Tempering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gornotck

Then again, Ul'dah wouldn't be really interested in housing the Tempered in post-Calamity days, so why not kill them under the prescripts of it being permanent anyway.

---

I would go along with this more than anything. Ul'dah is having tons of problems with refugees and rebuilding; taking in tempered prisoners and waiting/hoping for the process to be reversed (I do wonder if its possible to reverse it 100%; perhaps it weakens to the point of the tempered to regain some free will, but they have that bit of their Primal still in them, and it can be "rekindled" easily or something) would probably do more harm than good.

Having the general population think tempering is non-reversible is likely as much a tool of control as anything; keeps merchants and the like from dealing with beastmen, adventurers too, and the general population fearful of the beastmen.


The issue, then, would be with the Scions. Where are they getting the info that tempering is permanent? If they're just taking what someone said (like, whoever convinced everyone else) and not checking...or did they look into it themselves? I'm more curious about that...

Also, what is the stance on tempering's permanence from the other two city-states? We really only get the view from Ul'dah (I think, I can't remember).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magis

So are you suggesting all those tempered were executed needlessly?

---

Its possible, but we can't be 100% sure. It may be that certain people need to be "re-tempered" often (every few months or so), and some get tempered almost permanently (years between tempering). If tempered prisoners are trying to carry out the will of their primal while waiting for the tempering to wear off...it could be very hard to justify keeping them alive long enough for it to wear off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PArcher

The issue, then, would be with the Scions. Where are they getting the info that tempering is permanent? If they're just taking what someone said (like, whoever convinced everyone else) and not checking...or did they look into it themselves? I'm more curious about that...

---

Since the end-all goal of the Scions is to stop the primals, it could be seen as a necessary evil. Even having the tempered take weeks to untemper is a threat, since they are fueling their primal. For example the guy in Coerthas who was sacrificing rats. However Thancred seems very sincere when he told you that the people had to be executed. It could be a case of they just don't know? The cutscene where the person get's "untempered" in 1.0... do the other Scions see this?

As I said they weren't really 'untempered' as more 'tempered again' - the comments of the npcs in the cell in Zan'rak definitely hinted at it. And in any event the only ones to actually see this happen was the player and their Path Companion (and I suppose two sylphs as well, who were hiding and watching the events unfold in the Bowl of Embers from a distance).

But your idea definitely rings true - with Ifrit coming back stronger and stronger each time he's defeated and the Immortal Flames undermanned, it might be considered the 'least abhorrent choice' - better to sacrifice a few tempered victims than risk losing hundreds, even thousands, of soldiers to take Ifrit down the next time he's summoned.

And in any event, Thancred clearly feels empathy for it, but as is his personality, he bears that particular burden on his own (which probably went some way to explaining how Lahabrea was able to possess him later).