411 réponses à ce sujet

[holdenagincourt]

Even cray cray Meredith didn't support tranquility on demand.

But I recognize that this is just flamebait so I'll just roll my eyes.

[Emzamination]

holdenagincourt wrote...

Even cray cray Meredith didn't support tranquility on demand.

But I recognize that this is just flamebait so I'll just roll my eyes.

I suggest not following the moderation path if you can't tell flamebait from a genuine post.Op says this is a feature that has already been used that I'd like to see return. Anyways I never said it had to be on demand, just that Pro-templar characters should have access to it.

Modifié par Emzamination, 28 septembre 2012 - 12:33 .

[ev76]

I'm for it if you side with the Templars, would also carry the right of annulment as well. Anything that gains and advantage when playing pro Templar should be game.

[Boss Fog]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Emzamination wrote...
Should Pro-templar Inquisitors be able to invoke the rite of tranquility?

No.

That makes as much sense as lawyers arresting people.

I don't know about that.  It is very clear what type of authority lawyers have in today's society.  As complicated as it may be for someone who isn't familiar with the world of litigation, the information is at least readily accessible.  This game isn't even out yet so there's no way to even know what type of authority the inquisition or PC for that matter will even have.

Modifié par TelvanniWarlord, 28 septembre 2012 - 12:48 .

[RazorrX]

I have a couple of playthroughs were Fen was lobotomized. His talking about going to Tevinter pretty much sealed his fate.

That said, in certain circumstances I think it is a viable option, but with the details coming from Asunder it is quite possible that Tranquility has been rendered a moot issue. Killing them is much more certain.

[MisterJB]

holdenagincourt wrote...

Even cray cray Meredith didn't support tranquility on demand.

But I recognize that this is just flamebait so I'll just roll my eyes.

How is this flamebait? Say a Pro-Templar Inquisitor captures one of the leaders of the mage rebellion. In such a case, Tranquility would be a valid option to reduce the danger he or she represents without damaging the memory of this mage leader and thus, any intel that could be gained from interrogation.

[Plaintiff]

Um, no.

The right of tranquility was a power held by the Chantry that only existed when the mages were under the control of the Chantry. The mages have defected enmasse, so now nobody has the right of tranquility. Even if the Inquisition is part of the Chantry (and there's no reason to assume this would be so), the Chantry has none of the power over mages that it once did.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 septembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[MisterJB]

Semantics. The Rite can still be practiced.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Semantics. The Rite can still be practiced.

If you think you can get within grabbing distance of any mage in order to perform it, you be my guest.

[Emzamination]

Plaintiff wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Semantics. The Rite can still be practiced.

If you think you can get within grabbing distance of any mage in order to perform it, you be my guest.

Templars have the power to nullify all mage mana and abilities, making any form of resistance futile.

[MisterJB]

There are many instances in the games, books and lore where mages were defeated or ourtright killed with and without the use of Templar abilities. Mages are powerful but they are not omnipotent.

[TJPags]

Absolutely it should be implemented.

Sure, before the revolt, it was the Chantry that controlled when to do it - but it was Templars who did it.  They know how to do it.  Just because the Templars don't answer to the Chantry doesn't mean Templars can't perform the Rite.  Might even mean it would be performed more often, given zealotry and no central oversight.

There's clearly circumstances where it would make sense for such a character to do it.

And that said:

ReggarBlane wrote...

And the guilt when finding out that the mage was innocent of whatever "crime"? Yes.

Seriously. This is a great plot device to use just for that alone. All known signs point to the mage, but the player missed some clues and performed the rite on an innocent person.

^^^Yes, absolutely this!!

[drake heath]

If I'm going to be an inquisitor, I should be able to do all the rites, and when ever I whelm it to be.

Like if there's a circle that might harbor rebels, I should be able to annul it.

Because innocence proves nothing.

Modifié par drake heath, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:09 .

[Malanek]

Sure, as a moral decision that sounds interesting. There is no way the player should be railroaded into having to do it though.

[legbamel]

I'd support it as a decision option in a quest. Having a twist that makes any decision the wrong one would be utterly like BioWare, too. It would be excessive as an ability for your PC to just go around making mages Tranquil as some sort of coercion skill, though.

[upsettingshorts]

Where is it stated Inquisitors have said authority?

[Plaintiff]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Where is it stated Inquisitors have said authority?

That's exactly what I'm wondering. We have no idea what powers Inquisitors possess, if any.

[legbamel]

Nowhere. This whole forum is speculation and elaborate games of "what if".

[Lithuasil]

Plaintiff wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Where is it stated Inquisitors have said authority?

That's exactly what I'm wondering. We have no idea what powers Inquisitors possess, if any.

Given that the rite of tranquility can be performed by non-mages, it's perfectly reasonable that regardless of whether they're allowed to, any inquisitor could technically perform the rite on a sufficiently subdued mage.

[Star fury]

Was Meredith right with Tranquil solution? No mages - no problem.

[LobselVith8]

Emzamination wrote...

Templars have the power to nullify all mage mana and abilities, making any form of resistance futile.

Which is why some free mages use blood magic.

[Malanek]

Star fury wrote...

Was Meredith right with Tranquil solution? No mages - no problem.

The tranquil solution was never going to catch all mages though, and once it starts, all of them would rebel. So even if you are prepared to commit what many would consider a completely immoral act, it still doesn't mean that act would be successful.

[brushyourteeth]

You mean as an additional sort of murder knife option?

.... I'm not sure I could ever be that evil.

[Star fury]

Malanek999 wrote...

The tranquil solution was never going to catch all mages though, and once it starts, all of them would rebel. So even if you are prepared to commit what many would consider a completely immoral act, it still doesn't mean that act would be successful.

It is genocide, yes. Mages don't stand a chance against might of Chantry, or do they? 

[brushyourteeth]

The Chantry round up mages to keep them safe and teach them magic? That's supremely evil.

The Qunari cut out their tongues/sew their mouths shut, place magical collars with control rods on them, treat them as weapons instead of people, brainwash them into hating themselves, allow them no autonomy or free expression whatsoever? Nobody complains.

That's.... annoying.

I'm not saying the first system is anything close to perfect. Just that it's definitely not the one we should be first to vilify, here.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 28 septembre 2012 - 04:28 .