1082 réponses à ce sujet

[FINE HERE]

In Exile wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Doesn't Owain return to the store room because he found it to be a comforting place? Was that not his reason for doing so? I don't remember a "I was told to clean this store room and that's why I'm here!"

He says he ran into the barrier, found his way blocked, and returned to the storeroom because it felt comfortable, yes. Which undermines the idea that tranquil don't have any emotions, since conformt is one. So is contentment, which a DA:O journal entry on the tranquil mentions. 

He said 'familiar.' Doesn't exactly mean comfortable. It could just be what he knows and is used to, so it's what he thinks to do in a time of uncertainty.

[LobselVith8]

llandwynwyn wrote...

Lt_Riley wrote...

And to add injury to insult, the surving good mages (wynne/irving) adamantly bend knee to the templar.  

And Irving doesn't really care about the mages, not really. 

Irving sees it as a matter of survival, and admits it really isn't up to him. He's enthusiastically thrilled if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, thanking the mage protagonist for freeing their people from "their shackles".

Wynne, in contrast, admits she wants the mage protagonist to make the Circle a better place, especially if The Warden says it's an "oppressive place", and says she argues that the Circle shouldn't break free because the Chantry would kill all the mages if they declared independence.

Finn is a better example of a pro-Chantry Circle mage.

[BlazingSpeed]

The Hierophant wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

All I care about in regards to the mage-templar conflict is if it will end in this game or be stretched out over the other titles.

I hope it's resolved near the beginning of the game while the rest of the story deals with a bigger threat.

[IanPolaris]

Stella-Arc wrote...

Tranquils just think logically so they can make their own decisions. If a Templar orders them to perform a task, why would they refuse unless they see a logical reason not to (like in Asunder)? They lack the emotional response to certain acts (such as rape) which in my opinion, makes the whole Rite of Tranquility abhorrent. After all, how can they be emotionally scarred if they can't feel? So, in a sense, they are puppets to the Templars but can still logically reason. They still have free-will, it's just that their free-will is intertwined with logic. But that, in of itself, is where the problem comes from.

I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

You can't say a person with a full frontal lobomy really has free will since the personality (the thing that made the person that person) has been destroyed.  If you're only metric for following orders is if it makes logical sense, you you are a machine and you have all the free will of a machine...i.e. none at all.

-Polaris

[Joakim D]

I would argue there is no such thing as "free will". This is however not the time or place to argue about that!

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

llandwynwyn wrote...

Lt_Riley wrote...

And to add injury to insult, the surving good mages (wynne/irving) adamantly bend knee to the templar.  

And Irving doesn't really care about the mages, not really. 

Irving sees it as a matter of survival, and admits it really isn't up to him. He's enthusiastically thrilled if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, thanking the mage protagonist for freeing their people from "their shackles".

Wynne, in contrast, admits she wants the mage protagonist to make the Circle a better place, especially if The Warden says it's an "oppressive place", and says she argues that the Circle shouldn't break free because the Chantry would kill all the mages if they declared independence.

Finn is a better example of a pro-Chantry Circle mage.

Finn's more of an example of just pro-Circle in general. His outlook on the Circle's being controlled by the Chantry isn't really delved into. We know he's a good Mage, friendly enough with the Templars, has parents with enough money that they're allowed to see him, and that he hates the outdoors more from a cleanliness standpoint then anything else.

I think it's safe to say he's just apathetic to the whole ordeal, so long as he can practice magic and study in peace, while having people like him around him.

So... a bit of an Aequitarian/Isolationist.

[IanPolaris]

Joakim D wrote...

I would argue there is no such thing as "free will". This is however not the time or place to argue about that!

Strictly speaking as a physicist, I might be inclined to agree.  However, I find that to understand ethics and morality, it's useful to assume that sentient agents have the illusion of free will at the very least, but to make a moral or ethical decision, you need to have an emotional context from which to base it on...or you may as well not have free will at all.  Mind you, the decision itself need not be emotional, but the ability to put it into an emotional context is critical (or else there isn't a moral context).

-Polaris

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

If you're going to be technical about it, an existence without emotion would be incomprehensible to us. Any remotely sentient animal that we know of experiences emotions. They're basic drers of behaviour.

You can't say a person with a full frontal lobomy really has free will since the personality (the thing that made the person that person) has been destroyed.  If you're only metric for following orders is if it makes logical sense, you you are a machine and you have all the free will of a machine...i.e. none at all.

I don't think you know what a lobotomy does.

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

If you're going to be technical about it, an existence without emotion would be incomprehensible to us. Any remotely sentient animal that we know of experiences emotions. They're basic drers of behaviour.

You can't say a person with a full frontal lobomy really has free will since the personality (the thing that made the person that person) has been destroyed.  If you're only metric for following orders is if it makes logical sense, you you are a machine and you have all the free will of a machine...i.e. none at all.

I don't think you know what a lobotomy does.

Yes I do.  It disconnects the frontal lobes of the brain, usually be a sudden surgical incusion into the nerve bundles that connect the frontal lobes to the rest of the brain.  It was popular for a short time because it really did reduce the effects of epilepsy and other neurological disorders.  It also had horrific side effects much like tranquility in Dragon Age.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes I do.  It disconnects the frontal lobes of the brain, usually be a sudden surgical incusion into the nerve bundles that connect the frontal lobes to the rest of the brain.  It was popular for a short time because it really did reduce the effects of epilepsy and other neurological disorders.  It also had horrific side effects much like tranquility in Dragon Age.

That's not what I mean. Saying that personality is destroyed after a lobotomy is nonsense. There's a great loss of functioning, but to start talking about personality gets very complex because of what the frontal lobe does. 

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes I do.  It disconnects the frontal lobes of the brain, usually be a sudden surgical incusion into the nerve bundles that connect the frontal lobes to the rest of the brain.  It was popular for a short time because it really did reduce the effects of epilepsy and other neurological disorders.  It also had horrific side effects much like tranquility in Dragon Age.

That's not what I mean. Saying that personality is destroyed after a lobotomy is nonsense. There's a great loss of functioning, but to start talking about personality gets very complex because of what the frontal lobe does. 

Actually one of the negative characteristics of a prefrontal lobotomy is an inability to make choices, and radical personality changes.  If it's not the same person, then how can you claim that the same person has freewill or even any will?

There is a reason why these days a lobotomy is considered to be barbaric.

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually one of the negative characteristics of a prefrontal lobotomy is an inability to make choices, and radical personality changes.  If it's not the same person, then how can you claim that the same person has freewill or even any will?

There is a reason why these days a lobotomy is considered to be barbaric.

-Polaris

Lobotomies are considered barbaric because it involves slamming a needle into someone's skull and scrambling their brains and it was often done without the permission of the patient. And as you said, people with lobotomies are unable to make decisions. The Tranquil can make decisions. Rational, logical decisions uneffected by emotion. The Tranquil can do whatever they want and can refuse any order they want to refuse. They aren't more succeptible to coercion, nor do they mindlessly do as they are told.

[KainD]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will. 

This is where you argue against what's been shown and told to you because it disagrees with your premise, right?

It is impossible for it to be otherwise, because ALL the actions people do are governed by a) Survival. Emotions. 
If you take emotions away, a person will want nothing more than merely exist, sustain their physical body that demands it. 

There is absolutely ZERO logic to do anything without emotions. 

Modifié par KainD, 03 juin 2013 - 06:36 .

[Dave of Canada]

KainD wrote...

There is absolutely ZERO logic to do anything without emotions. 

Emotions =/= Logic.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

KainD wrote...

There is absolutely ZERO logic to do anything without emotions. 

Emotions =/= Logic.

Logic isn't a sufficient basis to make decisions of freewill because logic depends on premises on which to base the logic from.  Without an emotional context you can't make those premisies. [Other than perhaps core physical survival, but non-sentient animals can say the same.]

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 juin 2013 - 07:27 .

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually one of the negative characteristics of a prefrontal lobotomy is an inability to make choices, and radical personality changes.  If it's not the same person, then how can you claim that the same person has freewill or even any will?

There is a reason why these days a lobotomy is considered to be barbaric.

-Polaris

Lobotomies are considered barbaric because it involves slamming a needle into someone's skull and scrambling their brains and it was often done without the permission of the patient. And as you said, people with lobotomies are unable to make decisions. The Tranquil can make decisions. Rational, logical decisions uneffected by emotion. The Tranquil can do whatever they want and can refuse any order they want to refuse. They aren't more succeptible to coercion, nor do they mindlessly do as they are told.

Actually they DO do mindlessly what they are told.  Karl says this in DA2 and Ser Alrik confirms this later on.  Karl calls it 'being a templar puppet' and lacking emotion or any emotional context, tranquil do as they are told without consideration.  At best their freewill is extremely hampered as is their ability to make freewilled decisions.  I still say that the DA2 tranquil effectively don't have freewill because they don't have the emotional context available in which to make such decisions.

It's very much like having a prefrontal lobotomy actually.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

Lobotomies are considered barbaric because it involves slamming a needle into someone's skull and scrambling their brains and it was often done without the permission of the patient. And as you said, people with lobotomies are unable to make decisions. The Tranquil can make decisions. Rational, logical decisions uneffected by emotion. The Tranquil can do whatever they want and can refuse any order they want to refuse. They aren't more succeptible to coercion, nor do they mindlessly do as they are told.

Lacking emotions and emotional context apparently of any kind, tranquil can't "want" (except maybe for the body's basic needs) and therefore can't WANT to accept or refuse.

That means they don't have effective freewill.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

-Polaris

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon.

If DG sez tranquil have full free will, then that is so regardless of any rationale you want to offer.

[Dave of Canada]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon.

It's just delusions of an egoist. If he's wrong, it's not his fault but everyone else's fault.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 juin 2013 - 07:37 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

-Polaris

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon.

If DG sez tranquil have full free will, then that is so regardless of any rationale you want to offer.

If the Dev doesn't know his own lore then yes.  I dispute that a person can have 'freewill' in any moral or ethical sense without the emotional context to base it from.  DG has never shown otherwise.  I did say that it was an old and longstanding dispute between us.

I do note that DA2 strongly implies that tranquil don't in fact have freewill in the ethical/moral sense.

-Polaris

[KainD]

@IanPolaris

Tranquil do have free will. It's just that they have only one single premise for all the actions they would ever make - their physical body well being.

[IanPolaris]

KainD wrote...

@IanPolaris

Tranquil do have free will. It's just that they have only one single premise for all the actions they would ever make - their physical body well being.

I agree but I would argue this fact means they don't have freewill for the purposes of this thread because they can not be moral agents.  If you can't be a moral agent, then you can't make a meaningful moral decision about any ethical choice presented to you.  It is in this sense that I deny that Tranquil have free will.  Given a choice, a tranquil will either do what it's told (or what is the routine), or do nothing.  We see this repeatedly in both DA2 and DAO.   That means calling a tranquil "free to do what it likes" to be utterly meaningless.

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

I agree but I would argue this fact means they don't have freewill for the purposes of this thread because they can not be moral agents.  If you can't be a moral agent, then you can't make a meaningful moral decision about any ethical choice presented to you.  It is in this sense that I deny that Tranquil have free will.  Given a choice, a tranquil will either do what it's told (or what is the routine), or do nothing.  We see this repeatedly in both DA2 and DAO.   That means calling a tranquil "free to do what it likes" to be utterly meaningless.

-Polaris

Tranquil can make moral decisions. They would just chose the outcome with the most benefit. Save your wife or save ten people? The Tranquil, not influenced by emotions, would choose to save the then people. It have the greatest benefit. It would be the logical choice.

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

Tranquil can make moral decisions. They would just chose the outcome with the most benefit. Save your wife or save ten people? The Tranquil, not influenced by emotions, would choose to save the then people. It have the greatest benefit. It would be the logical choice.

There is absolutely no evidence that tranquil can or do reason this way.  I also point out that Utilitiarian Ethics depends on the ability to put things in an emotional context.  Without it, you can not place values on the ethical calculus.  Saving the most number of people is not (for example) the most logical choice all the time even by pure Utilitarian Ethics, nor do we see any evidence that Tranquil reason this way.

If they did, we would have seen Tranquil working with our Warden in dangerous situations in order to save the most number of people they could.  Orwain would have mentioned this.  We don't see that.  Instead in situations of conflict where you have to make ethical decisions, we see the Tranquil shut down and either do nothing or fall back into strict routine.

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

There is absolutely no evidence that tranquil can or do reason this way.  I also point out that Utilitiarian Ethics depends on the ability to put things in an emotional context.  Without it, you can not place values on the ethical calculus.  Saving the most number of people is not (for example) the most logical choice all the time even by pure Utilitarian Ethics, nor do we see any evidence that Tranquil reason this way.

If they did, we would have seen Tranquil working with our Warden in dangerous situations in order to save the most number of people they could.  Orwain would have mentioned this.  We don't see that.  Instead in situations of conflict where you have to make ethical decisions, we see the Tranquil shut down and either do nothing or fall back into strict routine.

-Polaris

There is no real evidence to suggest that Tranquils can't think in such a way, either. Logically, what would Orwain do to help you? He has no magic, no martial skills. He would be a hinderance and would probably die quickly. There is no reason to basically commit suicide without any gain.