248 réponses à ce sujet

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

@NuclearSerendipity

Yeha I yawned a little when the dual option came up in DA:O. At least the dual in NWN is a major event and (depending on your PC build) quite entertaining and challenging -- try doing it as a level 11 Arcane Trickster.

Tee hee, true that, I confess. I'd still prefer that it didn't happen, for the sake of the story, but I can't deny it was entertaining and challenging... Specially because I was a wizard, and it was hilarious when I realized that my greater invisibility didn't stop that huge, berserk MONSTER from running at my direction (first surprise) and then, once he's finally down to his last inch of life, my magic missiles don't take a single hp out of him because he's "beserked" (second surprise)... And it was specially hilarious when you stop to consider that most of the duel was he chasing me around in circles and me casting spells when I could.

Of course, when you figure that he doesn't sees you at all with that spell that takes you to the ethereal plane, replays become a whole lot easier.

[Sarah1281]

Actually, the Proving IS how they cut down on violence. The Glory Provings are just tournaments and so aren't an indicator of a propensity toward violence. Honor Provings are to avenge a slight like Lord Meino's son saying Branka was dead so Oghren challenged him or Lord Dace trying to pull one over on the DN and so you fight his son. Even so, after the insult an Honor Proving is quickly held and whoever wins that was right and everybody has to abide by that decision. If it weren't for the Honor Proving, minor incidents like these would be allowed to escalate and would degenerate into bloodshed and feuds.

[sylvanaerie]

Glaucon wrote...

I have now completed the game so here comes some post-hoc rationalisation about the Landsmeet section of the game and its impacts on the world of Ferelden.  This is based on a single run-through of the game so I welcome all corrections to this analysis. 

The Landsmeet is a weak section of the game that leaves a bad after-taste in the mouth of the player: 

The premise behind the Landsmeet (to my understanding) is that without a king Ferelden with fail to unite and the Blight will overpower the region.  Leaving aside the obvious fallacy in that reasoning -- given the origin of the Wardens -- the player is then routed down a story-line that forces him to side with one of three parties.  The decisions that I see are as follows: Fall-in behind Loghain, elect Anora or force Alistair onto the throne.  The players choice of regent impacts directly on the future prosperity of Ferelden.  Players are required to engage in politics, and yet they are provided with obfuscated or patchy information on which to base their decision.  The player's only sensible option is to take whatever evidence they have with a large dose of salt and is best advised to rely on their intuition and capacity to read people:  An all-too-human predicament.  The debate in the meet fails to tie up the many loose ends attached to the motivations of the actors involved.  I feel that this situation is the result of inadequate writing/directing and that it leaves the future Lore of Ferelden on weak foundations. 

Decisions that I made in the game:

Sided with the Magi in the Circle -- no obvious impact on the conclusion
Saved Connor / Lost Ban Teagan -- no obvious impact on the conclusion
Destroyed the Anvil / Left the High Dragon in defence -- the Dwarfs fail to re-build a Golem army
Sided with Hairecourt (sic) -- the Dwarfs remained fractured but I suspect that would be the case with or without the anvil
Removed the curse from the Elves and aided their lot whenever possible -- the Elves remain second class citizen (not happy)
Weakened Flemith by destroying her current vessel
Refused Morrigan's offer (thanks for keeping me warm at night but seriously, I'm not that gullible)
Insisted on Alistair being regent
Acquiesced to Alistair's plea and let him take the killing blow (Alistair is the most tragic character in the game: I put him out of his misery)
Allowed most of the party to disperse after the ceremony but kept a bridge with Zevran (cus I liked him)

These are my thoughts: I welcome all arguments.
 

 

I'm confused by some of these choices.  Siding with the mages does nothing aside from allowing you to use the circle to save Connor.  Unless you are a mage yourself then you should have gotten a slide where Cullen goes batsh*t crazy, kills 3 apprentices and is hauled off to Aeonar (from which he later escapes and afterward wanders around a complete danger to any mage who crosses his path). Oh this slide ONLY shows up if you ask for the "free the Mages" boon from the ruler at the end.
How on earth did you 'lose Bann Teagan"?  It's not possible to kill him.  Even if you leave the village to its fate instead of helping, he survives the night though no one else does.  He is even in the cutscene when the AD is slain.
I don't know what you mean about Alistair being regent...unless you meant when Alistair dies killing the AD, you became Anora's Chancellor?

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:01 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Sarah1281 wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

He's a question: if the losers of a trial/vote/whatever can just challenge the verdict with a duel and everyone ignores the pervious verdict and follows whoever wins the duel then it's pretty clear that for contentious issues like whatever you end up embroiled in, there will always be a duel. Why not save time and effort by just skipping the first part that is totally going to become meaningless when you have the duel and just duel at the start?

Exactly!
It makes no sense whatsoever, since the trial/vote/whatever loses its whole point if the matter at hand is ultimately and legitimately solved by violence. The whole point of having these procedures is to make decisions accordingly to a different criterion than violence... But then you say that these procedures can be anulled by violence? Shouldn't one expect that any society that works like that will easily fall into chaos and disorder? It's really a gruesome thing to be done to a game's story, and really affects how believable it is.

Obviously, we don't need much less serious things to be decided by a duel but I think it would make more sense if when two parties are opposing each other in a Landsmeet/trial/whatever that they should be asked whether they would accept the outcome if they lose. If one or both parties says no, they have the duel instead. If they both insist that they would be fine with losing then they forfeit their right once they lose to call a duel.

Well, yeah, it's fairly better than simply being able to call for a duel no matter what, but I don't know if it would change the fact that everything would come down to violence in the end... I mean, why would someone say that they will accept the outcome, if they can choose to have a duel in case they lose?  And, moreover, is it desirable that this kind of issue - a political issue - can be decided by a legitimated act of violence? Wouldn't that turn things rather chaotic, if one could rightfully resort to violence? 

Not that I'm sure, of course, but it's still the impression I get. 

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

It is disappointing that non-violence isn't a decision path that players can take. That said, however, we should see it in context of the times not a modern POV as someone points out earlier. Take the Dwarfs for instance short on height and reason and most likely to opt for violence (the proving being an exemplar of their mentality). I could see the elves negotiating more than any other race in DA:O but even the Humans have a tendency to resort to violence, especially when subtle means fail.

I agree, of course. That's why I didn't bring the dwarves at issue (although I'll refrain from discussing your rather racist account on dwarves ) , but I think that even refraining from anachronisms there's huge inconsistence in having a trial being ultimametely decided by violence. Like Skadi said, it turns the whole thing meaningless. It's one thing to consider that past times recurred to violence in more ways than we do, and to that I agree. It's another thing to say that they recurred to violence in order to ultimately decide legitimately trials and political elections - and that doesn't seems to hold at all, at least to most cases I know of, when we consider past history.

Of course, I'm no history expert, so I might as well be wrong.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Actually, the Proving IS how they cut down on violence. The Glory Provings are just tournaments and so aren't an indicator of a propensity toward violence. Honor Provings are to avenge a slight like Lord Meino's son saying Branka was dead so Oghren challenged him or Lord Dace trying to pull one over on the DN and so you fight his son. Even so, after the insult an Honor Proving is quickly held and whoever wins that was right and everybody has to abide by that decision. If it weren't for the Honor Proving, minor incidents like these would be allowed to escalate and would degenerate into bloodshed and feuds.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Interesting how you pointed out that this resort to violence avoided things to escalate and degenerate into bloodshed. To that point, it does makes sense. But even the dwarves didn't make violence the means through which political decisions were ultimately and legitimately made; they had their Assembly, and while the Provings did indeed influentiate their decisions, it was still by non-violent means that they were made.

Nevertheless, I find it rather interesting how they adapted our own history "chivalry's honor" to dwarf's society... It's precisely the same "Challenge my honor, challenge my fist" code of honor, it seems.

[Sarah1281]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...
Well, yeah, it's fairly better than simply being able to call for a duel no matter what, but I don't know if it would change the fact that everything would come down to violence in the end... I mean, why would someone say that they will accept the outcome, if they can choose to have a duel in case they lose?  And, moreover, is it desirable that this kind of issue - a political issue - can be decided by a legitimated act of violence? Wouldn't that turn things rather chaotic, if one could rightfully resort to violence? 

Not that I'm sure, of course, but it's still the impression I get. 

Obviously anyone can bring in force to try and change an outcome they don't like regardless of if they signed their right to do that away or if they even had the right to do that in the first place. Still, the issue is institutions that allow for a duel to legitimately decide important issues. If the duel is already allowed then having some sort of an attempt to regulate it makes sense. Even if both sides agreed to sign away their rights to call for a duel and then the losing side attacked, it's important because then it's clear that he doesn't have the legal right to do so and so is trying to stage a coup. You don't have to humor him in those circumstances and can just defend yourself and call in your allies to help you instead of going one-on-one with him.

[ddv.rsa]

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Actually, the Proving IS how they cut down on violence. The Glory Provings are just tournaments and so aren't an indicator of a propensity toward violence. Honor Provings are to avenge a slight like Lord Meino's son saying Branka was dead so Oghren challenged him or Lord Dace trying to pull one over on the DN and so you fight his son. Even so, after the insult an Honor Proving is quickly held and whoever wins that was right and everybody has to abide by that decision. If it weren't for the Honor Proving, minor incidents like these would be allowed to escalate and would degenerate into bloodshed and feuds.

Yep your right I just remembered the proving was denied to casteless precisely for that reason.  But it still points to violence = justice rather than reason = truth. 

You can't say violence = justice, since provings aren't really used to settle matters of justice in the legal sense. They're mostly for disputes of honor that otherwise couldn't be resolved.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

It is disappointing that non-violence isn't a decision path that players can take. That said, however, we should see it in context of the times not a modern POV as someone points out earlier. Take the Dwarfs for instance short on height and reason and most likely to opt for violence (the proving being an exemplar of their mentality). I could see the elves negotiating more than any other race in DA:O but even the Humans have a tendency to resort to violence, especially when subtle means fail.

I agree, of course. That's why I didn't bring the dwarves at issue (although I'll refrain from discussing your rather racist account on dwarves ) , but I think that even refraining from anachronisms there's huge inconsistence in having a trial being ultimametely decided by violence. Like Skadi said, it turns the whole thing meaningless. It's one thing to consider that past times recurred to violence in more ways than we do, and to that I agree. It's another thing to say that they recurred to violence in order to ultimately decide trials and political elections - and that doesn't seems to hold at all, at least to most cases I know of, when we consider past history.

Of course, I'm no history expert, so I might as well be wrong.

I've just stopped laughing... My god I'm a bloody racist.  I'm off to re-education camp now.  Bad me

There, there, now, don't you worry about it. The Maker forgives all who repent for their sins. Didn't you see how he forgave all those dirty, pointy-eared elves?

[NuclearSerendipity]

Sarah1281 wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...
Well, yeah, it's fairly better than simply being able to call for a duel no matter what, but I don't know if it would change the fact that everything would come down to violence in the end... I mean, why would someone say that they will accept the outcome, if they can choose to have a duel in case they lose?  And, moreover, is it desirable that this kind of issue - a political issue - can be decided by a legitimated act of violence? Wouldn't that turn things rather chaotic, if one could rightfully resort to violence? 

Not that I'm sure, of course, but it's still the impression I get. 

Obviously anyone can bring in force to try and change an outcome they don't like regardless of if they signed their right to do that away or if they even had the right to do that in the first place. Still, the issue is institutions that allow for a duel to legitimately decide important issues. If the duel is already allowed then having some sort of an attempt to regulate it makes sense. Even if both sides agreed to sign away their rights to call for a duel and then the losing side attacked, it's important because then it's clear that he doesn't have the legal right to do so and so is trying to stage a coup. You don't have to humor him in those circumstances and can just defend yourself and call in your allies to help you instead of going one-on-one with him.

Ah, nevermind, I just understood what you meant.  And yeah, it would make it better, but I'm still not sure, regardless, of whether it's interesting or makes sense that violence should be a legitimate way of deciding political issues - even the dwarves didn't function that way. But yeah, given that it's already accepted, better having a consensus beforehanded like the one you purposed than none at all. 

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...
Well, yeah, it's fairly better than simply being able to call for a duel no matter what, but I don't know if it would change the fact that everything would come down to violence in the end... I mean, why would someone say that they will accept the outcome, if they can choose to have a duel in case they lose?  And, moreover, is it desirable that this kind of issue - a political issue - can be decided by a legitimated act of violence? Wouldn't that turn things rather chaotic, if one could rightfully resort to violence? 

Not that I'm sure, of course, but it's still the impression I get. 

Obviously anyone can bring in force to try and change an outcome they don't like regardless of if they signed their right to do that away or if they even had the right to do that in the first place. Still, the issue is institutions that allow for a duel to legitimately decide important issues. If the duel is already allowed then having some sort of an attempt to regulate it makes sense. Even if both sides agreed to sign away their rights to call for a duel and then the losing side attacked, it's important because then it's clear that he doesn't have the legal right to do so and so is trying to stage a coup. You don't have to humor him in those circumstances and can just defend yourself and call in your allies to help you instead of going one-on-one with him.

That's the truth of it.  Violence is a fact of life and I mean that both from a Darwinian sense and a political one.  Many an assissination has been made in our own history.  Violence is the naked end of power.

I don't think that is what is at issue, Glaucon. No one is questioning whether violence plays a part in politics, nor even if it should play a part in it or not: rather, the issue is whether violence should be considered a legitimated and institutionalized way of making politic and juridic decisions, such as is the case with the Landsmeet and the NWN 2's trial.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:40 .

[Sarah1281]

Glaucon wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Actually, the Proving IS how they cut down on violence. The Glory Provings are just tournaments and so aren't an indicator of a propensity toward violence. Honor Provings are to avenge a slight like Lord Meino's son saying Branka was dead so Oghren challenged him or Lord Dace trying to pull one over on the DN and so you fight his son. Even so, after the insult an Honor Proving is quickly held and whoever wins that was right and everybody has to abide by that decision. If it weren't for the Honor Proving, minor incidents like these would be allowed to escalate and would degenerate into bloodshed and feuds.

Yep your right I just remembered the proving was denied to casteless precisely for that reason.  But it still points to violence = justice rather than reason = truth. 

You can't say violence = justice, since provings aren't really used to settle matters of justice in the legal sense. They're mostly for disputes of honor that otherwise couldn't be resolved.

And what is Honour?

We see a few examples in the game. Lord Meino's son says that Branka and the rest of the house is long dead and so Oghren feels it is a slight on his honor and a Proving commences. Lord Dace tries to convince the DN to vocally support giving surface dwarves back their caste and if you find out that he's only doing this because there was an expedition with a surface guild that went bad and if you support his proposal and the vote passes, Houses Helmi and Aeducan would have to pay House Dace quite a bit of money as the guild has members decended from those two houses then you can call for a Proving. Darvianak Vollney was cleared of killing his brother and so he threateningly tells you that he can call an Honor Proving against anyone who implies that he's not innocent when you ask him about it.

Of course, that's an interesting case because besides the fact that the DN totally doesn't get a chance to fight a Proving to prove that she didn't kill Trian, this appears to be a case of a Proving be used to decide law as once he won this Proving he was deemed innocent of fratricide. I guess it could be a matter of there not being enough evidence either way and Darvianak fought someone who accused him of fratricide in a Proving and so once he won no one wanted to charge him for fratricide in the Assembly (which was how the DN's fratricide conviction was settled and the only weird part about that was how quickly it was decided and that you weren't allowed to testify on your own behalf).

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Actually, the Proving IS how they cut down on violence. The Glory Provings are just tournaments and so aren't an indicator of a propensity toward violence. Honor Provings are to avenge a slight like Lord Meino's son saying Branka was dead so Oghren challenged him or Lord Dace trying to pull one over on the DN and so you fight his son. Even so, after the insult an Honor Proving is quickly held and whoever wins that was right and everybody has to abide by that decision. If it weren't for the Honor Proving, minor incidents like these would be allowed to escalate and would degenerate into bloodshed and feuds.

Yep your right I just remembered the proving was denied to casteless precisely for that reason.  But it still points to violence = justice rather than reason = truth. 

You can't say violence = justice, since provings aren't really used to settle matters of justice in the legal sense. They're mostly for disputes of honor that otherwise couldn't be resolved.

And what is Honour?

I think that, rudely put, honor refers to the individual's integrity, while justice to the whole's (= society, in that case). Of course, what is individual is relative, and depends on what is the whole: the "individual" in question can be a family: what matters is that its rather a particular issue that is at hand than one that refers to the whole. With this in mind, it seems that dwarves allow personal issues - honor related issues - to be solved by the Provings, while issues related to justice - related to actions that affect the whole of dwarven society - must be solved by the Assembly.

[Sarah1281]

Glaucon wrote...

But aren't institutions just a control mechanic to prevent chaos? Whether it is right or not an institution is generally put in place as a compromise between naked power and it's abuse or outright anarchy and non-progressive societies?

What does that have to do with wanting to put some limits on the legitimacy of using violence to solve problems or, failing that, to not pretend that you're doing anything besides letting might make right? 

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

But aren't institutions just a control mechanic to prevent chaos? Whether it is right or not an institution is generally put in place as a compromise between naked power and it's abuse or outright anarchy and non-progressive societies?

Well, we don't have to bring the discussion so far as questioning what is the true role of such institutions. But assuming that at least one of its roles is precisely what you said, then it wholly coheres with what I was saying: violence shouldn't be institucionalized in that way, because it would make precisely that compromise impossible, since it'd make society boil down eventually, it seems, to that outright anarchy and to that chaos that these institutions should prevent. Whether we consider these institutions objectives to bring about justice, or just a convenient balance to power, or even both, it seems that institutionalized violence prevents these institutions from doing what they set themselves to.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

Well I suppose it depends on how you use the word violence. If found guilty of crime punishable by incarceration you are not politely asked to pop over to prison? "Take him down" as a judge might say. Law is a polite form of violence.

I'm not sure it's about how we use the word violence, but rather of how what we're considering violence is used. I didn't mean that society shouldn't resort to violence, as it does with crimes' punishments. arrests (when necessary) and what not. I just meant that violence shouldn't be the means through which political and juridic decisions are made. Sure, once one's found guilty he might even be punished with death, but whether or not he's guilty isn't decided by a duel between defense and prosecution, in which the jury would decide who was the best combatant while eating hot dogs and drinking Coke.