172 réponses à ce sujet

[sylvanaerie]

Anders is my bromance and I 100% support him Find it hilarious or not... I'm surprise to see that so many people are willing to give this man what he truly desires... Death.

Not so strange.  Even at his worst there's still something touchingly human about Anders, and his crime was done for reasons beyond his own needs, not for power or for the lulz.  Erimond is so out there whackadoo there is nothing even remotely resembling humanity in him.  Anders gets a swift blade between the ribs, as quick and painless as my Hawke can make it.  My only regret for Erimond is my inquisitor can only kill him once.  I wish I could resurrect him and kill him over and over and over again for each and every warden who died because of him, and for every warden he enslaved.  

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Not so strange.  Even at his worst there's still something touchingly human about Anders, and his crime was done for reasons beyond his own needs, not for power or for the lulz.  Erimond is so out there whackadoo there is nothing even remotely resembling humanity in him.  Anders gets a swift blade between the ribs, as quick and painless as my Hawke can make it.  My only regret for Erimond is my inquisitor can only kill him once.  I wish I could resurrect him and kill him over and over and over again for each and every warden who died because of him, and for every warden he enslaved.  

Talk to Dorian.

[sylvanaerie]

Talk to Dorian.

What does Dorian have to say?

[Beomer]

What does Dorian have to say?

He has that skill tree that lets him bring the dead back to life. The Nevarran thing. I'm sure he meant it as a joke. 

 

Edit:

Loving this thread BTW. Debating where must the line be drawn when punishing a criminal is always an interesting discussion. And I have always been of the opinion that since the criminals have to defined line which they wouldn't cross, and the heinousness of crimes has no limit, the punishment should be as grievous as the crime.

[jellobell]

I chopped the bastard's head off. Couldn't care less if that's what he wanted anyways. Good for him. No way was my Inquisition handing out magical lobotomies.

[The Baconer]

Hmm. Whatever happened to the Aeonar? I'd prefer throwing him in there and tossing away the key.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

And I have always been of the opinion that since the criminals have to defined line which they wouldn't cross, and the heinousness of crimes has no limit, the punishment should be as grievous as the crime.

You'd need to at least kill his whole family in front of him to manage that with a crime this bad. Making the punishment fit the crime is an exercise in futility past a certain point.

[Ieldra]

As I see it, a criminal's sentence has three functions:

 

1. Removing the problem from society, either permanently or for rehabilitation.

2. Sending a message to everyone that justice will be done.

3. As an educational measure for the sentenced.

 

The thing is, as soon as the sentence is irreversible, function 3 becomes irrelevant. Also, justice, by necessity, can never equal revenge, or we'd live in a society of legal vendettas where innocents suffer for things done by people close to them.

 

So no, I won't tell the world that it's OK to use Tranquility to make anyone's revenge fantasies come true. Tranquility shouldn't be used as a punishment. That it was sometimes used that way nonetheless does not matter. People do many things they shouldn't.

 

Also, I don't believe what Erimond claims. By all anyone knows, the Fade is not "the next world" rather than "the other world" and if he really believes that, he's delusional. Anyway, it doesn't matter what he believes, because justice should be blind to such things.

 

So death it is for him, as a rule, by function 1 and 2. I've seen too many miraculous escapes to risk putting him into prison, and it does tell the world you won't get away with things like this.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

As I see it, a criminal's sentence has three functions:

 

1. Removing the problem from society, either permanently or for rehabilitation.

2. Sending a message to everyone that justice will be done.

3. As an educational measure for the sentenced.

 

The thing is, as soon as the sentence is irreversible, function 3 becomes irrelevant. Also, justice, by necessity, can never equal revenge, or we'd live in a society of legal vendettas where innocents suffer for things done by people close to them.

 

So no, I won't tell the world that it's OK to use Tranquility to make anyone's revenge fantasies come true. Tranquility shouldn't be used as a punishment. That it was sometimes used that way nonetheless does not matter. People do many things they shouldn't.

I don't see how your argument that justice cannot equal revenge and therefore Tranquility doesn't work as a punishment follows. There's reasons to destroy Erimond's emotions other than revenge, such as the idea that he will be less inclined to offend again if you Tranquilize him. (Though given the Tranquil in Asunder who shows free will I'd say that's too big of a chance to take. Still, for Erimond to be forced to operate solely on logic, as Gaider describes the process, would make it easier for him to be reeducated as per function three of your idea of punishment.)

[KainD]

I don't see how your argument that justice cannot equal revenge and therefore Tranquility doesn't work as a punishment follows. There's reasons to destroy Erimond's emotions other than revenge, such as the idea that he will be less inclined to offend again if you Tranquilize him. (Though given the Tranquil in Asunder who shows free will I'd say that's too big of a chance to take. Still, for Erimond to be forced to operate solely on emotion, as Gaider describes the process, would make it easier for him to be reeducated as per function three of your idea of punishment.)

 

There is no more Erimond after you make him tranquil. Making someone tranquil is the same as killing someone, only the empty body is left to serve you. 

[KaiserShep]

I guess this depends on how much one cares about this, but one of the big things about the Rite of Tranquility is that it represents the ultimate authority the failures that are the Chantry and Templars have over mages, and that mages in general do rightly detest it. It's not enough to just kill them when they see fit, but it strips them of all defenses to be taken advantage of.

[Ieldra]

I don't see how your argument that justice cannot equal revenge and therefore Tranquility doesn't work as a punishment follows. There's reasons to destroy Erimond's emotions other than revenge, such as the idea that he will be less inclined to offend again if you Tranquilize him. (Though given the Tranquil in Asunder who shows free will I'd say that's too big of a chance to take. Still, for Erimond to be forced to operate solely on emotion, as Gaider describes the process, would make it easier for him to be reeducated as per function three of your idea of punishment.)

My main argument was that Tranquility *shouldn't* be used as a punishment, not that it can't. However, I do maintain that it doesn't work: punishment as an educational measure works mainly through emotions, and Tranquility destroys the capability to feel, leaving only the visceral response to pain and pleasure.

[NugHugs]

Yes, both end the person. The difference is, you keep the tranquil person around. That's similiar to executing someone and then stuffing the remains for a display. Looks the same but isn't.

 

Or let's approach it differently. There's still slavery in existence in our world and often the victims are drugged, so they don't feel anything anymore. They escape into a happy fantasy world inside their minds so they don't have to experience what is being done to their bodies. They obey without question, all resistance gone. Sometimes they don't even react to stimuli like pain. If you asked them, they'd tell you they are okay and don't mind. Sounds familiar?

 

I think that many here forget that criminals are humans, too. That means human rights. Only because they are monsters who killed, betrayed and corrupted doesn't mean we have to lower us to their level to punish them. Because it isn't punishment, it is revenge. It isn't just or lawful or anything. We want to see Erimond suffer for all he's done, we want to see him squeal in terror, we can't give him the satisfaction of a quick, clean death. No, instead we delight in his panic as we declare his sentence, watch the color drain from his face and don't give a damn about the mage's reaction to that. Thumbs up. We are so cool.

 

Tranquility is worse than death not because of what happens to the victim but what they represent. They are a living reminder of an act that ripped the part that made them human out. You didn't just kill them, you made a mockery out of them. And then you enslaved that mockery, because a tranquil is pretty much helpless and depends on your care. Even more so if they used to be a hated criminal.

 

I'm a little reluctant to use human trafficking as an analogy of tranquility, but here goes . . Human traffickers pacify their victims with the intention of turning them into slaves by forcing them to become addicts so they rely solely on their handlers and are overly compliant. Tranquility isn't used with the intention of turning mages into slaves, it's used to remove the threat posed by dangerous mages. Tranquils do live a life of servitude, but I'd hardly compare it to human trafficking.

Lol, I do understand what point you're trying to make, but I think our views strongly differ on the what negatively affects a person's quality of life.

[Giantdeathrobot]

His speech is all bluster or delusion, I'd wager. Besides, we're out to kill Corypheus. The only way Erimond gets his promised afterlife (if any) is if Coryfish wins, and in that case we'd have bigger problems than that. He's not worth my time, I just struck his head off.

[MindWeb]

Anders is my bromance and I 100% support him Find it hilarious or not... I'm surprise to see that so many people are willing to give this man what he truly desires... Death.

Yeah, because making someone suffer isn't justice, it's vengeance. There's a difference. Just because he wants death doesn't mean you don't kill him. Also, I don't hate Anders, I could never kill that fuckin' moron. Helps that letting him live pisses Seabass off.

[Cantina]

According to The Chantry: “Once a mage passes his/her Harrowing they cannot be made Tranquil.”

 

However The Templars overlooked this “law” and made mages Tranquil as a means of punishment. Meredith is a good example of this. It did not help matters that The Chantry who was aware of the Templars using Tranquility in this way did not step in.

 

Why?

 

Those who are made Tranquil are generally left to enchant items. Which in turns gives The Chantry a large chunk of income. The more Tranquil, the more income The Chantry receives. The Chantry cannot make every mage Tranquil this would cause an uproar.

 

Let us say that three mages at a Circle were made Tranquil because he/she did not pass their Harrowing. Well now The Chantry has “X” amount of income coming in. But if three mages were made Tranquil for whatever the crimes they committed The Chantry now has six mages instead of three bringing in more income. Thus The Chantry is willing to look the other way.

 

While The Chantry is willing to look the other way, there are those who are against such an abuse with the Rite from both mage and non-mage alike. Which is part of the reason why there are mages who are against The Chantry.

 

Remember: The Rite not only takes away a mage’s magic but also removes all their emotion, thus leaving them a hollowed shell.

 

From my view point giving Erimond Tranquility MAY seem like the proper punishment but in fact it is not. Wielding the brand as a means of punishment makes you just as bad as The Templars and The Chantry for not only abusing the Rite but also going against Chantry law.

 

Most mages would rather die than be made Tranquil. IF I were a mage, I’d feel the same way.

 

In my choice, I gave Erimond death. Yes, that is what he wanted, but at least I feel better knowing I did not stoop to the level of breaking The Chantry’s law.

 

Remember too there MAY be a way to reverse The Rite of Tranquility. What if it can be done? What happens if Erimond was made Tranquil and is “cured?”

 

For me making Erimond tranquil is not a solution just the start of a whole new list of problems not only among the Mages but also MAY bring up worse problems in the future.

[PsyQUEpedia]

Well my inquisitor doesn't believe in the death penalty except in the case of self-defense. Therefore, it was proper to make Erimond tranquil and parade Florianne's body parts in a box around Orlais (self-defense) so that example will prevent her from killing more than necessary on the future.

[Hurbster]

I found the punishment to be particularly apt for such a dick. So.....

 

 

Tranqulity Applied !

[Lord Raijin]

The basic point that I'm making is that from my own Inquisitor's viewpoint, the decision is not really about him at all. He can cackle maniacally until his throat is sore and twirl his mustache until it falls off his face, but none of that matters. The only thing she cares about is the precedent. In that sense, the scope of his crime is not a factor. It doesn't matter if it's a "war crime" or a heinous act against a single victim. And it's also in this sense that I consider the use of the Rite of Tranquility in Kirkwall and its use against Erimond one and the same. My Inquisitor is completely unmoving in the idea that it should be used strictly as an act of mercy to save someone from their magic in very extreme circumstances, and never against anyone else, no matter how severe their crime, because again, it's not about Erimond, it's about all mages. My Inquisitor's own words when taking up the role was that it's not about sending a message, and I'm pretty much applying it to everything, because I find little value in that sort of thing.

 

 

While my Inquisitor (even the mage) doesn't give two bronto cheeks about the Chantry, this can be interpreted in any number of ways, especially if RP'ing a mage. I see nothing here that supports the use of the Rite, only a code of moral principles meant to promote discipline, responsibility and humility.

 

 

This is basically what it boils down to for me: Erimond is of no significant use in any capacity, is totally unrepentant of his crimes, and any resources used to keep him alive other than what was expended to bring him before the throne is unacceptable. It's the reason why Alexius serves the Inquisition as a researcher, and he gets nothing but the blade. Making him tranquil doesn't create a productive member of society; it creates an automaton to be used by other people, and I won't have it. So the only options I'd ever consider are handing him over to the Wardens to let them have their way with him (which is essentially just a slower more painful death) or chopping his head off myself. Either solution is no skin off Inky's back.

 

I don't care what he wants, and even this is debatable. More than likely he prefers to live, but simply squanders his last moments posturing. It's the same idea behind my Inquisitor telling Corypheus that she's not afraid. Only crazy people are totally unafraid, so it was obviously a lie, but irrational words are a natural response to extreme situations. In any case, the threat is neutralized without special treatment that may set any dangerous precedence, and that's all I care about.

 

You can't possibly compare the Rite of Tranquility in Kirkwall and its use against Erimond one and the same because it isn't. The Rite was being heavily abused in Kirkwall. Mages were randomly plucked, and were made tranquil without provocation. Erimond on the other hand did it to himself. He committed war crimes against the Grey Wardens, and aided Corypheus.

 

The choice of making him tranquil was an act of mercy, and not much of a punishment. If you sent him to the Grey wardens to be punished he would most definitely be killed. It was up to you to know what lays ahead of him. Erimond already proved to you that he is not a responsible mage. Instead of using his magic talent to serve man he allowed his magic to rule over him.

 

Chantry or not if you have the technology to spare someones life from a capitol punishment, why not use it? The Rite of tranquility does have benefits. It isn't as bad as what Dragon Age 2 or what Asunder showed us.

 

The once dangerous mage prisoner now tranquil can become a skilled craftsman of magical items.

Why viciously execute them when the technology is right there to force them to become a productive citizen of the community?

 

That is my interpretation of the Rite of Tranquility. Forget Kirkwall and Asunder... Look at the benefits.
 

[The Baconer]

The choice of making him tranquil was an act of mercy, and not much of a punishment.

 

Nobody in-game will interpret it that way, which leads to unfortunate implications.

 

 

Why viciously execute them when the technology is right there to force them to become a productive citizen of the community?

 

You know what that sounds like...

[VulpineSneak]

To quote Cole

" Erimond is an arsehole"

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

My main argument was that Tranquility *shouldn't* be used as a punishment, not that it can't. However, I do maintain that it doesn't work: punishment as an educational measure works mainly through emotions, and Tranquility destroys the capability to feel, leaving only the visceral response to pain and pleasure.

Except that somehow in this setting logic remains after emotions are gone. (Don't ask me to explain how that works.) Which means that calmly asking him to reassess his past beliefs while he's Tranquil could work.

 

 

There is no more Erimond after you make him tranquil. Making someone tranquil is the same as killing someone, only the empty body is left to serve you. 

I'm waiting to hear what you consider the downside to be.

[KainD]

I'm waiting to hear what you consider the downside to be.

 

None, enemy dead, useful husk to do your bidding acquired. You just said that tranquilizing him will help with number 3 re-educating, and I was saying no, he will just be dead. 

[Lord Raijin]

Nobody in-game will interpret it that way, which leads to unfortunate implications.

 

 

 

You know what that sounds like...

 

Wrong. Knight Captain Cullen of DA2 interprets it that way.

 

http://youtu.be/XLb4SnTjnuc?t=2m

 

See it for yourself.

[The Baconer]

Wrong. Knight Captain Cullen of DA2 interprets it that way.

 

http://youtu.be/XLb4SnTjnuc?t=2m

 

See it for yourself.

 

He says it was intended as a mercy, and then says there is an argument to apply its use to unruly mages as well, i.e. a punishment. Literally no one (not even the Inquisitor) is going to interpret Erimond's tranquility an act of mercy. When people learn to view it as a punishment, we not only risk the slippery slope that happened at Kirkwall, but also the continued de-humanization and abuse of Tranquil individuals.