55 réponses à ce sujet

[AlaskaThe1st]

I was think up a story about a faction of the chantry, that's all about quieting down certain groups or people. Then it hit me, can the tranquil be assassins. I think it's an amusing little idea if anything.

[KaiserShep]

I'd like to see a tranquil assassin. They'd be like the IG-88 of Dragon Age. No emotion, just death.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I'd like to see something like that myself, but it'd need to be handled really, really, well. No robotic "I was told to do this so I must" type stuff, that's the view of someone who doesn't understand that not having emotions doesn't mean not having free will. They'd need to have a logical reason to do so, one that wasn't tied to emotions but instead simple reasoning. It'd also need to facilitate the tranquil not having a means of overcoming their sense of self-preservation, and why they would risk their life in this type of pursuit.]

 

But personally, I think it could work.

[Klidi]

No robotic "I was told to do this so I must" type stuff, that's the view of someone who doesn't understand that not having emotions doesn't mean not having free will.

 

True, but that how it is in the games. Owain, for example - he doesn't escape, because it is his duty to keep the storeroom tidy so he will do that no matter what happens around him. The other tranquils as well - they do not try to defend themselves, they just stand there and let maleficars hurt them... They don't have any sens onf self-preservation, because they do not feel fear of death. All around them there are maleficars and abominations, people are dying - but their reaction is, 'that was an unpleasant experience'.

 

That's why I think they wouldn't be good assassins - they wouldn't be able to react quickly in unexpected situations.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Owain says he tried to escape but encountered a barrier. He didn't know anyone was alive on the otherside of that barrier who would hear him, and owain knows the protocol for such an event like this is to quarantine the circle. There is no evidence the barrier was being powered directly by someone on the other side, we know there exists barriers fully independent of a caster being present, as we see in the circles basement level with the door requiring a templar and mage be present. Given that information, it stands to reason that banging on the door in hope of someone being on the otherside, is less likely to happened compared to going to his previous hiding space, which was not only proven to be safe, but also carriers a familiarity for him. It suggests as well there may be more to tranquil then being simply emotionless, if they can form associations like that.

 

As for the other tranquil, prey tell what exactly were they suppose to do? The maleficars had blood magic, and probably could have forced them into following their orders. In fact there isn't evidence that that isn't what happened. The tranquil do not possess weapons nor magic, so what should they have used for self defense? They don't have fear or panic, they don't have overwhelming sadness or anger. They have logic and reason, and that is enough for them to know this are indeed in a state opposite and unconductive of pleasant.

 

And I think they would be poisoners if they were assassins. They prepare you a nice meal with some nightshade mixed into your food and drink, and leave before you finish. Bingo Bango, the targets in his bed feeling terrible, the apothecary's trying to figure out what happened, and the ever trustworthy tranquil has already slipped out of the castle and into the night through the front door, no one bothering to remember them because of how much of a massive wallflower the tranquil are.

[katerinafm]

In Asunder, they say that the tranquil are not without free will and that they follow orders because it is convenient. I somehow doubt they would agree with killing people just from being ordered to unless there was good logic to back it up. Besides, the Chantry already has assassins/bards working for them (like Leliana), they just work subtly.

[Wolfen09]

the concept is interesting, but to put it into practice only someone who is completely off their rocker would try such a thing

[Gervaise]

You have to have a sufficiently good reason for a Tranquil to be dedicated to the role of assassin.   Most assassins are reasonably ambitious people, want to get on in the world, rise above their fellows on the streets and have natural cunning, plus a willingness to kill people who have not personally done them any harm, just got on the wrong side of someone with enough money to hire an assassin to do their dirty work for them.

 

Tranquil do not have ambition and money is also unlikely to be a motivation of itself.   They are very focussed when set a task but need a sufficiently good reason to stick to it in the first place.   They seem to like order in their lives and therefore are more likely to be law abiding.   

 

I feel that a good assassin needs to have a fair bit of imagination and be adaptable enough to change course if their original plan doesn't work out.   For example, Zevran decided it would be better to change sides to avoid death and then, provided the Warden treats him okay, will stick with his new employers because he/she appears to be a good bet.  Also to be good at hunting down and killing people you actually do need a degree of empathy so you can anticipate their next likely move.  So as suggested above, if you could persuade a Tranquil to administer a poison in someone's food or drink, they would probably carry it out successfully enough, but if it didn't work out the first time, would not be able to come up with an alternative on their own.    I doubt a Tranquil would be adaptable enough to survive in the cut throat world of assassins.

[Zack_Nero]

I'll admit, I'll never see that coming

[Grieving Natashina]

I'll admit, I'll never see that coming

That would be creative for sure.  

 

Oh, the Tranquil have free will, but if you present your assassin request in such a way that it appears logical, I could see them doing it.  While I agree that they wouldn't be able to survive if they stayed in the world of assassins for long, I could see a person of low morale using them from time to time.  I personally think using someone like the Tranquil is pretty sick and wrong, but I sadly could see the pragmatic side of such a tactic.

 

 

the concept is interesting, but to put it into practice only someone who is completely off their rocker would try such a thing

 

From what I've seen and read, there is no shortage of crazy mofos in Thedas that might do just that.  

[Wulfram]

It's hard to really talk about the Tranquil because I don't think we have a very coherent idea of how they work.  The idea that they work purely on logic is problematic, because logic can't operate without axioms, and axioms can't themselves be logically derived.  Maybe they still have instincts despite lacking emotions, but that would be a pretty fine distinction - where does an instinct for self-preservation end and fear begin?

 

I guess if you had a way that you could kill them from afar you might be able to coerce one into becoming an assassin, since they do appear to have some sense of self preservation.

[renfrees]

You would have to find logical reason to train them as assassins first.

[Dean_the_Young]

How about a Tranquil assassin of mages whose motivation is to remain a Tranquil?

 

As abhorrent as Tranquility is to many players, the Tranquil themselves don't seem to feel their fate is horrible- and some even prefer it. We know that some mages actively ask for it- whether they are a minority is irrelevant to the fact that they do exist. They may be derided and dismissed, they may even be deemed unfit to make the choice by people who disagree with tranquility, but they still exist. And it used to be that, since Tranquility was permanent, there was nothing anyone could do about it afterwards.

 

But that was before the Cure was developed. Now, the prospect that the Tranquil can be cured is a factor for everyone who knows: anyone convinced that Tranquility is unjustified can seek to reverse it, while claiming the Tranquil's own views are irrelevant.

 

Do these people have the Cure? Not necessarily. Do they even need it? Not really. As long as they know it's possible (and, to be blunt, the events of Asunder don't prevent this knowledge from spreading), they can work for it. And as long as they could be working for it, a Tranquil who prefers to be Tranquil can have a reason to oppose them, even if doing so is a risk.

 

 

 

 

So here's a scenario setup- we have our would-be Tranquil Assassin, a Tranquil who willingly became one and prefers it. A clever Templar who knows about the cure, how mages tend to look over the Tranquil's own perspectives, and who happens to understand the Tranquil in question, comes up with the plan.

 

He tells the Tranquil about the existence of the Cure. The Tranquil doesn't want it. But the Templar points out that there are many mages out there who won't care about what the Tranquil wants. These mages know about it and be trying to recreate it, so that they can 'save' the Tranquil and then conscript the restored mages for their own rebellion. The more Tranquil they cure, the more able they will be to cure, until the Tranquil would be the next to be saved. Any mage victory could do the same, if successful.

 

Unless, of course, someone is able to stop them before they can complete the cure. The Templars are too obvious. Simple mundanes would be viewed with suspicion. There are no mage moles who could prevent this.

 

If only there was someone the Mages wouldn't think to fear. Someone they would take for granted, even sympathize with, but who it wouldn't occur to them might be actively opposed to them...

 

And so the Tranquil becomes the Tranquil Assassin. Posing as a regular Tranquil, being found by mages and playing to their sympathies (and needs). Getting close, unsuspected, finding the next target who could be helping the Cure research (or is just critical to organizing the local mage resistance)... and then betraying them. A message to the Templars, a knife to the heart, a gate opened or closed at the worst time. And then the Tranquil Assassin goes elsewhere and does it again: a different disguise, a different identity, a different story, but the same mission. Stop the mages. Stop the cure.

 

It's risky, but there are worse things than death. Not being Tranquil can be one of them.

[Wulfram]

How can a Tranquil have a preference?

[Dean_the_Young]

How can a Tranquil have a preference?

 

They already do, so wouldn't the better question be 'how not'?

 

 

 

Edit for explanation: We already have it established that Tranquil do have a sense of self-preservation- whether some people found it convincing in DAO or not, it's out there in the lore. We also, from talking or listening to Tranquil, can hear them express views: there's a Tranquil in the Gallows Courtyeard that claims things would be better had Alrik's Traquil solution been adopted. We also have established, via WOG, that they can feel things like 'satisfaction of a job well done'.

 

The idea that the Tranquil can not have opinions or preferences because those require emotional investment and the Tranquil have no emotions is fatally flawed because Tranquil have expressed preferences and opinions. That's part of the lore, and their own expression.

 

Somewhere in the supporting argument there is a mistake- it could be the idea that opinions and preferences require emotions, or it could be the underling assumption that the Tanquil have no emotions in the first place. It could be both, or it could be something else- a fundamental misunderstanding of how Tranquility works. Personally, I focus more on the later: the premise of the emotionless tranquil fundamentally incapable of emotion could simply be an erronious exaggeration- Tranquility could be more comparable to, say, an emotional cropping (leaving the roots but preventing growth), or emotional smothering (constant suppression) than removal and incapabiity.

 

But regardless, we know that the Tranquil are capable of opinions. We know they can have a sense of self-preservation. These are outputs- the question is in our understanding of the Tranquil, which I suspect is generally flawed by assigning a greater role to emotions than need be.

[Wulfram]

"I don't want to feel, and I feel so strongly about this that I'll kill you!"

[Dean_the_Young]

"I don't want to feel, and I feel so strongly about this that I'll kill you!"

 

Why not 'I don't want to feel, and I feel so little about you that I see no reason not to kill you.'?

 

Your quote rests on a premise of passion overcoming something. Why not passivity towards the alternative instead?

 

To put it another way: what emotional reason does a Tranquil have to NOT be an assassin? Why does a Tranquil require a 'strong' emotion to do something?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I don't really think a tranquil could have a deep, ideological stance. I can't really see how that would work without any emotional attachment. At the point that it's gone that far, it seems more like an argument to me that tranquility never actually removed emotional capacity. If a tranquil FEELS strongly about not FEELING, then they are still feeling and acting primarily on emotion. It comes from an emotional center. They're afraid/repulsed/etc by the memory of their emotions and work to avoid it on the same emotion they felt before becoming tranquil. What they felt about their emotions should have been erased with their emotions. At this point, there shouldn't be any emotional attachment to being or not being tranquil. If a tranquil can remember and relate to hating their emotions, they should be able to remember and relate to loving their emotions and fight not to be a tranquil. If they can't do one, they shouldn't be able to do either. If they can do both, then tranquility isn't really what we thought it was.

[Dean_the_Young]

Where does feeling strongly need to come in, though? Why can't feeling weekly about something, and even weaker about everything else, suffice?

 

Not, mind you, that I don't agree that tranquility probably isn't really what people thought it was. I've never been convinced that emotional 'erasure' was as complete as some have argued.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Where does feeling strongly need to come in, though? Why can't feeling weekly about something, and even weaker about everything else, suffice?

 

Not, mind you, that I don't agree that tranquility probably isn't really what people thought it was. I've never been convinced that emotional 'erasure' was as complete as some have argued.

The question is, why would a higher value be placed on the tranquil's lack of emotions? Why would they value the way they felt about their emotions before tranquility more than anything else they felt before tranquility? Maybe it could be because that was the most important thing to them before tranquility and tranquility just numbs emotions, rather than removes them, but that has some problems, too.

 

If it's because tranquils are simply emotionally numbed and not actually incapable, as the claim, I have a hard time explaining Karl in DA2. Karl didn't want to become tranquil. When we see him, he's happy as a tranquil. Maybe he changed his mind after experiencing it, would be the first thought, but then he's cured temporarily and we starkly see this is not the case. He begs for death rather than become tranquil again. His emotional investment in the issue flips on and off with the state of his tranquility. So, to me, that supports the idea that they're still arguing it is a complete removal of emotions, rather than just numbing. His opinions after tranquility aren't just numbed version of his opinions before tranquility, he entirely loses his emotional investment. 

[Dean_the_Young]

The question is, why would a higher value be placed on the tranquil's lack of emotions? Why would they value the way they felt about their emotions before tranquility more than anything else they felt before tranquility? Maybe it could be because that was the most important thing to them before tranquility and tranquility just numbs emotions, rather than removes them, but that has some problems, too.

 

Or it could be akin to how time can let emotions fade: I can remember loving a pet, for example, without feeling the same emotion now. The memories of emotions and sensations aren't necessarily the same as the emotions and sensations themselves, but they can still guide us.

 

So why would a higher value be placed on a Tranquil's lack of emotions? Simple: the Tranquil Assassin could remember that they didn't like their previous state, even if they can't feel the previous state anymore. I can't remember what stitches with a faulty anesthetic felt like, but I certainly don't need to feel that pain to want to avoid it.
 

 

If it's because tranquils are simply emotionally numbed and not actually incapable, as the claim, I have a hard time explaining Karl in DA2. Karl didn't want to become tranquil. When we see him, he's happy as a tranquil. Maybe he changed his mind after experiencing it, would be the first thought, but then he's cured temporarily and we starkly see this is not the case. He begs for death rather than become tranquil again. His emotional investment in the issue flips on and off with the state of his tranquility. So, to me, that supports the idea that they're still arguing it is a complete removal of emotions, rather than just numbing. His opinions after tranquility aren't just numbed version of his opinions before tranquility, he entirely loses his emotional investment.

 

 

Why a complete removal of emotions, rather than a complete change of perspective? A difference of position that leads to a difference of conclusion?

 

To take one example, drug use. Or just being drunk- the state of being drunk can change your perspective and how you feel about things compared to when you're sober. I know a person who, when sober, doesn't like the sensation and lack of control of being drunk. But if you get a  few drinks into them (which they will do on special occasions and social politeness), they don't mind it at all- while drunk, they enjoy being drunk. But the next day the go back to disliking it.

 

Or consider people who take medication to stabilize emotional volatility. I had a friend on medication who put it in terms that make a strong parallel with Tranquility, years before Dragon Age even existed: when he was on the medication, he was content and focused and appreciated the stability compared to the volatility- it was peaceful, he didn't suffer, and he could focus past the depressions. But when he slipped off it and was prone to maniac/depressive swings, he hated being on the medication- compared to that maniac intensity of emotion, he said he felt like he couldn't feel anything at all while on the meds. He realized he cared less about his hobbies and passions, he was largely ambivalent, he had a hard time feeling anything, and it scared him because he was afraid he didn't care about people or things... but only when he was off his medication. (And that was when he wasn't in depressive fits, at which point he wanted to go to the state of lacking emotion, to make the pain stop.)

 

The point isn't that Tranquility is the same as overdosing a person on ADD medication (though I feel the comparison has merit)- the point is that the same person can have significantly different character, opinions, and conclusions depending on changes to their mental state.

[Zack_Nero]

How can a Tranquil have a preference?

Well, tranquil do still have some preference.  They don't take to it as strongly but still do try to achieve there goal.  The only one really being is to live and great there job done.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Tranquil already argue that their state of being is currently preferable to how they see everyone else, owain and the tranquil at ostagar both propose a similar argument in that regard. So saying tranquil don't have preferences, when they have expressed preferences and willingness to disagree and debate when it comes to that preference, is kinda disingenuous.

[EmissaryofLies]

Would love Tranquil assassins, especially for the mage rebellion.

 

Shouldn't be hard to convince them to take out high priority Chantry members if they stand in our way. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Or take out mages. Mages are the ones more likely to try and 'free' them from their present state, after all- have we met a Tranquil who holds a grievance against the Chantry?