55 réponses à ce sujet

[EmissaryofLies]

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. 

 

How do you feel about objective answers, Kain?

[KainD]

How do you feel about objective answers, Kain?

 

I love them. 

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

Why did you throw in a third definition that wasn't necessitated by the first two? Desire as an emotion only entered the equation you brought it in- but 'urge' doesn't need to be an emotional sense.

 

You're raising desire when it is used as a synonym for motivation. We already know the Tranquil can have that.

 

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. 

 

 

Where's the functional difference if the tranquil believes they are likely to be subject to future abuse and/or death on the basis of past abuse and/or death? (Death to other tranquil, obviously.)

 

If you can provide a better term for 'killing someone because of what they did to me in the past fueling concern of what they might do in the future,' I'd be happy to entertain it. Revenge (of the stoic sort, naturally) seems to fit that well enough as a description, though.

 

 

 

 

 

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'.

 

Gaider says that the Tranquil can appreciate living productive and comfortable lives in the Circle over alternatives in the outside, and also points out that they'll avoid basic pain. Wynn talks about the Tranquil being exceptional brewers with a good taste in drink. Neither of these contradict the Tranquil not being emotionally expressive and smiling.

 

These are recognitions of pysical comfort- what is your equivalent of 'can't'?

[Dean_the_Young]

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

 

Why don't you think retribution would fit? One of the definitions of it is 'something given or inflicted in such requital.' If the basis of the motivation is past actions...

[The Baconer]

Why don't you think retribution would fit? One of the definitions of it is 'something given or inflicted in such requital.' If the basis of the motivation is past actions...

 

Because it wouldn't really be about what the offender did, but preemptively stopping what they could potentially do in the future. While the past actions are indeed a motivator (in that they are used as evidence that suggests a trend in the offender's activities), they aren't really the object of retaliation.

 

Retribution implies a compensation, or a correction of a past wronging, which isn't really happening here.

[EmissaryofLies]

Why did you throw in a third definition that wasn't necessitated by the first two? Desire as an emotion only entered the equation you brought it in- but 'urge' doesn't need to be an emotional sense.
 
You're raising desire when it is used as a synonym for motivation. We already know the Tranquil can have that.

 
Revenge insinuates desire. A want for comeuppance. A Tranquil will not have this desire. They will not want revenge. That is not to say that the tranquil will not have motivation to stop an aggressor from taking control over him or her because it's logical to avoid or destroy an enemy.  That is all that it would come down to. I do not see a Tranquil tracking down the knight commander who placed the order to make him so or going after an Alrik who abused him or her, unless it was logical to take such actions. Not out of vengeance. 
 

Where's the functional difference if the tranquil believes they are likely to be subject to future abuse and/or death on the basis of past abuse and/or death? (Death to other tranquil, obviously.)
 
If you can provide a better term for 'killing someone because of what they did to me in the past fueling concern of what they might do in the future,' I'd be happy to entertain it. Revenge (of the stoic sort, naturally) seems to fit that well enough as a description, though.

 
I disagree. The tranquil would kill the person in question to prevent future abuse. It is cold and logical.
 
Or as others have said, deterrence. 
 
 

Gaider says that the Tranquil can appreciate living productive and comfortable lives in the Circle over alternatives in the outside, and also points out that they'll avoid basic pain. Wynn talks about the Tranquil being exceptional brewers with a good taste in drink. Neither of these contradict the Tranquil not being emotionally expressive and smiling.
 
These are recognitions of pysical comfort- what is your equivalent of 'can't'?

All of that fits into the wiki entry that I referenced.

None of it begins to approach the notion that they do so for pleasure or because it makes them 'feel good'.

"The Tranquil perform all sorts of menial and administrative functions in the towers: they service the mages' chambers, purchase the supplies, act as storekeepers,manage the archives, and maintain the records. They can also serve as sellers in Circle of Magi shops."

They are not pleasure seekers and there is no evidence that we know of to suggest as much.

I'd also like a link to the Gaider quote.