3241 réponses à ce sujet

[Willowhugger]

That video is skewed. The person speaking in the first half is not the same one that became Tranquil.

The voice is nothing alike, it belongs to the woman wearing the hood, not the one with the white hair who later became a Tranquil. They just happen to be walking near each other.

 

Since she refers to the elven mage as an apprentice, it is likely she was one as well meaning she never passed her Harrowing and thus can be subjected to Tranquility.

Of course, since it was Alrik who did it and is clearly abusing her, it's possible she didn't deserve it. But there's no indication he's breaking any law.

 

That's kind of missing the point, isn't it?

 

1:] Sentencing a mage who passed their Harrowing to Tranquility is illegal. Full stop. By the Templars law.

 

2:] The illegality of 2# doesn't really matter much does it? It's meant to invoke an emotional response from people.

[Ryzaki]

gotta love snide remarks. Seekers are picked from templar ranks. If the govt does it magi are treated as weapons(as cullen claims) even more no really different from where i stand

 

A snide remark towards a fictional group? This offends you?

 

Because if it does never respond to me again. Because I'm not going to stop making snarky comments towards pixel people because you get bothered by it.

[Icy Magebane]

Among other things, I am arguing that the philosophical underpinning of historical feudal systems which you're using in your line of arguments is flawed, because it assumes a contract where there is none. Also, that a feudal system works as it does has no bearing at all on the question of whether it should be, or whether rebellion is justified. The status quo does not justify itself by existing, and a law cannot be used to justify itself.

At no point did I make a statement on whether or not rebellion or Annulment were justified.  What I said was that because the Circle is based on a set of rules that all mages are expected to follow, Sebastian is not acting out of character by agreeing with the Rite of Annulment.  Furthermore, his support of the Rite cannot be taken as a sign that he is willing to kill non-hostile "mundanes," since there is no Chantry or secular law being broken by them being present in Kirkwall if he ever came back with an army to capture and execute Anders.  That's it.

[MisterJB]

That's kind of missing the point, isn't it?

Which would be?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

"Tranquil, come out here and show yourself" wouldn't work on them if they do not like you or thought of you as a threat. DA2 dropped the ball on this, and did a disservice to this interesting aspect of the lore by reducing its complexity to cartoonish levels. And yes, adding rape into the mix doesn't make the ridiculousness of the caricaturing the writers did in that game regarding the tranquil any less cartoonish. Showing tranquils as being complacent to law breaking and personal betrayals was one of the biggest aspects of dragon age 2's writing which I would describe as being poorly done.

I dunno. I got the impression that the Tranquil in DA2 were obedient because they thought of the Templars as a threat. I agree with you that the Tranquil seem to remain limitedly emotional, and I got the impression that the Templars make use of this through threats and beatings. A being that thinks emotionally will be more likely to try and stop the situation. A being that thinks mostly rationally will fear making things worse.

[Willowhugger]

Which would be?

 

Ser Alrik is breaking Templar Law.

 

1. No Tranquility threat past your Harrowing.

 

2. The First Enchanter must sign off on Tranquility. Which we have seen no sign of.

Also...

 

3. That it's an inhuman barbaric practice to mages who are forced to deal with the mages that used to be their loved ones and friends.

[HiroVoid]

I dunno. I got the impression that the Tranquil in DA2 were obedient because they thought of the Templars as a threat.

In other words, the tranquil may not have been compliant in a Circle with harsher regulations on the templars?

[SamanthaJ]

Which would be?

What Willowhugger said. There's also the fact that the woman "belonged to Ser Alric." Even if Tranquil do have some measure of free will I very much consider that scenario rape.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I disagree with your interpretation of how the Tranquil work. I headcanon something similar but the books and games are very clear they straight up do not have any emotional expression.

 

Doesn't mean DA2 didn't butcher the way tranquil work. "I belong to sir alrik now, he's the only one who can command me" is something that had never existed in the tranquil lore until DA2.

 

They had a group of people without emotions, but still maintaining free will. Having an ability to make choices, show preferences, and done not by emotional response but by logical dictation.

 

And they decided making zombies would be a better use for this interesting aspect of the lore.

 

Tranquil don't belong to alrik. Tranquil don't belong to the one who tranquils them. Tranquil don't belong to anyone. The very notion is a betrayl of the lore, taking one of the biggest parts of tranquils, their retained free will, and chucking it out the window in favor of stupid, 90's edge, drama.

[Icy Magebane]

I dunno. I got the impression that the Tranquil in DA2 were obedient because they thought of the Templars as a threat. I agree with you that the Tranquil seem to remain limitedly emotional, and I got the impression that the Templars make use of this through threats and beatings. A being that thinks emotionally will be more likely to try and stop the situation. A being that thinks mostly rationally will fear making things worse.

Fear is an emotion though... how would that influence the behavior of a Tranquil?

[Willowhugger]

In other words, the tranquil may not have been compliant in a Circle with harsher regulations on the templars?

 

I don't see any indication the Tranquil are abused other than by, again, CRIMINALS like Ser Alrik.

 

I always figured the Tranquil just obeyed because without emotions there's no reason to disobey.

 

Which you may assume is more humane.

 

If someone has no desires, why disobey?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In other words, the tranquil may not have been compliant in a Circle with harsher regulations on the templars?

Not to so great an extent.

 

"Tranquil, help me write this document." "Yes sir."

"Tranquil, help brew some beer." "Yes sir."

"Tranquil, ($*$& me." "($*$& you."

[Ieldra]

At no point did I make a statement on whether or not rebellion or Annulment were justified.  What I said was that because the Circle is based on a set of rules that all mages are expected to follow, Sebastian is not acting out of character by agreeing with the Rite of Annulment.  Furthermore, his support of the Rite cannot be taken as a sign that he is willing to kill non-hostile "mundanes," since there is no Chantry or secular law being broken by them being present in Kirkwall if he ever came back with an army to capture and execute Anders.  That's it.

OK. It appears I missed some context. I that case, I agree that Sebastian is not out of character.

 

Having said that, his threat to raze Kirkwall to the ground (I think he said something to that effect) if Anders isn't killed does speak of his willingness to kill non-hostile non-mages.

[Icy Magebane]

OK. It appears I missed some context. I that case, I agree that Sebastian is not out of character.

No problem.

[Willowhugger]

Fear is an emotion though... how would that influence the behavior of a Tranquil?

You don't need fear to make intellectual decisions and pain is not an emotional response but a physiological one.

 

Thus, a Tranquil would try to avoid harm because it is unpleasant in a way they recognize.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Fear is an emotion though... how would that influence the behavior of a Tranquil?

Because I got the impression that their feelings aren't completely killed. They're just dimmed.

[MisterJB]

Ser Alrik is breaking Templar Law.

 

1. No Tranquility threat past your Harrowing.

 

True but there's no indication he went through with it.

 

2. The First Enchanter must sign off on Tranquility. Which we have seen no sign of.

But the only one we know he didn't was Karl.

As far as we know, Alrik was merely bending the law and then taking advantage of the Tranquil. For instance, he finds Ella escaping the Circle, convinces Meredith this is worthy of Tranquility and she pressures Orsino into signing it.

 

3. That it's an inhuman barbaric practice to mages who are forced to deal with the mages that used to be their loved ones and friends.

The families of hanged men probably don't enjoy it either.
 

 

[raging_monkey]

A snide remark towards a fictional group? This offends you? Because if it does never respond to me again. Because I'm not going to stop making snarky comments towards pixel people because you get bothered by it.

it doesnt just went along lol.

[Willowhugger]

True but there's no indication he went through with it.

 

But the only one we know he didn't was Karl.

As far as we know, Alrik was merely bending the law and then taking advantage of the Tranquil. For instance, he finds Ella escaping the Circle, convinces Meredith this is worthy of Tranquility and she pressures Orsino into signing it.

 

The families of hanged men probably don't enjoy it either.

 

Is there ANY reason to give Ser Alrik this sort of benefit of the doubt?

Also, Tranquility is not meant to be used punitively.

It's not a punishment.

It's a last-ditch method when a mage has proven incapable of fending off demons.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fear is an emotion though... how would that influence the behavior of a Tranquil?

 

Honestly, this is how I would handle the tranquil.

 

Karl: Anders, I'm apologize, but the templars discovered my plans. If I did not set up this trap, I would be executed.

 

Every tranquil in the gallows: I would like to speak with the knight enchanter. There are a number of law violations I wish to report.

[Icy Magebane]

You don't need fear to make intellectual decisions and pain is not an emotional response but a physiological one.

 

Thus, a Tranquil would try to avoid harm because it is unpleasant in a way they recognize.

Hm... my view of the Tranquil is that they have a basic self-preservation instinct, but that's about it.  For some reason or another, they follow the commands of Circle mages and Templars, and seem to have an understanding of the chain of command (otherwise, Meredith would not have used one to help her with official tasks).  I haven't seen much evidence that says they maintain a deeper understanding of reality other than "dying is bad."

[The Baconer]

But the only one we know he didn't was Karl.

As far as we know, Alrik was merely bending the law and then taking advantage of the Tranquil. For instance, he finds Ella escaping the Circle, convinces Meredith this is worthy of Tranquility and she pressures Orsino into signing it.

 

It can't be legal since Tranquility is not a punishment.

[Br3admax]

I disagree with your interpretation of how the Tranquil work. I headcanon something similar but the books and games are very clear they straight up do not have any emotional expression.

Where are your examples? Because he gave examples and you brought in nothing. 

[Willowhugger]

Having said that, his threat to raze Kirkwall to the ground (I think he said something to that effect) if Anders isn't killed does speak of his willingness to kill non-hostile non-mages.

 

Well, my Sebastian said that he supported Mage freedom from the Tyranny of the Templars so I'm not sure about that.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Is there ANY reason to give Ser Alrik this sort of benefit of the doubt?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=X8u7px_GzWQ