162 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
Mages don't fear or distrust mages. They are the only group who understands them which is why they are the only group that can govern them. Although perhaps the Tranquil could be involved as well , not sure about that.

Now that's an interesting thought.  But do you think the Tranquil are up to the task?  More to the point, if the mages were governed in a less draconian manner, do you think there would even need to be Tranquil?  As much as I dislike Jowan, I have to agree with him that Tranquility might be a fate worse than death--it seems to cut out the very thing that makes a mage a living, breathing, laughing person.

Good questions, I can't really answer either of them. Sitting on the fence.

[Grommash94]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
Mages don't fear or distrust mages. They are the only group who understands them which is why they are the only group that can govern them. Although perhaps the Tranquil could be involved as well , not sure about that.

Now that's an interesting thought.  But do you think the Tranquil are up to the task?  More to the point, if the mages were governed in a less draconian manner, do you think there would even need to be Tranquil?  As much as I dislike Jowan, I have to agree with him that Tranquility might be a fate worse than death--it seems to cut out the very thing that makes a mage a living, breathing, laughing person.

Mmm. But, there will still be mages who are too weak, or who would be a danger.  I still think Tranquility should be an option, if not necessarily forced upon some.

[Grommash94]

jln.francisco wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
In Origins, you could argue that every single blood mage you encounter that came from the circle was driven to it because of their persecution. Much more so than greed IMO. By removing the morally legitimate reason for their pursuit of power you lessen the numbers of people who pursue it. And hey, the Templars have already been proven to be completely inadequate.

But, blood mages existed long before the Chantry as well. Tevinter only went that way because they felt it opened up more doors for them, and was simply an easier path to power. There probably won't be as many blood mages as there were once, but they will still exist.

What's so wrong with Blood Magic? Everyone keeps acting like it's the same as butchering a small child (something the Chantry actively encourages amongst the templars, if the child is a mage) when it's no different then any other branch of magic. If you think Blood Magic is bad, what about Primal? Just imagine destroying whole villages with massive earth quakes or sending a blizzard against an opposing army trying to cross a river. Each branch is equally destructive but Blood Magic gets signaled out. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe someone can explain it because I obviously just don't get it.

Most of it relies on using other people's blood to power spells. Sometimes you can use your own blood...but the problem with it is, is that it changes people, according to Lily. It also gives you the means to control people's minds completely. Anyone's mind. Even mages think it is just unnatural and evil.

[Malanek]

jln.francisco wrote...
What's so wrong with Blood Magic? Everyone keeps acting like it's the same as butchering a small child (something the Chantry actively encourages amongst the templars, if the child is a mage) when it's no different then any other branch of magic. If you think Blood Magic is bad, what about Primal? Just imagine destroying whole villages with massive earth quakes or sending a blizzard against an opposing army trying to cross a river. Each branch is equally destructive but Blood Magic gets signaled out. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe someone can explain it because I obviously just don't get it.

That's another whole argument. In Origins, those associated with Uldred, were all blood mages. Uldred became an abomination, letting a demon take control of him. We can probably agree that this is a bad thing. It is unclear whether being a blood mage was in any way the reason for this though. It is judged illegal, so studying it is wrong in that sense. I am still to be convinced exactly why it is illegal though.

Modifié par Malanek999, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:29 .

[Kritanakom]

You know what happens when mages are only policed by other mages? Naturally gifted above their fellow human beings (to the point that they had to be slightly Overpowered even in game mechanics), they would, like any other human, seek power. The Lucratarian fraternity of the Circle demonstrates this tendency.

And when they have enough political power... they become the Magister Lords of the Tevinter Imperium.

Modifié par Kritanakom, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:30 .

[Grommash94]

Malanek999 wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...
What's so wrong with Blood Magic? Everyone keeps acting like it's the same as butchering a small child (something the Chantry actively encourages amongst the templars, if the child is a mage) when it's no different then any other branch of magic. If you think Blood Magic is bad, what about Primal? Just imagine destroying whole villages with massive earth quakes or sending a blizzard against an opposing army trying to cross a river. Each branch is equally destructive but Blood Magic gets signaled out. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe someone can explain it because I obviously just don't get it.

That's another whole argument. In Origins, those associated with Uldred, were all blood mages. Uldred became an abomination, letting a demon take control of him. We can probably agree that this is a bad thing. It is judged illegal, so studying it is wrong in that sense. I am still to be convinced exactly why it is illegal though.

Well, we know that it isn't only the Chantry that feels its illegal. Not even Tevinter allows it anymore. Using the blood of other people, and mind controlling other people, is something that pretty much everyone on Thedas agrees is a bad thing.

[SwordsmanofShadow]

Grommash94 wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
In Origins, you could argue that every single blood mage you encounter that came from the circle was driven to it because of their persecution. Much more so than greed IMO. By removing the morally legitimate reason for their pursuit of power you lessen the numbers of people who pursue it. And hey, the Templars have already been proven to be completely inadequate.

But, blood mages existed long before the Chantry as well. Tevinter only went that way because they felt it opened up more doors for them, and was simply an easier path to power. There probably won't be as many blood mages as there were once, but they will still exist.

What's so wrong with Blood Magic? Everyone keeps acting like it's the same as butchering a small child (something the Chantry actively encourages amongst the templars, if the child is a mage) when it's no different then any other branch of magic. If you think Blood Magic is bad, what about Primal? Just imagine destroying whole villages with massive earth quakes or sending a blizzard against an opposing army trying to cross a river. Each branch is equally destructive but Blood Magic gets signaled out. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe someone can explain it because I obviously just don't get it.

Most of it relies on using other people's blood to power spells. Sometimes you can use your own blood...but the problem with it is, is that it changes people, according to Lily. It also gives you the means to control people's minds completely. Anyone's mind. Even mages think it is just unnatural and evil.

Many mages think its wrong because the Chantry say's it is.

In my mind being able to set a man on fire at will is just as corrupting as taking over his mind. The only difference is that non mages are better prepared for the former, where as the latter they are pretty much defenseless.

That said I agree eith what has been said: The Chantry is completely unneeded in policing mages. Anyone else can do it, even mages themselves, but the Chantry won't give up control simply because thier hold over mages gives them great power.

Modifié par SwordsmanofShadow, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:32 .

[Grommash94]

[quote]SwordsmanofShadow wrote...

[quote]Grommash94 wrote...

[quote]jln.francisco wrote...

[quote]Grommash94 wrote...



[quote]Malanek999 wrote...
In Origins, you could argue that every single blood mage you encounter that came from the circle was driven to it because of their persecution. Much more so than greed IMO. By removing the morally legitimate reason for their pursuit of power you lessen the numbers of people who pursue it. And hey, the Templars have already been proven to be completely inadequate.
[/quote]

But, blood mages existed long before the Chantry as well. Tevinter only went that way because they felt it opened up more doors for them, and was simply an easier path to power. There probably won't be as many blood mages as there were once, but they will still exist.
[/quote]

What's so wrong with Blood Magic? Everyone keeps acting like it's the same as butchering a small child (something the Chantry actively encourages amongst the templars, if the child is a mage) when it's no different then any other branch of magic. If you think Blood Magic is bad, what about Primal? Just imagine destroying whole villages with massive earth quakes or sending a blizzard against an opposing army trying to cross a river. Each branch is equally destructive but Blood Magic gets signaled out. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe someone can explain it because I obviously just don't get it.
[/quote]

Most of it relies on using other people's blood to power spells. Sometimes you can use your own blood...but the problem with it is, is that it changes people, according to Lily. It also gives you the means to control people's minds completely. Anyone's mind. Even mages think it is just unnatural and evil.

[/quote]

[quote]
Many mages think its wrong because the Chantry say's it is.

In my mind being able to set a man on fire at will is just as corrupting as taking over his mind. The only difference is that non mages are better prepared for the former, where as the latter they are pretty much defenseless.

That said I agree eith what has been said: The Chantry is completely unneeded in policing mages. Anyone else can do it, even mages themselves, but the Chantry won't give up control simply because thier hold over mages gives them great power.
[/quote]

As I said though, even the Imperial Chantry, which gives loads of freedom to the mages, forbids blood magic. It does no good, whatsoever.

[Grommash94]

jln.francisco wrote...

Kritanakom wrote...

You know what happens when mages are only policed by other mages? Naturally gifted above their fellow human beings (to the point that they had to be slightly Overpowered even in game mechanics), they would, like any other man, seek power. The Lucratarian fraternity of the Circle demonstrates this tendency.

And when they have enough political power... they become the Magister Lords of the Tevinter Imperium.

You are making gross assumptions of what people might in some possible future do. And in akll honesty, could they be any worse then Arl Howe?

The difference would be that they would have enough power to take on all of the armies of Thedas. Power corrupts people. If the mages had no one, the Chantry, kings, whatever, to even remotely govern them, do you really think they will just keep put in their tower, advancing their skills and doing research? They would try to gain more power, in some way. It isn't inconcievable. The archons did it, and they do it even today.

[SwordsmanofShadow]

Grommash94 wrote...


As I said though, even the Imperial Chantry, which gives loads of freedom to the mages, forbids blood magic. It does no good, whatsoever.

The Imperial Chantry forbids blood magic I think mainly to keep other nations from having an excuse to go to war with them. There have been Exalted Marches against them in the past before, they don't need more enemies.

And I would also dissagree about blood magic having no redeming qualities. Not all
Blood Maigc is about mind control. And even then I can think of a few situations where mind influence and control could be used for a 'greater good'.  Being able to manipulate fire has both its horrid and redeaming qualities.

[Grommash94]

SwordsmanofShadow wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...


As I said though, even the Imperial Chantry, which gives loads of freedom to the mages, forbids blood magic. It does no good, whatsoever.

The Imperial Chantry forbids blood magic I think mainly to keep other nations from having an excuse to go to war with them. There have been Exalted Marches against them in the past before, they don't need more enemies.

And I would also dissagree about blood magic having no redeming qualities. Not all
Blood Maigc is about mind control. And even then I can think of a few situations where mind influence and control could be used for a 'greater good'.  Being able to manipulate fire has both its horrid and redeaming qualities.

I really don't think thats the reason. Minathrous has never fallen, I really doubt the Tevinters would be afraid of another Exalted March. Considering they are the only ones holding the Qunari back, I doubt the other nations would even dare.

Primal magic has its good uses, not involving killing. Putting out fires, destroying obstructs, etc. Blood magic's main purpose is to use demonic magic to bolster your own power. And it is powered by your blood and the blood of others. That is not a good thing.

Modifié par Grommash94, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:44 .

[Maverick827]

I'm confused; is Kordaris saying positive things in this thread?

[Sable Rhapsody]

Grommash94 wrote...
I really don't think thats the reason. Minathrous has never fallen, I really doubt the Tevinters would be afraid of another Exalted March. Considering they are the only ones holding the Qunari back, I doubt the other nations would even dare.

Primal magic has its good uses, not involving killing. Putting out fires, destroying obstructs, etc. Blood magic's main purpose is to use demonic magic to bolster your own power. And it is powered by your blood and the blood of others. That is not a good thing.

Blood magic is purely destructive; here I agree.  But just because it's destructive doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses--hell, look at how many things our technology spawns that are nothing but destructive?

[Grommash94]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
I really don't think thats the reason. Minathrous has never fallen, I really doubt the Tevinters would be afraid of another Exalted March. Considering they are the only ones holding the Qunari back, I doubt the other nations would even dare.

Primal magic has its good uses, not involving killing. Putting out fires, destroying obstructs, etc. Blood magic's main purpose is to use demonic magic to bolster your own power. And it is powered by your blood and the blood of others. That is not a good thing.

Blood magic is purely destructive; here I agree.  But just because it's destructive doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses--hell, look at how many things our technology spawns that are nothing but destructive?

I am sure it could have its uses. But the price is too high, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it is quite evident that pretty much everyone, even the archons, accept that it isn't worth the high price.

Modifié par Grommash94, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:54 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Grommash94 wrote...

I am sure it could have its uses. But the price is too high, wouldn't you agree? I mean, it is quite evident that pretty much everyone, even the archons, accept that it isn't worth the high price.

My mage never used blood magic, and she was staunchly libertarian.  Her attitude was that she could do enough destruction with her normal magic, and the responsible use of something as powerful and insidious as blood magic required a wiser mage than she.  I guess I can see where you're coming from on the blood magic--it's kinda like nuclear arms vs. conventional arms.

That being said, I do NOT think blood magic is like Star Wars' dark side slippery slope thing.  I think it's possible to find mages who possess enough self-control and wisdom to use it sparingly, only when you truly need something that terribly destructive.  I just think that mages that judicious would be few and far between.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:02 .

[jjbens]

wonder what happens if you pick mage

[Kritanakom]

jln.francisco wrote...
Blood Magic is powerful but it's no more dangerous then the mage using it.

Doesn't the *source* of blood magic come into the equation at all? It is often implied, sometimes outright stated by practicioners, that blood magic is learned from demons. The fact that in the original game the only way to learn it is from a demon gives further evidence.

Whether or not blood magic is evil, it is almost certainly *Demonic*, which may be cause enough to prohibit it.

[Dave of Canada]

shepard_lives wrote...

Horny qunari.

The best kind.

[errant_knight]

Kordaris wrote...

I hope they don't jump on the bash-the-organised-religion bandwagon which is so cliche.

The Templars and Chantry had a good reason for their actions as events in Mage Circle Tower show in Dragon Age 1.

I very much doubt they will. There was a good balance in DA:O, and I don't imagine that will change. There will probably be bad templars, but there will also be good ones. And they aren't going to make it a bash religion thing, both because that wouldn't be smart, and because they made sure we knew that the Chantry had good reason for their treatment of mages, even though it was onerous for the mages themselves.

[joriandrake]

Kordaris wrote...

I hope they don't jump on the bash-the-organised-religion bandwagon which is so cliche.

The Templars and Chantry had a good reason for their actions as events in Mage Circle Tower show in Dragon Age 1.

^ this