Wait, with veil tear a tranquil can run outside and yell "help". The fade creatures will see and hear him physically and you have an angry former tranquil abomination ready to kill every last Templar.
And what? Are we then just supposed to return those Tranquil who had been legitimately made so back to their former selves, powers in tact? It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
No, it means I've seen enough not to give the system the benefit of the doubt because it doesn't deserve it. It has, as a fact, been abused and therefore must be rectified.
Because of what? One Templar?
Even if you buy into him violating the letter if not the spirit of the Law Alrik had legitimate reason to tranquilize Karl, and the rest of them were well...Debatable.
OR are you going to go the Jowan route? You know him being made tranquil on a rumor, you know despite the Knight Commander supposedly having an eye witness seeing him use blood magic, and then him later...Well you know, being a blood mage.
Seems to me, the two instances most often cited for the abuse of tranquility seem to be more subjective then black and white violation of the law.
And every other being
Abominations are abominations after all.
And every other being
Possibly but so far we have seen demons taking priority in host's emotions and wants. For example remember Evelina? The abomination did not harm the children. Connor did not harm his family etc... They are an abomination but they share something with their hosts. They are not mindless at all.
Possibly but so far we have seen demons taking priority in host's emotions and wants. For example remember Evelina? The abomination did not harm the children. Connor did not harm his family etc... They are an abomination but they share something with their hosts. They are not mindless at all.
Uh, it seemed pretty intent upon killing the children after it learned that its location had been given away by them.
Abominations are something that i think both sides of the spectrum can come together on.
They need to die.
Possibly but so far we have seen demons taking priority in host's emotions and wants. For example remember Evelina? The abomination did not harm the children. Connor did not harm his family etc... They are an abomination but they share something with their hosts. They are not mindless at all.
Yup, cause this guy really cared about his host's wants and dreams.
Yup, cause this guy really cared about his host's wants and dreams.
The mage is merely a meat puppet to a demon.
There is no truck, no alliance.
Its a domination of the physical via the immaterial.
Uh, it seemed pretty intent upon killing the children after it learned that its location had been given away by them.
Abominations are something that i think both sides of the spectrum can come together on.
They need to die.
NOPE.
It thought about the children and it called them my children.
The do need to die but that doesn't mean they can't be used as cannon fodder.
Yup, cause this guy really cared about his host's wants and dreams.
Hence I said possibly as its not always the case.
Because of what? One Templar?
Even if you buy into him violating the letter if not the spirit of the Law Alrik had legitimate reason to tranquilize Karl, and the rest of them were well...Debatable.
OR are you going to go the Jowan route? You know him being made tranquil on a rumor, you know despite the Knight Commander supposedly having an eye witness seeing him use blood magic, and then him later...Well you know, being a blood mage.
Seems to me, the two instances most often cited for the abuse of tranquility seem to be more subjective then black and white violation of the law.
One highly-ranked Templar and his subordinates. We had less than that in the Kirkwall City Guard, and that was rectified by the changing of the Captain of the Guard. And yes Alrik is the only known instance but then there is no evidence that other Templars wouldn't have similar mindsets. Meanwhile there is evidence of them having the same mindset, for example Cullen thinking it may be better if they Tranquilized the lot of them.
Possibly a member of the Chantry.
Taking that other concept art into account, I can only conclude that invididual dressed in red is none other than...
the Crimson King!
NOPE.
It thought about the children and it called them my children.
The do need to die but that doesn't mean they can't be used as cannon fodder.
Umm, no how about they don't resort to idiotic tactics
NOPE.
It thought about the children and it called them my children.
The do need to die but that doesn't mean they can't be used as cannon fodder.
You mean: "Oh God like usual you are right in you're divine will and i am wrong"
0:35-0:45
._.
If that doesn't imply serious harm coming to the children that loony abomination is the future president of Space England.
The do need to die but that doesn't mean they can't be used as cannon fodder.
Oh, I'm sure the demons who have spent who knows how long waiting to obtain a body will gladly just throw it away for a cause that has nothing to do with it. 
You mean: "Oh God like usual you are right in you're divine will and i am wrong"
0:35-0:45
._.
If that doesn't imply serious harm coming to the children that loony abomination is the future president of Space England.
The beat part of this video is the sounds of the traps going off in the background. 
One highly-ranked Templar and his subordinates. We had less than that in the Kirkwall City Guard, and that was rectified by the changing of the Captain of the Guard. And yes Alrik is the only known instance but then there is no evidence that other Templars wouldn't have similar mindsets. Meanwhile there is evidence of them having the same mindset, for example Cullen thinking it may be better if they Tranquilized the lot of them.
So basically the argument here is "Only one notable instance despite it the entirety of the situation being debatable and i view in this manner and therefore its right."
Fair enough, just don't expect me to support the position.
So basically the argument here is "Only one notable instance despite it the entirety of the situation being debatable and i view in this manner and therefore its right."
Fair enough, just don't expect me to support the position.
Except the entirety of the situation is not debatable. Please give me evidence that Alrik was in the right for using Tranquility on say...the female mage who wanders in the Gallows.
Except the entirety of the situation is not debatable. Please give me evidence that Alrik was in the right for using Tranquility on say...the female mage who wanders in the Gallows.
Given we know nothing of that entire situation beyond what is said by a Mage and the Tranquil herself?
Its not anything but assumption to assume it was done against her will.
Also you are proporting this position, you're evidence is the sort that would get tossed out of any court via being argued conjecture.
Least i happen to maintain he could have done wrong in the case of Karl, but again that's only violating the letter of that law, not its spirit.
After all, there have been several cases where i think that Chantry Law should have been changed to allow the tranqulization of Circle Mages.
Given we know nothing of that entire situation beyond what is said by a Mage and the Tranquil herself?
Its not anything but assumption to assume it was done against her will.
Are you actually trying to defend Alrik?
Given we know nothing of that entire situation beyond what is said by a Mage and the Tranquil herself?
Its not anything but assumption to assume it was done against her will.
Hmm, female mage was in love with male mage before. Not in love after. Yeah, I'm sure she just threw that away.
Are you actually trying to defend Alrik?
Yes, he is. I believe it is him and KainD who actually think Alrik wasn't wrong in turning mages into his sex slaves.
Yes, he is. I believe it is him and KainD who actually think Alrik wasn't wrong in turning mages into his sex slaves.
wut
O_O
Hmm, female mage was in love with male mage before. Not in love after. Yeah, I'm sure she just threw that away.
That's his position.
And you assume it to be right, Maybe i am just an older man but i will say this.
We can delude ourselves on that front quite accurately...take my word on that, Their relationship could have been intimate, it could have been a mere fantasy of his.
We don't know. Point is though, People tout Alrik like he is the Anti Christ when in truth?
The "Evidence" of his crimes are mostly circumstantial duologue and implied innuendo and little else.
I don't understand why we would take the word of a man who made creepy rape overtures to a girl he was about to make tranquil over literally anyone else in the entire world.
Are you actually trying to defend Alrik?
No, I'm pointing out the evidence against him is WEAK.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut