363 réponses à ce sujet

[Seagloom]

Filament wrote...

Does animal blood work? I know it works in-game (great bear--> blood sacrifice). Not sure about according to the lore. If it does, I wonder if that would change the ethics debate? I mean, on one hand you could say that also shows a lack of empathy kind of like the sociopaths who pull off spiders' legs and then kill kittens and such... on the other hand you could say it's not much different than when we kill animals for food.

That is an interesting question. As far as I know there is no mention of it, but I do not consider myself an authority on DA lore. If animal blood could fuel blood magic then it becomes murkier indeed. People in Thedas clearly kill animals for sustenance. They could always bleed an animal after killing it humanely (if they bother to be humane about it). It would be swell if a dev answered that one.

[Maria Caliban]

The intent seems to be the blood of living creatures.

[blothulfur]

Lyrium is the key to most mortal magic as well as a rare and sought after mineral for its array of useful effects while blood seems to be the same in demonic circles in the fade seeing as demons are masters of blood magic, are these two components both alien elements in their sought after territories and could our mages use of lyrium be an abominable act to a fade power.

Lyrium = The blood of the fade somehow infused deep into the mortal world.

Blood = Our soulsstream sought after, bargained for and consumed by the demons of the fade.

Just what the hell is lyrium and why does it sing like the archdemons call to the darkspawn.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

The Old Gods taught man magic, not blood magic.

The Codex says that Dumat taught tervinter magister blood magic, with which he then ruled.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 04 février 2011 - 12:58 .

[IanPolaris]

Seagloom wrote...

Filament wrote...

Does animal blood work? I know it works in-game (great bear--> blood sacrifice). Not sure about according to the lore. If it does, I wonder if that would change the ethics debate? I mean, on one hand you could say that also shows a lack of empathy kind of like the sociopaths who pull off spiders' legs and then kill kittens and such... on the other hand you could say it's not much different than when we kill animals for food.

That is an interesting question. As far as I know there is no mention of it, but I do not consider myself an authority on DA lore. If animal blood could fuel blood magic then it becomes murkier indeed. People in Thedas clearly kill animals for sustenance. They could always bleed an animal after killing it humanely (if they bother to be humane about it). It would be swell if a dev answered that one.

I believe the current game evidence is that animal blood works just fine.  I note that bloodmages can draw off of Dog to power spells or even off the ranger's animal summons to do the same (but Shale can not be used to power blood magic spells).  That tells me that any living creature with blood is a valid source of energy for bloodmagic including animals.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Noviere wrote...

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

Not necessarily.  Actually selling Conner's soul for Bloodmagic is certainly evil, no question.  However, you can intimidate the demon into giving you bloodmagic for free without any hold over Conner's soul.  I would say this is a good act, myself.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

NTsikuris wrote...

As we all know, Blood Magic is a dark, forbidden magic and is usually only taught by demons. But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage? Surely not all Blood Mages are evil. Could the Devs explain more on this subject? It would be greatly appreciated.

Duncan admits that Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to fight the darkspawn.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

NTsikuris wrote...

As we all know, Blood Magic is a dark, forbidden magic and is usually only taught by demons. But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage? Surely not all Blood Mages are evil. Could the Devs explain more on this subject? It would be greatly appreciated.

Duncan admits that Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to fight the darkspawn.

Indeed.

And let's not forget - who forbids blood magic?  The Chantry.  Which is based on Andraste.  Who I think had issues with Tevinter, no?

[atheelogos]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

NTsikuris wrote...

As we all know, Blood Magic is a dark, forbidden magic and is usually only taught by demons. But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage? Surely not all Blood Mages are evil. Could the Devs explain more on this subject? It would be greatly appreciated.

Duncan admits that Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to fight the darkspawn.

Indeed.

And let's not forget - who forbids blood magic?  The Chantry.  Which is based on Andraste.  Who I think had issues with Tevinter, no?

That doesn't mean she hated magic. Hell there's even a rumor that she was a mage herself.

[Haverrun]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

Maria Caliban 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?

An ability isn't 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? 

If my government had tech to control thoughts but didn't use them, it wouldn't matter whether my government had them or not.

So you would feel completley safe knowing your government had the tech to control your thoughts?
You would have no problem with that, really?

Jedi can control minds. Nobody seem particulary worried in SW.
I have a question: if a mage knows blood magic, he/she is immune to blood domination in your opinion?

No because jedi are the embodiement of all things good and are basically jesus.
But do people fear the sith? Would you wanna stand next to darth vader(ok maybe you would if you a SW fan)
Anakin simply turned to the darkside to protect his wife in good intention but it turned out his intention just backfired and corrupted him with power. Why can't a sith use his powers for good?


Jowan said he only experimented with blood magic but later attacks 7 templars when they try to take his girlfriend for breaking laws in place.
With all that power Jowan is basically deciding what he sees fit as right and wrong, what laws he chooses to follow is up to him because if you try to stop him or tell him he's wrong your simply going to wind up a pile of goo.

The templars were about to take Lily away to Aeonar. Jowan was just trying to defend her. Jowan also could have killed all those templars while they were down but he pretty much just ran away .

[Haverrun]

Seagloom wrote...

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.

I wouldn't base much on this logic. Jowan sprayed his blood across a wide area.

[TJPags]

atheelogos wrote...

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

NTsikuris wrote...

As we all know, Blood Magic is a dark, forbidden magic and is usually only taught by demons. But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage? Surely not all Blood Mages are evil. Could the Devs explain more on this subject? It would be greatly appreciated.

Duncan admits that Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to fight the darkspawn.

Indeed.

And let's not forget - who forbids blood magic?  The Chantry.  Which is based on Andraste.  Who I think had issues with Tevinter, no?

That doesn't mean she hated magic. Hell there's even a rumor that she was a mage herself.

Rumors.  Likely true, IMO.

But notice, the Chantry is much harsher on blood magic than on regular mages.  No matter what you think of how they treat mages, blood mages are killed on sight.

[Eclipse_9990]

 I don't think mind control is a totally bad thing.. But it does hold the possibility for abuse. 
As I'm sure many people stated, Jedi control minds yet the're still considered good guys. 

[Juggernaught203]

I would say the ends justify the means. Which was, I believe, the way the Grey Wardens approached such things. If it takes Blood Magic to stop an Archdemon, so be it. If it takes Blood Magic to stop whatever threat is present in DA2, go with my blessing.

You can use a knife to kill people, but you can also use it to slice bread. In my opinion, it's how you *use* a tool that defines whether it is evil, not where it comes from.

Guns don't kill people, you do.

Edit: I woud say that in the case of Jowan (initially, in the Circle) his intentions were pure, if slightly irresponsible. He wanted to get away from the Circle and be with Lily. In my opinion thats not a bad thing in the slightest. Mages do, after all, get no say in being in the Circle, unless they choose to die, or branded apostate/maleficar.
However, the way he used Blood Magic to neutralize the Templars was what I would call rash and irresponsible, if understandable given the circumstances.

Is this proof that power corrupts? Perhaps. There always have been benevolent rulers and there always have been tyrants. It depends on the individual, I presume. Having the ability to kill someone does not mean that you will actually do it, or even want it. It could possibly be easier to be tempted to actually use this power, yes.

I like the Jedi analogy. Mind-controlling and having the Force at their disposal could indeed make it easier for a person to tempt them and further their own goals. Plenty succumb to this, but there are also plenty who don't and selflesly use it in defence of others.

This is why I can, when looking at the practical side, rather then the emotional side of things, aprove of the Harrowing. It weeds out the Mages who are not suited to wielding power responsibly, and those who do have the power to resist the demons will become full-fledged Mages. Of course, this isn't bullet-proof. Uldred is a good example of this, having been a Senior Mage and still becoming an abomination.

Modifié par Juggernaught203, 05 février 2011 - 04:08 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Juggernaught203 wrote...

I would say the ends justify the means. Which was, I believe, the way the Grey Wardens approached such things. If it takes Blood Magic to stop an Archdemon, so be it. If it takes Blood Magic to stop whatever threat is present in DA2, go with my blessing.

You can use a knife to kill people, but you can also use it to slice bread. In my opinion, it's how you *use* a tool that defines whether it is evil, not where it comes from.

Guns don't kill people, you do.

Edit: I woud say that in the case of Jowan (initially, in the Circle) his intentions were pure, if slightly irresponsible. He wanted to get away from the Circle and be with Lily. In my opinion thats not a bad thing in the slightest. Mages do, after all, get no say in being in the Circle, unless they choose to die, or branded apostate/maleficar.
However, the way he used Blood Magic to neutralize the Templars was what I would call rash and irresponsible, if understandable given the circumstances.

Is this proof that power corrupts? Perhaps. There always have been benevolent rulers and there always have been tyrants. It depends on the individual, I presume. Having the ability to kill someone does not mean that you will actually do it, or even want it. It could possibly be easier to be tempted to actually use this power, yes.

I like the Jedi analogy. Mind-controlling and having the Force at their disposal could indeed make it easier for a person to tempt them and further their own goals. Plenty succumb to this, but there are also plenty who don't and selflesly use it in defence of others.

This is why I can, when looking at the practical side, rather then the emotional side of things, aprove of the Harrowing. It weeds out the Mages who are not suited to wielding power responsibly, and those who do have the power to resist the demons will become full-fledged Mages. Of course, this isn't bullet-proof. Uldred is a good example of this, having been a Senior Mage and still becoming an abomination.

Thank you for your perspective. This is exactly how I see it. To me it doesn't matter what you do or how you do it, as long as the end result is something really good in the long run. 

Also the Harrowing thing.. You have a point in this too. As bad as the Harrowing is it weeds out the worthy from the trash so to speak. By them either failing their test or wimping out and becoming tranquil. So yeah.. I guess I kind of support the Harrowing system now.. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 05 février 2011 - 04:21 .

[Juggernaught203]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Thank you for your perspective. This is exactly how I see it. To me it doesn't matter what you do or how you do it, as long as the end result is something really good in the long run. 

Also the Harrowing thing.. You have a point in this too. As bad as the Harrowing is it weeds out the worthy from the trash so to speak. By them either failing their test or wimping out and becoming tranquil. So yeah.. I guess I kind of support the Harrowing system now.. 

The only problem is; where do you draw the line? What do you, for example, think of Avernus (if you played the Warden's Keep DLC of course), his motives, and the way he conducted his research, by means of killing Wardens with Blood Magic? 

I always drink the potion to gain the abilities, even as a good character because 1) it's already there, and there is nothing I can or could do to prevent the rather insidious "research" that led to the creation of it and 2) it will help my character optain another tool to combat the Blight and other "evil" such as demons, which is both my duty and my cherised personal goal as a Warden.
This Warden does not actively promote methods like Avernus', and will seek alternative ways of research if he/she has/had a say in it, but should such power already be available to them, will not pass it up.

Perhaps some of the Wardens and nobles Avernus experimented upon volunteered, but I find it hard to believe the majority would have. Is this different for example than the Harrowing? In my opinion, yes. The Circle/Chantry gives you the choice to either face your fear and test your skills in the Harrowing or to become Tranquil, despite you not having a say in either being born a Mage or taken for the Harrowing. You have a solid chance to survive the Harrowing if you use the knowledge and powers taught to you by the Circle.

Avernus probably didn't give his "test subjects" that same chance. His motives were, if you ask me, in a way, justified. He wanted to help the Wardens make better use of the powers they possessed in order to more effectively combat the darkspawn. This would, in the long run, allow the Wardens to better defend the people of Thedas from future Blights, and save many many lives.

If you ask me, are his methods acceptable? No I do not think so. The results and possible chances of succes probably didn't really stack up against the cost in terms of lives lost and given the circumstances of the " test subjects" and the say they had in the matter (which was probably nothing).

I love thinking about stuff like this... Food for thought indeed.

Modifié par Juggernaught203, 05 février 2011 - 05:06 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Juggernaught203 wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Thank you for your perspective. This is exactly how I see it. To me it doesn't matter what you do or how you do it, as long as the end result is something really good in the long run. 

Also the Harrowing thing.. You have a point in this too. As bad as the Harrowing is it weeds out the worthy from the trash so to speak. By them either failing their test or wimping out and becoming tranquil. So yeah.. I guess I kind of support the Harrowing system now.. 

The only problem is; where do you draw the line? What do you, for example, think of Avernus (if you played the Warden's Keep DLC of course), his motives, and the way he conducted his research, by means of killing Wardens with Blood Magic? 

I always drink the potion to gain the abilities, even as a good character because 1) it's already there, and there is nothing I can or could do to prevent the rather insidious "research" that led to the creation of it and 2) it will help my character optain another tool to combat the Blight and other "evil" such as demons, which is both my duty and my cherised personal goal as a Warden.
This Warden does not actively promote methods like Avernus', and will seek alternative ways of research if he/she has/had a say in it, but should such power already be available to them, will not pass it up.

Perhaps some of the Wardens and nobles Avernus experimented upon volunteered, but I find it hard to believe the majority would have. Is this different for example than the Harrowing? In my opinion, yes. The Circle/Chantry gives you the choice to either face your fear and test your skills in the Harrowing or to become Tranquil, despite you not having a say in either being born a Mage or taken for the Harrowing. You have a solid chance to survive the Harrowing if you use the knowledge and powers taught to you by the Circle.

Avernus probably didn't give his "test subjects" that same chance. His motives were, if you ask me, in a way, justified. He wanted to help the Wardens make better use of the powers they possessed in order to more effectively combat the darkspawn. This would, in the long run, allow the Wardens to better defend the people of Thedas from future Blights, and save many many lives.

If you ask me, are his methods acceptable? No I do not think so. The results and possible chances of succes probably didn't really stack up against the cost in terms of lives lost and given the circumstances of the " test subjects" and the say they had in the matter (which was probably nothing).

I love thinking about stuff like this... Food for thought indeed.

Well I actually let Avernus live to continue his research. Why? If he successfully  unlocks the power of the blood for Warden's it would give them such a huge advantage in the long run, and will make killing Darkspawn that much simpler. Sure a few Wardens might die from the experiments, but I believe my Warden wouldn't shed a tear if it got the job done. 

[bsbcaer]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Juggernaught203 wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Thank you for your perspective. This is exactly how I see it. To me it doesn't matter what you do or how you do it, as long as the end result is something really good in the long run. 

Also the Harrowing thing.. You have a point in this too. As bad as the Harrowing is it weeds out the worthy from the trash so to speak. By them either failing their test or wimping out and becoming tranquil. So yeah.. I guess I kind of support the Harrowing system now.. 

The only problem is; where do you draw the line? What do you, for example, think of Avernus (if you played the Warden's Keep DLC of course), his motives, and the way he conducted his research, by means of killing Wardens with Blood Magic? 

I always drink the potion to gain the abilities, even as a good character because 1) it's already there, and there is nothing I can or could do to prevent the rather insidious "research" that led to the creation of it and 2) it will help my character optain another tool to combat the Blight and other "evil" such as demons, which is both my duty and my cherised personal goal as a Warden.
This Warden does not actively promote methods like Avernus', and will seek alternative ways of research if he/she has/had a say in it, but should such power already be available to them, will not pass it up.

Perhaps some of the Wardens and nobles Avernus experimented upon volunteered, but I find it hard to believe the majority would have. Is this different for example than the Harrowing? In my opinion, yes. The Circle/Chantry gives you the choice to either face your fear and test your skills in the Harrowing or to become Tranquil, despite you not having a say in either being born a Mage or taken for the Harrowing. You have a solid chance to survive the Harrowing if you use the knowledge and powers taught to you by the Circle.

Avernus probably didn't give his "test subjects" that same chance. His motives were, if you ask me, in a way, justified. He wanted to help the Wardens make better use of the powers they possessed in order to more effectively combat the darkspawn. This would, in the long run, allow the Wardens to better defend the people of Thedas from future Blights, and save many many lives.

If you ask me, are his methods acceptable? No I do not think so. The results and possible chances of succes probably didn't really stack up against the cost in terms of lives lost and given the circumstances of the " test subjects" and the say they had in the matter (which was probably nothing).

I love thinking about stuff like this... Food for thought indeed.

Well I actually let Avernus live to continue his research. Why? If he successfully  unlocks the power of the blood for Warden's it would give them such a huge advantage in the long run, and will make killing Darkspawn that much simpler. Sure a few Wardens might die from the experiments, but I believe my Warden wouldn't shed a tear if it got the job done. 

Haven't played Warden's keep.  So it seems like it's similar to the decision to be made with the anvil of the void.  So do you side with Branka for the advantage?

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...

NTsikuris wrote...

As we all know, Blood Magic is a dark, forbidden magic and is usually only taught by demons. But couldn't someone of benevolent nature be a Blood Mage? Surely not all Blood Mages are evil. Could the Devs explain more on this subject? It would be greatly appreciated.

Duncan admits that Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to fight the darkspawn.

It seems implied that the Joining is bloodmagic.

[Ecaiki]

I'd say blood magic is evil for two reasons;

1) The only way to use the power is to intentionally diminish the life of another, even if the blood mage is doing the noble thing and only using their own.  In essence you are taking life for power, which is something that anyone claiming to be good should find unacceptable.

2) Subverting the will of another being for any reason is never a good thing, it's the same reason we find slavery so offensive.

Also, the Jedi don't use mind control.  They use the force to persuade people of things, which can be done without the force by anyone charismatic enough.

Modifié par Ecaiki, 05 février 2011 - 07:21 .

[Junri]

The Chantry is overzealous about subduing blood magic. The codex's even say that they even stop people from going into anatomical studies because of their irrational fear of blood magic. Essentially medicine is a dead end because the Chantry forbids it. Blood Magic is evil because the Tevinter used it to subdue and rule over the world. Remember the Chantry motto: "Magic is meant to serve man not rule over him." Blood Magic has the power to literally rule over a person. However, it all depends on who is using it. If you release Jowan and tell him to run away never to return in Redcliffe, you'll get a quest later on the Chantry board where Jowan saves a bunch of refugees with his blood magic. Who do you blame? The gun or the person who pulled the trigger? Same thing essentially.

[Eclipse_9990]

bsbcaer wrote...

Haven't played Warden's keep.  So it seems like it's similar to the decision to be made with the anvil of the void.  So do you side with Branka for the advantage?

Hell yes. Branka is the only option. And I supported Bhelen to boot. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 05 février 2011 - 07:41 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Junri wrote...

The Chantry is overzealous about subduing blood magic. The codex's even say that they even stop people from going into anatomical studies because of their irrational fear of blood magic. Essentially medicine is a dead end because the Chantry forbids it. Blood Magic is evil because the Tevinter used it to subdue and rule over the world. Remember the Chantry motto: "Magic is meant to serve man not rule over him." Blood Magic has the power to literally rule over a person. However, it all depends on who is using it. If you release Jowan and tell him to run away never to return in Redcliffe, you'll get a quest later on the Chantry board where Jowan saves a bunch of refugees with his blood magic. Who do you blame? The gun or the person who pulled the trigger? Same thing essentially.

Bold 1: Woah seriously!? Stupid Chantry.. Stopping my Mage Warden from fulfilling his dream of becoming a world renowned surgeon. 

Bold 2: Holy crap. Really!? Hell yes, Jowan... Like a boss. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 05 février 2011 - 08:05 .

[Apophis2412]

It's not "evil", but is far to powerfull for people not to be corrupted by it.

[IanPolaris]

Ecaiki wrote...

I'd say blood magic is evil for two reasons;

1) The only way to use the power is to intentionally diminish the life of another, even if the blood mage is doing the noble thing and only using their own.  In essence you are taking life for power, which is something that anyone claiming to be good should find unacceptable.

If that is so, then falling on a grenade in order to save your comrades is also an evil act, and somehow I beg to differ there.  In fact I'd say it's the height of nobility (and thus 'good') if you intentionally diminish your own life to benefit others.  Likewise I find it difficult to criticise others for voluntarily offering their own life force to help others provided no coercion is used of course and they know what the risks are.

By the same logic all organ donations would also be evil acts.  Point is the morality isn't as blacfk and white regarding bloodmage as the Chantry would have you believe.

2) Subverting the will of another being for any reason is never a good thing, it's the same reason we find slavery so offensive.

That's not always true either.  If we subvert the will of someone that we know is acting against his fellow man or (espcially!) in the ACT of harming others, then I'd hardly call that evil.  For example if you used mind-control to prevent a bandit from murdering children, I'd hesitate to call that an evil act.

Also, the Jedi don't use mind control.  They use the force to persuade people of things, which can be done without the force by anyone charismatic enough.

Actually they do but it only works on the weak minded, and again WHY it's used is paramount (and why the Dark Side always beckons).

-Polaris