2497 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Does anyone else feel that the devs seem to forget what tranquility was going into DA2?

Sometimes.

[Hellion Rex]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Does anyone else feel that the devs seem to forget what tranquility was going into DA2?

how so?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I really think Bioware is better off making one off games.

Then they don't have to care about choices "mattering in a big" way or any of the other thing's they don't seem to have much skill in.

[Cainhurst Crow]

The tranquil in DA2 just seemed more...dead. Like, I never got the sense in DAO that tranquil would willingly be part of deceptions, or forget large chunks of their memories like the infamous sex slave tranquil in the gallows. Memory loss, and even loss of self, wasn't really an issue I understood as being something tranquil went through, just the loss of the emotional context for their memories. They'd probably still remember what was important to them, and more than likely not want to double cross others. Nor were they ignorant of their condition and how others were not like them, and didn't feel it was better one way or the other unless challenged by someone else on the subject.

It just feels like tranquility, like everything else in dragon age, was made crueler and more negative for the sake of painting everything as wrong.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 12 octobre 2013 - 06:02 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The tranquil in DA2 just seemed more...dead. Like, I never got the sense in DAO that tranquil would willingly be part of deceptions, or forget large chunks of their memories like the infamous sex slave tranquil in the gallows. Memory loss, and even loss of self, wasn't really an issue I understood as being something tranquil went through, just the loss of the emotional context for their memories. They'd probably still remember what was important to them, and more than likely not want to double cross others. Nor were they ignorant of their condition and how others were not like them, and didn't feel it was better one way or the other unless challenged by someone else on the subject.

It just feels like tranquility, like everything else in dragon age, was made crueler and more negative for the sake of painting everything as wrong.

Well, all of that that I actually understand (since I don't own DA2) makes sense in the context of the "obedience is prudent" explanation that you read in Asunder, and which I think Gaider had already given before DA2 came out. In the context of this explanation, the Tranquil in Origins would have probably done the same things, if the Ferelden Templars were as dickish as the Kirkwall ones. Though I don't remember reading anything about the Tranquil being ignorant of their condition, could you clarify?

[Paul E Dangerously]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
It just feels like tranquility, like everything else in dragon age, was made crueler and more negative for the sake of painting everything as wrong.

I honestly don't know how much crueler you can get than forcibly (okay, most of the time) severing someone from their dreams, hopes, and emotions.

[MisterJB]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
It just feels like tranquility, like everything else in dragon age, was made crueler and more negative for the sake of painting everything as wrong.

I honestly don't know how much crueler you can get than forcibly (okay, most of the time) severing someone from their dreams, hopes, and emotions.

And that should be one of the ways of interpreting Tranquility. However, there is a difference between presenting something and letting the players decide for themselves whether it's cruel or not; in DAO, right after hearing about Tranquility, you hear a well thought out defense of it by a Tranquil; and the game itself trying to tell you that "Tranquility is bad, mmmkay?"

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Rationality is thinking/acting within a certain set of rules/bounds/logic/laws. For there to be rules, rules have to be made. Rules are also subjective and are made through emotion. 
Yes rational thoughts don't exist without emotions. To have any kind of opinion on any matter you have to care about it in the first place. 

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

KainD are you claiming that your AI opponent in Starcraft makes all its decisions based on emotion? I'm sorry to break this to you, but it makes its decision purely based on a logic algorithm.
A computer is the perfect example of logic devoid of emotion.

[aTrueFool]

KainD wrote...

Right. Mind giving me some logical reasons on why living is better than being dead? 

This is the single stupidest question anyone has ever asked.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...
No, rite and sex are not the same thing. But the aplication of something undesirable on a person is a completely logical and sensable comparison.

ANY punishment OR limitation is by definition undesirable.

TheDas is middle ages more or less. Punishments were severe.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Right. Mind giving me some logical reasons on why living is better than being dead?

Jon Irenicus:
Life... is strength. That is not to be contested; it seems logical enough. You live; you affect your world.

[Xilizhra]

Incorporating the mages further into the Chantry won't be trivial, there'll be so much resistance to the idea that a lot would have to be given up. But as you say, the Chantry would have to do it's share as well. I doubt the teachings can be allowed to change much, but emphasis. Mages being cursed could be pitched as them being specifically challenged by the maker and thus to be treated with respect, since he clearly expects great things from them.
I don't think the Imperial Chantry is the right model to look at though, since only mages may be higher ranked priests (I think it allows both genders though), instead I'd suggest that Grand Clerics and First Enchanters have parity. Both assembling to vote for the Divine. Have the FE's make up a third of the vote and they'd have enough influence to make a difference.

I'm not inclined to give up anything at all. This is really about as far as I'm willing to stretch, and the Chantry has to change in a fairly substantial manner, otherwise this'll all be for nothing.

As for annulment, tranquility and villages. I'm not sure about either. Annulment is warranted when a tower is, as far as anyone can tell, is completely overrun. But never as a punishment.
As for tranquility, are we really sure we want to present the idea to templars and the world that the only way out of magic is death. Tranquility, for all it's faults, presents the idea at the very least that there's an alternative to death for those that cannot handle the gift. Flawed as all hell, I agree. But on a psychological front, is that line of thinking not warranted?
Yeah, tranquility is hardly a mercy... I get that. If used at all, a really robust safety measure would have to prevent it's misuse. But do we really want templars going around thinking "behave or die"? Isn't that part of the problem the current circles have? Except now it'd be worse?

Tranquility's sense of reassurance is wholly false, as it's barely better than death, at least if permanent.

Villages... hmmm... well the circles would take on the guise as monasteries rather than prisons so I suppose it'd work... but I'm not sure in how much danger these villages would be. Lake Calenhad wasn't a very safe lake due to all the magical experiments after all.

Well, dumping waste directly into water is a time-honored human pastime. I don't think they'd do quite the same with settlements.

KainD are you claiming that your AI opponent in Starcraft makes all its
decisions based on emotion? I'm sorry to break this to you, but it makes
its decision purely based on a logic algorithm.
A computer is the perfect example of logic devoid of emotion.

Computer algorithms are also based on preset programming that doesn't make any actual decisions for itself, not actual logic.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 octobre 2013 - 11:53 .

[Heimdall]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

Actually, emotions are intrinsically linked to human decision making.  We are incapable of making decisions without factoring in emotion, even if we try to ignore it.  That's why lobotomies didn't work.  When you destroy the part of the brain responsible for the conscious experience of emotion you also destroy the part responsible for planning.

So humans are incapable of emotionless logic.

[Hellion Rex]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

Actually, emotions are intrinsically linked to human decision making.  We are incapable of making decisions without factoring in emotion, even if we try to ignore it.  That's why lobotomies didn't work.  When you destroy the part of the brain responsible for the conscious experience of emotion you also destroy the part responsible for planning.

So humans are incapable of emotionless logic.

But we are viewing this in comparison to the rules of our real word reality. Just because emotionless logic is impossible in our real world doesn't mean that's impossible to create through Tranquility. 

Modifié par eluvianix, 12 octobre 2013 - 12:46 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

Actually, emotions are intrinsically linked to human decision making.  We are incapable of making decisions without factoring in emotion, even if we try to ignore it.  That's why lobotomies didn't work.  When you destroy the part of the brain responsible for the conscious experience of emotion you also destroy the part responsible for planning.

So humans are incapable of emotionless logic.

Emotions are LINKED to human decision making, they aren't a REQUIREMENT for decision making.

Also, lobotomies are harmfull and primitive methods that resulted in big damage to the brain, they didnt destroy "just" the part of the brain handling emotion.

Emotional weight for pieces of information is just another variable.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Incorporating the mages further into the Chantry won't be trivial, there'll be so much resistance to the idea that a lot would have to be given up. But as you say, the Chantry would have to do it's share as well. I doubt the teachings can be allowed to change much, but emphasis. Mages being cursed could be pitched as them being specifically challenged by the maker and thus to be treated with respect, since he clearly expects great things from them.

Isn't this allready the case?

Magic is a Curse AND a Gift. Why do people so often ignore the second part of that sentance?

Yes there are many people who mistrust mages, but anyone who thinks that is only because of the Chantry is delluding himself.
And even if the Chantry would to change it's teaching to "trust the mages" that would only backfire, as people would simply go "frak that", like they often do in real life.

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

Different people make different descisions in the same circumstances, having similar experience. 

[KainD]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

KainD are you claiming that your AI opponent in Starcraft makes all its decisions based on emotion? I'm sorry to break this to you, but it makes its decision purely based on a logic algorithm.
A computer is the perfect example of logic devoid of emotion.

AI doesn't make any descisions. 

[KainD]

aTrueFool wrote...

KainD wrote...

Right. Mind giving me some logical reasons on why living is better than being dead? 

This is the single stupidest question anyone has ever asked.

Your answer to it is a lot smarter. 

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Jon Irenicus:
Life... is strength. That is not to be contested; it seems logical enough. You live; you affect your world.

Seems to be contested by enough people, that see no point in living. 

[Heimdall]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Emotions are LINKED to human decision making, they aren't a REQUIREMENT for decision making.

Also, lobotomies are harmfull and primitive methods that resulted in big damage to the brain, they didnt destroy "just" the part of the brain handling emotion.

Emotional weight for pieces of information is just another variable.

Except the part of the brain responsible for  the conscious experience of emotion and the part responsible for decision making are the same.  You can't have one without the other, so I would call that a requirement.  Its a variable we can't do without.

[Heimdall]

eluvianix wrote...

But we are viewing this in comparison to the rules of our real word reality. Just because emotionless logic is impossible in our real world doesn't mean that's impossible to create through Tranquility. 

True

[Mikoto8472]

Late to the discussion as always but my main problem with the Circle in its current state is far too harsh on the mages.

Being essentially legally kidnapped from your family at a young age can mess someone up, especially if they're never allowed to see their family again or are restricted to only communicating via letter. Maybe if the family were allowed regular visits, or the mages were Templar-escorted to their former home on visits it wouldn't be so cruel.

Then there's the whole not allowing mages to have relations. Trying to repress a very strong biological instinct is just...... stupid.

And finally the dealbreaker for me. The utter cruelty which means I can never support the Templars. The way they quite literally steal a newborn baby from its Circle-Mage mother whilst she's still weak from childbirth and unable to prevent it. That's awful. What kind of monster-organisation tears newborns from their mother? Sure its not THAT much of a problem to have a few extra kids around.

[LobselVith8]

aTrueFool wrote...

KainD wrote...

Right. Mind giving me some logical reasons on why living is better than being dead? 

This is the single stupidest question anyone has ever asked.

And yet, both Karl and Pharamond thought death would be better than continuing to live out their lives as tranquil mages, which I think was the point Kain was getting at.