189 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

My guess is that the conflict will be resolved through vast killings on both sides. I mean, both Templars and Mages make up minorities of Thedas' population, eventually the casualties for both sides will become too severe and organized fighting will simply fade away.

Of course, I imagine Bioware has something more dramatic in mind.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

For crying out loud, I'll say this simply and bluntly, since you seem to have a problem - intentionally (as I suspect) or otherwise - understanding it any other way:

Believing that someone needs to oversee mages to ensure they are properly trained and act in a reasonable manner - both in their interactions with humans/elves/dwarves AND in their interactions with demons - is not the same as supporting the Chantry or the Templars.

Which doesn't change the fact that there are people who support the templars and/or the Chantry. I don't see why you keep arguing this, because there are a plethora of threads that attest to the fact that people have supported either the Chantry and/or the Order of Templars in threads where there was a debate over the dichotomy between mages and templars. You're welcome to your opinion about a third solution, but I wasn't addressing you when I pointed out that there are people who support the Chantry and/or the templars, and there are other people who support the mages. I'm certain there are people who have alternatives, even people who don't particularly care, but I wasn't addressing any of them when I pointed out that debates over hypothetical solutions never went anywhere because a compromise couldn't be reached. In a world where templars may view their actions in terms of their Andrastian faith, and where mages may be motivated by their desire to be autonomous from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, I don't see a compromise when their goals are the exact opposite of each other.

TJPags wrote...

Do you get it now, or do you want to continue playing the "everyone who disagrees with me wants to see the mages enslaved by the Chantry" card some more?

I don't believe anyone here claimed that people who supported the templars or the Chantry thought they supported slavery. I'm pretty sure people are discussing the issue brought up in the original post, which is the differences between the templars who left the Chantry to hunt down the mages, and the mages who emancipated themselves from the Chantry and the templars. People have some opinions about whether it's realistic or not for a compromise to be reached by both sides. If you want to discuss the issue, you're welcome to provide your opinion about whether you think a compromise can be reached or not.

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

In a world where templars may view their actions in terms of their Andrastian faith, and where mages may be motivated by their desire to be autonomous from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, I don't see a compromise when their goals are the exact opposite of each other.

You presume these contrary goals are something both involved parties will stick with come hell or high water, when it should be quite obvious there's really no reason to believe that's the case. After all, the current (post DA2) situation is only a recent development, and until 'now' both sides were capable of compromise which lasted many hundred years.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

That's easy.  You should read your history.  Eventually the Roman Catholic Church lost political influence.  At no time (at least during the middle ages) was the Crusades ever called off, and as I say there are people in the Middle East that are still fighiting them...so wrong again.[/quote]
You might want to take your own advice. The catholic church was very far from losing influence in the 12-13th century, which is when the crusades ended. As for people in the middle east 'still fighting them'... that's plain bonkers thing to say given the crusades were fought under banner of taking the Holy Land (Jerusalem and such) from the muslims. None of the fanatics who may talk of jihad nowadays is fighting these wars.
[/quote]

You are wrong again.  Sure the Protestant reformation didn't happen until the 16th century, but the Crusades never really ended prior to that, they simply petered out, and they petered out because the Church wasn't able to influence national states as much as they were and were having problems exercising influence.  It was these sorts of problems that became acute enough to permit the reformation to happen in the first place.  Martin Luther was not the first to rail against Church abuse.  He was the first to get away with it because RCC power had decreased just enough to permit him to get away with it.  Again, you really should read some history.

As for the middle east, read and listen to what a lot of the fanatics are saying and it's perfectly clear that they are in fact still fighting the crusades in many respects.

[quote]
Incidentally, in your claim that religion makes compromise impossible you ignore that the religions themselves can change, allowing for another way for the conflict to end -- the crusades happen to be a good example of it, as modern christianity by no means considers it 'will of god' to take possession of the holy land, nevermind doing it by force and at expense of lives.
[/quote]

Wrong again.  I state this option explicitly many times as about the only way such conflicts are truly be resolved rather than simply being put on hiatus.   This is why the Crusades are not still being fought on the christian side.

[quote]


[quote]I am not.  You are.  What I am saying is very clear.  Whever people view another group as less than human or when a group feels that they are given a divine mandate over another group than peace isn't possible until that changes. This goes way beyond "Gott mit uns" and into sheer religious fanatcism.[/quote]
You have originally said

"If a group believes they act in the name of [insert Diety here] then a negotiated peaceful resolution is essentially impossible."

i'm sorry, but this does not say very clearly that you are talking specifically of some extreme sort of fanaticism with superiority complex, because the exact same phrasing can be used when describing actions and beliefs of regular, faithful followers of a religion. So you may think you're being very clear, but you're not, and clarifying your stance to explain you'd meant far more narrow viewpoint than the original wording suggested does create impression of adjusting your claims.
[/quote]

I believe my context was very clear.  Every army in existance (or that has ever existed) likes to claim divine backing at least casually.  I am refering to the sincere belief in literal divine right as Cullen puts it.  Not even the Chantry sisters believe it (that Templars rule over mages by divine right) but the Templars DO and that's what matters unfortunately.

[quote]

[quote]Cullen says it directly.  He says that the Templars control and rule over the mages by divine right.  That is virtually a direct quote from the game.[/quote]Is that belief expressed by anyone else than Cullen?
[/quote]

By their actions, yes.  Pretty much by every surviving Templar...and Cullen is protrayed as a moderate Templar leader.


[quote]
[quote]
Cullen is consistantly protrayed as the moderate Templar voice in DA2.  Play the game.[/quote]
This doesn't answer my question. You simply repeat your claim, without any argument to back it up. Telling me to play the game isn't one -- i have played it, and clearly we have different views on what Cullen is portrayed like, as the result.
[/quote]

Again play the game. Cullen is in fact protrayed as a moderate.  If you can't even agree on what the game actually says, then there is no further discussion possible.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
It gets mentioned in the game that the Kirkwall circle is extremely harsh in dealing with its mages, after all. Why do you think anyone would make such distinction if these attitudes were the norm?
[/quote]
In that case why doesn't the Chantry or the game indicate that.[/quote]
I have just pointed out the game does indicate that.




[quote]Varic is one of the most level headed and neutrally inclined characters in the entire game.  If Varic thinks the Templars want war, then it's pretty sure that this is the general impression with most in Thedas.[/quote]
Varric, being level headed and neutrally inclined, is absolutely not a someone who could be considered a representant of the majority of (human) population. Furthermore, Varric has potentially skewed view on the templars and mages, having spent most of his life in Kirkwall which is, as mentioned, far from giving good indication on what the average templars and mages think and operate like.[/quote]

Actually you're  wrong AGAIN.  If Varric feels the Templars desire war and is the most neutral observer possible, then it's a sure bet that most people in Thedas do.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lord Aesir wrote...

My guess is that the conflict will be resolved through vast killings on both sides. I mean, both Templars and Mages make up minorities of Thedas' population, eventually the casualties for both sides will become too severe and organized fighting will simply fade away.

Of course, I imagine Bioware has something more dramatic in mind.

If I had to guess, ultimately I'd say that a solution is going to be impossed on both sides likely by the Crowed Heads of state.  I see Fereldan taking the lead in this.

-Polaris

[tevikolady]

I honestly see there being a way for Mages and Templars to work together.  Thrask said it and hinted at what might possibly be coming. 

I work with one mage and one Templar at a time.


Which, to me, means that he is training one mage and one Templar to work together as a team, to be a unit, and not opposites.  Which, is what I've always had in mind myself when pairing Templars and Mages.

The thing is, the way it stands now, Chantry drugged, mind addled fools subjected to lyrium addiciton cannot exist without the Chantry, and the Chantry will no impose its secrets and is the force that controls the Lyrium trade, which clearly puts the POWER in the hands of teh Chantry.  I have read the chant of light as it was written and it says that magic is to serve man, not rule over them.

It does not say that mages need to be locked up and forced to be slaves, whipped by Templar zealots looking to please their Chantry overlords.  Cause face it, Templars are slaves too, but they are higher in heirarchy than the mages.

Templars and mages CAN work together, free of chantry control, this would be extremely apt.  Within the confines of teh Chantry, however, this will not work. 

[esper]

tevikolady wrote...

I honestly see there being a way for Mages and Templars to work together.  Thrask said it and hinted at what might possibly be coming. 

I work with one mage and one Templar at a time.


Which, to me, means that he is training one mage and one Templar to work together as a team, to be a unit, and not opposites.  Which, is what I've always had in mind myself when pairing Templars and Mages.

The thing is, the way it stands now, Chantry drugged, mind addled fools subjected to lyrium addiciton cannot exist without the Chantry, and the Chantry will no impose its secrets and is the force that controls the Lyrium trade, which clearly puts the POWER in the hands of teh Chantry.  I have read the chant of light as it was written and it says that magic is to serve man, not rule over them.

It does not say that mages need to be locked up and forced to be slaves, whipped by Templar zealots looking to please their Chantry overlords.  Cause face it, Templars are slaves too, but they are higher in heirarchy than the mages.

Templars and mages CAN work together, free of chantry control, this would be extremely apt.  Within the confines of teh Chantry, however, this will not work. 

I think that the problem is that templars like Trask aren't the one who has rebelled to hunt mages. The templar who has rebelled to HUNT the mages not to protect them. I imagine that the moderate ones aren't in the 'club' anymore.  

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

You presume these contrary goals both involved parties will stick with come hell or high water, when it should be quite obvious there's really no reason to believe that's the case.

Except for the reasons I specified that addressed why I think that would be the case. If the templars believe they are following their religious convinctions, I don't see why they would make compromises if they believe they are correct. If the mages are fighting for their freedom from the Chantry and the templars, I don't see why they would go back if they are fighting for their freedom. The two factions want the exact opposite of the other. I don't see a compromise. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the issue.

tmp7704 wrote...

After all, the current (post DA2) situation is only a recent development, and until 'now' both sides were capable of a compromise which lasted many hundred years.

Which depends entirely on how you view the events chronicled in "History of the Circle." If the templars believe they are morally and religiously correct, why would they submit to any kind of compromise? Are you going to tell them that their religious beliefs are wrong? The fact that mages have been fighting against the Chantry controlled Circles since Aldenon and the very beginning of Ferelden's inception addresses that there are mages who would be willing to fight the Chantry and the Order of Templars without submitting to the Chantry controlled Circles.

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except for the reasons I specified that addressed why I think that would be the case. If the templars believe they are following their religious convinctions, I don't see why they would make compromises if they believe they are correct.

The templars' beliefs are the same beliefs they held while the compromise was maintained. As such, there's nothing in these beliefs that prevents them from forming a compromise -- they already did.

If the mages are fighting for their freedom from the Chantry and the templars, I don't see why they would go back if they are fighting for their freedom.

Same reasons why they haven't been fighting "for their freedom" for these hundreds of years until now even though the option was there the entire time, and why it took a madman determined to force them into fight, to even start it.

People generally aren't cardboard simpletons powered by only a single goal and/or motivation, with no regards for anything else. They weight multiple and often contradicting inputs in their decision making. And that applies to both templars and mages.

And for all the spouting how it's impossible for these sides with their beliefs to ever come into agreement, the fact remains that they were able to maintain the agreement while holding these beliefs. By insisting that can't be, you're effectively refusing to acknowledge the 'reality' of Thedas and its inhabitants, in favour of theoretical construct.

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 octobre 2011 - 09:05 .

[Big I]

AlexXIV wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

In a religion as the Chantry I doubt 'mere mortals' are allowed to question the word of their god, the Maker. So the Chantry can't make a compromise without losing face (faith?).

The Chantry changes the Chant all the time. For example declaring the Canticles of Shartan to be Dissonant Verses after the conquest of the Dales, or translating it into foreign languages.

But wouldn't you agree that changing divine laws makes any faith appear a bit weak? Some people may appreciate the change but I am sure some would just start doubting everything. I am not very religious, but I seriously doubt I could take a faith seriously if they handwave their own holy book over and over. Even though I am pretty sure, should the Maker return the first thing he will crush is the Chantry. Because I can't seriously believe that they really do the will of the Maker for various reasons.

I have a huge problem with the blatant disregard Andrastians have for their own scripture. Tevinter re-instated slavery despite Andraste explicitly abolishing it. The Chantry decided to ignore the contributions of Shartan, Hessarian and Maferath to the Chant; they wiped out the Dales despite their prophet personally promising the elves a homeland. And don't get me started on setting up the Circle.


In Thedas a lot of Andrastians use the Chant as an excuse to do what they want despite what it actually says.

[esper]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except for the reasons I specified that addressed why I think that would be the case. If the templars believe they are following their religious convinctions, I don't see why they would make compromises if they believe they are correct.

The templars' beliefs are the same beliefs they held while the compromise was maintained. As such, there's nothing in these beliefs that prevents them from forming a compromise -- they already did.

If the mages are fighting for their freedom from the Chantry and the templars, I don't see why they would go back if they are fighting for their freedom.

Same reasons why they haven't been fighting "for their freedom" for these hundreds of years until now even though the option was there the entire time, and why it took a madman determined to force them into fight, to even start it.

People generally aren't cardboard simpletons powered by only a single goal and/or motivation, with no regards for anything else. They weight multiple and often contradicting inputs in their decision making. And that applies to both templars and mages.

And for all the spouting how it's impossible for these sides with their beliefs to ever come into agreement, the fact remains that they were able to maintain the agreement while holding these beliefs. By insisting that can't be, you're effectively refusing to acknowledge the 'reality' of Thedas and its inhabitants, in favour of theoretical construct.

There is something preventing them from forming a compromise. Do you think that it is the moderate templars who wants to protect the mages or the fantatical templars that believe they have divine right which have rebelled from the chantry to hunt mages? My money are on the fanatics and they won't compromise with the mages. 

[GavrielKay]

tmp7704 wrote...

After all, the current (post DA2) situation is only a recent development, and until 'now' both sides were capable of a compromise which lasted many hundred years.

That's an interesting perception of "compromise"...  It basically revolved around the mages submitting to total Chantry/Templar control.  This compromise involved mages being taken from their families as children, raised in subjugation and allowed to leave the circles only under rare circumstances.  The mages live with the knowledge that their only alternative to utter submission is being hunted as apostates or killed as malificar.  This is hardly any sort of compromise as generally defined.

Having finally decided that outright rebillion is preferable to waiting to see when the next insane/possessed Knight Commander will try to murder them, I think it's a long path to get back to peaceful coexistence.

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Cullen says it directly.  He says that the Templars control and rule over the mages by divine right.  That is virtually a direct quote from the game.

Is that belief expressed by anyone else than Cullen?

By their actions, yes.  Pretty much by every surviving Templar...and Cullen is protrayed as a moderate Templar leader.

For Kirkwall.  It's easy to call someone a moderate when you're forced to compare them to people like Kerras, Alrik, and Meredith.  Compare Cullen to Gregoire and he's only slightly less an extremist than Kirkwall's 3 Stooges.  It's also pointed out in game if I'm not mistaken that Kirkwall is exceptionally, and abnormally, harsh in their treatment of mages.  Cullen and Kirkwall are not a sufficient sample to base a judgement on as they are not indicative of the entire Order.  If we see a few more Circles in action then we can start making accurate judgements.  We've seen Fereldan and Kirkwall, so how about one more each; a stable Circle (leadership not insane) in a stable nation that is not radiating crazy, and another Circle in a location that maintains an open door policy for demons.

IanPolaris wrote...
If I had to guess, ultimately I'd say that a solution is going to be impossed on both sides likely by the Crowed Heads of state.  I see Fereldan taking the lead in this.

-Polaris

Not to derail the thread too much but why?  Fereldan isn't a military power (even if it was the Blight did a lot of damage), nor is it implied it's an economic power.  It's a lot like saying Ireland is going to take the lead in dealing with the problems of the Middle East.  I'm not saying it couldn't happen but what makes you think the richer, larger, more powerful nations are going to fall in line behind Fereldan?

[TheCreeper]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

In a religion as the Chantry I doubt 'mere mortals' are allowed to question the word of their god, the Maker. So the Chantry can't make a compromise without losing face (faith?).

The Chantry changes the Chant all the time. For example declaring the Canticles of Shartan to be Dissonant Verses after the conquest of the Dales, or translating it into foreign languages.

But wouldn't you agree that changing divine laws makes any faith appear a bit weak? Some people may appreciate the change but I am sure some would just start doubting everything. I am not very religious, but I seriously doubt I could take a faith seriously if they handwave their own holy book over and over. Even though I am pretty sure, should the Maker return the first thing he will crush is the Chantry. Because I can't seriously believe that they really do the will of the Maker for various reasons.

I have a huge problem with the blatant disregard Andrastians have for their own scripture. Tevinter re-instated slavery despite Andraste explicitly abolishing it. The Chantry decided to ignore the contributions of Shartan, Hessarian and Maferath to the Chant; they wiped out the Dales despite their prophet personally promising the elves a homeland. And don't get me started on setting up the Circle.


In Thedas a lot of Andrastians use the Chant as an excuse to do what they want despite what it actually says.

I got to wonder what Andraste would say if she ever came back (as something that could talk, her actually being  reincarnated as a dragon wouldn't change much)  espically when you consider that in all likelyhood she was a mage herself

[TEWR]

Not to derail the thread too much but why? Fereldan isn't a military power (even if it was the Blight did a lot of damage), nor is it implied it's an economic power. It's a lot like saying Ireland is going to take the lead in dealing with the problems of the Middle East. I'm not saying it couldn't happen but what makes you think the richer, larger, more powerful nations are going to fall in line behind Fereldan?

King Alistair appears to be going Church of England on the Chantry and he's already sheltered free mages from the Chantry, since they fall under his jurisdiction when they're outside of the Chantry.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

So far he's sheltered 3 mages. That's still a long way from seceding from the Divine's authority.

[TEWR]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

So far he's sheltered 3 mages. That's still a long way from seceding from the Divine's authority.

Doesn't he also still advocate for the Circle to be freed if that boon was chosen?

[TheCreeper]

With a mage warden he at least tried to completely free the circle from the chantry, He wasn't able to but it implies he has a rather radical views on mage rights and considering the chantry losing control of pretty much everything I could see him going "Yeah, the state now controls the Circle. Templars Get out."

[TEWR]

TheCreeper wrote...

With a mage warden he at least tried to completely free the circle from the chantry, He wasn't able to but it implies he has a rather radical views on mage rights and considering the chantry losing control of pretty much everything I could see him going "Yeah, the state now controls the Circle. Templars Get out."

I actually see him separating the Chantry from Ferelden's political arena and having the Templars and the Circle fall under the state. Gregoir cares more about his duty to the mages then he does the actual Chantry it seems, so I can see him and most if not all of his charges gladly accepting Alistair as their new superior so long as they can still regulate mages.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

So far he's sheltered 3 mages. That's still a long way from seceding from the Divine's authority.

Doesn't he also still advocate for the Circle to be freed if that boon was chosen?

Yes but even if it was chosen (and it isn't always) he imlies he isn't willing to force the issue, especially since he knows he's about to have other problems of his own.

[Zanallen]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I actually see him separating the Chantry from Ferelden's political arena and having the Templars and the Circle fall under the state. Gregoir cares more about his duty to the mages then he does the actual Chantry it seems, so I can see him and most if not all of his charges gladly accepting Alistair as their new superior so long as they can still regulate mages.

I don't know. Alistair is kind of a pansy. I think the only reason he asked about the mage boon was because it was the hero of Ferelden and a fellow Grey Warden who wanted it. Once the Chantry said no, I don't think he would push the issue in any major way.

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

So far he's sheltered 3 mages. That's still a long way from seceding from the Divine's authority.

Doesn't he also still advocate for the Circle to be freed if that boon was chosen?

Yes but even if it was chosen (and it isn't always) he imlies he isn't willing to force the issue, especially since he knows he's about to have other problems of his own.

Not true.  The fact that Alistair was willing to beard Meredith in her own Den and the fact he is actively going against the chantry on the mage issue (not just per Alistair but alluded to by Sister Nightengale as well) tells us that he is willing to force the issue as much as he is able.  That ability increases once the mages start rebelling.  Until then Fereldan simply didn't have the military power.  Afterwords they likely do.

-Polaris

[TheCreeper]

The issue is the chantry is in a sorry state, not exactly able to enforce it's will on a Ferelden if it starts to buck it's authorty, and since the chantry has it's HQ in Orlais I imagine they are going to suffer a lot in the Mage/Templar war while I imagine ferelden fairs better.

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

You are wrong again.  Sure the Protestant reformation didn't happen until the 16th century, but the Crusades never really ended prior to that, they simply petered out, and they petered out because the Church wasn't able to influence national states as much as they were and were having problems exercising influence.

I'm sorry, but to say that over 300 years between the last crusade and the reformation, the period during which there wasn't any actual attempt made to call for new crusades.. is just them 'petering out but never really ending', it's too much spin for me to handle.

Using this logic you could say the war for US independence just "petered out but never really ended", too, and the british monarchy just doesn't have enough influence with its own nation anymore to keep it active?

As for the middle east, read and listen to what a lot of the fanatics are saying and it's perfectly clear that they are in fact still fighting the crusades in many respects.

What are these "many respects"? Please elaborate, so we can both see how absurd these claims are.

Wrong again.  I state this option explicitly many times as about the only way such conflicts are truly be resolved rather than simply being put on hiatus.

The problem is, you refuse to accept the ability that a conflict can be in fact resolved rather than just "put on hiatus" if such process doesn't take place. In other words, you interpret the facts in a way which suits your theory, where there isn't any actual reason to interpret them in such way, other than doing so would prove the theory false. Effectively making it circular logic -- "A cannot happen without B. If A happens without B then we know it's not A because A can't happen without B".

I believe my context was very clear.

You're free to believe it. Since i have in fact interpreted what you wrote differently, that demonstrates your belief to be false -- if you were very clear, i'd get your writing without issues.

Is that belief expressed by anyone else than Cullen?

By their actions, yes.  Pretty much by every surviving Templar...and Cullen is protrayed as a moderate Templar leader.

That's very much a "no" then, because you are only offering your personal interpretation of actions rather than actual, voiced opinions. And i don't care how many times you keep repeating "Cullen is portrayed as a moderate templar", that's still your personal interpretation of the character as well. Given without any argument to back it up, to boot.

Again play the game. Cullen is in fact protrayed as a moderate.  If you can't even agree on what the game actually says, then there is no further discussion possible.

Again, i have played the game and our impressions of Cullen and interpretations of his character differ. If the game indeed says explicitly Cullen is a moderate templar, please provide quotes to such effect because i have no recollections of such.

Without it, it's not "what the game actually says" but what you say it says. And that's two different things.

And yes, without some actual evidence the further discussion is indeed not possible.

Actually you're  wrong AGAIN.  If Varric feels the Templars desire war and is the most neutral observer possible, then it's a sure bet that most people in Thedas do.

Again, no. If Varric is neutral observer and most of people in Thedas aren't (having solid reasons for pro-templar bias, e.g.) then Varric's stance is by no means reflection of what "the most people in Thedas" do think.

For all you know, "most people in Thedas" may be of firm belief the templars are going into this war largely against their will, and only to protect the general population from the mages gone crazy. Because that's what the game Codex actually says about views of people of Thedas -- that they view the templars "as saviors and holy warriors, champions of all that is good, armed with piety enough to protect the world from the ravages of foul magic."

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 octobre 2011 - 10:09 .

[tmp7704]

GavrielKay wrote...

That's an interesting perception of "compromise"...  It basically revolved around the mages submitting to total Chantry/Templar control.

Yes. Please note this interpretation is also supported by some of the mages themselves, and is actually what led to forming of the circles in the first place -- the mages considered it an improvement of their previous situation, and an acceptable solution. One which involved concessions from both sides involved.

Which does fit the idea of compromise.