Response to Supposition of Freedom

[Xui'al]

Response to "The Supposition of freedom"
Unknown

In fact, even powerful wizards of mortal breed can take away free will when desired, thus the gods must certainly be able to do so as well. But my question is: why would they want to?

I do realize that this is piece is based heavily on opinion, but I really don't like the above sentences. To me it seems to ask "Why would one want to take away another's free will?" History is full of examples of free will being lost; and ambition and corruption are both two very plausible answers tot he question. Provided, of course, that the question is the way that I interpreted it.

[Boompiee]

Response to "The Supposition of freedom"
Unknown

In fact, even powerful wizards of mortal breed can take away free will when desired, thus the gods must certainly be able to do so as well. But my question is: why would they want to?

I do realize that this is piece is based heavily on opinion, but I really don't like the above sentences. To me it seems to ask "Why would one want to take away another's free will?" History is full of examples of free will being lost; and ambition and corruption are both two very plausible answers tot he question. Provided, of course, that the question is the way that I interpreted it.

Humans would certainly be willing, but the question I'm asking is whether gods would want to. The reason I don't think gods would want to alter free will is mentioned in the following paragraph.

[Xui'al]

There are some indications that some of the creatures from oblivion do not have free will, while others do:

"The Scamps have small thoughts, and cannot fear greatly.
The Vermai have no thoughts, and cannot fear."

However, it also says this:

"We serve by choice. We serve the strong, so that their strength might shield us."

I just wonder if that applies to creatures that do not have the intelligence, such as the Vermai and the Scamps. There are perhaps some 'gods' that might want to alter free will, but I would say most apply to your "game" theory. Did Azura really give Nerevar a choice? (in TES lore)

[Boompiee]

This does not directly apply to my response, as I cover human free will only. I guess I just assumed animals don't have souls, as is commonly assumed in the real world :/

The pieces of text you posted were important though. Where did you find them?

[Edit]
Actually I just realized something. In the Molag Bal Quest in Morrowind you are ordered to kill the daedroth Menta Na because he is disobedient. This would imply that the gods do not influence the minds of their subjects directly, not even non-humans. But with lower daedra, it may not even be necessary to alter their minds as they don't have much of a mind to speak of, and therefore would obey their master out of free will.
[/Edit]

[Xui'al]

To provide some enlightenment here, I started this thread on ESF: [url]http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=232890[/url]

[Boompiee]

It seems to me that free will and lack thereof are only relevant when souls exist. If a soul is the essence of your being and is the one you call "I", then you have free will and it can be taken away. But if you don't have a soul and are only a bunch of chemical processes, then free will as such has no meaning. As both humans and daedra have souls (they can become ghosts or be captured in soulgems respectively) the first must be true. Free will can exist and therefore also be taken away. But there is no reason to assume that gods ever do this at all, and there is plenty of proof that they in fact don't. (Azura's quest to get her Star and Molag Bal's quests are both clear examples that gods do not exert direct influence upon souls on the mortal plane.

[Haplo]

Anyone have any more comments before I start on this one?

[Haplo]

Make sure you capitalize the Supposition and Freedom in Supposition of Freedom each time you say "Supposition of Freedom".

And in the second paragraph, you start your second sentence with 'First Off'. While technically this is correct, it sounds week, and is not the best starter for a rebuttle. I'd stick with 'First' or 'First of all', or even 'To begin with'.