58 réponses à ce sujet

[manageri]

Sarethus wrote...

Also as Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote, in this setting Trial by Combat is appropiate as it is sanctioned by the Church of Tyr, the God of Justice.

Tyr doesn't decide what the definition of "justice" is just because it's his portfolio any more than Shar can define "darkness" to mean "badgers". Justice is obviously more subjective but it does not include innocents being killed for no damn reason, period.

There is an expectation/belief by most people that the God of Justice will intervene in some way to tilt the reasults in the innocent parties favor.

And until you demonstrate that such a thing actually happens this is as depraved in the FR as the hideous people who let their child die because they decided jesus is going to heal their kid instead of taking the child to a doctor are in real life.

How about you answer what I asked Lugaid, why would the rite allow you to pick a champion IF Tyr indeed intervenes every time? If everyone knows Tyr interferes in these things, why does Torio even challenge the PC, and why do your companions (including the friggin paladin who you think would have some faith in this crap) offer to fight for you? Why is Nasher worried about justice being potentially denied?

While other most likely evil dieties could intervene, the honest fact is that would really draw Tyr's attention (An evil diety, interfering in a Trial held by his followers of what I presume to be blessed ground etc)

Naked assertion. I could just as well just state that the place where the fight takes place is actually sacred to Cyric but no one's noticed cos he's awesome, and he just randomly supports whoever he likes if he cares to do anything at all.

Or we could both not pull "prove me wrong" type stuff out of our arses.

Also one thing to keep in mind that Tyr's main portfolio is Justice, not Law. While he may be a Lawful Good Diety, his main concern is Justice.

Which is exactly why you're wrong. Letting innocent people die and then declaring them guilty and the actually guilty party innocent is not just.

As far as the Trial goes it does seem to be in NWN2 a part of Tyr's laws not necessarily Nasher's:

Torio:- "Can Lord Nasher do that, Reverend Judge? Can he put himself above our god Tyr in this matter?"

Oleff:- "We call upon Tyr to help us settle this matter. Tyr's judgment shall come forth - through blade and strength, through balance... and resolve."

Obsidian can write whatever they want in their dialogs, we're talking about whether it makes any sense.

[Mr Ordinary]

manageri wrote...

Tyr doesn't decide what the definition of "justice" is just because it's his portfolio any more than Shar can define "darkness" to mean "badgers".

When you are a god of the Forgotten Realms world then your opinion on what a god of that realm can, and can not, do might have some weight. As it is, your opinion that Tyr cannot define justice to be what he deems it to be has about this much worth...

$0.00

I really don't get the arguments 'anti-trial by combat' here? According to the fictional setting, such a trial is perfectly acceptable and consistent. Comparing this with some envisaged 'real-life situation' in an ancient culture is quite meaningless.

Modifié par Mr Ordinary, 30 avril 2011 - 03:18 .

[manageri]

Mr Ordinary wrote...

When you are a god of the Forgotten Realms world then your opinion on what a god of that realm can, and can not, do might have some weight. As it is, your opinion that Tyr cannot define justice to be what he deems it to be has about this much worth...

$0.00

You are aware people invented those gods, right, and that the same people defined what they can and can't do? If people are incapable of inventing a god and defining what it can do because they're not a god themselves, as your logic would have us believe, then how the hell did they do exactly that?

If gods can define their portfolios to mean whatever they want then those words lose all meaning and every god becomes "god of whatever it feels like being the god of today". Bane might decide that today tyranny means picking flowers. Maybe Ilmater made martyrdom mean eating babies. Hell, Tyr might even have made justice mean skipping the whole punishing the guilty crap and just having a duel to the death instead.

[likeorasgod]

As with histroy, they even explain in game that every thing was done casue your a lesser nobel now. Trial by combat was normaly done by only nobels. A commener caught dualing will normaly be arrested. It was a way as said allready to take care of fueds. Since alot of nobels where elderly in there years they would have a champion, normaly the captian of there guard or a family memeber not directly in the line of ruleing.

So stop complaining, you could of been tried in Luskan instead and have your head rolling into a basket with no chance to win.

[The Fred]

Trial by Combat is not an unusual idea. I think we have to take the point of view that the FR setting, especially on the Sword Coast, is not actually all that "civilized".

Anyway, the gods work in mysterious ways. Tyr might not physically intervene, but who's to say that the path which led Khelgar to offer to fight for you and lay dwarven Ironfisted goodness all over Lorke (or whatever his name was) wasn't in some way influenced by the guy? Your companions might offer to fight because they don't believe Tyr will save you; perhaps the fact that you've been successful enough to have such good companions is because Tyr has blessed you in the first place.

It does seem a bit unfair that after all your master oratory in the trial, you just have to beat up a bad guy, but that's the way of the Neverwinter legal system, I guess.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Keep in mind that the theme of divine justice is presented by the game as a way to give a context to your actions. For example, if you are a Lawful good Paladin/Divine Champion/Doomguide, you would be unlikely to have actually done an act of evil like you were accused of. The whole point of the trial was for the player character to showcase his morality and sense of honor, which can be contrasted with the blatantly underhanded tactics used by the prosecution. plus, think of it as an acknowledgement that perhaps even the Gods are taking an interest in the affairs of mortals. also, Divine entities are supposed to be beyond human understanding, so if Tyr decided to grant his metaphysical and Divine favor to a defendant, that is his decision.

[manageri]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...
Divine entities are supposed to be beyond human understanding, so if Tyr decided to grant his metaphysical and Divine favor to a defendant, that is his decision.

What part of Tyr buffing someone is beyond human understanding?

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

manageri wrote...

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...
Divine entities are supposed to be beyond human understanding, so if Tyr decided to grant his metaphysical and Divine favor to a defendant, that is his decision.

What part of Tyr buffing someone is beyond human understanding?

To put it mildly, its not so much 'buffing' as it is making a clear and divine statement of the defendant or accuser's honesty and honor. you might say its a buff, but the interpretation of the duel is limited by mortal understanding of how a deity of justice carries out his office.

[manageri]

All you did was reword "Tyr buffs the innocent dude", and made another unsubstantiated claim that somehow we can't understand how a being who can see pretty much anything that goes on in the world can know who's guilty. I still don't see the incomprehensible part.

[Mr Ordinary]

manageri wrote...
You are aware people invented those gods, right, and that the same people defined what they can and can't do? If people are incapable of inventing a god and defining what it can do because they're not a god themselves, as your logic would have us believe, then how the hell did they do exactly that?

Which people are these?

In the FR setting, I believe it is Ao who grants the gods their power/portfolio - not 'people'. If you are referring to the game designers, then you are again confusing the real world with the fantasy world - and that is why you are misunderstanding the concept of 'martial justice' within the game setting.

If gods can define their portfolios to mean whatever they want then
those words lose all meaning and every god becomes "god of whatever it
feels like being the god of today". Bane might decide that today tyranny
means picking flowers. Maybe Ilmater made martyrdom mean eating babies.
Hell, Tyr might even have made justice mean skipping the whole
punishing the guilty crap and just having a duel to the death instead.

Bane might decide that tyranny is picking flowers, and if Ao allows that, then tyranny will be picking flowers. Luckily for us in the real world, it seems that our sense of what the portfolio of 'justice'  (or tyranny) is and Ao's/Tyr's/Bane's sense of the same, are fairly well aligned.

These are gods, not people, so stop imagining them to be as limited as people.

Modifié par Mr Ordinary, 04 mai 2011 - 04:03 .

[manageri]

Mr Ordinary wrote...

Which people are these?

In the FR setting, I believe it is Ao who grants the gods their power/portfolio - not 'people'. If you are referring to the game designers, then you are again confusing the real world with the fantasy world - and that is why you are misunderstanding the concept of 'martial justice' within the game setting.

I understand it perfectly, the problem is it's retarded, and you haven't answered any of the issues I've raised in the thread (such as why would there be a champion system if Tyr always protects the innocent).

Bane might decide that tyranny is picking flowers, and if Ao allows that, then tyranny will be picking flowers. Luckily for us in the real world, it seems that our sense of what the portfolio of 'justice'  (or tyranny) is and Ao's/Tyr's/Bane's sense of the same, are fairly well aligned.

These are gods, not people, so stop imagining them to be as limited as people.

No one, not even Ao, can break the laws of logic. Even if you use the word "tyranny" for both picking flowers and being an obnoxious a***ole on a throne, that doesn't mean the things the word refers to have become identical. Declaring that tyranny now means picking flowers does nothing to change what tyranny is, all it does it redefine THE WORD that used to refer to ruling with an iron fist and made it mean picking flowers. In this case Bane would no longer be the god tyranny, he would be the god of picking flowers, no matter what kind of rhetorical BS he or Ao throws around. The concept of tyranny would not have been erased from the world, it would just need a new word (assuming the people in the world played along with this silly redefinition game for some reason), just like starting to call circles triangles wouldn't mean circles cease to exist.

How about you give up this nonsense of trying to define your way to victory and instead argue why the people would have any good reason to assume Tyr actually interferes in every single one of these duels, and if there isn't, then how does having a deathmatch that does nothing to clarify guilt or innocence have anything to do with justice.

[HoonDing]

I think the biggest issue is the way the appeal works. It isn't supposed to happen through trial-by-combat which leads to a "might makes right" situation which is unjust (and ironically follows the beliefs of Tempus, rather than Tyr), but instead by a tribunal of senior Clerics of Tyr who look over the case again.

I don't think Tyr or Torm (though in case of Torm, it could happen in case of very grave crimes) would ever directly interfere, because in that case what would stop Bane or any other evil god from interfering as well?

Modifié par virumor, 04 mai 2011 - 07:05 .

[I_Raps]

What some are missing is the belief by the (lawful/good at least) people of Faerun - AND their gods - that Justice will triumph. That Right makes Might.

This was a common belief in early cultures, especially the Germanic peoples where Tyr - yes, the same guy - did oversee trials by combat.

[I_Raps]

And it certainly wasn't just the Germans, either:

1 Samuel 17

41 Meanwhile, the Philistine, with his shield bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David. 42 He looked David over and saw that he was little more than a boy, glowing with health and handsome, and he despised him. 43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals!”

45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

[kevL]

woohoo!!!!

[LoA_Tristan]

manageri wrote...

Still waiting for an answer on why Tyr doesn't just intervene in the trial btw. If you're the god of justice and you have these options, which are you going to pick:
- make people duel to the death before you show them who's right by influencing the outcome
- just tell them who's right:(

There is no excuse, if Tyr actually sponsored this crap he wouldn't be good.

It's probably a different motif for "lawful" and "good" than what you're thinking.  This game is not set in the modern world.  In the old-fashioned sense, peace and justice go hand-in-hand with toil and sacrifice.  What justice there is to be had needs to be won through strength.  May seem contradictory to us, but then, we don't have orcs raiding our borders, nor any need to build keeps to beat off undead armies.

I guess the other thing to note is that it's wrong to do everything for your children or, in the case of good-aligned gods, worshippers for whom you're responsible.  By trying to set everything right with them, you deny them the choice between good and evil from the outset, rendering them weak and spoiled.  Even by our definition this serves the ends of evil.

[lofgren]

Some folks are defending why the characters in the game might be under the impression that trial by combat is an acceptable route to justice, which is fine.

The key here, and the key to the OP's question, is that trial by combat is not just by any modern definition of the word, which is the definition used by the developers of Dungeons and Dragons when they ascribed that domain to Tyr.

This leaves us with three irreconcilable facts:

1. The followers of Tyr appear to support trial by combat.

2. Tyr ostensibly impels his followers to advocate for justice.

3. Trial by combat is by definition not just.

These facts MUST BE resolved somehow.

We can resolve these facts in several ways, none of which is explicitly supported or rejected by the OC itself:

1. The followers of Tyr are mistaken about what their god wants from them.

2. Tyr himself is mistaken, or a liar, or otherwise impels his followers towards injustice for some other reason.

3. The followers of Tyr are comparatively powerless against the civil forces and traditions of Neverwinter (which may be influenced by Tyr and his followers but cannot be changed directly), and merely doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

4. There is no such thing as Tyr.

There may well be others.  If you want to get all meta about it, we could offer a fifth resolution:

5. Tyr does in fact intervene in the trial by combat, in this case by means of the player's ability to reload in case of death until a satisfactory outcome has occurred.

Personally I am not a fan of such hamfisted violations of the fourth wall.  I find this fifth unenlightening and unentertaining.  Any of the first four would increase the depth of the story, while the fifth would limit it in the dullest way.  Therefore I choose to reject it for the same reason I reject the notion that Batman always has the proper equipment in his utility belt simply because he is the main character: it's just more fun this way.

Equally unacceptable is to state that Tyr has simply changed the definition of justice in this world, or that the OC uses a different definition of justice than the audience for which it is intended.  It renders the game incomprehensible.  To claim this is to claim that Dungeons and Dragons, or any work of fiction, is a black box into which flow our understanding and observations of the world around us and out of which flow obfuscation and nonsense.  It is to reduce any attempt at art or entertainment to the same value as words picked out of a hat.  It's a philosophical and artistic proposition that has been forwarded intermittently since the ancient Greeks, but, as above, that's just no fun.

Explaining the traditions and beliefs surrounding trial by combat in the real world (even though it is safe to assume that these traditions influence the traditions of the characters in the story) do nothing to resolve these three incontrovertible yet superficially contradictory facts.

P.S.: The formatting on this board is crap.

Modifié par lofgren, 05 mai 2011 - 03:43 .

[HoonDing]

But if Tyr really oversees any trial-by-combat and makes sure that the one who is in the right always wins, then why would Torio propose it in the first place?

[Mr Ordinary]

lofgren wrote...

This leaves us with three irreconcilable facts:

1. The followers of Tyr appear to support trial by combat.

2. Tyr ostensibly impels his followers to advocate for justice.

3. Trial by combat is by definition not just.

Agree with the first and second, but the third is hardly a "fact". 'Justice' is relative, which is a point several arguing on this thread seem to have ignored.

If Tyr considers trial by combat to be just, then it is just according to his diktat.

What you, or I, believe 'justice' is, is completely irrelevant to what Tyr considers justice to be. Manageri is making the same basic mistake in assuming what he (or she) believes certain concepts to entail must therefore mean the people and gods of the FR setting also view them the same .

Modifié par Mr Ordinary, 05 mai 2011 - 09:44 .

[manageri]

Mr Ordinary wrote...

Agree with the first and second, but the third is hardly a "fact". 'Justice' is relative, which is a point several arguing on this thread seem to have ignored.

If Tyr considers trial by combat to be just, then it is just according to his diktat.

Then he is wrong just like he would be if he thought justice means sacrificing 600 virgins every year and dancing around the court house drenched in their blood and wearing their dresses. How justice is done is not set in stone (what the punishments are etc.) but that doesn't mean the concept can be defined any way you like, otherwise the word wouldn't mean anything. You just can't get around certain basic aspects, such as punishing the guilty and not a random party based on some arbitrary BS like who's better at killing.

If you don't think gods can be wrong then go read why Tyr's no longer around in 4th edition.

What you, or I, believe 'justice' is, is completely irrelevant to what Tyr considers justice to be. Manageri is making the same basic mistake in assuming what he (or she) believes certain concepts to entail must therefore mean the people and gods of the FR setting also view them the same .

It doesn't matter how they view them, again, they can be wrong. Rampaging orcs may not see a problem with raping some humans but that doesn't stop them from having/getting an evil alignment. Similarly, just because some people don't recognize that forcing people to duel to the death (at least if they want to win their case) has nothing to do with justice doesn't mean reality will bend to accomodate their ignorance.

[Mr Ordinary]

manageri wrote...

Mr Ordinary wrote...

Agree with the first and second, but the third is hardly a "fact". 'Justice' is relative, which is a point several arguing on this thread seem to have ignored.

If Tyr considers trial by combat to be just, then it is just according to his diktat.

Then he is wrong just like he would be if he thought justice means sacrificing 600 virgins every year and dancing around the court house drenched in their blood and wearing their dresses. How justice is done is not set in stone (what the punishments are etc.) but that doesn't mean the concept can be defined any way you like, otherwise the word wouldn't mean anything. You just can't get around certain basic aspects, such as punishing the guilty and not a random party based on some arbitrary BS like who's better at killing.

If you don't think gods can be wrong then go read why Tyr's no longer around in 4th edition.

What you, or I, believe 'justice' is, is completely irrelevant to what Tyr considers justice to be. Manageri is making the same basic mistake in assuming what he (or she) believes certain concepts to entail must therefore mean the people and gods of the FR setting also view them the same .

It doesn't matter how they view them, again, they can be wrong. Rampaging orcs may not see a problem with raping some humans but that doesn't stop them from having/getting an evil alignment. Similarly, just because some people don't recognize that forcing people to duel to the death (at least if they want to win their case) has nothing to do with justice doesn't mean reality will bend to accomodate their ignorance.

Thank you, Manageri, for this perfect example of the point I am making.

You believe every concept of the fantasy universe in which the FR is set, has to be exactly as you define it to be. That is why you cannot fathom why 'justice' might be different there.

[manageri]

Mr Ordinary wrote...

Thank you, Manageri, for this perfect example of the point I am making.

You believe every concept of the fantasy universe in which the FR is set, has to be exactly as you define it to be. That is why you cannot fathom why 'justice' might be different there.

And you still don't understand that justice IS the same there, even if the idiot peasants call something else justice (you know, like having a duel to the death instead of determining guilt). Learn the difference between words and what the words refer to. Calling the sky red doesn't actually change the friggin color even if everyone in the world does it.

I have no problem with justice being done differently in the FR so long as it's still about punishing the guilty. When it stops doing that it no longer has a damn thing to do with justice. For example, I have no problem with there being laws that treat the nobles differently (within limits) and other such nonsense.

[lofgren]

Mr Ordinary wrote...

lofgren wrote...

This leaves us with three irreconcilable facts:

1. The followers of Tyr appear to support trial by combat.

2. Tyr ostensibly impels his followers to advocate for justice.

3. Trial by combat is by definition not just.

Agree with the first and second, but the third is hardly a "fact". 'Justice' is relative, which is a point several arguing on this thread seem to have ignored.

If Tyr considers trial by combat to be just, then it is just according to his diktat.

What you, or I, believe 'justice' is, is completely irrelevant to what Tyr considers justice to be. Manageri is making the same basic mistake in assuming what he (or she) believes certain concepts to entail must therefore mean the people and gods of the FR setting also view them the same .

I responded to this very point in the very same post you quoted:

lofgren wrote...

Equally unacceptable is to state that Tyr
has simply changed the definition of justice in this world, or that the
OC uses a different definition of justice than the audience for which
it is intended.  It renders the game incomprehensible.  To claim this is
to claim that Dungeons and Dragons, or any work of fiction, is a black
box into which flow our understanding and observations of the world
around us and out of which flow obfuscation and nonsense.  It is to
reduce any attempt at art or entertainment to the same value as words
picked out of a hat.  It's a philosophical and artistic proposition that
has been forwarded intermittently since the ancient Greeks, but, as
above, that's just no fun.

There is no definition of justice which can include trial by combat and by which the sentence "Tyr is the god of justice" can be true in English.  At the least it would have to pass through a translator that would make it "Tyr is the god of tyranny."  If you want to forward the argument that "justice" means "tyranny" anywhere that it is used in the OC, you might as well claim that "god" means "pizza topping."

[Mr Ordinary]

manageri and lofgren,

Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The main character in the OC never swears fealty to the crown of Neverwinter, is sent to Luskan for trial, and is executed.

Is that justice?

Hint: Think "justice for who"?

[manageri]

The PC is innocent so obviously not.