186 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

Xilizhra wrote...

Nope.
Plenty of rebellions have been crushed trought the history.

IRL, yes. In-game? Going back to the status quo would make no sense for dramatic reasons.

I'm wagering it will go back to something approximately like the status quo.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

(Nobody else is arguing with you, do they know something I don't?)

Because it it bothersome and pointless? Nizaris has a very set opinion for better or worse.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

(Nobody else is arguing with you, do they know something I don't?)

Because it it bothersome and pointless? Nizaris has a very set opinion for better or worse.

But at least now I know why logic doesn't work on her; she thinks it's evil.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:06 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Nope.
Plenty of rebellions have been crushed trought the history.

IRL, yes. In-game? Going back to the status quo would make no sense for dramatic reasons.

Drama is overrated. And things have gone back to "status quo" in fiction a bajjilion times before.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Nope.
Plenty of rebellions have been crushed trought the history.

IRL, yes. In-game? Going back to the status quo would make no sense for dramatic reasons.

Drama is overrated. And things have gone back to "status quo" in fiction a bajjilion times before.

Maybe we get to pick? I'd want to do at least one playthrough of each, if I could.

[Shadow Storm]

OP. The mark of a true debate is to have one member from either side representing the viewpoints of the whole body they represent. The third member MUST be fully objective and have no viewpoints for or against. Given the issue between Mages and Templars is largely based on emotion the idea you have stated that a Tranquil should be the arbitrator is a stroke of genious. Tranquils don't care either way given they have no emotions but are fully capable of seeing the difference between what is just/fair and unjust/emotional.

There also must be a certain level of respect from both sides that the arbitrator will in fact make a decision based on Facts and not emotional investment. Both Templars and Mages often remark that they have "respect for the tranquil" and see them as having "no emotion" yet they retain the intelligence to make the right decisions. Tranquil is the only option i can see presiding over such a issue.

[Knight of Dane]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Logic without emotion is evil

Because there is no love, passion, kindness, joy, empathy, consideration, sympathy, hope...

Incorrect, evil is the opposite of good there is either both ot none, the basic concept of Yin/Yang includes this along with the idea that all good contains a bit of evil and vice versa.

Logic mostly is a calculation, but of course the variables are not constant so it can in part be influenced by emotion.

[Plaintiff]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see how the Tranquil can be logical. Lacking emotion doesn't automatically make you logical, the two faculties are largely unrelated. Logic requires a certain level of critical thinking that the Tranquil have never been shown to possess.

Well, emotion can certainly get in the way of logic. If you don't believe me, watch an election sometime.

As for critical thinking, merely removing emotion wouldn't hamper that overmuch, though it does enough that it'd still be a good idea to have people of capable saying "There's got to be an easier way than this" or "Are we sure we're morally justified in turning all of Thedas into ghouls" to advise them.

Or maybe the Tranquil themselves should be the advisors. Sort of like the people in Dune trained to think like computers. Were they called "mentats?" Or am I thinking of something from Fallout?

Well logic has no place in the debate to begin with, it is impossible to be logical because the Mage/Templar conflict is one of moral values, not logic.

Any logic that either side might employ is based on assumed truths that the other side doesn't agree with.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Well logic has no place in the debate to begin with, it is impossible to be logical because the Mage/Templar conflict is one of moral values, not logic.

Any logic that either side might employ is based on assumed truths that the other side doesn't agree with.

And that's where logic comes in.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it "a truth." Logic could deermine whether it actually is, at least in some cases.

Not in this one. As I said, the debate is based on moral values. There is no such thing as a "true" moral value. They are entirely subjective and always will be.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Not in this one. As I said, the debate is based on moral values. There is no such thing as a "true" moral value. They are entirely subjective and always will be.

The debate may be based on moral values, but the solution is not inherently "moral," I'm not inclined to feel.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand--who said the Tranquil don't have "morals?" Morals don't call for emotion.

I confess this makes me wonder if Sylvius has any "morals." If so, there's my proof:P

Nothing is inherently moral. Morals are an invention of the human mind.

Morals are illogical, so if the Tranquil do possess them, then the Tranquil cannot be logical. But whether or not the Tranquil have morals has nothing to do with my point.

The premise of the thread is that the Tranquil should be tasked with resolving the conflict because they have "purely logical minds". My point is that even if that premise were true (which it isn't), logic is useless in this situation, because the conflict is not a question of logic.

[Knight of Dane]

Logic is based on what content and information is available all you are saying is "logical choise 1 and 2" which doesn't tell anything.

I could just say "Choice 1 kill santa and choice 2 let the easter bunny marry him" and it would not make sense before I have set the scene and provided all known information, you cannot just tell people what their choices are.

Try to make a proper scenario and I might put thought into what you write.

[Aeowyn]

Well, this is an interesting quote regarding the Tranquil from Dragon Age: Asunder (spoilers obviously)

"Do you know who I am?" Evangeline asked.
"I do, Knight-Captain," the Tranquil answered. "You have been declared an enemy of the Circle by Lord Seeker Lambert."
"Are you going to warnt the tower we're here?"
She hesitated. "Do you intend to harm anyone?"
"Only if they harm us first."
The elf nodded slowly, as if this answer was acceptable. "The Lord Seeker was delivered an urgent summons to the Grand Cathedral, and left with many templars. He declared he would not be gone long. Whatever it is you plan, I suggest you be quick."
/.../
"Why are you telling us this?" she asked. "I've never known the Tranquil to do anything but what they're told."
The woman tilted her head curiously, as if the answer should be obvious.
"Obedience is prudent. To interpret it as lack of free will would be an error."

Modifié par Aeowyn, 11 janvier 2013 - 11:16 .

[Althix]

True. Emotions can give you impact on doing some things, that you never would have done before. Such as hitting somebody, hurting somebody bad or even killing somebody. Anger or fear matters not.

I don't know how about you Nizaris1 but even if i know how to hurt people, i would rather avoid doing that. Not only by morals, simply because it doesn't make sense.

Also if you are not working as a hired gun, killing somebody is rather illogical act. Simply because of complications that will follow.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In fact, in the Star Wars universe, the "good guys" are the guys who argue against emotion, and the "bad guys" are the guys who argue FOR emotion.

I thought Luke dropped that as impractical, though? (I hope Nizaris doesn't take that as encouragement...)

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Logic without emotion is evil

Because there is no love, passion, kindness, joy, empathy, consideration, sympathy, hope...

Let say you are a boss of a company, one of your worker have a problem, he always come late to work...Turn out to be he have a sick mother at home, he settled his mother problem first before going to work, he have no money to hire maid and have no other siblings to take care of his mother...he is poor, he have no vehicle, he waited for bus everyday and the bus sometimes comes late

The logical choice is to fire him, right? He endanger the company....why want to keep such worker? That is emotionless choice, you fire him, the company safe

But if you have sympathy, you do not fire him outright, you try to help him, let him use company vehicle temporarily, or order your other workers to help him for the time being, visit his home and meet his mother, try your best to make him a better worker....later when things are better, your worker is loyal to you and contribute more to the company, he also have good relationship with his co workers

For robots, there is no such thing of "giving a chance"...such as "i hope you will change one day..."

Logic alone is black and white, with emotion there may have grey area....

You realize that by coming up with a potential benefit to the emotional choice, it therefore becomes the logical choice? Besides, if part of the problem is the bus, that's also a potential problem with some potential replacements. (Not to mention that I'd already conceded the need for either an advisor with a moral compass, or for the Tranquil themselves to be the advisors.)

[Commander Kurt]

Wait, aren't morals always logical? Can someone give an example of when this is not true, because I honestly can't think of one at the moment..?