363 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Vearsin wrote...

The way i look at it blood magic isn't that much more powerfull than regular weapons or regular magic, so why is it used if not for the desire for that little extra power?

Well you can use it when you run out of mana.

[Seagloom]

This is entirely my opinion, but I have always seen blood magic as evil/immoral/unethetical (take your pick) even if their practitioners work toward noble aims. I can give a pass to mages using their own blood to fuel spells. The other abilities in Origins ranged from dehumanizing to sadistic, however. Before anyone asks, no I do not consider all standard mage spells a superior ethical alternative. There are several of those that fall under the above categories too in my opinion.

You are never going to find a definitive answer, OP. Discussing blood magic on these forums is like debating weapons laws in the real world. There is no universally right answer. There is only the answer each person believes is right. I am almost positive David Gaider once came into a thread like this ages ago and strongly implied blood magic slanted toward evil. Yet, here we are.

Modifié par Seagloom, 03 février 2011 - 11:17 .

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

YOU'RE MAKING A CONTRACT WITH A DEMON FOR POWER

Or you could just buy a book for, I think, 12 sovereigns.



Originally Old God (or elves) taught it, so Blood Magic is just a raw, pagan form of magic. People are afraid of it, because they are afraid to let their nature lead them. Most of the modern societies are based on conquering nature, both all around and in oneself. That is why Morrigan and Flemeth are characthers that people are instinctivily drawn to - they are ones that do not confront with their nature. I think Blood Magic can be taught in a diffirent, ancient way, just like Morrigan explains to Warden how is she going to teach his son not to be afraid of it's nature.

[My Avatar is a Lizard]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

There isn't really anything *inherently* bad about controlling other people (I mean if you want to get technical, we are always controlled by a combination of past experiences and influences, the amount of free choice that goes into any decision is up for debate). Nonetheless, we live in a society that places immense value on personal liberty and the concept of free will. In such a society the idea of mind-control is somewhat abhorent to many. I think that abhorence is conditional, rather than inherent, though. In a society where the concept of the individual did not carry much weight, mind-control by community leaders for the good of 'the group' would probably not be as objectionable.

Actuallym I think I would object to that on moral grounds, we derserve what we get, making people do good things defeats the point beyond self-satisfaction and self-preservation, allowing or granting someone the capability to do good is morally good however, thus blood magic is actually morally evil from todays standards.

This is the point really. In our modern society where values such as 'we deserve what we get' the ability to control the actions of others is morally wrong. The point is really that what is morally right or wrong depends entirely on the age and society in which these morals operate. In a society with an entirely different moral and ethical system, controlling others for the purpose of some 'greater good' might be seen as morally good.

If you want to get into ethics, There is no greater good because one can not measure good.

And i don't think there have been any societies where the populace would ever feel OK with being mind controlled. Maybe the leadship/higher power felt it was neccessary but i doubt anyone on the street would cheer about never being able to make their own choices.

[drahelvete]

Eudaemonium wrote...


This is the point really. In our modern society where values such as 'we deserve what we get' the ability to control the actions of others is morally wrong. The point is really that what is morally right or wrong depends entirely on the age and society in which these morals operate. In a society with an entirely different moral and ethical system, controlling others for the purpose of some 'greater good' might be seen as morally good.

Not just in modern society. Mind control is considered wrong in most (probably all) cultures where the belief in witchcraft is still prevalent, and it was definitely considered wrong in medieval and early modern Europe. The use of magic to influence the minds of others was considered maleficium. The intent didn't matter.

Modifié par drahelvete, 03 février 2011 - 11:17 .

[Eudaemonium]

Falls Edge wrote...

Don't you think that because of the use of force in these particular situations that you could infer that they'd eventually become intolerable or unlikable because of their actions? I mean, for the greater good you'll do what I say, when to do it,  saying things like "You're too dumb and inexperienced, here let me take over" is going to be a boon to your social interaction or likeability is something I can't imagine is in store for humanity a ways down, it goes against your self-interest to like someone who controls others because he thinks they're wrong, especially when you aren't the same person as them.

It's kind of, like, the path of dictators.

I do agree with you; I'm just largely speaking in hypotheticals. I'm basically talking about a hypothetical society where concepts like 'self-interest' don't really hold any weight - as in there is no, or an undervalued, concept of individuality. In such a society, taking control of someone wouldn't be construed as taking their free will away, it would probably be seen as a method of serving the greater whole. It would probably be best if you conceive of a society similar (but not identical) to that of the Qunari - where the nation is considered to be an organic whole, a living organism in itself of which the individuals within it merely compose aspects of that organism, not separate beings within themselves. In such a society, or a more extreme one, the ability for 'one' in a position of power to manipulate the actions of 'others' (self and other being relative terms here, since within teh society there is no strict distinction) directly in order to perform certain tasks could be seen as a practice which allows the organism to function at a superior level.

[Eveangaline]

Blood magic can be good under a few conditions.



1: Not taught by demons. They just aren' trustworthy.

2: Powered only by willing subjects, that can be either the mage themself, or someone who has agreed with no coercian that their blood can be used

3: It's not used to control people

[Eudaemonium]

drahelvete wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...


This is the point really. In our modern society where values such as 'we deserve what we get' the ability to control the actions of others is morally wrong. The point is really that what is morally right or wrong depends entirely on the age and society in which these morals operate. In a society with an entirely different moral and ethical system, controlling others for the purpose of some 'greater good' might be seen as morally good.

Not just in modern society. Mind control is considered wrong in most (probably all) cultures where the belief in witchcraft is still prevalent, and it was definitely considered wrong in medieval and early modern Europe. The use of magic to influence the minds of others was considered maleficium. The intent didn't matter.

Like I said later, I'm talking mainly about hypothetical societies, not ones that do or have existed. I'm also just playing devil's advocate and having fun.

[Noviere]

TJPags wrote...

I think the blood magic thing is a Chantry creation. None of the evil blood mages we saw in DA so far tried any form of mind control. Nor were they particularly difficult to kill. Blood mage was a talent (or skill? whichever) that the PC or companions could use in DA - and I'm sure not everyone who took that option played evil characters.

Blood magic is a tool. Don't hate the tool. Hate the person who uses it.

And don't believe the hype.

In DAO, in order to learn the Blood Mage specialization you had to do something that could be seen as questionably evil though.

[Falls Edge]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Well, Blood Magic is the magic of demons...

Still, as previously stated, there's nothing necessarily wrong with Blood Magic.  It's just that it's open to extreme abuse.  Controlling someone's mind (like a monarch or a Divine) is one example.  Using *other* people to fuel your spells is another.

Remember, one particularly silly spell used by Ancient Tevinter used the lives of hundreds of slaves to power it.

Falls Edge wrote...

You could just read the dresden files if you like fiction, they basically answer the quest of why it is a horrible idea to learn magic that control minds, and what would realistically happen if you gave someone that ability.

Well, there's a bit of a difference between Dresden Files' magic and DAO's.  In DF, there's a clear split on 'black' magic and normal magic.  Black Magic is insidious and encourages the user to use it more and more (like the Dark Side in Star Wars) then twists you into what you are.

Mental magic in that setting is particularly nasty because, depending on how you feel about the person, using the exact same spell on two different people can have drastically different effects (usually insanity).

Besides, the way you can tell who is the bad guy and who is the...nicer guy in DF, is that the bad guys universally mind rape mortals in their employ.

What I meant was that intentions and stray thoughts, or revenge fantasys would become reality if you had that kind of power over people, the moment you're given the power to actually DO something about someone else, with no one else to stop you is the point where you start wondering why you aren't doing it.

I felt the way magic worked in the dresden files was a commentary on the difference between fantasy and reality and how when fantasy power falls into reality and fantasys can become reality, that your actions effect you that much more than what you could do on your own, this might be the equivelent of asking if a man who builds a house is happy, and when he tells you why it's because he did something with his hands.

However, if making the house was easy would this strengthen his satisfaction? Or would it weaken it? That's kind of what I thought the writer was trying to convey, that the magical after affects of using these things would  have to have artificial emotional impact because it was a lot more than what they could've done on their own without it, kind of like satisfaction with something you did even though you could've have it without magic, you think you yourself are magic.

Er, that probably didn't make much sense, sorry.

Edit: Also, I'm aware there's no such thing as objective morality, I'm just pointing out that it is morally wrong from this era's perspective, and that a human, as long as they remain an individual will always think it is wrong when spelled out for them, because we're communal creatures, so in a way as a human who talks to people it's objectively bad, if I was an alien this wouldn't necessarily be the case.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 03 février 2011 - 11:27 .

[TJPags]

Noviere wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I think the blood magic thing is a Chantry creation. None of the evil blood mages we saw in DA so far tried any form of mind control. Nor were they particularly difficult to kill. Blood mage was a talent (or skill? whichever) that the PC or companions could use in DA - and I'm sure not everyone who took that option played evil characters.

Blood magic is a tool. Don't hate the tool. Hate the person who uses it.

And don't believe the hype.

In DAO, in order to learn the Blood Mage specialization you had to do something that could be seen as questionably evil though.

Oh?  What?

[My Avatar is a Lizard]

TJPags wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

TJPags wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

NTsikuris wrote...

But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage?

Certainly. There's nothing inherently bad about blood mage. The ability to control the mind of another might be problematic, but there are other perfectly benign things blood magic can do.

Isn't the ability to control the mind of another Inherently bad?
If your government had tech to control your thoughts but didn't use them would you still want your government to have them? 

Blood magic gives the user the possibility to use blood (his or of another person) to fuel his spells. Blood magic gives the possibility to control mind, but you don't have to use it. A blood mage could simply use his blood to fuel his spell (as I do when I played BM in Origins) without controlling minds or using other person's blood.

But isn't the ability in itself simply bad? What's better everyone having nukes no one dare uses, or Having no nukes at all? Sure no country is dropping the A bomb right now but at any point in the future they could, and that in itself is going to make anyone nervous i think.

No, not at all.  An ability is neither good or bad.  What you do with it can be good or bad.

Your comparison is flawed.  You should be comparing blood magic to nuclear technology, not nuclear weapons.  Nuclear technocolgy can be used to make power plants, which is good, or nukes, which may be bad.

Blood mages can use blood to fuel spells.  I'd even argue that the mind control is not inherently bad.  What if it was used to stop someone who was planning to kill themself by jumping off a roof?  Or if it was used to kill a despot?  Or stop a serial killer?

So now you're deciding whats right and wrong, What people can and can't do. Because you think suicide is never justfied your going to decide people aren't allowed and they no longer have say. You have become god in other words
Why does someone need that much power?
Your already a mage if you want to stop a serial killer cast a damn fireball.

Wow, jump on one example much? 

1.Yea, I think suicide is bad, but hey, someone wants to, let them.  I'd only try to stop my family or close friends from doing it - I wasn't even thinking of trying to stop some dude I never met.

2.But you're the one deciding what's right or wrong.  You think it's fine to kill someone with a fireball, but not to stop them from doing what you'd have to kill them for with blood magic?

I mean, think about that - "Oh look, he's going to kill that woman!!!"  "don't worry, once he does, I'll kill him with this fireball"  "what?  stop him now!!" "oh no, that would be wrong"

That's . . .silly.

3.If I use my fireball to destroy a roomful of innocent children, is that better than someone using blood magic to stop me?

1.So if you have the ability to mind control you friend into stopping his suicide, you will/ You are now deciding as higher being what is right and wrong for those below you to do. You will is more correct than ours. You think you're friend shouldn't die, so now he dosen't, but that stranger you don't care for is now jumping off a building and you decide he is not worth saving? Do you see nothing wrong with this? \\

2.As an equal i am deciding what is right and wrong (although mages are not equal to normals to be fair) if i were born better than everyone else and decided what was right and wrong for them would i not be playing god?

3. He could have mind controlled you to cast that fireball in the first place, How would you know? You have no free will if the blood mage decides so. Would that not scare you?

[Jzadek72]

The whole evil blood magic was a bit stupid, considering some powers - how is it not okay to use a bit of your own health to power magic, but perfectly acceptable to cast Virulent Walking Bomb on someone, or scare them literally to death with nightmare?

[My Avatar is a Lizard]

Jzadek72 wrote...

The whole evil blood magic was a bit stupid, considering some powers - how is it not okay to use a bit of your own health to power magic, but perfectly acceptable to cast Virulent Walking Bomb on someone, or scare them literally to death with nightmare?

Answer:it's not

Mages are kept in a tower for a reason

[Falls Edge]

Jzadek72 wrote...

The whole evil blood magic was a bit stupid, considering some powers - how is it not okay to use a bit of your own health to power magic, but perfectly acceptable to cast Virulent Walking Bomb on someone, or scare them literally to death with nightmare?

Blood magic is terrorism and big brother all rolled into one, with perhaps a bit of overclock mixed in.

Edit: or steroids if you didn't get the reference.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 03 février 2011 - 11:32 .

[Jzadek72]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

Jzadek72 wrote...

The whole evil blood magic was a bit stupid, considering some powers - how is it not okay to use a bit of your own health to power magic, but perfectly acceptable to cast Virulent Walking Bomb on someone, or scare them literally to death with nightmare?

Answer:it's not

Mages are kept in a tower for a reason

Yet not hunted down and mercilessly slaughtered. I'm not excusing mages with those spells, just that blood magic is considered worse than it actuallly is.

[TJPags]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

TJPags wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

TJPags wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

NTsikuris wrote...

But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage?

Certainly. There's nothing inherently bad about blood mage. The ability to control the mind of another might be problematic, but there are other perfectly benign things blood magic can do.

Isn't the ability to control the mind of another Inherently bad?
If your government had tech to control your thoughts but didn't use them would you still want your government to have them? 

Blood magic gives the user the possibility to use blood (his or of another person) to fuel his spells. Blood magic gives the possibility to control mind, but you don't have to use it. A blood mage could simply use his blood to fuel his spell (as I do when I played BM in Origins) without controlling minds or using other person's blood.

But isn't the ability in itself simply bad? What's better everyone having nukes no one dare uses, or Having no nukes at all? Sure no country is dropping the A bomb right now but at any point in the future they could, and that in itself is going to make anyone nervous i think.

No, not at all.  An ability is neither good or bad.  What you do with it can be good or bad.

Your comparison is flawed.  You should be comparing blood magic to nuclear technology, not nuclear weapons.  Nuclear technocolgy can be used to make power plants, which is good, or nukes, which may be bad.

Blood mages can use blood to fuel spells.  I'd even argue that the mind control is not inherently bad.  What if it was used to stop someone who was planning to kill themself by jumping off a roof?  Or if it was used to kill a despot?  Or stop a serial killer?

So now you're deciding whats right and wrong, What people can and can't do. Because you think suicide is never justfied your going to decide people aren't allowed and they no longer have say. You have become god in other words
Why does someone need that much power?
Your already a mage if you want to stop a serial killer cast a damn fireball.

Wow, jump on one example much? 

1.Yea, I think suicide is bad, but hey, someone wants to, let them.  I'd only try to stop my family or close friends from doing it - I wasn't even thinking of trying to stop some dude I never met.

2.But you're the one deciding what's right or wrong.  You think it's fine to kill someone with a fireball, but not to stop them from doing what you'd have to kill them for with blood magic?

I mean, think about that - "Oh look, he's going to kill that woman!!!"  "don't worry, once he does, I'll kill him with this fireball"  "what?  stop him now!!" "oh no, that would be wrong"

That's . . .silly.

3.If I use my fireball to destroy a roomful of innocent children, is that better than someone using blood magic to stop me?

1.So if you have the ability to mind control you friend into stopping his suicide, you will/ You are now deciding as higher being what is right and wrong for those below you to do. You will is more correct than ours. You think you're friend shouldn't die, so now he dosen't, but that stranger you don't care for is now jumping off a building and you decide he is not worth saving? Do you see nothing wrong with this? \\\\

2.As an equal i am deciding what is right and wrong (although mages are not equal to normals to be fair) if i were born better than everyone else and decided what was right and wrong for them would i not be playing god?

3. He could have mind controlled you to cast that fireball in the first place, How would you know? You have no free will if the blood mage decides so. Would that not scare you?

1.  If I see a friend of mine about to do something stupid, yes, I'm going to stop them.  And yes, I think committing suicide is stupid.  So yes, I will stop them.  You know what?  If they really want to, they'll try it again and again until they succeed.  But to paint me somehow as a bad person for trying to stop them - that's laughable.

2.  I have no idea what you mean.  You are somehow "equal" because you think blood magic is bad, regular magic is fine?  You say using a fireball to kill someone is fine, using mind control to stop them from killing someone else is bad?  Where does equality come in?    Killing is generally considered bad (there are circumstances where it it can be argued it's good, but let's ignore those).  So if killing is bad, isn't stopping it good?  Or are you actually saying you'd prefer that I DO use a fireball to kill a room full of innocent children, so long as I don't use blood magic to make someone else do it?  Or even so long as nobody uses blood magic to STOP me?  Really?

3.  Who's mind controlling what?  What example are you referring to?  The last one I gave?  Where was blood magic in that?  I specifically did NOT use blood magic there - blood magic would have allowed me to stop the murder.  Instead, I used regular magic to kill the murderer AFTER the fact.  There WAS no mind control or blood magic in there.  You're clearly making things up now.

You seem to live in a world of absolutes.  Blood magic is wrong, free will is wonderful.  What about if my free will leads me to want to use blood magic?  Who are you to trample on my free will?

[Seagloom]

Eveangaline wrote...
2: Powered only by willing subjects, that can be either the mage themself, or someone who has agreed with no coercian that their blood can be used

This one of those aspects I consider dehumanizing. Is casting a spell worth putting someone's life in danger under all but the most extreme circumstances? Losing pints of blood is a big deal. It is not easily replaced by the body. There is a reason we need blood banks to store it for emergencies. A person that has suffered massive blood loss is going to be seriously ill. Such a mage, regardless of their intentions, is treating another humanoid being as a living battery and puts their life at risk. What kind of person is the blood mage to willingly take that chance?

I think a mage has to have a dangerous lack of empathy to see no problem with that, even if the target of their bloodletting gave them carte blanche beforehand. That is doubly true if their blood battery is supposedly a loved one.

As a side note, heal is described as kniting wounds; not restoring blood. As far as I am aware there is no convenient way to give someone a transfusion in Thedas.

Modifié par Seagloom, 03 février 2011 - 11:44 .

[drahelvete]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Yet not hunted down and mercilessly slaughtered. I'm not excusing mages with those spells, just that blood magic is considered worse than it actuallly is.

The most common way to learn blood magic is by contracting a demon, no? Demons don't provide services without demanding something in return. Some blood mages can even summon demons to do their bidding, probably using blood as a sacrificial gift of sorts. That is probably enough to make the Chantry believe that all blood mages make deals with demons. Of course, dealing with demons doesn't automatically make you a demonolator, but I've got a feeling the Chantry isn't willing to take any chances. And if the Maker is anything like the Abrahamic God, he probably doesn't approve of latria being offered to demons, making it an act of heresy even if the blood mage is an otherwise pious Andrastian who is only dealing with demons for the sake of good. 

It wouldn't surprise me if the main reason the Chantry is so afraid of blood mages is'nt because they are more powerful than other mages or because blood magic is "inherently evil", but because they are considered heretics (cf. goetic/ceremonial magicians during the High Middle Ages). Heretics are a potential threat not only to the Chantry but to all those whose power and authority is believed to derive from the Maker. The Chantry probably spread a lot of lies about cabals of blood mages meeting in secret to eat babies, have sex with demons, and plot how to overthrow the Chantry and/or government just to encourage the suppression of blood mages (at least that's what happened IRL).

Modifié par drahelvete, 05 février 2011 - 02:17 .

[elfdwarf]

depends on your opinion and npc opinion on magic

some npc think magic is evil

some npc think magic is good and blood magic is evil

some npc have neutral thoughts on magic

my opinion is in neutral zone

[Maria Caliban]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

I find it hard to believe that you would have no problem with your government having the ability to take utter control over you anytime they decide to. Even though they've never done it before.

1. My government could kill 99% of the earth's population in under 24 hours but I don't spend my time worrying about it.

2. I answer a hypothetical within the constraints of a hypothetical. In this situation, the government doesn't use the ability to control minds. Why? Because you told me they don't use the ability.

Your neighbor has a dog that never bites or harms people. If you walk by the dog, are you scared of it?

If you have a phobia, an irrational fear, you might be scared of it. If you're a rational person, you won't be because in this situation, the dog never bites.

[Altima Darkspells]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...


Or you could just buy a book for, I think, 12 sovereigns.

Originally Old God (or elves) taught it, so Blood Magic is just a raw, pagan form of magic.

The Old Gods taught man magic, not blood magic.

Avernus even states that no form of Blood Magic can counter a demon because it's their magic.

[HolyAvenger]

I'm not a fan of it. The ability is too open to abuse. Sure, a few righteous BMs would not do any harm but that's not a good reason to restrict the usage of it (by banning it outright).

[LoneFullmetal]

The Bard From Hell wrote...

You could make Wynne a Blood Mage in Origins, and I made Anders one too. None of them is evil, and none of them complains about it.

I notice Anders talks about it in Dialouge if you do make him a Blood mage, like you get an option to say something like "but you're a blood mage" then he says "well yeah, I am now."

That's about it though, he doesn't seem to think it matters much.