500 réponses à ce sujet

[Aesieru]

To be honest, "Scrying" isn't blood magic, so "scrying blood" probably isn't blood magic either as it doesn't use blood to power it, so much as magic to track the bearer of said blood.

[randName]

SansSariph wrote...

randName wrote...

SansSariph wrote...

Wish people would stop using Grey Wardens as an argument. 

Don't be a ******; GWs can use BM without the risk of corruption from daemons since they already are corrupted.

Also the question is - is blood magic inherently evil/bad.

just a few examples that it's nto is more than enough to prove this premiss false.

What is this I don't even

Demonic corruption and darkspawn corruption are different things, which is completely unrelated because we're talking about moral corruption anyway.

I'm saying you can't use "GREY WARDENS USED BLOOD MAGIC SO CLEARLY IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EVIL" as a counterexample, because it's not a counterexample. Being a Grey Warden is not synonymous with being a good person. There are zero conclusions you can draw about Grey Warden blood mages, because we have no case-by-case examples to anaylze. They are therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You truly thick, not sure this is worth it; but lets go.

There need only be 1 example to prove that blood magic is not inherently evil.

You the player can be the kindest person in the whole Ferelden, and a blood mage.

stop.

(even more so if you get the blood mage through an earlier playthrough).

EDIT: You can ofc. add more to this, but its hardly needed since the claim is void.

Modifié par randName, 06 mars 2011 - 05:49 .

[LobselVith8]

That's not the focus of my statement, Lotion. Duncan states that some mages have turned to blood magic to deal with the darkspawn. I'd assume they are no different than any other person, but the practice isn't illegal among Grey Wardens and their focus is the defeat of humanity's greatest foe. There are multiple views on blood magic in Thedas just like there are on this thread, and only we can decide for ourselves how it should be dealt with. Maybe we'll see a counterpoint to Avernus with Merrill.

[Vit246]

Here's my 2 cents.

Blood magic is a tool. A ridiculously powerful tool, but still a tool. There's nothing inherently good or evil about it. It just is what it is. And whats more, its kinda pointless to try to ban and suppress it, because a mage can always learn it from one source that can't be stopped: Demons. Further, by banning it, it will only weaken the good mages who have no idea how to defend against it and empower the more villainous mages who have sole access to it.

[6_Dave_9]

megaz635 wrote...

Its taught by demons.

Demons are evil.

Blood magic was first taught by the old gods not demons.

[F1relizard]

andar91 wrote...

I don't think blood magic is inherently evil. I think it is inherently good at certain things that are predominantly used for what most people would consider evil purposes.

Thank you for making my head explode. 

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You want to argue semantics now?

What do you mean "now"? Semantics was what I started with. Semantics was what you responded to, and conceded in your previous response. Semantics are important.

[SansSariph]

randName wrote...

SansSariph wrote...

randName wrote...

SansSariph wrote...

Wish people would stop using Grey Wardens as an argument. 

Don't be a ******; GWs can use BM without the risk of corruption from daemons since they already are corrupted.

Also the question is - is blood magic inherently evil/bad.

just a few examples that it's nto is more than enough to prove this premiss false.

What is this I don't even

Demonic corruption and darkspawn corruption are different things, which is completely unrelated because we're talking about moral corruption anyway.

I'm saying you can't use "GREY WARDENS USED BLOOD MAGIC SO CLEARLY IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EVIL" as a counterexample, because it's not a counterexample. Being a Grey Warden is not synonymous with being a good person. There are zero conclusions you can draw about Grey Warden blood mages, because we have no case-by-case examples to anaylze. They are therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You truly thick, not sure this is worth it; but lets go.

There need only be 1 example to prove that blood magic is not inherently evil.

You the player can be the kindest person in the whole Ferelden, and a blood mage.

stop.

(even more so if you get the blood mage through an earlier playthrough).

EDIT: You can ofc. add more to this, but its hardly needed since the claim is void.

Don't be rude. Seriously, stop the ad hominem.

I don't think using the PC works as an argument because you can do things in-game that are outside the scope of lore.

Jowan is probably the best counter example since I don't think he's a bad person.

I believe it's possible to dabble in blood magic (like Jowan) without it being "evil", but I don't think the same can be said if you continue down that path. The kind of blood magic spells that are available to an advanced mage are just evil, there's no other way to put it.

I don't tihnk you can seriously roleplay a good character and still be a blood mage in DA2. The DA:O tree was more ambiguous.

[SunnKingg]

Ziggeh wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You want to argue semantics now?

What do you mean "now"? Semantics was what I started with. Semantics was what you responded to, and conceded in your previous response. Semantics are important.

I have watched this thread for a while, and have seen a lot of back and forth. I believe now is the time for me to add something.

I never understood why people see sematics as a trivial thing. To argue sematics is to argue what something means, and that is the most important part of the argument. Arguing semantics and finding out what it is you are arguing should always come first. We must first ask ourselves

1. what is blood magic (not in terms of good and evil, but the mechanics)
2. what is good
3. what is evil
4. who uses it and are they good or evil

once we get our concepts straight as a group then we can debat.

Modifié par SunnKingg, 06 mars 2011 - 07:08 .

[Bigdoser]

Walking bomb spell has to have a word with you and petrify.

[Medhia Nox]

SunnKingg - well stated, and I agree. But I have to say that, on the internet especially, answering those 4 questions will only devolve into a complete derailing of the post.

People who like to do bad things but still consider themselves good people will argue that good and evil are subjective, it helps them not feel guilt - and they'll call people who have a strict morality oppressive and ignorant.

So arguing those two points really is moot.

And if we can't argue those two points, we can't really discuss your fourth point. I think Duncan was a pragmatist, and I believe that pragmatic men really don't take 'good' or 'evil' into account. To me, this makes them more prone toward evil action in the name of good ends.

Sure - maybe saving a Blood Mage from Tranquility is pragmatic, and sure, under close watch maybe they're excellent darkspawn killers. Then - the war is over and the Archdaemon is dead. This blood mage then goes on to commit all manner of atrocities because stronger spells require more blood. But sure - he helped fight the Archdaemon so he's allowed.

What if a blood mage found a spell that could destroy an Archdaemon but it only required the sacrifice of 10,000 souls. Would that be acceptable? Would it be good?

Other magic does not use life force - it uses lyrium (the Connor quest draws the line in the sane between 'good' magic and 'bad' I feel.) So while a fireball is destructive - it is only destructive as a tool.

Blood Magic's very nature is destructive - it requires destruction in the form of damage or worse, sacrifice to even work.

So - as I stated on like page 10 or whatever. If you're okay cutting yourself - and ultimately killing other people -for your magic. Then go to town. If this were a tabletop RPG - I'd be hunting you down and dragging you right to the Circle to be turned Tranquil.

LobselVith8 is correct - we'll never agree. If this were a communal game where we were all Grey Wardens - people like LobselVith8 and I would be working for the same goal (destroy the Archdaemon) but we couldn't work together.

Honestly - it's what makes RPing games interesting. If everyone in the game world agreed with you - there would be no conflict. There would be no story. *shrugs*

[AlexXIV]

SunnKingg wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You want to argue semantics now?

What do you mean "now"? Semantics was what I started with. Semantics was what you responded to, and conceded in your previous response. Semantics are important.

I have watched this thread for a while, and have seen a lot of back and forth. I believe now is the time for me to add something.

I never understood why people see sematics as a trivial thing. To argue sematics is to argue what something means, and that is the most important part of the argument. Arguing semantics and finding out what it is you are arguing should always come first. We must first ask ourselves

1. what is blood magic (not in terms of good and evil, but the mechanics)
2. what is good
3. what is evil
4. who uses it and are they good or evil

once we get our concepts straight as a group then we can debat.

This won't happen. People will rather throw around their opinon as fact and call each other names before they sit down and resolve anything. I know it's crazy, but this is Sparta the internet.

[1Nosphorus1]

SunnKingg wrote...

I never understood why people see sematics as a trivial thing. To argue sematics is to argue what something means, and that is the most important part of the argument. Arguing semantics and finding out what it is you are arguing should always come first. We must first ask ourselves

1. what is blood magic (not in terms of good and evil, but the mechanics)
2. what is good
3. what is evil
4. who uses it and are they good or evil

once we get our concepts straight as a group then we can debat.

Thank you, some people just don't understand the word opinion, but I'll answer those 4 questions:

1. Apparently the first form of magic on Thedas, taught by Old Gods but there are links Elvhenan on practicing blood magic before the Tevinter magisters, this is debated by "historians" in the game world, so we'll never no for sure. It is a magic that uses the life force (blood) of a willing/unwilling sacrifice, results may vary.

2&3. Debateable as there are many types, I'd suggest looking up the DnD alignment grid and making up your own mind and understanding on what types there are.

4. Anyone with the knowledge & ability to, since opinions of what is good/evil differ person to person, you'd probably have to lable each person with a DnD alignment similar to what Bioware does in their previous games, although notable blood mages are as follows, make up your own mind about them:

Hawke/Warden/Jowan/Avernus/Caladrius/Uldred/Finn/Baroness etc etc.

As I said before, I doubt bioware will give a clear response on the subject matter, but if the links to the elves are true, then in my opinion, blood magic may be how Elves managed to be practically ageless before the Shem arrived.

[Angelraid]

Blood magic is a just a weapon like any other. A sword can be used to murder children. Does that make swords evil?

No force is inherently good or evil. It is the person wielding that power that decides what it is used for, be it good or evil.

And like all power, there is the possibility of it having a corrupting influence. Take the Chantry for example. They are supposed to stand for good, yet they commit murder, genocide, slavery, imprison innocents, rip children away from their parents. They have gained a lot of power and because of that they believe that power makes what they do right. TBH I can't wait to tear them down in DA2.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ziggeh wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You want to argue semantics now?

What do you mean "now"? Semantics was what I started with. Semantics was what you responded to, and conceded in your previous response. Semantics are important.

Overanalyzing this...

I said blood mages cannot be trusted, because they can mind cnontrol and thus twist your mind.

You say that if they can twist your mind they can make you "trust" them, hence one can trust them.

Trust and "trust". One is natural and made by you. Other is forced and merely an illusion,


Now, if we want to discuss evilness. Can anything non-sentient even BE evil?
If we assume a item of pure corruption exist, would it be evil? Not by common definitions.

Blood magic - and I refer to top tier magic, like Mind Control - does corrupt, for the sheer temptation is immense.

Now, one can choose to call it evil if one wants. Personally, I just consider it too dangeroud for anyone to have.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion, nobody can be trusted, period. People can lie to you, cheat on you, stab your back. Just because it's easier for bloodmages doesn't automatically make every bloodmage a liar, cheater and backstabber. And reason for that is the same as not every 'normal' person is a notorious liar, cheater and backstabber. Sure, power corrupts, and if it is made 'easy access' it is even more dangerous. I just have a problem with the idea to judge people on what they can or could do rather than on what they actually do. It's a bad idea from a philosophical/ethic point of view so it is bad in real life, and also bad in a fictional world with whatever powerful forces at work.

Basically some people (like me for example) prefer to live in a dangerous, but relatively honest and relatively fair world instead of a 'brave new world' based on so funny things like hypocrisy, ingnorance, prejudice and genocide. So you can see the 'but they are dangerous' argument doesn't even count for me. If someone believes in a Maker figure they must also believe that everything 'He' made exists for a reason. And I just don't think the reason is that it is supposed to be locked away, oppressed and exploited. Or in the worst cases, tortured and murdered.

[Dangerfoot]

No.

What do I win?

[AlexXIV]

Dangerfoot wrote...

No.

What do I win?

A free blood transfusion.

[Dangerfoot]

AlexXIV wrote...

A free blood transfusion.

To elaborate though, I just don't see what's more evil about Blood Magic. Is it more evil to control an enemy or to rip their limbs off when you transform into a bear? It's all harm. It's how you use your abilities that determines their moral value.

[SunnKingg]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

No.

What do I win?

A free blood transfusion.

By an honest blood mage!

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I said blood mages cannot be trusted, because they can mind cnontrol and thus twist your mind.

You say that if they can twist your mind they can make you "trust" them, hence one can trust them.

Trust and "trust". One is natural and made by you. Other is forced and merely an illusion,

Heh, then I appear to have misunderstood your position. I assumed it was the logical: "Trusting someone who can impose trust is problematic" when in fact you're running with "Telepaths aren't worthy of trust" on the basis that it acts in a manner you're arbitrarily applying. Fair enough.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion, nobody can be trusted, period. People can lie to you, cheat on you, stab your back. Just because it's easier for bloodmages doesn't automatically make every bloodmage a liar, cheater and backstabber. And reason for that is the same as not every 'normal' person is a notorious liar, cheater and backstabber. Sure, power corrupts, and if it is made 'easy access' it is even more dangerous. I just have a problem with the idea to judge people on what they can or could do rather than on what they actually do. It's a bad idea from a philosophical/ethic point of view so it is bad in real life, and also bad in a fictional world with whatever powerful forces at work.

People can lie to you. But you can find out the truth.
Normal people cannot manipualte others so easily.

Power corrupts..but not all power corrupts eaqually. Not all power is equally tempting..equally easy to use..has equal consequences or gains.

Can you really think of any other power that would be more tempting (save for reality warping)?
Mind control enables you to get anything you want, is easily concieved and abused.
It's simply not something that a man - any many - should ever have.

It would only lead to a lot of pain and suffering in real life, and so in any fictional world too.

Basically some people (like me for example) prefer to live in a dangerous, but relatively honest and relatively fair world instead of a 'brave new world' based on so funny things like hypocrisy, ingnorance, prejudice and genocide. So you can see the 'but they are dangerous' argument doesn't even count for me. If someone believes in a Maker figure they must also believe that everything 'He' made exists for a reason. And I just don't think the reason is that it is supposed to be locked away, oppressed and exploited. Or in the worst cases, tortured and murdered.

All fine and dandy, till that world kills you.

Fear of magic - and blood mages in particular - is not based on either hypocrisy or ignorance, nor prejudice and genocide. I have no idea what you're talking about.

And yes - magic exist for a reason - to serve man.

And how and when are mages tortured? Not that I know of.
They are killed sometimes (not murdered..semantic difference)..

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

SunnKingg - well stated, and I agree.

I agree completely.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Basically some people (like me for example) prefer to live in a dangerous, but relatively honest and relatively fair world instead of a 'brave new world' based on so funny things like hypocrisy, ingnorance, prejudice and genocide. So you can see the 'but they are dangerous' argument doesn't even count for me. If someone believes in a Maker figure they must also believe that everything 'He' made exists for a reason. And I just don't think the reason is that it is supposed to be locked away, oppressed and exploited. Or in the worst cases, tortured and murdered.

All fine and dandy, till that world kills you.

Fear of magic - and blood mages in particular - is not based on either hypocrisy or ignorance, nor prejudice and genocide. I have no idea what you're talking about.

And yes - magic exist for a reason - to serve man.

And how and when are mages tortured? Not that I know of.
They are killed sometimes (not murdered..semantic difference)..

Isn't the issue we keep running into here is that people hold different viewpoints on the issues of blood magic, and by extension, the Chantry and its templars, and the Circle of Magi and its mages?  I don't think the issue of who is right and who is wrong is any more clear in canon than it's been in this thread. Should blood magic be prohibited, or utilized? How should blood magic be viewed? There's a dicotomy with this issue, and there are various reasons on both sides that aren't likely to be reconciled easily, if at all.

[Haussier]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

People can lie to you. But you can find out the truth.
Normal people cannot manipualte others so easily.

Power corrupts..but not all power corrupts eaqually. Not all power is equally tempting..equally easy to use..has equal consequences or gains.

Can you really think of any other power that would be more tempting (save for reality warping)?
Mind control enables you to get anything you want, is easily concieved and abused.
It's simply not something that a man - any many - should ever have.

It would only lead to a lot of pain and suffering in real life, and so in any fictional world too.

 I've always been of the opinion that power is like a bright light that reveals every flaw that has before been hidden in the darkness of powerlessness. So in essence power doesn't corrupt it simply reveals the true nature of a person.

[aMammothrpg]

I love how setting people on fire, making them explode, petrifying them, freezing then shattering them into a million pieces, chopping them up with blades, or even using grenades on them is not considered "evil" but using blood to power spells and keep you alive is.

Bah I say.