172 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Raijin]

Of all the judgements this one really hit the homerun. As a diehard mage player whom I take mage rights extremely seriously don't understand why most of my companions disapproves of me of sentencing Livius Erimond to be made tranquil.

 

Solas disapproves
Dorian disapproves
Cassandra slightly approves
Blackwall disapproves
Cole disapproves
Vivienne approves

 

Giving Livius Erimond the death penalty is exactly what he wants because he thinks that he would serve his "god" in the afterlife. Why should I give this man what he truly desire? Why should I give him what he wants when I could very well take away the very source of power that he abused to bring terror into Thedas? Instead of death he would become tranquil, and help my Inquisition organization with enchanting weapons and armor. At least he would be of good use. I could never understand why my companions would disapprove of my choice of action.

 

As a mage inquisitor who was a circle mage at one time I feel that I need to set an example to my fellow mages by demonstrating the proper use of magic.

 

While I don't necessary approve the Rite of Tranquility I do support the concept of using it as a punishment. Sometimes a person is not responsible for wielding such power, and instead of killing them you take away the very source of what they have. They can still be useful after the Rite.

[ewauksonian]

I don't see what's the problem. It's not surprising that Solas, Dorian, Cole, or Blackwall disapproves. Solas doesn't like it because he sees as it as punishment for Erimond being a mage. Dorian doesn't like it because he seems as the powerful mages using it on weaker magers (in his homeland). Cole is a Spirit of Compassion. Blackwall is a complete good guy.On the other hand, it's not surprising Vivienne and Cassandra supports this option. I would say the companion reactions are completely in line with how each character thinks.

[OHB MajorV]

If by useful you mean using his skull as a traveling shard locator I'm in!

I wanted more cruel and unusual ways to punish him as I've said in some other threads, this guy is my argument for pro torture judgements in DA.

[ashlover mark 2]

I orginally killed him my self, didn't care that he felt I was giving him what he wanted because his faith was bull so we get the the last laugh in the end anyway. Second time I gave him to the Wardens, same difference except this time the truly wounded party got their justice.

[No-one...\o/]

I imprisoned him and threw the key away.

If you make him tranquil, yes it's the worst he can imagine, but the moment he's tranquil he will have lost his emotions and can't suffer as much as he might deserve.

[Fredward]

What the prisoner wants is irrelevant, if he wants death and death happens to coincide with what is considered 'just' then good for him. Turning him Tranquil seems petty and cruel, like the primary motivator is revenge rather than justice. Of course this'll depend on your Inquisitor's morality, mine tend to see tranquility as completely anathema unless a person of sound mind requests it. I didn't imprison him since I don't like the idea of dangerous people chilling in my dungeon. I didn't make him Tranquil since it's disgusting and I knew it would ****** off my mage allies. Sending him to the Wardens, while poetic, hardly seems particularly well advised unless I'm trying to punish them too. Death was the most practical choice really.

[sylvanaerie]

Of all the judgements this one really hit the homerun. As a diehard mage player whom I take mage rights extremely seriously don't understand why most of my companions disapproves of me of sentencing Livius Erimond to be made tranquil.

 

Solas disapproves
Dorian disapproves
Cassandra slightly approves
Blackwall disapproves
Cole disapproves
Vivienne approves

 

Giving Livius Erimond the death penalty is exactly what he wants because he thinks that he would serve his "god" in the afterlife. Why should I give this man what he truly desire? Why should I give him what he wants when I could very well take away the very source of power that he abused to bring terror into Thedas? Instead of death he would become tranquil, and help my Inquisition organization with enchanting weapons and armor. At least he would be of good use. I could never understand why my companions would disapprove of my choice of action.

 

As a mage inquisitor who was a circle mage at one time I feel that I need to set an example to my fellow mages by demonstrating the proper use of magic.

 

While I don't necessary approve the Rite of Tranquility I do support the concept of using it as a punishment. Sometimes a person is not responsible for wielding such power, and instead of killing them you take away the very source of what they have. They can still be useful after the Rite.

 

Except Tranquility is not supposed to (nor never intended to be) as a punishment, I get the disapproval entirely.  If you do Cassandra's personal quest she discovers a book with all the seeker secrets in it.  It discusses Tranquility, the real reason for the mage rebellion and a lot of other Seeker secrets.

 

My first inquisitor was fresh out of playing DA2.  A Dalish mage who found the practice of mage lobotomization abhorrent.  I allied with the mages and tried to pick every mage supportive choice I could.  Tranquility for this mook--no freaking way.  I killed him, especially knowing there was a cure for the condition.  I wanted him dead and gone, and I didn't want the Inquisition to be 'those guys' (IE, Ser Alrik, KC Meredith etc).

 

My second inquisitor was a hard line Circle mage (think Vivienne on steroids) who tranquilled him, sucked up the companion disapproval and dealt harshly with the protesting mages on the wartable (I conscripted them that run).

 

My third inquisitor gave him to those he'd done the most wrong to.  I like to head canon they got rather creative with their ideas of justice.

 

Of course, knowing what the Venatori do to Tranquils, I think I'll tranquil his ass from now on. *Edit* when I play a mage--it's an option only available to mages--the reason my rogue gave him to the wardens instead of tranquilling him.

[Lord Raijin]

What the prisoner wants is irrelevant, if he wants death and death happens to coincide with what is considered 'just' then good for him. Turning him Tranquil seems petty and cruel, like the primary motivator is revenge rather than justice. Of course this'll depend on your Inquisitor's morality, mine tend to see tranquility as completely anathema unless a person of sound mind requests it. I didn't imprison him since I don't like the idea of dangerous people chilling in my dungeon. I didn't make him Tranquil since it's disgusting and I knew it would ****** off my mage allies. Sending him to the Wardens, while poetic, hardly seems particularly well advised unless I'm trying to punish them too. Death was the most practical choice really.

 

How is turning him tranquil is considered revenge rather than justice? The definition of tranquil is free from disturbance; calm. With too much power an individual becomes the complete opposite of tranquil. The way I see it is that it's more of a rehabilitation if anything else. He was more than willing to use the makers given gift to cause mayhem to all of Thedas. As a mage Inquisitor I can't always coddle my allies. You can't please everyone.

[Zwingtanz]

Maybe they should have included a lynchmob option too.

 

Dunno, tranquility just disgusts me tbh. Off with his head and be done with it.

[pottman]

Maybe they should have included a lynchmob option too.

 

Dunno, tranquility just disgusts me tbh. Off with his head and be done with it.

Not gonna give him the satisfaction of a quick death, throw him in the hole.

[Zwingtanz]

Not gonna give him the satisfaction of a quick death, throw him in the hole.

Waste of resources and i kinda feel like mages could make for great escape artists.

[pottman]

Waste of resources and i kinda feel like mages could make for great escape artists.

 

Just feed him crumbs, and plus stays there for the rest of the game, unless you headcanon it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I never found the whole "defiance in the face of death" act to be very convincing. Not from him, nor from anyone else who has ever played that card. It just comes across as really poor reverse-psychology.
 
I was close to making him Tranquil, myself, but I saw how that could backfire (among other things, that spirit walking around the premises who disapproved of your decision and is prone to doing weird things) and decided to just kill him and be done with it. He can act all haughty and tell himself whatever makes him feel better about having failed and soon becoming forgotten about, but he's still dead.
 
Also, one has to consider the message they send about the validity of using the Rite of Tranquility to punish people.

[Lord Raijin]

Maybe they should have included a lynchmob option too.

 

Dunno, tranquility just disgusts me tbh. Off with his head and be done with it.

 

I use to think tranquility was disgusting too until I realize that it has some beneficial elements.

 

http://dragonage.wik...uility_(amulet)

 

Read the back story of the tranquility amulet.

 

Besides... This man can actually be quite useful to society as a tranquil.

 

http://dragonage.wik..._in_the_society

[TeraBat]

The Rite of Tranquility was originally devised as a mercy - a way to avoid having to kill a mage who could not control their powers. Meredith using it indiscriminately as punishment is part of what spurred on the mage rebellion. 

 

I can totally understand the disapproval. Not only are you using a method in a way it was never intended to be used, you're showing every sign of repeating past mistakes. 

 

I always execute Erimond. I don't give a flying phallus what he thinks of dying. He's not getting eternal glory, he's not going to serve Corypheus in death; and even if he were, I'm about to kill Corypheus anyway. So good luck with all your blather, dude. 

[phaonica]

The Rite of Tranquility was originally devised as a mercy - a way to avoid having to kill a mage who could not control their powers. Meredith using it indiscriminately as punishment is part of what spurred on the mage rebellion. 

 

I can totally understand the disapproval. Not only are you using a method in a way it was never intended to be used, you're showing every sign of repeating past mistakes. 

 

Is punishment not an intended use? The writers have said "It's against the rules to perform the Rite of Tranquility without both significant provocation (provocation in this case meaning the mage in question either cannot control their magic or has shown no signs of a willingness to do so) AND the agreement of the First Enchanter (who is present as a sort of ombudsman on behalf of the mages)."

 

That sounds like it could be used as punishment to me.

 

Although, there technically isn't a recognized First Enchanter present, so that alone is an argument for abuse, according to "the rules."

[TeraBat]

Though Erimond, technically, did not use his magic as his primary weapon. He persuaded Clarel to command her Grey Warden mages to use their magic to his end; and he did so under fraudulent premises. 

 

Had Erimond been the only person doing the blood magic and demon summoning, there's a greater case to be made for making him Tranquil. 

 

But there's no way he can repay his debt to society as a Tranquil. A few enchantments are not sufficient to repair the damage he did to the Grey Wardens; who are (as far as we know) the world's only hope when the Sixth Blight rolls around. He dies, publicly, so other people know what happens when you @#$! with the Wardens and the Inquisition. 

[KaiserShep]

How is turning him tranquil is considered revenge rather than justice? The definition of tranquil is free from disturbance; calm. With too much power an individual becomes the complete opposite of tranquil. The way I see it is that it's more of a rehabilitation if anything else. He was more than willing to use the makers given gift to cause mayhem to all of Thedas. As a mage Inquisitor I can't always coddle my allies. You can't please everyone.

 

Even defining it as justice is problematic, because it's still being used for retribution. It sends the message that any mage can be made tranquil for any crime, for the simple fact that the individual happens to be a mage. I guess the relevant question is: If Erimond were simply a mundane who was in league with Corypheus of his own free will, and duped the Wardens into doing these crazy things, what would have been the most appropriate punishment for him, and why would his being a mage warrant special punishment?

 

Anyway, tranquility is in no way a form of rehabilitation, because it removes certain faculties from the individual.

[NugHugs]

I made him tranquil as well for my good gal run, seemed fitting. Companion disapproval doesn't mean you made bad choice, they just don't agree?

[setrus86]

Because some punishments are just outright abhorent and shouldn't be dealt out to even the most vile of people/enemies.

 

Why?

 

Because you're supposed to be better than them. 

 

At least, I'm guessing, that's Solas', Dorian's and Blackwall's motivation. Cole is more "suffering, bad".

[NoForgiveness]

I just cut his head off.

1) especially after reading asunder, I can't do tranquility.

2) He doesn't deserve to live in this world in any way. Don't really care what happens to him in the next.

[Lord Raijin]

Though Erimond, technically, did not use his magic as his primary weapon. He persuaded Clarel to command her Grey Warden mages to use their magic to his end; and he did so under fraudulent premises. 

 

Had Erimond been the only person doing the blood magic and demon summoning, there's a greater case to be made for making him Tranquil. 

 

But there's no way he can repay his debt to society as a Tranquil. A few enchantments are not sufficient to repair the damage he did to the Grey Wardens; who are (as far as we know) the world's only hope when the Sixth Blight rolls around. He dies, publicly, so other people know what happens when you @#$! with the Wardens and the Inquisition. 

 

That's not true. In fact ones hes been made tranquil he could be sent to the Grey wardens for live of servitude. He could clean, cook the grey wardens their dinner, enchant their weapons and armor,etc. I don't know about you but that way better,especially from a Tevinter Imperium Magister

 

Even defining it as justice is problematic, because it's still being used for retribution. It sends the message that any mage can be made tranquil for any crime, for the simple fact that the individual happens to be a mage. I guess the relevant question is: If Erimond were simply a mundane who was in league with Corypheus of his own free will, and duped the Wardens into doing these crazy things, what would have been the most appropriate punishment for him, and why would his being a mage warrant special punishment?

 

Anyway, tranquility is in no way a form of rehabilitation, because it removes certain faculties from the individual.

 

What is wrong with sending a message to the mages that they can be made tranquil, once captured, if they're planning on committing future war crimes against the citizens of Thedas? It's a deterring message if anything else. After what happen to Connor back in Origins any mage of any age can cause significant amount of damage and lost of lives whether it could be intentional or by accident. Erimond is not a mundane.. hes a Magister from the Tevinter Imperium... a mage who became mentally unstable. He was a mental patient with a loaded 12 gauge semiautomatic shotgun.

 

After playing Orgins a half dozen of times I can safely say that, I, as a pro Mage, think the treatment punishment for the mundanes far worst than how the mages are treated. Look at how the Chantry was going to allow Sten to starve to death in a cage, and left for the darkspawn to make a meal out of in Lothering.... Look at Denerim prisons, and how they treat their prisoners... You're butt ass naked and tortured severely to the point where you die. Look at how King Cailan guard/soldiers was going to allow a frighten man to starve in a cell before being executed for deserting. You nearly had to persuaded the guards to give the man food.

 

If you don't think Tranquility is not a form of rehabilitation then explain the back story of a frighten Kirkwall mage named Orana who was brought into the circle http://dragonage.wik...uility_(amulet)

[TeraBat]

Regarding that link:

 

Spoiler

Orana requested to be made Tranquil. Granted, she was eleven. But there were a plethora of extenuating circumstances. She could not control her powers - the prime consideration when contemplating the Rite of Tranquility. She was actively suffering, and the Rite of Tranquility improved her quality of life. You cannot say the same about Erimond.

 

As for sending a message to the mages - that's precisely what Knight-Commander Meredith did in Kirkwall. And see how well that turned out. Even among your companions who don't disapprove for ideological reasons, there are plenty of reasons to disapprove along the lines of 'Haven't you learned from our recent history that using Tranquility as a punishment is a really bad idea?' In a vacuum, using Tranquility against Erimond might deliver the severe message you intend. But you have to consider that sentence in the context of the mage rebellion. Your companions are using their personal experiences with Tranquility as the barometric against which they judge your sentence; not theoretical morality. 

 

Putting Sten in a cage doesn't justify Tranquility; any more than Tranquility justifies putting Sten in a cage. They are both extremely barbaric sentences. That's originally why you recruit Sten as the Hero of Ferelden - to get him out of the cage and somewhere where he can at least die with honor. 

[KaiserShep]

What is wrong with sending a message to the mages that they can be made tranquil, once captured, if they're planning on committing future war crimes against the citizens of Thedas? It's a deterring message if anything else. After what happen to Connor back in Origins any mage of any age can cause significant amount of damage and lost of lives whether it could be intentional or by accident. Erimond is not a mundane.. hes a Magister from the Tevinter Imperium... a mage who became mentally unstable. He was a mental patient with a loaded 12 gauge semiautomatic shotgun.

 

What's wrong is that it won't be interpreted as an attempt at a deterrence against war crimes specifically, but rather crimes in general, which becomes even more problematic in that what constitutes a "crime" can sometimes be arbitrary. The Kirkwall Templars are proof that this isn't an effective deterrent, and instead only exacerbated the stressed relationship between the two factions. So other than creating another emotionless laborer, this is no more valuable as a message than simply chopping his head off, even less so in the fact that at least the latter applies to everyone. Connor is irrelevant. Erimond is nothing like those untrained mages that stumbled into their calamity, and malevolent as he was, he wasn't mentally unstable.

 

 

After playing Orgins a half dozen of times I can safely say that, I, as a pro Mage, think the treatment punishment for the mundanes far worst than how the mages are treated. Look at how the Chantry was going to allow Sten to starve to death in a cage, and left for the darkspawn to make a meal out of in Lothering.... Look at Denerim prisons, and how they treat their prisoners... You're butt ass naked and tortured severely to the point where you die. Look at how King Cailan guard/soldiers was going to allow a frighten man to starve in a cell before being executed for deserting. You nearly had to persuaded the guards to give the man food.

 

These are irrelevant. There's always some worse form of punishment one could conjure up, and they will not change whether or not I consider other forms of punishment acceptable. Flaying a person alive for theft is obviously worse than cutting his hands off, but I wouldn't consider the latter any more acceptable because of it.

 

 

If you don't think Tranquility is not a form of rehabilitation then explain the back story of a frighten Kirkwall mage named Orana who was brought into the circle http://dragonage.wik...uility_(amulet)

 

Forcibly altering the mind of a person is not the same as rehabilitating that person. If you take a violent offender and sedate him nonstop into complacency, in what way was this person rehabilitated?

[Beomer]

Had there been the option of having him drawn and quartered I would've picked that. But barring that a quick death is too good a punishment for a man who nearly destroyed the Orlesian Grey Wardens, was the cause of death of Hawke/ Stroud, and is completely unrepentant about it, even being arrogant and disrespectful towards the Inquisitor (I mean at least the Grand Duchess and Alexius has the shame to be humble and give in to the Inquisitors power). It does not behoove a criminal who has caused you grievous injury and yet has seen his plans decimated to strut in front of you. At least I didn't think it did.

So, how do you punish an power hungry and fanatic cultist blood mage who has caused so much harm? You give him the punishment mages loath the most, so that even if he does not truly regret his decisions for how wrong they were, at least for the brief time till he is made tranquil, he will regret them for the mess they landed him in. And he will probably vainly call for the unresponsive Corypheus to save him which will, disillusion him further.

TLDR killing is too good a punishment for him.