172 réponses à ce sujet

[sylvanaerie]

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.

 He didn't strike me as particularly bright to begin with.  The type of person/character he reminds me of is like my brother, his alligator mouth getting his hummingbird ass into a world of trouble.

 

Really, the only reason I did the choices I did was to see additional content.  I'm as petty as the next person, though so I'll freely admit tranquility was personally the most satisfying because of his reaction.

[Marshal Moriarty]

The only justification to making him Tranquil is if you want your Inquisition to be seen as people who are not to be screwed about with. If you issue a sentence like this, you are (as much as this game allows) showing that you are the kind of person who condones extreme action. It will frighten people and give enemies pause for thought in a 'Hang on... these people aren't messing about'. I.e its the closest the game comes to the idea of torture, that you won't just kill enemies, but you'll do something particularly horrific.

 

Many will balk at that - I certainly don't want my Inquisition to be that sort of thing. But if you do, then these kinds of judgements are the way to go about it. Because lots of enemies don't really fear death - they live with the threat of that from Corypheus if they fail anyway. So if you want to intimidate your enemies, then you have to get creative (i.e send them back to Corypheus with messages of how they tried to turn traitor, leave someone out in the desert to starve etc etc'. Its the Keyser Soze way of ruling - show the enemy you're every bit as ruthless as he is, and his minions will start to question who they fear the most.

[NugHugs]

I don't see tranquility as being cruel or being used to make a ballsy statement to the world? Mages that are remorseless like Erimond should be made tranquil so they can share their knowledge safely with other mages. Suppose it would be dangerous now that tranquility can be reversed?

[DaemionMoadrin]

It doesn't matter what Erimond wants, as the Inquisitor you should only be concerned with justice. Tranquility can be reversed and you might make the guy into a martyr that way. It also sets a grim precedent for any other mages who end up in front of your throne.

Dragging out his punishment one way or another doesn't serve anyone, a quick, clean death is all that's waiting for him.

[Marshal Moriarty]

How comfortable would you be if the state issues punishments to criminals that amounted to lobotomies? Leaving them drooling simpletons, open to suggestion? The thought that you are the kind of ruler who would impose such sentences would be very daunting to many. Bioware are obviously very reticent to let you be the kind of ruler who uses torture in any obvious way (which is just another reason why Inquisition was such a stupid choice of name), but this is the closest they come to something like that.

[Rogue Master]

no matter what, "Erimond is an arsehole"

[NugHugs]

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".

What makes it abhorrent? They aren't being hurt or hurting others and are being useful. Any abuse inflicted on the tranquil isn't the product of them being tranquil, it's a product of the corruption in the people around them.

[DaemionMoadrin]

What makes it abhorrent? They aren't being hurt or hurting others and are being useful. Any abuse inflicted on the tranquil isn't the product of them being tranquil, it's a product of the corruption in the people around them.

 

Taking away what makes someone a person is worse than killing them. Keeping them around as servants after makes it a parody and inhuman.

[The DM of Thedas]

I give Erimond to the Wardens, they either just execute him or the force membership on him, either way they're the wounded party in this situation.

[NugHugs]

Taking away what makes someone a person is worse than killing them. Keeping them around as servants after makes it a parody and inhuman.

What exactly makes a person a person? Why is inhumane even a word, qualities such as cruelty are just as natural as compassion. Tranquility allows the offending mages to live their life in a peaceful state. Cassandra described her experience of tranquility as being incredible and enlightening. She was made tranquil without her knowledge, this removed the bias of any preconceptions she had of tranquility. The only negative effect tranquility has is the fear inflicted on those who have been taught to fear it.

[Beomer]

 He didn't strike me as particularly bright to begin with.  The type of person/character he reminds me of is like my brother, his alligator mouth getting his hummingbird ass into a world of trouble.

 

Now that you mention it, it is actually true. I can count no less than four occasions when Erimond has his ass handed to him while he's swaggering and boasting.

First in the Western Approach by the Inquisitor, Hawke and a Warden.

Next by Clarel right after he summons Cory's Dragon and begins to act tough.

Third time again by Clarel when he's giving his evil speech. Although this time the dragon intervenes and saves him.

Lastly by the Inquisitor right after he's finished singing praises of Cory and how a better life awaits him in the next world.

 

Times like this, it feels good to be, as Dorian puts it to his father, the 'dread Inquisitor'.

[ashwind]

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.

 

 

I disapprove too. Making someone Tranquil as a form of punishment is kinda stupid. Think about it, the person is stripped of all emotions. Meaning they will not feel sad or sorry or anything for the state they are now in.

 

[DaemionMoadrin]

What exactly makes a person a person? Why is inhumane even a word, qualities such as cruelty are just as natural as compassion. Tranquility allows the offending mages to live their life in a peaceful state. Cassandra described her experience of tranquility as being incredible and enlightening. She was made tranquil without her knowledge, this removed the bias of any preconceptions she had of tranquility. The only negative effect tranquility has is the fear inflicted on those who have been taught to fear it.

 

You want a life devoid of emotions or dreams? No aspirations, no excitement, no desires? That sounds very peaceful. Tranquil. It would be utterly boring and mind numbing to normal living beings but it also makes you okay with it.

 

Cassandra didn't know she was made tranquil and it wasn't for long.

 

Hey, if being tranquil is so great, why isn't everyone clamoring to join them?

 

A person is more than the sum of their knowledge. Emotions and dreams/hopes/goals play an important part. Take that away and the person you know is gone, as good as if they had been killed. In their place someone else appears, looking and sounding like them, but not being them. That's the recipe for a horror flick.

 

Perhaps have a look at people who suffer from brain damage and mental illnesses. Ever seen the reaction of their loved ones when they realize the patient has become a completely different person?

 

And you actually think that's a good thing? Ouch.

 

Perhaps they should reverse tranquility for a few mages and ask for their opinion. I doubt they'd want to go back to being tranquil once they have the choice.

 

That's another point. Tranquil people can't make choices anymore. Without emotions they also do not fear anymore. They lack a sense of self-preservation. Remember the tranquil mage in the Circle Tower in DA:O? Everyone around him turned into abominations, people died gruesome deaths and he didn't run away. He tried to continue with his job like an automaton. A tranquil has less freedom or choices as a child. With half of their humanity gone, they lack the freedom of choice. I'm pretty sure they can't even say no.

I'm sorry, but turning a human into this... that's creepy. It's wrong and it's despicable.

[MageTarot]

Absolutely f'n this. I even made a save game file when I got back from the Fade just so I could replay this over and over.

 

For all his arrogance and strutting, the look of horror on his face as he realizes that not only will he be denied the death he thought he was entitled to but he will never be his 'true' self was priceless. Let my companions disapprove - they'll get over it.

 

 

 

[BartDude52]

I didn't get the option in my first playthrough because I was a warrior, but in my second playthrough I'm going to play as a mage and make him tranquil when given the option. Why? Two main reasons.

 

1): I don't want to give him the satisfaction of death. If he wants death, he's not going to get it from me. Making him tranquil is a much more satisfying (and deserving) outcome, if you ask me.

 

2): Making him tranquil means he's just as little a danger to anyone else than if I'd just killed him, but at least this way no longer is he a threat, but I can now find a way to put him to good use. 

 

You know, I would've considered giving him the quick death that he wants, but then when I consider how rude and unrepentant he is to you when you judge him at Skyhold, which when combined with his terrible actions, means he doesn't deserve death in my eyes. If he hadn't been so disrespectful and had actually been even a bit remorseful about his actions, I would probably take pity on him and give him the death he wants. But, as it is, he was rude and unremorseful - so tranquillity it is.

 

P.S. For the record, I normally wouldn't condone tranquillity as a punishment, but in Erimond's case I'm going to make an exception because he completely and utterly deserves it, in my view.

 

Conversely, I wouldn't make someone like Alexius tranquil as he doesn't deserve it, if you ask me. To me, it seemed as if he mainly did what he did in order to try and save his son. In addition, when you later meet him in the alternate future, he seems quite remorseful and regrets his actions. Also, he isn't completely rude to you when you later judge him.

[Lord Raijin]

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. 

 

The situation in Kirkwall is completely different. Meredith was an incompetent Anti-mage Knight-Commander who lust for power, and the Grand Cleric was just as incompetent if not worst. Meredith was using the Rite for no justified reason. She would pick mages from random, and force them to undergo the Rite. This is why I heavily supported Anders for what he did to the Chantry, and I still stand by him regardless of what others might think of him

 

Erimond was a terrible person who was a war criminal, and supported the very monster (The main villain) who was responsible for murdering the Divine, and wanted the entire world to collapse.  While the message did get sent to the Mages in Redcliff... and how angry they became... If you take Cullen's suggestion by sending 1 senior Templar and 1 senior mage over there to explain the situation they eventually calmed down.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

Like I said to Terabat the situation between what I've done to Erimond and what happen in Kirkwall is completely different. It's irrelevant to even compare the two considering the fact that Erimond is guilty for committing war crimes against the Grey wardens, and for working with Corypheus (Being a Venatori). He is guilty of summoning Corypheus' dragon (Using magic to do it) to kill the inquisitor, and by doing just that ended up murdering Warden-Commander Clarel. He had demonstrated to me (As a mage inquisitor) that he is not responsible for having the talent of wielding magic.

 

    Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.
    Foul and corrupt are they
    Who have taken His gift
    And turned it against His children.
    They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.
    They shall find no rest in this world
    Or beyond.
    -Transfigurations 1:2

 

I'm not against capital punishment, but for the sake of this debate I will talk about it. The pro lifers believes that giving the death penalty is cruel and inhumane and causes pain on an individual, and for that reason they're trying to abolish the death penalty. You strongly disapprove of giving the Rite to this man yet support his execution. Doesn't that support gruesome violence against a fellow human being? Instead of forcing this man to become productive member of society by taking the very essence that is the root of his troubles, you instead would rather spill blood by viciously executing the man by decapitation.

 

Erimond reaction over the decision of making him tranquil seems justified to me. I didn't give him what he wants. Instead I gave him life at the cost of eliminating his magic talents with the side effect that he himself forfeited when he committed his crimes against the people of Thedas.

[KainD]

OP ,because we don't have dark companions, most cast is made of goody two shoes, who do not approve of bringing such tremendous suffering to a person for the sake of having extra working hands, even if it's an enemy. 

[CapivaRasgor]

I'll admit, I find tranquility abhorrent and wouldn't (until this playthrough) force it upon anyone, but Erimond... this guy just annoyed the living hell out of me. Everything about Erimond annoys me, his voice, his appearance, his attitude *sigh*. And he also has the gall to taunt me as I'm judging him? F*ck morality and brand this guy, petty of me I know but his reaction was priceless, I could even predict a brown stain on his butt as he was being dragged away... now Josephine, undo this PR mess on the Inquisition's reputation, it's your job after all. As for the companions... Dorian, let's go kill some Venatori togheter and forget all about this! Blackwall, what did you think about that Grey Warden's artifact I brought from the Exalted Plains, shiny no? Cole, well since you can see things in our world to get ideas for your easter eggs, go haunt BioWare demanding a MMO-like approval quest so I can make you happy too =P.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I didn't get the option in my first playthrough because I was a warrior, but in my second playthrough I'm going to play as a mage and make him tranquil when given the option. Why? Two main reasons.

 

1): I don't want to give him the satisfaction of death. If he wants death, he's not going to get it from me. Making him tranquil is a much more satisfying (and deserving) outcome, if you ask me.

 

2): Making him tranquil means he's just as little a danger to anyone else than if I'd just killed him, but at least this way no longer is he a threat, but I can now find a way to put him to good use. 

 

You know, I would've considered giving him the quick death that he wants, but then when I consider how rude and unrepentant he is to you when you judge him at Skyhold, which when combined with his terrible actions, means he doesn't deserve death in my eyes. If he hadn't been so disrespectful and had actually been even a bit remorseful about his actions, I would probably take pity on him and give him the death he wants. But, as it is, he was rude and unremorseful - so tranquillity it is.

 

P.S. For the record, I normally wouldn't condone tranquillity as a punishment, but in Erimond's case I'm going to make an exception because he completely and utterly deserves it, in my view.

 

Conversely, I wouldn't make someone like Alexius tranquil as he doesn't deserve it, if you ask me. To me, it seemed as if he mainly did what he did in order to try and save his son. In addition, when you later meet him in the alternate future, he seems quite remorseful and regrets his actions. Also, he isn't completely rude to you when you later judge him.

 

You know... you sound rather cruel and petty here. I doubt that's your intention though.

 

So he's rude and shows no sign of remorse? Does that justify a change in punishment?

 

There is no justice in making him tranquil, one could even argue that it's dangerous to leave him alive since it can be reversed...

[Lord Raijin]

Absolutely f'n this. I even made a save game file when I got back from the Fade just so I could replay this over and over.

 

For all his arrogance and strutting, the look of horror on his face as he realizes that not only will he be denied the death he thought he was entitled to but he will never be his 'true' self was priceless. Let my companions disapprove - they'll get over it.

 

 

 

 

I can watch this scene over and over again. Might just use it when I am having a bad day

 

 

I'm pretty sure that his slaves up there in Tevinter Imperium really appreciates my proper judgement.
 

[Lord Raijin]

You know... you sound rather cruel and petty here. I doubt that's your intention though.

 

So he's rude and shows no sign of remorse? Does that justify a change in punishment?

 

There is no justice in making him tranquil, one could even argue that it's dangerous to leave him alive since it can be reversed...

 

The only person who knows how to reverse the tranquil effect is Cassandra now that she possesses the seeker book, and since she slightly approves of my actions theirs no way that she'll reverse the Rite.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Sometimes I wonder if these threads are part of a social experiment. In one thread we have people who feel slavery is better than being poor and here we have people who think a magical lobotomy is a fitting punishment.

 

Honestly, I'm concerned.

[sylvanaerie]

Sometimes I wonder if these threads are part of a social experiment. In one thread we have people who feel slavery is better than being poor and here we have people who think a magical lobotomy is a fitting punishment.

 

Honestly, I'm concerned.

It's human nature.  Our culture slaps a veneer of civilization on us, but really, we have all the same urges as our primitive ancestors did.  And it's a video game.  Really.  Where else can we explore that dark side of us in a safe environment that harms no one?  I would never do something like this to someone in reality, but in a video game, yea I got a lot of satisfaction out of wiping that smug smile off the arsehole's face.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The only person who knows how to reverse the tranquil effect is Cassandra now that she possesses the seeker book, and since she slightly approves of my actions theirs no way that she'll reverse the Rite.

Anyone who was in the party who found Pharamond (and hasn't since died) knows how to do it too, don't they?

[DaemionMoadrin]

It's human nature.  Our culture slaps a veneer of civilization on us, but really, we have all the same urges as our primitive ancestors did.  And it's a video game.  Really.  Where else can we explore that dark side of us in a safe environment that harms no one?  I would never do something like this to someone in reality, but in a video game, yea I got a lot of satisfaction out of wiping that smug smile off the arsehole's face.

 

I like your explanation a lot better because you don't try to justify being petty and wanting revenge. To see him suffer. And that's fine, because it's just a game.

 

I am more concerned when people start to make excuses and try to justify why the cruelest choice was also the best one. "He didn't grovel and beg for mercy, so I decided death was too good for him..."