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.
Just passed this judgement~
I will admit part of the decision was emotional - the walk through the Fade was pretty emotionally traumatic - especially the side quest which was essentially a major guilt trip about all of the people you couldn't save - and to lose another friend to the journey was pretty rough. I also forgot tranquility removes personality too - not just magic - which makes it a little less satisfying - I wanted Erimond to suffer as he was, knowing he could never be a mage again.
To respond to this point though, I don't think making him tranquil is a violation of Chantry law because he's a mage from Tevinter where they do not have mandatory Circles and therefore probably do not have the process of harrowing. So he is, in the eyes of Chantry law, still a mage that is eligible for the RoT. On the other hand, I'm a little confused by the arguments against tranquility - if you view tranquility as something intended as an act of mercy for mages who cannot control their powers (who believe that they are unable to pass a harrowing) then it is a legitimate alternative for a mage to death and one that is consciously preferred by at least a reasonable proportion of mages, especially those who know they do not have the willpower necessary to survive a harrowing. If we are arguing that tranquility is cruel and unusual punishment, then that means that it should not be employed under any circumstances, even under the request of one whose only other alternative is death. (Of course, the extension of that is then to not require a harrowing of mages, which removes death as a potential alternative outcome to tranquility, but what are the implications, then, of untested mages running free for all across a society filled mostly with people who are unable to defend themselves from magical power?)
In retrospect, I still think it's the most simultaneously merciful and vengeful decision out of the options - the vengeful part of the question is obvious - it's endlessly satisfying to think about the short period of mental agitation he'll undergo before the ritual, but knowing that it is reversible (if you've completed Cassandra's sidequest) also makes the option merciful. It is, in effect, putting a stay on his final judgement until after the threat of Corypheus is dealt with, at which point you can restore his mind and, with his leader gone, attempt some form of rehabilitation or, that failing, a determination of punishment through a multilateral tribunal of interested parties (Grey Wardens, Orlais, Ferelden, the Inquisition, the Chantry, the Imperium). Also, if we're going to go the insanity route, dangerously mentally challenged criminals aren't always executed either because it's considered more humane to medicate and subdue them - in fact, we still lobotomize our criminally insane, just chemically instead of surgically. It's considered a more merciful option to execution because it still leaves open the potential for future cure (of their illness) - something on which the door is completely shut with a death sentence - regardless of your feelings on being stripped of your emotions and "irrationality." It is also important to realize that tranquility and lobotomy, while similar, are still two very different things. Tranquil can still find pleasure in life, even if the context of the pleasure is altered for them (instead of, say, taking pleasure in the idea of Corypheus destroying the world, Erimond would derive utility in a well organized shelf of books) and are able to function and participate fully in society. The issue most people have with chemical or surgical lobotomy in our society is the fact that those procedures leave a human completely incapacitated - they are no longer able to be a part of human society or capable of retaining any meaningful sense of self. To be honest, if our dangerous mental patients could be treated with a reversible procedure with the effects of tranquility, it would be hailed as a huge medical breakthrough - they would no longer need to be locked up in subhuman conditions, but could rather be allowed to become productive, if wholly rational, members of society again. Remember, tranquility does not remove an individual's sense of self - it simply removes all capacity for irrationality. It would essentially turn an individual into the perfect economic actor - wholly rational, weighing their perceived benefits and costs as well as societal benefits and costs before each action. Moreover, the tranquil you meet in the game, including the tranquil you can recruit in Redcliffe, all exhibit some level of desire and self-awareness. It takes some level of humanity to be willing to die for someone because you perceive that person as having saved you, the way Samson's tranquil did in Cullen's sidequest. I understand that its not a politically popular choice given the circumstances, but I don't view tranquility as an abhorrent or invalid form of punishment - especially since Cassandra proves it can be applied beyond mages to all manner of criminally insane. The key I think would be in setting more clear and objective limitations on its use as opposed to the vague guidelines outlined by the Chantry prior to DA:I - for example, a specification of a term of tranquility before an attempt at rehabilitation is made with the hope of the period of tranquility and the memories of that period proving therapeutic (I forget who said that the tranquil lose all memory of their period of tranquility after being restored, but I don't remember seeing any evidence of this). In that sense, if used as the Seekers do, tranquility would be less of a lobotomy and more of a conscious tranquilizer or sedative. (Put like this, this choice is so much less satisfying. I think I'll throw him to the Orlesians or the Vints after the whole crazy deluded would be god issue is dealt with and I reverse the process - they seem like they would be people who have creative ways of dealing with war criminals) (I'd send him to the Deep Roads but I think he'd be a hazard there even dead - the possessed body of a powerful magister can make for hardy darkspawn)
And if we're going further down the theory road, even the objections from the mages would be muffled once the reversal of Tranquility is made public knowledge.
Giving him to the Grey Wardens is unfair to them - it's the same reason I stopped Solas from killing the mages in his side quest - if it has to be vicious vengeance, then the least I can do for them after everything they've been through is to dirty my hands instead of theirs.
Also, for the record, I think it's fine to punish mages for being mages insofaras mages should be held to a higher standard of accountability from those who are not born with access to magic. Great power great responsibility blahblah but I think it's important to recognize that even if you don't choose to be born with a certain gift or to a certain heritage, it behooves you to be a responsible and moral steward of what you are given. I don't think that should be a difficult idea to impose on a world like Thedas where I'm certain noblesse oblige, even if it isn't exercised in practice at least exists in theory. More is asked of those who are given more, especially those like mages who are capable of great help and great harm.
Retour en haut
