32 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

As I recall, the Tranquil that was cured was begging to be killed because they would make him tranquil again

[Todd23]

Reznore57 wrote...

IMHO I think the cure will be a big problem and not a solution.
The only good thing is the rite is now obselete.
If the mages start curing the tranquil , i think it's gonna be a mess.
The first ever cured end up begging to be killed ,too much trauma.
On top of that , tranquility was performed for a reason...Mage who tried blood magic , mages who couldn't control their power , couldn't resist demons.
Sure some like Kark have been made tranquil for very shady reasons.
But mostly you'll end up with a bunch of deeply traumatized mages who can't properly handle their power.
That's really really bad.

Except all those mages are currently serving templars.  They're perfect.  Fix all of them in the dead of night, and let the templars awaken to find abominations and blood mages.

[KainD]

Swagger7 wrote...

"Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and mostly multicellular,[4] which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic,[5] generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae.[6] They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls.[7] All animals are motile,[8] if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage,[9] which is a characteristic exclusive to animals."

Humans fit all those characteristics, just like our evolutionary ancestors have for over 600 million years (first fossils of animals).  I doubt that you'd argue any of them weren't animals.  We don't suddenly lose the distinction because we developed the ability to think about it.

Ah, see you wouldn't call bacteria animals, because animals are a lot more complex organisms, next step. I believe that people are a lot more complex organisms than animals, and a next "step" if you will too, to not  be called animals anymore, the same way bacteria isn't called animals, or rather animals are not called bacteria. 

I think that the ability to "think" about life and not just exist by basic instincts is THAT important. 

Modifié par KainD, 15 novembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[Todd23]

KainD wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

"Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and mostly multicellular,[4] which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic,[5] generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae.[6] They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls.[7] All animals are motile,[8] if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage,[9] which is a characteristic exclusive to animals."

Humans fit all those characteristics, just like our evolutionary ancestors have for over 600 million years (first fossils of animals).  I doubt that you'd argue any of them weren't animals.  We don't suddenly lose the distinction because we developed the ability to think about it.

Ah, see you wouldn't call bacteria animals, because animals are a lot more complex organisms, next step. I believe that people are a lot more complex organisms than animals, and a next "step" if you will too, to not  be called animals anymore, the same way bacteria isn't called animals, or rather animals are not called bacteria. 

I think that the ability to "think" about life and not just exist by basic instincts is THAT important. 

Who's to say animals don't?  They mourn when they lose a love one.

[Swagger7]

KainD wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

"Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and mostly multicellular,[4] which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic,[5] generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae.[6] They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls.[7] All animals are motile,[8] if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage,[9] which is a characteristic exclusive to animals."

Humans fit all those characteristics, just like our evolutionary ancestors have for over 600 million years (first fossils of animals).  I doubt that you'd argue any of them weren't animals.  We don't suddenly lose the distinction because we developed the ability to think about it.

Ah, see you wouldn't call bacteria animals, because animals are a lot more complex organisms, next step. I believe that people are a lot more complex organisms than animals, and a next "step" if you will too, to not  be called animals anymore, the same way bacteria isn't called animals, or rather animals are not called bacteria. 

I think that the ability to "think" about life and not just exist by basic instincts is THAT important. 

Nonsense.  Just about everything on that list is different between bacteria and animals.  The only thing they have in common is motility. 

Most of the traits we associate with human intelligence are found in other species as well, although generally to a lesser extent.  For instance, chimps are capable of understanding that other creatures also think and have goals, and they're able to analyze those goals and act accordingly.  Additionally, we know that certain animals are in fact "smarter" than us at certain things.  A chimp is better at working out spatial problems when swinging through trees.  Crows can not only recognize eachother by facial features, but they can recognize specific humans as well.  You try identifying an individual crow by its face.

There are a substantial number of psychologists who lean towards the idea that most of our intelligence is actually more developed instinct, different from other thinking animals merely in scale.

You can find far greater differences within the Kingdom Animalia itself than there are between humans, apes and monkeys.  What you're basically saying, is that our level of intelligence makes us as different from a chimp or any other animal as we are from plants or fungi or bacteria.  I find this to be quite silly if truth be told, and in all honestly this discussion is becoming quite tiresome. 

What was this thread about again? 

Modifié par Swagger7, 15 novembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[DarthLaxian]

Reznore57 wrote...

IMHO I think the cure will be a big problem and not a solution.
The only good thing is the rite is now obselete.
If the mages start curing the tranquil , i think it's gonna be a mess.
The first ever cured end up begging to be killed ,too much trauma.
On top of that , tranquility was performed for a reason...Mage who tried blood magic , mages who couldn't control their power , couldn't resist demons.
Sure some like Kark have been made tranquil for very shady reasons.
But mostly you'll end up with a bunch of deeply traumatized mages who can't properly handle their power.
That's really really bad.

bad, maybe, but it is right (!) because tranquility itself was wrong in most cases

as for traumatized mages:

trauma can be conquered - even if it takes extremes like seeking revenge on the templars or something like that)

but, even if they decide not to, i think the templar order and the chantry need to be punished for using that ritual (who developped that by the way? was it really the templars and the chantry or was it some bloodmage and they just abused the discovery of someone else (like with the phylacteries, which are bloodmagic, too - which is strange, the chantry forbidds bloodmagic, yet if they themselfes use it, it is perfectly fine?....hippocrites!)) and they need to be tasked with keeping the cured tranquil out of trouble and making their live as comfortable and self-determined (if they want to marry/leave the chantry etc. it should be allowed and they should receive live-long money for the crime commited against them!)

greetings LAX

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 15 novembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[TK514]

Haven't read the book, but I do have a question about this 'cure'.

Does it work on those that have become Tranquil because they were killed in the Fade?

[Todd23]

TK514 wrote...

Haven't read the book, but I do have a question about this 'cure'.

Does it work on those that have become Tranquil because they were killed in the Fade?

I thought that was how normal tranquil were made. But the "cure" reestablishes their connection to the fade through the use of either a powerful spirit, or demon.