1082 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...
Free will isn't just about your ability to choose - it's about how you choose and why you choose. Even the most logical and detached human being would consider some emotion when making decisions, even if it's only fear. A tranquil person cannot consider such emotions in their decision making process and therefore no longer has free will.

If people don't get to change concepts with personally held nonsense, then this sort of thing doesn't fly. Once you start talking about what it means to function without emotions, unless you've studied a fair amount of cognitive science, you're doing the equivalent of scrawling fan-fiction on a bathroom stall. 

That applies to the developers too.  You don't get to use terms we think we know differently unless we are explicitly told you are doing so.  Freewill has meaning in the context of emotions and the ability to be a moral agent.  Being a developer doesn't change that even within your own gameworld unless you explicitly redefine it which hasn't happened in the case of freewill.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

Anyway, you're not technically wrong on a lot of what you say about emotion (in the abstract). You're just totally wrong about what it means in practice. No living thing could actually survive without the kind of internal drivers we label "emotions".  

Yet we are told specifically that tranquility does in fact remove such drives and it is hammed home by tranquil meekly ratting out their former friends, lovers, and agreeing to be sexual victims on a repeated basis.

Sounds like lack of moral agency and freewill to me.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

It's largely because his assertions require quibbling about the canonicity of conflicting evidence. Here's the thing: Gaider has stated that if your game matches the events that lead up to Asunder, then Asunder is canon for you. Therefore, Asunder is potentially canon. As I previously mentioned, in Asunder Tranquil are shown to be capable of breaking rules and ignoring orders when they know they're less likely to get in trouble for it. What Polaris is trying to argue to discount the evidence of free will I cited is that the rules of this potential canon might be different than the rules of the canon proper, despite the choice that might alter the conversation having no influence on the rule it demonsrates.

You are grossly overweighing and grossly overstating your case from Asunder.  What we know is that a tranquil did not obey an order once in Asunder.  You have not told us (not all of us have read Asunder) the nature of the order, and the nature of the circumstances.   These details matter.  We DO have uncontestable cannnoical scenes that show the tranquil don't in fact have moral agency and thus don't have freewill in the moral sense.

While I have not read Asunder either, apparently Wynne encountered a Tranquil on her way to destroy the White Spire phylacteries. What happened was that the Tranquil asked her what she was doing, Wynne replied honestly, and the Tranquil told her when Lambert was coming back and warned her to be out of there before that happened. When called on showing so much initiative and defying the obvious will of the Templars, the Tranquil notes that she still has free will, it's just not smart to disobey a Templar to his face. This sounds like a moral judgement to me, and the rationale for why we don't see more of it also alternatively explains most of your counterarguments.

I think Gaider has pretty well demonstrated that the Tranquil have agency. What you demonstrate is that they don't bother using it most of the time. (Which might make sense. I think it's mentioned somewhere that the Kirkwall Templars beat their Tranquil?)

If a tranquil can't generate the emotional context to use agency, then he doesn't have it.

-Polaris

Well, Owain does leave the stockroom, doesn't he? And he goes back rather than just standing around. The stupidity of his latter actions aside, he's showing some initiative and capacity to choose.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 04 juin 2013 - 12:38 .

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I remember that tread.  DG's initial position was wrong.  He denied it was possible to be an atheist in DAO as a Warden.  Lob called him on it.

You're wrong. DG said it wasn't supported in DA:O, and then he explained what that meant, and somewhere in there Lob gave examples of HN atheist dialogue. 

That applies to the developers too.  You don't get to use terms we think we know differently unless we are explicitly told you are doing so.  Freewill has meaning in the context of emotions and the ability to be a moral agent.  Being a developer doesn't change that even within your own gameworld unless you explicitly redefine it which hasn't happened in the case of freewill.

The Tranquil are still moral agents. If you want to be technical about it, the part of the theory that collapses is the idea that the tranquil are somehow "absent" of all emotion and emotional drives. 

There's no problem with free will unless you posit that they're somehow supposed to be like Vulcans, but that's just a bull**** concept from the 60s that flies in the face of everything cognitive science has done for the past 40 years. 

Yet we are told specifically that tranquility does in fact remove such drives and it is hammed home by tranquil meekly ratting out their former friends, lovers, and agreeing to be sexual victims on a repeated basis.

That doesn't mean that they aren't experiencing emotions. People of people rat out their former friends, lovers and are sexually victimized in abusive power structures. They aren't somehow managing this without emotion.

But you want to start from the premise that Tranquil are objects to prove your point about their victimization. Not only is it irrelevant, but it requires you to make up a lot of things about actual science to get there. 

You can stick to the moral philosophy all you want, but when you get to empiricism, you just aren't right about how it would play iout in practice if the Tranquil don't have emotions. 

The reasonable explanation - if we assume that DG is wrong about anything - is the effect of becoming Tranquil on urges, not some normative notion of free will. 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
DG isn't the sole developer or writer of Dragon Age, and DG has been wrong before (the human Warden can be an Atheist).

DG wasn't wrong. What he said was that the didn't give any direction for DA:O to support an atheist PC (i.e., always ensure that those options were there). For content he didn't write, it turns out that there were atheist options. That just means he isn't a micromanager. 

Gaider is the one who wrote the Human Noble Origin story where the Cousland protagonist can say he doesn't believe in the Maker.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Gaider is the one who wrote the Human Noble Origin story where the Cousland protagonist can say he doesn't believe in the Maker.

That doesn't mean DG wrote that line. Especially given that he says:

With the plots it's a bit more difficult to pinpoint -- some of them went through multiple hands, and the last writer that took ownership of it inherited all the problems that went before. BUT with that in mind I can say who did the majority of the writing for each plot (if not always the majority of the design):

Given that this is all focusing on one line with one chanter, there's no reason to think DG wrote that one line that you think proves his own ignorance about his lore.

But by all means, keep bringing it up whenever it's convenient (like not when DG and MK disagree on Dalish longevity). 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  I remember that tread.  DG's initial position was wrong.  He denied it was possible to be an atheist in DAO as a Warden.  Lob called him on it.

You're wrong. DG said it wasn't supported in DA:O, and then he explained what that meant, and somewhere in there Lob gave examples of HN atheist dialogue. 

I didn't provide the example from the Human Noble Origin. Wulfram did:

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Probably because they could say things like "I've told you before I don't believe in the Maker" in the HN origin

If that was in there, then so be it. There wasn't intended to be an option to express atheism. And there certainly won't be again.

On the other hand, I think Ian is addressing this particular comment from Gaider (emphasis mine):

David Gaider wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Obviously this something many people are pessimistic about, because of Gaider's earlier (bizarre) insistence about no atheists existing on Thedas. However, we did get him to concede that they'd consider the option of expressing doubt, which is a decent step closer to allowing it to be roleplayed, and I see no reason why we should let supporting the option die out.

I'll say this much: when the original thread was up, I asked the rest of the team what they remembered of the original game, and we all agreed that "atheism" was not something we'd ever supported as a viewpoint for the PC. And by supported, I mean something that-- whenever the topic arose-- we would make sure we included it as an option. Anything we consider "supported" is something we would make sure to maintain consistently throughout the game... that's a design term we take seriously.

Yes, there was indeed the occasional dialogue option to express it-- something you guys obviously remember better than we do (writing something over six years will definitely do that, let me tell you). I don't know if we would consider that "supported" as I defined above, but you're correct that it definitely pops up.  Probably because, at the time, such an option seemed appropriate, and I wouldn't have a problem with that even now.

The part where I get stuck, and am clearly quite poor at expressing the exact point where my support for this idea breaks down, is where "atheism" stops being "I doubt that the Maker actually exists" to being some kind of political view... as atheism often is in the modern world. More secularization than atheism, really. There's a strong streak of anti-religious organization present here on the forums, and when the topic is broached it seemed to be done in the sense of "I should be allowed to go on a crusade against all religion", which is really the thing that I believe is out of place in our setting. Being able to occasionally express doubt, sure... but in order to make such a view supported we would need to provide a full path for such a stance.

The forums being what they are, they will automatically interpret that as in only the extreme opposite must then be the truth-- I'll never be able to express ANYTHING anti-religious and therefore must myself BE RELIGIOUS OMG!... which of course is simply not so, but I guess if you intend to freak out about it go ahead and get it out of your system.

And that's as far as I'll go on that topic. Thanks.

What bothers me is the latter part of his statement, where he "confuses" people who hate the Chantry of Andraste for very specific reasons with people who simply hate religion, which isn't the case when people discuss all of the reasons why they abhor the Andrastian Chantry.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 04 juin 2013 - 01:10 .

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
What bothers me is the latter part of his statement, where he "confuses" people who hate the Chantry of Andraste for very specific reasons with people who simply hate religion, which isn't the case when people discuss all of the reasons why they abhor the Andrastian Chantry.

But in the atheism thread, people specifically discussed the atheism option and why they wanted it. It had very little do with the Chantry. More importantly, being anti-Chantry and ever wanting an atheist option are irrelevant.

For example, Hawke could have been an ultra-devout zealout who believed the Chantry got it wrong. 

If anyone conflates atheist with the Chantry, it's the posters. 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

Given that this is all focusing on one line with one chanter, there's no reason to think DG wrote that one line that you think proves his own ignorance about his lore.

But by all means, keep bringing it up whenever it's convenient (like not when DG and MK disagree on Dalish longevity). 

There's also the Surana Warden being able to make it clear that the Maker isn't his god, condemning the Chantry for invading the Dales because the elves didn't convert, The Warden (in general) making it clear to Leliana that he doesn't think Leliana was divine, the elven Warden telling Velanna that Andraste used their elven ancestors, and the Warden-Commander telling Justice that belief in the Maker is a "foolish supertition".

But by all means, let's pretend that disbelief in the dogma of the Andrastian Chantry is limited to only one, single line with The Warden. It would still be more freedom than Hawke was afforded when it came to player agency over his religious views.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
There's also the Surana Warden being able to make it clear that the Maker isn't his god, condemning the Chantry for invading the Dales because the elves didn't convert, The Warden (in general) making it clear to Leliana that he doesn't think Leliana was divine, the elven Warden telling Velanna that Andraste used their elven ancestors, and the Warden-Commander telling Justice that belief in the Maker is a "foolish supertition".

But by all means, let's pretend that disbelief in the dogma of the Andrastian Chantry is limited to only one, single line with The Warden. It would still be more freedom than Hawke was afforded when it came to player agency over his religious views.

I refuse to believe that you're actually literate if this is your response to my last post. 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

What bothers me is the latter part of his statement, where he "confuses" people who hate the Chantry of Andraste for very specific reasons with people who simply hate religion, which isn't the case when people discuss all of the reasons why they abhor the Andrastian Chantry.

But in the atheism thread, people specifically discussed the atheism option and why they wanted it. It had very little do with the Chantry. More importantly, being anti-Chantry and ever wanting an atheist option are irrelevant.

For example, Hawke could have been an ultra-devout zealout who believed the Chantry got it wrong. 

If anyone conflates atheist with the Chantry, it's the posters. 

Plenty of people in multiple threads addressed that they didn't want to work for the Andrastian Chantry as the Inquisitor because they didn't like the organization fo what it's done over the centuries, and that they found the Andrastian religion to be morally reprehensible. You see it come up time and again when people discuss mages and elves as well. The people who seemed to confuse atheism with a hatred of religion were the developers, time and time again, which was simply sad.

If a player wants to play as an atheist character, it doesn't mean the player or the character hate all religion, or even religion in general. The vilification of atheism and players who wanted the atheist choice to return was downright offensive.

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

While I have not read Asunder either, apparently Wynne encountered a Tranquil on her way to destroy the White Spire phylacteries. What happened was that the Tranquil asked her what she was doing, Wynne replied honestly, and the Tranquil told her when Lambert was coming back and warned her to be out of there before that happened. When called on showing so much initiative and defying the obvious will of the Templars, the Tranquil notes that she still has free will, it's just not smart to disobey a Templar to his face. This sounds like a moral judgement to me, and the rationale for why we don't see more of it also alternatively explains most of your counterarguments.

Not really.  If this were so, then Karl would not have betrayed Anders, and Ser Alrik's sex toys would have ratted him out to the Knight Commander (or at least Knight Capt Cullen, Alrik's superior) at the very least.  It is not possible to make a moral judgement as a moral agent without the emotional context with which to do so.

At best this is (yet another) example of DG changing the lore to win an argument (and I've seen this before).

Well, Owain does leave the stockroom, doesn't he? And he goes back rather than just standing around. The stupidity of his latter actions aside, he's showing some initiative and capacity to choose.

Not really.  It proves in an emergency, that he tried to evacuate.  A trained dog will show as much initiative.  Evacuating in an emergency is a standard drill, and tranquil do have full congnition and memory (I've never denied that!) and tend to be very organized with excellent memories and ferocious abilities of concentration.

However, as soon as Orwain wasn't able to evacuate, he essnetially "shut down" and sent about business as usual.  A person that truely valued his (or her) life on an emotional level would have at least hid or at least (when the Warden got there) offered whatever stock there was to help.  Orwain showed absolutely no concern over the fates of the others.  Lacking emotions, he couldn't.

Orwain does not show the characteristics of a moral free agent and the other Tranquil in DA2 show even less.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If a player wants to play as an atheist character, it doesn't mean the player or the character hate all religion, or even religion in general. The vilification of atheism and players who wanted the atheist choice to return was downright offensive.

Only in your mind was there a vilification of atheists. I'd imagine you think I vilify atheists, despite being one. You need to understand that disagreeing with your unique views is not vilification. 

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
If a player wants to play as an atheist character, it doesn't mean the player or the character hate all religion, or even religion in general. The vilification of atheism and players who wanted the atheist choice to return was downright offensive.

Only in your mind was there a vilification of atheists. I'd imagine you think I vilify atheists, despite being one. You need to understand that disagreeing with your unique views is not vilification. 

DG's post which Lob just reposted does seem to conflate not believing in a god or gods (Atheism) with a hatred of religion.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
DG's post which Lob just reposted does seem to conflate not believing in a god or gods (Atheism) with a hatred of religion.

-Polaris

It really doesn't. Which part of the text do you think it does? Because all I see are qualifiers that suggest the opposite. 

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
DG's post which Lob just reposted does seem to conflate not believing in a god or gods (Atheism) with a hatred of religion.

-Polaris

It really doesn't. Which part of the text do you think it does? Because all I see are qualifiers that suggest the opposite. 

Originally Posted by DG and reposted by Lob:

The part where I get stuck, and am clearly quite poor at expressing the exact point where my support for this idea breaks down, is where "atheism" stops being "I doubt that the Maker actually exists" to being some kind of political view... as atheism often is in the modern world. More secularization than atheism, really. There's a strong streak of anti-religious organization present here on the forums, and when the topic is broached it seemed to be done in the sense of "I should be allowed to go on a crusade against all religion", which is really the thing that I believe is out of place in our setting. Being able to occasionally express doubt, sure... but in order to make such a view supported we would need to provide a full path for such a stance.

This entire paragraph seems to conflate the two equating a desire not to have explicit atheism with a desire not to have secular characters.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's also the Surana Warden being able to make it clear that the Maker isn't his god, condemning the Chantry for invading the Dales because the elves didn't convert, The Warden (in general) making it clear to Leliana that he doesn't think Leliana was divine, the elven Warden telling Velanna that Andraste used their elven ancestors, and the Warden-Commander telling Justice that belief in the Maker is a "foolish supertition".

But by all means, let's pretend that disbelief in the dogma of the Andrastian Chantry is limited to only one, single line with The Warden. It would still be more freedom than Hawke was afforded when it came to player agency over his religious views.

I refuse to believe that you're actually literate if this is your response to my last post. 

You're the one who said that I keep "bringing it up", and that I originally brought up the atheist Cousland line of dialogue to Gaider, but neither comment is true.

I didn't originally bring it up to Gaider - as I pointed out above, Wulfram did.

Also, I don't recall repeatedly bringing up Gaider writing the Human Noble Origin story; I brought it up a little while ago because the atheist line came from the Origin story that Gaider wrote, and it's certainly not the only line where The Warden can express disblief in the Maker or the other aspects of the Andrastian faith.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

While I have not read Asunder either, apparently Wynne encountered a Tranquil on her way to destroy the White Spire phylacteries. What happened was that the Tranquil asked her what she was doing, Wynne replied honestly, and the Tranquil told her when Lambert was coming back and warned her to be out of there before that happened. When called on showing so much initiative and defying the obvious will of the Templars, the Tranquil notes that she still has free will, it's just not smart to disobey a Templar to his face. This sounds like a moral judgement to me, and the rationale for why we don't see more of it also alternatively explains most of your counterarguments.

Not really.  If this were so, then Karl would not have betrayed Anders, and Ser Alrik's sex toys would have ratted him out to the Knight Commander (or at least Knight Capt Cullen, Alrik's superior) at the very least.  It is not possible to make a moral judgement as a moral agent without the emotional context with which to do so.

Ser Alrik was tolerated by Meredith, and I'm under the impression that Tranquil who refused him were beaten. If you're going to be raped, and you can choose between being raped and being beaten then raped, then according to pure logic, you choose to be merely raped, whether or not you have free will.

As for Karl, I think you're really misjudging how much he helps your argument.  He has been cooresponding with an apostate, and from what I understand of how the Kirkwall Circle works if he doesn't betray this apostate as he is ordered he's going to be beaten. If you have free will but no emotions, as Gaider says, then betraying Anders is the rational move. It is therefore completely consistent with the way Gaider describes them them. If you choose to argue this pure logic means he doesn't have free will, then fine. Just know that if my understanding of that passage of Asunder is anything approaching correct, then that's not how neurology works in Thedas.

At best this is (yet another) example of DG changing the lore to win an argument (and I've seen this before).

Well, if he did that, then he did that. The fact remains that that's what the lore is now, whether or not that was true before.

Well, Owain does leave the stockroom, doesn't he? And he goes back rather than just standing around. The stupidity of his latter actions aside, he's showing some initiative and capacity to choose.

Not really.  It proves in an emergency, that he tried to evacuate.  A trained dog will show as much initiative.  Evacuating in an emergency is a standard drill, and tranquil do have full congnition and memory (I've never denied that!) and tend to be very organized with excellent memories and ferocious abilities of concentration.

However, as soon as Orwain wasn't able to evacuate, he essnetially "shut down" and sent about business as usual.  A person that truely valued his (or her) life on an emotional level would have at least hid or at least (when the Warden got there) offered whatever stock there was to help.  Orwain showed absolutely no concern over the fates of the others.  Lacking emotions, he couldn't.

What he said, I think, was "The stockroom is familiar. I prefer to be here," and shortly after "I would prefer not to die." As In Exile has noted, I think if Gaider's wrong about anything its that Tranquil are pure logic with no emotions. (What does that even look like?)

As for trying to hide, if you save one of the Tranquil that is being turned into a Shade in the Tower, he responds "Thank you. I will endeavor to hide myself so that that does not happen again." That sounds a lot like what you're saying should happen.

Orwain does not show the characteristics of a moral free agent and the other Tranquil in DA2 show even less.

Advertising your free will to people with the authority to beat you is considered impolite in Kirkwall. (Can we at least agree that Meredith should not have been in charge?)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 04 juin 2013 - 03:57 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

[quote]
Not really.  If this were so, then Karl would not have betrayed Anders, and Ser Alrik's sex toys would have ratted him out to the Knight Commander (or at least Knight Capt Cullen, Alrik's superior) at the very least.  It is not possible to make a moral judgement as a moral agent without the emotional context with which to do so.
[/quote]

Ser Alrik was tolerated by Meredith, and I'm under the impression that Tranquil who refused him were beaten. If you're going to be raped, and you can choose between being raped and being beaten then raped, then according to pure logic, you choose to be merely raped, whether or not you have free will.
[/quote]

[Citation Needed]  Beating a witness to a crime (and rape is a crime) is a lot more than simply tolerating that behavior.  It would have made Meredith an accessory (even if after the fact).  There is no evidence that Meredith was ever an acessory.  Was she responsible? Yes.  Should she have known?  Yes. But what you are suggesting something far more monstrous about Meredith than any of us or the game lore ever suggests about Meredith, and there is no evidence to back this up.  The time we do hear about tranquil getting beaten if is a tranquil shopkeep can't make inventory at the end of the day.  Still vile, but very different.

[quote]
As for Karl, I think you're really misjudging how much he helps your argument.  He has been cooresponding with an apostate, and from what I understand of how the Kirkwall Circle works if he doesn't betray this apostate as he is ordered he's going to be beaten. If you have free will but no emotions, as Gaider says, then betraying Anders is the rational move. It is therefore completely consistent with the way Gaider describes them them. If you choose to argue this pure logic means he doesn't have free will, then fine. Just know that if my understanding of that passage of Asunder is anything approaching correct, then that's not how neurology works in Thedas.
[/quote]

If Karl is able to make a moral judgement, then he never would have betrayed his former lover and especially not over a moral stance he strongly felt about.  Karl calls himself a puppet.  In order to make rational decisions, you need to have a basis from which to make that rational calculus and when you boil it all away, you have to base it off emotions somewhere.

[quote]
[quote]
At best this is (yet another) example of DG changing the lore to win an argument (and I've seen this before).
[/quote]

Well, if he did that, then he did that. The fact remains that that's what the lore is now, whether or not that was true before.
[/quote]

Asunder isn't lore (yet).  The gross events are, but this string of dialog may or may not be.,

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Well, Owain does leave the stockroom, doesn't he? And he goes back rather than just standing around. The stupidity of his latter actions aside, he's showing some initiative and capacity to choose.[/quote]

Not really.  It proves in an emergency, that he tried to evacuate.  A trained dog will show as much initiative.  Evacuating in an emergency is a standard drill, and tranquil do have full congnition and memory (I've never denied that!) and tend to be very organized with excellent memories and ferocious abilities of concentration.

However, as soon as Orwain wasn't able to evacuate, he essnetially "shut down" and sent about business as usual.  A person that truely valued his (or her) life on an emotional level would have at least hid or at least (when the Warden got there) offered whatever stock there was to help.  Orwain showed absolutely no concern over the fates of the others.  Lacking emotions, he couldn't.[/quote]

What he said, I think, was "The stockroom is familiar. I prefer to be here," and shortly after "I would prefer not to die." As In Exile has noted, I think if Gaider's wrong about anything its that Tranquil are pure logic with no emotions. (What does that even look like?)
[/quote]

I don't believe he used the term "perfer" when talking about the stockroom.  He did say that he preferred not to die, and yet Orwain made no attempt to hide or protect his life other than not seeking direct confrontation.  Seeking out the familiar and dithering IS a form of "shutting down".

[quote]
As for trying to hide, if you save one of the Tranquil that is being turned into a Shade in the Tower, he responds "Thank you. I will endeavor to hide myself so that that does not happen again." That sounds a lot like what you're saying should happen.
[/quote]

I have never heard that quote, and again they make no effort do to so even if you do (and I have saved some or even all of them before).  I do recall one saying, "Thank you.  That was an unpleasent experience."

[quote]
[quote]
Orwain does not show the characteristics of a moral free agent and the other Tranquil in DA2 show even less.
[/quote]

Advertising your free will to people with the authority to beat you is considered impolite in Kirkwall. (Can we at least agree that Meredith should not have been in charge?)[/quote]

It's not a matter of advertising.  Tranquil have existed for centuries.  IF the Tranquil had the freewill you suggest, it would have been know long before now, and under emergency situations, the Tranquil should have behaved much differently than they do.  Also such tranquil would not meekly submit to crimes against their body if they had the sort of freewill you suggest....yet the evidence we have says that they do.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

[quote]
Not really.  If this were so, then Karl would not have betrayed Anders, and Ser Alrik's sex toys would have ratted him out to the Knight Commander (or at least Knight Capt Cullen, Alrik's superior) at the very least.  It is not possible to make a moral judgement as a moral agent without the emotional context with which to do so.
[/quote]

Ser Alrik was tolerated by Meredith, and I'm under the impression that Tranquil who refused him were beaten. If you're going to be raped, and you can choose between being raped and being beaten then raped, then according to pure logic, you choose to be merely raped, whether or not you have free will.
[/quote]

[Citation Needed]  Beating a witness to a crime (and rape is a crime) is a lot more than simply tolerating that behavior.  It would have made Meredith an accessory (even if after the fact).  There is no evidence that Meredith was ever an acessory.  Was she responsible? Yes.  Should she have known?  Yes. But what you are suggesting something far more monstrous about Meredith than any of us or the game lore ever suggests about Meredith, and there is no evidence to back this up.  The time we do hear about tranquil getting beaten if is a tranquil shopkeep can't make inventory at the end of the day.  Still vile, but very different.[/quote]

Okay, can't find the beating thing, or Ser Alrik being tolerated by Meredith. Nonetheless, unless you have emotions, why would you refuse sex? Rape is creepy, disgusting, and vile, but how can anyone whose emotions have been burned out (or at least heavily stunted, since if Gaider's wrong about anything it's that they're completely gone emotionally) still care?

[quote]
[quote]
As for Karl, I think you're really misjudging how much he helps your argument.  He has been cooresponding with an apostate, and from what I understand of how the Kirkwall Circle works if he doesn't betray this apostate as he is ordered he's going to be beaten. If you have free will but no emotions, as Gaider says, then betraying Anders is the rational move. It is therefore completely consistent with the way Gaider describes them them. If you choose to argue this pure logic means he doesn't have free will, then fine. Just know that if my understanding of that passage of Asunder is anything approaching correct, then that's not how neurology works in Thedas.
[/quote]

If Karl is able to make a moral judgement, then he never would have betrayed his former lover and especially not over a moral stance he strongly felt about.  Karl calls himself a puppet.  In order to make rational decisions, you need to have a basis from which to make that rational calculus and when you boil it all away, you have to base it off emotions somewhere. [/quote]

That's just it: he didn't feel strongly about it anymore. That's the one thing none of us is disputing, and since my point is that not feeling strongly doesn't preclude free will, adding this to any argument against mine is pointless.

As for morals, the Tranquil's main thing now is logic. The Tranquil will obey an authority figure unless they see a logical reason not to, not a moral one.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
At best this is (yet another) example of DG changing the lore to win an argument (and I've seen this before).
[/quote]

Well, if he did that, then he did that. The fact remains that that's what the lore is now, whether or not that was true before.
[/quote]

Asunder isn't lore (yet).  The gross events are, but this string of dialog may or may not be.,[/quote]

Unless you think this means the rules as it presents them aren't valid, despite the fact that he's already stated that this book describes what happened in your game assuming it's consistent with it, and the fact that Wynne not living long enough to have this conversation cannot possibly effect how Tranquility works, then I do not see why you keep pointing this out.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Well, Owain does leave the stockroom, doesn't he? And he goes back rather than just standing around. The stupidity of his latter actions aside, he's showing some initiative and capacity to choose.[/quote]

Not really.  It proves in an emergency, that he tried to evacuate.  A trained dog will show as much initiative.  Evacuating in an emergency is a standard drill, and tranquil do have full congnition and memory (I've never denied that!) and tend to be very organized with excellent memories and ferocious abilities of concentration.

However, as soon as Orwain wasn't able to evacuate, he essnetially "shut down" and sent about business as usual.  A person that truely valued his (or her) life on an emotional level would have at least hid or at least (when the Warden got there) offered whatever stock there was to help.  Orwain showed absolutely no concern over the fates of the others.  Lacking emotions, he couldn't.[/quote]

What he said, I think, was "The stockroom is familiar. I prefer to be here," and shortly after "I would prefer not to die." As In Exile has noted, I think if Gaider's wrong about anything its that Tranquil are pure logic with no emotions. (What does that even look like?)
[/quote]

I don't believe he used the term "perfer" when talking about the stockroom.[/quote]  

8:32

[quote]He did say that he preferred not to die, and yet Orwain made no attempt to hide or protect his life other than not seeking direct confrontation.  Seeking out the familiar and dithering IS a form of "shutting down".[/quote]

The fact remains that having preferences shows some degree of free will.

[quote]
[quote]
As for trying to hide, if you save one of the Tranquil that is being turned into a Shade in the Tower, he responds "Thank you. I will endeavor to hide myself so that that does not happen again." That sounds a lot like what you're saying should happen.
[/quote]

I have never heard that quote, and again they make no effort do to so even if you do (and I have saved some or even all of them before).  I do recall one saying, "Thank you.  That was an unpleasent experience."[/quote]

Oh well. It's still there. I saw it firsthand, whether or not you believe me.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Orwain does not show the characteristics of a moral free agent and the other Tranquil in DA2 show even less.
[/quote]

Advertising your free will to people with the authority to beat you is considered impolite in Kirkwall. (Can we at least agree that Meredith should not have been in charge?)[/quote]

It's not a matter of advertising.  Tranquil have existed for centuries.  IF the Tranquil had the freewill you suggest, it would have been know long before now, and under emergency situations, the Tranquil should have behaved much differently than they do.  Also such tranquil would not meekly submit to crimes against their body if they had the sort of freewill you suggest....yet the evidence we have says that they do.

-Polaris[/quote]

What I meant is that whether or not you have free will, you're not going to refuse an order if it means getting beaten. While it seems I was mistaken about the scope of the evidence we see, the fact remains that the Templars have proven themselves willing to beat Tranquil. And if a Templar is capable of rape, why exactly would they balk at beatings?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 04 juin 2013 - 05:09 .

[Hazegurl]

At best this is (yet another) example of DG changing the lore to win an argument (and I've seen this before).

I can't believe this was typed and actually posted AND the poster is actually serious.  :lol:

So a writer went so far as to change his own lore, have a company spend millions putting it in the game etc and millions of people worldwide will read it... just to win an argument with one dude on the internet? :lol:

*sigh* I can't want for E3 and some DA news, it's hard keeping track of the crazy.

[thats1evildude]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  I remember that thread.  DG's initial position was wrong.  He denied it was possible to be an atheist in DAO as a Warden.  Lob called him on it.

Yes, I recall that thread too. And the reply is that if there were options for the human noble to express disbelief in the Maker, they're not supposed to be there.

[KiwiQuiche]

Hazegurl wrote...

At best this is (yet another) example of DG changing the lore to win an argument (and I've seen this before).

I can't believe this was typed and actually posted AND the poster is actually serious.  :lol:

So a writer went so far as to change his own lore, have a company spend millions putting it in the game etc and millions of people worldwide will read it... just to win an argument with one dude on the internet? :lol:

*sigh* I can't want for E3 and some DA news, it's hard keeping track of the crazy.

Bioware is part of EA. I wouldn't be surprised.

On a more serious note, they did state they're gonna tone down the crazy. That and they had some dumb in-game reason as to why everyone was going off their rockers in DA2, so hopefully we'll see more balanced sides in DAI.

[Hazegurl]

I kinda meant the crazy on BSN:D

As for the game, considering that all the crazy events took place in Kirkwall I can buy that it was due to a thin veil. If only so that we don't have to revisit Kirkwall again. I never want to see that place again.

As for religion in the game. I do think their was an option for the Human noble to say they didn't believe in the Maker, But honestly it wasn't much of a line to base a whole argument on. There certainly wasn't rampant "The Maker doesn't exist!!" dialouge. So I can see it being added in either last minute by DG or some other writer to add another choice in there or it could have been a idea thought of six years before the game's release while they were tossing out ideas and it was just overlooked, whocares... The way I see it, I don't think atheism exists in the DA verse because then belief in the Maker would automatically be christianity and neither of these things exist in the DA verse. For all we know the Maker could have been some supremely powerful mage or the first mage ever and perhaps everyone just thinks he created the world due to him possessing magic, which is something they've never seen before.

Although it is hard to ignore the "Old Gods" comparison to Pagan deities and The Maker to "God" but whatever, you need inspiration from somewhere.
 

Modifié par Hazegurl, 04 juin 2013 - 05:47 .