeoReject (talk) 16:59, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
Dude. It's not about the word "terrorism", really. It's about the concept, that stands behind this word. The concept of "terrorism" did not exist in Thedas. It just didn't. Because those people have different morals, then we do IRL. Some stuff we consider an atrocity now, those people consider perfectly normal. I just gave you an example of the Warden Commander's possibility to commit a terrorist act, that fits your definition perfectly: scare the opposing nobles into submission by taking hostages, in order to achieve his/her political goals. Is the Warden Commander a terrorist, if s/he chooses this option? by your logic, YES. So which logic is utterly ridiculous? -Algol- (talk) 16:12, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

@R0B45 You messed up my post. -Algol- (talk) 07:17, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

My bad, first time editing a wiki--R0B45 (talk) 07:21, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I feel like I have a different view on this subject. I enjoy having both of them with me. Personally, since my female Hawke usually romances Anders, I'm partial to him. But, that doesn't mean I don't like Fenris either. Call me crazy, but I actually liked the way Bioware developed the characters, and the game...RozenHawke343 (talk) 02:36, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Hated them both. Anders was cool in DA:OA, but is just a whiny bitch in DA2. Fenris is just some sort of biased, close-minded broody emo. Spelignerrir (talk)

I found Anders to be a whiny, pretty dumb looser, but I persued similar goals, which makes him clearly a part of my party. Fenris on the other hand is one part walking stereotype and another part racist. He despises ALL mages for the actions of a few, judging them by the sole fact that they are mages. He has a problem with you or Bethany being a mage, which makes it impossible for me to like him. My answer to Fenris would always be: you have a problem with my family? well don't bother coming crawling back when you need help. He is also a monster for killing his new found friends (which I can accept) and a hypocrite for judging other peoples actions, when he commited such an atrocious crime. He is stereotypical because he is an ex slave, that still hasn't gained any freedom in his life, his mind is forever chained to other people. No free will whatsoever. so while I despise the personality of both characters all the way, the fact that Anders fights against oppression, while Fenris fights for oppressors while complaining about slavery sets my answer to that question. But in the end I wish Varric would just shoot both of them, He is one badass dwarf and the first of his kind I actually liked. Dwarfs are boring and stereotypes, but Varric redeems them in Thedas.--Musik91 (talk) 01:45, June 17, 2012 (UTC)