In Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer presents decision making in a variety of ways, including through the relationship between fate, knowledge, and agency, ideas that they are at the heart of medieval philosophy. Troilus states that he does not believe in total free will, but rather a passive free will to succumb to one's death wish, while both Troilus and Criseyde are seen cursing the gods throughout the poem for affecting their lives so badly, essentially replacing any sense of free will with fate and condemning them to be tragic lovers. Chaucer presents Troilus' decision-making as particularly flawed as it is relative only to himself; Troilus attempts to demonstrate how necessary it is to love Criseyde with very little logic, instead using a decision-making process that is entirely within his imagination. Troilo states that love must exist as one can imagine it, making him question his love decision to the core of his beliefs. In contrast, Criseyde values ​​rational thought processes and one's free will, making intelligent and informed decisions. This makes it much more intriguing when Chaucer explores the internal dialogue of Criseyde's thoughts compared to that of Troilus. This is shown in the following quote: 'Allas! Syn, I am free,/Sholde now I love, and put in jupartie/My sikernesse, and thrallen libertee?/Allas, how did I sleep then that madness?/I can do no good to others aspie/Hire dredfull joye, hir constreinte, and do you hire peyne?'[1] (Book II, 771-776) The particular interest for the reader in these internal dialogues lies in the knowledge that Criseyde's conscious decision to love Troilus could potentially take away her freedom of thought; other people's "terrible joy" is not unlike her own feeling of apprehension when she first learns that Troilus has chosen to love her. However, it is important to note here that the initial introduction between Troilus and Criseyde was simply an arranged meeting between two friends. With this in mind, it is plausible that Troilus' decision to love was perhaps marginally calculated, as befriending a person was sometimes used as a strategy to form unions between those at court and to improve one's social standing. Troilus decides to see Criseyde first of all as a friend, secondly as a lover: 'take on the love of friendship I have for the vanquished / and she too leyd took on Feyth for borwe'[2] (Book II, 962-963). We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay A completely different style of decision making can be seen with Pandarus, who Chaucer shows as competent but still very human and accessible to the reader. Pandarus adopts the role of an unrequited lover, making him immediately appear less indecisive than a person uncertain of his own romantic intentions. However, the irrational level of Pandarus' reasoning should not be overlooked; this is used to force Troilus to reveal to Pandarus his most closely guarded secret: the fact that he loves Criseyde. This shows that Pandarus has a tendency to act illogically. The sheer tenacity of this is demonstrated in his decision to keep pushing Troilus until he receives an answer, resorting to physically shaking him for an answer: "And with that word hath gan hym to shake, / And seyde, "Thef/thow shalt hyre name telle”/'[3] (Book 2, 36-38). Troilus is understandably frightened by these actions, prompting Pandarus to become even more irrational in his choice of actions, choosing to seek.