55 réponses à ce sujet

[EmissaryofLies]

They don't hold grievances. 

 

One can convince them to go either way according to which appeal to logic they deem the most efficient. 

[Dean_the_Young]

They don't hold grievances.

 

I don't see why not- a grievance can be based on history, rather than passionate emotion. Putting up with abuse may be worth it for a Tranquil if retaliation would spark something worse (logic-dominated reasoning), but if you changed the context it could be just as emotionless rationality to retaliate.

 

 

One can convince them to go either way according to which appeal to logic they deem the most efficient.

 

 

Certainly. Self-preservation would be an obvious one- say that some enterprising mage subjects them to a magical poison or curse that only they have the antidote or treatment for.  I don't know if Tranquil can have loved ones to threaten, but their own self-preservation would be a lever.

 

Mind you, so might money, luxuries, or sexual favors. Hedonism doesn't exactly need emotional investment.

[EmissaryofLies]

I don't see why not- a grievance can be based on history, rather than passionate emotion. Putting up with abuse may be worth it for a Tranquil if retaliation would spark something worse (logic-dominated reasoning), but if you changed the context it could be just as emotionless rationality to retaliate.

If they deemed it logical to retaliate, of course. But grievances as most denizens of Thedas would understand them, don't seem to be in their playing deck. I suppose it would be similar to the Geth Quarian conflict. That is, if you side with the Geth they eventually deem it only logical to wipe out the aggressive Quarians if the PC cannot stabilize the situation.
 
 

Certainly. Self-preservation would be an obvious one- say that some enterprising mage subjects them to a magical poison or curse that only they have the antidote or treatment for.  I don't know if Tranquil can have loved ones to threaten, but their own self-preservation would be a lever.
 
Mind you, so might money, luxuries, or sexual favors. Hedonism doesn't exactly need emotional investment.

Agreed, with self preservation.

Though I can see money as a means to end for Tranquil. But the rest? There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that such hedonistic activities would factor into their modus operandi

[Dean_the_Young]

If they deemed it logical to retaliate, of course. But grievances as most denizens of Thedas would understand them, don't seem to be in their playing deck. I suppose it would be similar to the Geth Quarian conflict. That is, if you side with the Geth they eventually deem it only logical to wipe out the aggressive Quarians if the PC cannot stabilize the situation.
 

 

Er, what? Plenty of people in Thedas understand acting against people on the basis of bad history or a lack of trust. We're talking about revenge for harms done and liable to continue, not mere prejudice or hatred.
 

Though I can see money as a means to end for Tranquil. But the rest? There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that such hedonistic activities would factor into their modus operandi

 

 

Why not? Physical pleasure is about the least emotional motivation there is in the world. Are Tranquil somehow not only emotionally incapable, but physically unfeeling as well?

[EmissaryofLies]

Er, what? Plenty of people in Thedas understand acting against people on the basis of bad history or a lack of trust. We're talking about revenge for harms done and liable to continue, not mere prejudice or hatred.

Tranquil Assassin. Revenge. Does not compute. A history of abuse I can understand and roll with. Though we've no reason to believe that tranquil are commonly abused rather than taken advantage of i.e. 'enchantment'. If they're to go against either faction in the war it'll be on a logical pretense driven by self preservation more than likely. It seems like a coin flip for which they'd support atm.
 
 

Why not? Physical pleasure is about the least emotional motivation there is in the world. Are Tranquil somehow not only emotionally incapable, but physically unfeeling as well?

Why would they seek pleasure?

[KainD]

Hedonism doesn't exactly need emotional investment.

 

Does, and is utterly reliant on it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tranquil Assassin. Revenge. Does not compute. A history of abuse I can understand and roll with. Though we've no reason to believe that tranquil are commonly abused rather than taken advantage of i.e. 'enchantment'. If they're to go against either faction in the war it'll be on a logical pretense driven by self preservation more than likely. It seems like a coin flip for which they'd support atm.
 

 

Why do you care about commonly, or collectives? Why can't the Tranquil make up their minds as individuals- some falling in with the Templars for this reason, and some falling in with the Mages for that, with many or even most never being factional?

 

It's not like the idea of a Tranquil Assassin is somehow what every Tranquil needs to do or be.

 

 

Why would they seek pleasure?

 

 

Because it feels good. Kind of like why they avoid pain, which feels bad.

 

Again, are we supposed to work from an assumption that the Tranquil don't have physical feelings?

[Dean_the_Young]

Does, and is utterly reliant on it.

 

Are we talking physical or emotional hedonism? There are two general schools of thought on it, so I admit I was being lazy in the physical pleasure one.

[KainD]

Again, are we supposed to work from an assumption that the Tranquil don't have physical feelings?

 

To be fair that's the problem. All emotions are physical, chemical process in the brain, and it doesn't really make sense how that is supposed to go away when a person is cut off from the fade.

 

I very often have a thought that emotions in DA universe function by different scientific laws than RL, and as such tranquil should be just taken as the lore says they are, regardless of the fact that it doesn't make any sense, and it shouldn't be debatable. 

[Dean_the_Young]

To be fair that's the problem. All emotions are physical, chemical process in the brain, and it doesn't really make sense how that is supposed to go away when a person is cut off from the fade.

 

Oh, that part is easy- alter the processes in the brain. You could alter the producers, or the receivers, or something else. With, you know, magic.

 

As for the difference in philosophies, that's just a matter of focus. Physical hedonism is much more friendly and direct about drugs, luxuries, and physical enjoyment than emotional hedonism's focus on mental state.

 

I very often have a thought that emotions in DA universe function by different scientific laws than RL, and as such tranquil should be just taken as the lore says they are, regardless of the fact that it doesn't make any sense, and it shouldn't be debatable.

 

 

Why not? The lore of the DA universe itself is limited and imperfect by design.

[EmissaryofLies]

Why do you care about commonly, or collectives? Why can't the Tranquil make up their minds as individuals- some falling in with the Templars for this reason, and some falling in with the Mages for that, with many or even most never being factional?
 
It's not like the idea of a Tranquil Assassin is somehow what every Tranquil needs to do or be.

If they have reason to believe that one side or the other seeks their termination or to abuse them, they can logically decide to support such a side's opposition. An abused tranquil deciding to support the mages because they believe that if the Chantry maintains control they will die? Sure I can believe that. But out of a need for revenge? Definitely not.
 
 
 

Because it feels good. Kind of like why they avoid pain, which feels bad.
 
Again, are we supposed to work from an assumption that the Tranquil don't have physical feelings?

They avoid pain because of self preservation.

I sure didn't see the guy who ran Wonders of Thedas in the Black Pearl. Perhaps if such an assassin were trying to blend in and get close to a target they would take part in these activities. There has to be a logical and rational reason behind it.

[KainD]

As for the difference in philosophies, that's just a matter of focus. Physical hedonism is much more friendly and direct about drugs, luxuries, and physical enjoyment than emotional hedonism's focus on mental state.

 

I don't think so. Drugs alter your emotional state, luxury will not be appreciated if it is not about convenience. There's not that many things a person can actually enjoy purely physically. The only thing from the top of my head would be some delicate food and something like a body massage. Even for making love you need to have a specific emotional state. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't think so. Drugs alter your emotional state, luxury will not be appreciated if it is not about convenience. There's not that many things a person can actually enjoy purely physically. The only thing from the top of my head would be some delicate food and something like a body massage. Even for making love you need to have a specific emotional state. 

 

Meh, I disagree- especially with sex, physical pleasure can be separated from emotional satisfaction. Kind of how masturbation works without narcissism.

 

If you don't make such a distinction in the first place, not really anything else to say here.

[EmissaryofLies]

"The Tranquil are stripped of their capacity to form anything other than a logical opinion.[5] However, they neither lose their memory[3] nor become automatons: they possess free will. They do not wish to die[5] and are no more susceptible to suggestion than they were previously. They are more agreeable and would not normally oppose an authority figure,[3] since they do not possess the desire to object[6], but if the Tranquil saw a logical reason not to follow an order, they would do so.[5] Tranquil can't take offense and know no modesty.[4]"

"The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out of creating takes much of the impetus away for them to change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to.[5]"

They're barely even people.

[KainD]

Meh, I disagree- especially with sex, physical pleasure can be separated from emotional satisfaction. Kind of how masturbation works without narcissism.

 

If you don't make such a distinction in the first place, not really anything else to say here.

 

Finding something sexy is an emotional thing. How can you have sex in the first place / lest enjoy it with someone who doesn't turn you on? And what people find sexy is subjective and has emotions built into those opinions. 

[Dean_the_Young]

If they have reason to believe that one side or the other seeks their termination or to abuse them, they can logically decide to support such a side's opposition. An abused tranquil deciding to support the mages because they believe that if the Chantry maintains control they will die? Sure I can believe that. But out of a need for revenge? Definitely not.
 

 

You don't think an act of revenge (or, if you prefer, retribution- less emotional connotations there) can't be justified on logical grounds?

 

They avoid pain because of self preservation.

 

 

That's silly. There are plenty of pains that are not existential threats: in fact, most of them aren't. You avoid pain because it hurts, not because you will die if you don't.

I sure didn't see the guy who ran Wonders of Thedas in the Black Pearl. Perhaps if such an assassin were trying to blend in and get close to a target they would take part in these activities. There has to be a logical and rational reason behind it.

 

Possibly because he was in the Wonders of Thedas. Unless you really wish to argue that not seeing a shop keeper somewhere besides their shop means they never go there- but the only logical conclusion from that argument is that pretty much all the shop keepers we see stay in the same spot we always see them in, because we never see them elsewhere. But that would be silly.

 

I'm confused why you don't think 'because it feels good' can't be a logical and rational reason behind an action.

[KainD]

You don't think an act of revenge (or, if you prefer, retribution- less emotional connotations there) can't be justified on logical grounds?

 

Never. Complete and utter emotion. 

[Dean_the_Young]

"The Tranquil are stripped of their capacity to form anything other than a logical opinion.[5] However, they neither lose their memory[3] nor become automatons: they possess free will. They do not wish to die[5] and are no more susceptible to suggestion than they were previously. They are more agreeable and would not normally oppose an authority figure,[3] since they do not possess the desire to object[6], but if the Tranquil saw a logical reason not to follow an order, they would do so.[5] Tranquil can't take offense and know no modesty.[4]"

"The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out of creating takes much of the impetus away for them to change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to.[5]"

They're barely even people.

Sure, if you take a hodge-podge of various different sources, some of them distinctly not authoritative or objective, some even contradictory, and then mash them together for a wiki article.

 

Personally I feel the Gaider quote not actually quoted (despite being from the source) is most relevant-

 

There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

 

Well, you know, besides the points where he refutes or qualifies some of the points made in the wiki paragraph.

[EmissaryofLies]

You don't think an act of revenge (or, if you prefer, retribution- less emotional connotations there) can't be justified on logical grounds?

re·venge[ ri vénj ]
punishment: the punishment of somebody in retaliation for harm done
retaliation act: something done to get even with somebody else who has caused harm
desire for retaliation: the desire or urge to get even with somebody
 
No I do not. 

 

Or as you said before, only because the offending party is likely to subject the tranquil to abuse and or death. Not out of a need to get even or a desire for retribution in and of itself. 
 

That's silly. There are plenty of pains that are not existential threats: in fact, most of them aren't. You avoid pain because it hurts, not because you will die if you don't.

That's one of the reasons that one avoids pain, yes. It also is not logical to pursue pain as it could very well put one in danger. 

 

Possibly because he was in the Wonders of Thedas. Unless you really wish to argue that not seeing a shop keeper somewhere besides their shop means they never go there- but the only logical conclusion from that argument is that pretty much all the shop keepers we see stay in the same spot we always see them in, because we never see them elsewhere. But that would be silly.
 
I'm confused why you don't think 'because it feels good' can't be a logical and rational reason behind an action.

I'm arguing that there's no evidence in the lore that suggests that Tranquil go out and partake in these activities purely for pleasure or that they ever would for selfish reasons.

And in the codex source I provided it is claimed that many Tranquil assume a placid smile because it puts others at ease. Not because they are pleased.

Not sure if these acts of hedonism would physically feel good, but I can say for certain that a tranquil would not possess the desire to seek out and partake in these activities to 'feel good'. 

 

So it's more of a 'won't' rather than a 'can't'. 

 

 

 

Edit: Also the Wiki provided references that are in fact, authoritative. 
 

[Dean_the_Young]

Never. Complete and utter emotion. 

 

Ok. I disagree, but that was probably obvious already.

[The Baconer]

You don't think an act of revenge (or, if you prefer, retribution- less emotional connotations there) can't be justified on logical grounds?

 

I guess, but said grounds would be extremely flimsy.

[Wulfram]

Deterence can be a logical reason for revenge.

[The Baconer]

Deterence can be a logical reason for revenge.

 

IMO, I don't think it would be classified as revenge or retribution at that point.

[KainD]

Deterence can be a logical reason for revenge.

 

No. Deterrence can be a logical action in and of itself. There is no need to mash it with revenge. 

[KainD]

Ok. I disagree, but that was probably obvious already.

 

What's the point of the whole discussion then if it's a subjective topic? Everybody basically have the right to their opinion on the tranquil as there is no objective answer.