77 réponses à ce sujet

[RazorrX]

I think the problem with blood magic and how it is presented is that it is messed up as far as what the player can do with it and what it does to every one else.

In Origins you can ONLY learn Blood Magic from a demon, just as you can ONLY become an arcane warrior from the soul in the gem. There were books about blood magic in the circle of ferelden, those were most likely books on what it has done, theory of mana, and how it comes from demons (probably with how to summon). Then Origins went even further down the disconnect by allowing not only you, but your party to become blood mages without any complaint. (flaw in the design). The powers you used were not the powers you heard about, nor saw in use. So the player gets the impression that blood magic is not that bad really.

In DA2 you do not even need a demon, you can just pick it right away. And just as in DA:O - the powers the player gets are different from what others get. To a player is is just a method of fueling spells, etc. However to everyone else it is used along with demonology, necromancy, mind control, etc.

So the problem is - what is blood magic LORE wise? The Lore tells us that it is evil, that it is a part of demonology, that it is used to control minds, that it creates undead, and ends up in abominations, etc. Is the lore correct and the game play off or is it a case that blood magic of and by itself is not wrong, it is what you *can* do with it that has put it on the most wanted list for bad things.

Edit:

Oh and as an aside - In Origins the ritual to become a grey warden = blood magic.  The ritual to make phylactries and then use them = blood magic.

Modifié par RazorrX, 21 mars 2011 - 05:06 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Taleroth wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...


Taleroth: But that's just it, though--all of those other blood mages turned to it out of desperation. Of course it's bad--they don't know what they're doing! That doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Certainly, Magister Danarius is a perfectly personable and pleasant individual despite being--as Fenris tells us--a blood mage.

Magister Danarius is also a slaver.

When every single person who uses it is a complete jerk, it's hard to not establish a connection.  Especially since the people who are using it are rather quick to villify other people who use it.

There's basically no perspective in the game that implies the contrary opinion.  Even Merril's use of it is attributed to her tragedies.

Dragon Age 2 presents absolutely no defense for the practice of Blood Magic.  And that is part of the problem.  It turns a potential for grey morality into madness.

. . . and? That's just the practice in Tevinter. It doesn't have anything to do with blood magic except that slaves can be used to fuel it. Correlation does not imply causation; "when every single person who uses it is a complete jerk" has no probative value whatsoever.

As far as villifying other people who use it--why does that matter? Taronhe didn't villify other blood mages. Danarius doesn't villify other blood mages. Merrill counsels caution.

Blood magic isn't morally grey. It isn't morally black, and it isn't morally white. It's merely a tool, and the problem is that those who resort to it out of desperation (most of those we see) were--wait for it--already desperate to begin with.

[KirinDave]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

I think you need to differentiate free will (responsibility) from free will (autonomy) if you're to make that argument, though. There's plenty to indicate the Chantry isn't a fan of the latter.

I think that the Chantry, in order to be even remotely consistent, must believe strongly in both. Heck, their founding principle is that normal humans must have the right to freedom over magic, which was enslaving them in small and large scales. Clearly they believe in responsibility. Their belief in autonomy is less obvious, but it seems strongly suggested in their rhetoric.

The evidence I can find to the contrary is in how they treat their mages and heretics. This is indeed a great hypocracy, central to DA2's conflicts. That doesn't mean they don't believe in responsibility and/or autonomy—they're just inconsistent about it. It's also clear that the Templars, the lens by which we view most of Chantry doctrine, distort these views somewhat. When we talk to the less military arm of the church we tend to see a softer side of Andraste's doctrine.  

Btw, It's sort of fun to see this thread as real people fall on different sides of the issue. Did Bioware ever sell merch to capitalize on this conflict? I can only imagine a game convention where people are all wearing Circle or Templar tokens to declare their alleigance.

Modifié par KirinDave, 21 mars 2011 - 05:39 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Certainly, but tension between word and deed is present in every established church. I'm not concerned with what the variou revered mothers think about various things and how they believe in charity or whatnot as much as I am the powers that be within the Chantry heirarchy: they wield political power and seek to preserve it. What do you think would happen if somebody broke away from Chantry orthodoxy?

Well, we know the answer to that: an Exalted March.

[Taleroth]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...


Taleroth: But that's just it, though--all of those other blood mages turned to it out of desperation. Of course it's bad--they don't know what they're doing! That doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Certainly, Magister Danarius is a perfectly personable and pleasant individual despite being--as Fenris tells us--a blood mage.

Magister Danarius is also a slaver.

When every single person who uses it is a complete jerk, it's hard to not establish a connection.  Especially since the people who are using it are rather quick to villify other people who use it.

There's basically no perspective in the game that implies the contrary opinion.  Even Merril's use of it is attributed to her tragedies.

Dragon Age 2 presents absolutely no defense for the practice of Blood Magic.  And that is part of the problem.  It turns a potential for grey morality into madness.

. . . and? That's just the practice in Tevinter. It doesn't have anything to do with blood magic except that slaves can be used to fuel it. Correlation does not imply causation; "when every single person who uses it is a complete jerk" has no probative value whatsoever.

Sympathetic perspectives in fiction are important for attributing their surrounding themes.

As far as villifying other people who use it--why does that matter? Taronhe didn't villify other blood mages. Danarius doesn't villify other blood mages. Merrill counsels caution.

But Orsino does.  Given that he's the closest thing to a sympathetic NPC mage, the fact that he villifies it holds weight.

Blood magic isn't morally grey. It isn't morally black, and it isn't morally white. It's merely a tool, and the problem is that those who resort to it out of desperation (most of those we see) were--wait for it--already desperate to begin with.

The game does nothing to validate this claim.

[ExiledMimic]

Let's transition this from the Magi Warden's timeline.

Jowan studied blood magic, he didn't pact for it. He openly hated demons, wanted to live in peace and only used blood magic to help him earn entry into the Circle as a full mage. It backfired, but he only used it offensively to defend Lily, the woman he loves. He was often called a Malificar, but he didn't meant he requirement for being an abomination as he didn't deal with demons.

Wynne was possessed by a spirit of the Fade, or partially. But it was benevolent. During the discussion you admit that if you are still you and not overcome by the spirit, you couldn't be an Abomination. Wynne ponders this in dialog and agrees finally, seeing that only through hatred and madness are Abominations defined.

Warden's Keep. Avernus extended his life beyond normal boundaries, even considering that the Joining should have killed him earlier in life than most people to begin with. He did it with blood magic, even consorted with demons. But was not possessed by one. Blood magic, he explains, is the thing of demons. They mastered it and taught a little to human kind (or he illudes to at much). However despite hundreds of years of being a blood mage and consorting with demons, he did not fall to demonic influence and worked to contain them so they wouldn't harm Ferelden.

So... Malificars are blood mages, but not all blood mages are Abominations. Not all blood magic makes you fall to demonic possession, in fact some make a drastic point of holding out and fighting demons harder. It's also possible to be possessed by a good spirit and not be an abomination.

So... explain this whole mess in DA2 where blood magic only ever came from demons and if you were even remotely good at it you became an abomination. Because the lengthy and HIGHLY engaging subject just in DAO smashes the generalization both made by the chantry and circle in Origins, as well as the often stated but never explained reasoning in DA2. In fact when I found there were blood mages I was happy. I was hoping Jowan would return in some form, actually. Instead I get a bunch of mages who break down the molds made in DAO, but do it poorly.

For shame.

[Evolution33]

Blood magic is power, and if power has the ability to corrupt then what keeps a blood mage from being corrupted? Suddenly they have the power to control minds, fuel their magic by using unwilling sacrifices, and any number of other offenses. Even if the intention is to never do these types of things the ability and temptation to do them still exists. It would take a person of very strong mind to not give into the temptation. In a place like Kirkwall were the Veil is thin there are also likely more temptations from demons than other places in the world. If a person can use blood magic and not give into the temptations of man then there would be no problem with it, but how many people exists that can refuse those temptations? Or how many mages would like at a murderer or rapist and think, "I will use this person's life force because they are bad, but just this once," and then begin to justify more and more uses of other's blood until corupted?

[Emperor Iaius I]

Taleroth:

Sympathetic perspectives in fiction are important for attributing their surrounding themes.

Maybe to you. If you can't separate the nature of an activity from how well you like the person doing said activity, that's your problem. There's no probative value to how likable someone is. Sorry.

But Orsino does. Given that he's the closest thing to a sympathetic NPC mage, the fact that he villifies it holds weight.

I'm sorry that you only believe people that you like, but it's a worthless exercise and completely irrelevant to anybody who doesn't think exactly as you do.

The game does nothing to validate this claim.

Was your pal Orsino desperate or wasn't he?

[Evolution33]

ExiledMimic wrote...

Let's transition this from the Magi Warden's timeline.

Jowan studied blood magic, he didn't pact for it. He openly hated demons, wanted to live in peace and only used blood magic to help him earn entry into the Circle as a full mage. It backfired, but he only used it offensively to defend Lily, the woman he loves. He was often called a Malificar, but he didn't meant he requirement for being an abomination as he didn't deal with demons.

Wynne was possessed by a spirit of the Fade, or partially. But it was benevolent. During the discussion you admit that if you are still you and not overcome by the spirit, you couldn't be an Abomination. Wynne ponders this in dialog and agrees finally, seeing that only through hatred and madness are Abominations defined.

Warden's Keep. Avernus extended his life beyond normal boundaries, even considering that the Joining should have killed him earlier in life than most people to begin with. He did it with blood magic, even consorted with demons. But was not possessed by one. Blood magic, he explains, is the thing of demons. They mastered it and taught a little to human kind (or he illudes to at much). However despite hundreds of years of being a blood mage and consorting with demons, he did not fall to demonic influence and worked to contain them so they wouldn't harm Ferelden.

So... Malificars are blood mages, but not all blood mages are Abominations. Not all blood magic makes you fall to demonic possession, in fact some make a drastic point of holding out and fighting demons harder. It's also possible to be possessed by a good spirit and not be an abomination.

So... explain this whole mess in DA2 where blood magic only ever came from demons and if you were even remotely good at it you became an abomination. Because the lengthy and HIGHLY engaging subject just in DAO smashes the generalization both made by the chantry and circle in Origins, as well as the often stated but never explained reasoning in DA2. In fact when I found there were blood mages I was happy. I was hoping Jowan would return in some form, actually. Instead I get a bunch of mages who break down the molds made in DAO, but do it poorly.

For shame.

I think the large presence of demons and general unrest in the city of Kirkwall has a lot to do with the Band of Three Codex pages. Kirkwall is a city plagued with death and the Tevinters were trying to weaken the Veil even further. I think mages in Kirkwall are at a higher risk than mages other places, because of how weak the Veil is, and I am sure the brief war with the Qunari, all the killing Hawke does, and the presence of the lyrium idol don't exactly help anything.

[Taleroth]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Taleroth:

Sympathetic perspectives in fiction are important for attributing their surrounding themes.

Maybe to you. If you can't separate the nature of an activity from how well you like the person doing said activity, that's your problem. There's no probative value to how likable someone is. Sorry.

That's the nature of fiction.  Characters are arguments.  The sympathetic ones who makes their arguments the best hold the most weight.

But Orsino does. Given that he's the closest thing to a sympathetic NPC mage, the fact that he villifies it holds weight.

I'm sorry that you only believe people that you like, but it's a worthless exercise and completely irrelevant to anybody who doesn't think exactly as you do.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the nature of characters as argument in fiction.  There's only the perspectives we are given.  And when that perspective holds that 9 out of 10 Blood Mages are going to try to kill you, it makes it difficult to hold Blood Magic as morally unbiased.

The game does nothing to validate this claim.

Was your pal Orsino desperate or wasn't he?

 You make the claim that they were desperate first.  There's no verifiable evidence as to what occurs first or second.  Besides, desperation is no suitable explanation for his idiocy.  Or Grace's.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 mars 2011 - 06:21 .

[KirinDave]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Certainly, but tension between word and deed is present in every established church. I'm not concerned with what the variou revered mothers think about various things and how they believe in charity or whatnot as much as I am the powers that be within the Chantry heirarchy: they wield political power and seek to preserve it. What do you think would happen if somebody broke away from Chantry orthodoxy?

Well, we know the answer to that: an Exalted March.

I don't see how that invalidates the idea that they believe in autonomy or responsibility. The Catholic church has been studying and justifying both for centuries, even while simultaneously being involved with the Crusades. So, ah, you'll have to take it up with the specific doctrine how they justify exceptions to the rule—it's just clear that it happens.

And as for splinter religions, we know what happened. We get a rad character name for the head of the Teviner Chantry: The Black Divine. Seriously, I bet they invented brassy lyrium lyres just so that that guy could form a metal band and hit a hell of a power chord every time the name is mentioned.

Modifié par KirinDave, 21 mars 2011 - 06:19 .

[Alyka]

Magic comes from the Fade.Everytime a mage casts a spell, they're using energy from the Fade.Mages are able to tap into it easily and that's why they attract the attention of demons.Lyrium helps them to cast magic more often.
Blood Magic is learned by demons.In order for them to teach it to a mage, an agreement must be made.Usually the demon will ask to enter the body of the mage or another person in exchange for knowledge.Blood Magic is the use of blood rather than lyrium or Fade energy.
The caster can either use their own blood for offensive or manipulating purposes or use the blood of their foes to either control the enemy or heal the caster.

[DKJaigen]

Alyka wrote...

Magic comes from the Fade.Everytime a mage casts a spell, they're using energy from the Fade.Mages are able to tap into it easily and that's why they attract the attention of demons.Lyrium helps them to cast magic more often.
Blood Magic is learned by demons.In order for them to teach it to a mage, an agreement must be made.Usually the demon will ask to enter the body of the mage or another person in exchange for knowledge.Blood Magic is the use of blood rather than lyrium or Fade energy.
The caster can either use their own blood for offensive or manipulating purposes or use the blood of their foes to either control the enemy or heal the caster.

are you done talking bull****?

[TexasToast712]

The Chantry's fear of blood magic is based on its ability to control the mind of others. That and demons of course.

[Iecerint]

MorningBird wrote...

I suspect Hawke did, just as I suspect warrior Hawke learned 'templar' talents from a templar.

The text implies that smuggled lyrium was the source.

[Iecerint]

Taleroth wrote...

Dragon Age 2 presents absolutely no defense for the practice of Blood Magic.  And that is part of the problem.  It turns a potential for grey morality into madness.

There's DuPois, the blood mage who's trying to find the serial killer.  Recall that in the original version of the game, he could help you save your mother.  In the present version, he merely tries to help you, but the point still stands.  There's also Merrill, I suppose, though the game attacks her position a little by the time her quests are finished.

The reason the non-Imperial Chantry bans blood magic is that templars can't control it as easily as vanilla magic.  The result is that mages don't get proper training in how to use it "safely" (to the extent that ANY magic can be used safely).

Analogy: blood magic is like sexual intercourse, and the Chantry tries to teach abstinence-only education.

[MorningBird]

After catching up on this thread, I'm still more inclined to believe that blood magic is directly connected to demons/spirits, just based off of what was seen and said in Dragon Age 2.

You have Anders saying point blank that in order to use blood magic, you have to look a demon in the eye and accept it's offer. Merrill was perfectly capable of using a demon/spirit to fuel her spells without vocally going, "Hey, mister spirit? I need you to do something for me."

Heck, one of the first times we see Merrill using blood magic, she doesn't speak a word or do anything more than cut herself, and her dialogue afterwords is something along the lines of, "but the spirit helped, didn't it?" Which (too me) implies that just because we don't see the demon at work doesn't mean it isn't there fueling the spells.

As I mentioned before, sure, I bet you can learn blood magic from a tome. I'm really not debating that possibility. However, I still think any book you could find on the subject would start with step one: enter the Fade and make a pact with a demon/spirit (depending on the author.)

Iecerint wrote...

The text implies that smuggled lyrium was the source.

Thanks for the clarification. Did the text say anything about where Hawke learned blood magic in DA2?

[TexasToast712]

Iecerint wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

I suspect Hawke did, just as I suspect warrior Hawke learned 'templar' talents from a templar.

The text implies that smuggled lyrium was the source.

I dont know why they did that either. Alistair says you dont even need Lyrium to do the Templar abilities in DAO so why does my Hawke has to be Lyrium addict to open a can of anti magical whoop-ass?

Modifié par TexasToast712, 21 mars 2011 - 07:37 .

[Chrumpek]

TexasToast712 wrote...

Iecerint wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

I suspect Hawke did, just as I suspect warrior Hawke learned 'templar' talents from a templar.

The text implies that smuggled lyrium was the source.

I dont know why they did that either. Alistair says you dont even need Lyrium to do the Templar abilities in DAO so why does my Hawke has to be Lyrium addict to open a can of anti magical whoop-ass?

Could someone direct me to tha text? The clarification on how hawke gets his specializations?

[Chrumpek]

RazorrX wrote...

I think the problem with blood magic and how it is presented is that it is messed up as far as what the player can do with it and what it does to every one else.

In Origins you can ONLY learn Blood Magic from a demon, just as you can ONLY become an arcane warrior from the soul in the gem. There were books about blood magic in the circle of ferelden, those were most likely books on what it has done, theory of mana, and how it comes from demons (probably with how to summon). Then Origins went even further down the disconnect by allowing not only you, but your party to become blood mages without any complaint. (flaw in the design). The powers you used were not the powers you heard about, nor saw in use. So the player gets the impression that blood magic is not that bad really.

In DA2 you do not even need a demon, you can just pick it right away. And just as in DA:O - the powers the player gets are different from what others get. To a player is is just a method of fueling spells, etc. However to everyone else it is used along with demonology, necromancy, mind control, etc.

So the problem is - what is blood magic LORE wise? The Lore tells us that it is evil, that it is a part of demonology, that it is used to control minds, that it creates undead, and ends up in abominations, etc. Is the lore correct and the game play off or is it a case that blood magic of and by itself is not wrong, it is what you *can* do with it that has put it on the most wanted list for bad things.

Edit:

Oh and as an aside - In Origins the ritual to become a grey warden = blood magic.  The ritual to make phylactries and then use them = blood magic.

Also those are exactly my thoughts and the reason why I created this rich in knowledge thread. Thanks guys - keep it coming.

Would be great if a "lore-keeper" from bioware enlightened us a little ~^

Modifié par Chrumpek, 21 mars 2011 - 07:46 .

[Iecerint]

Play as a warrior, then hold the cursor over the "Templar" specialization. I think it's the last sentence in the explanation -- something like "anyone who can find some lyrium can use their skills" or something, but it's put more elegantly than that.

I agree that it was a little bit of a bad move. Most players who go Templar are probably pro-Templar. It seems weird to have such a player canonically steal lyrium. I liked the way they integrated (some) of the DAO specs into the gameplay a little bit better.

[Xaln]

Also - Note on the last poster, as seen in DA2, You dont necessarily have to be a mage to be turned into an Abomination. Templars are susceptable too.

The only spell-caster in Theda's seemingly immune to possession, is Sandal...
He's either a different type of spell caster, or hes just too dumb to possess.
"Not Enchantment!!!"

First off, Templars aren't normally susceptible to possession, a blood mage put a demon into Wilmod, so to speak, and could do so to likely any living creature.

Secondly, Sandal is awesome. I just thought that needed to be said. Lol.

Anyway, people say blood magic isn't inherently evil, which is true, nothing technically is inherently evil, you have to define evil to make something good or evil....But it's evil in the sense that it costs life force, it comes at a heavy price. Now this price doesn't have to be your life force, but taking someone else's life force to cast spells that can potentially control/enslave the victim seems pretty sinister, at least to me. There's enormous power in blood magic, just by the mere fact it amplifies your effective ability to cast spells, which I suspect is why Jowan can let you enter the fade by himself. In DA:O for example, heal costs 20 mana, and gives you roughly 60 health points. Thus you just multiplied your mana by a factor of 3. Just sayin'. Add things like hands of fate, or talisman of saerbas, and you have thousands of effective mana, where a normal mage has like 250.

There is a slight flaw in that theory though, you can't directly heal without using sacrifice. But you can go blood magic-normal magic-blood magic etc.

Anyway, recap: Blood magic is powerful because it allows users to amplify their ability to cast spells, as well as they can control people. I do not think a demon does the spell for you, it is as any normal magic, all magic does come from the fade. But life force is more potent than lyrium...(that's perhaps why merrill says she feels the veil being weak)

::EDIT:: I think it's worth noting that most mages that turn to blood magic; do so in desperation. They see a demon in a confused state, and the demon convinces them that it knows the way out of confusion: being possessed. (An excellent way to get someone to follow you). Thus only strong willed individuals learn blood magic without becoming possessed.

Another scenario to consider is mages who go to demons for power, and the demon convinces them possession is a short cut.

Both scenarios have one thing in common: they are looking for quick ways to augment their ability far beyond what they are currently capable of.

Modifié par Xaln, 21 mars 2011 - 09:26 .

[DJ0000]

On the wiki I read an interesting note on the Xebenkeck page that seems to be from a codex entry. I missed Xebenkeck so I'm not sure.

It says that the first magisters went into the fade seeking power and met with Xebenkeck, Gaxkang the Unbound, Ishmael and the Formles One and made deals with them. And apparently this unleashed blood magic on the world.

This seems to clash with the idea that it was first taught by the Old Gods. Although, for I can remeber of it being said that the Old Gods gave the magisters their power, I cannot, off the top of my head, remember it being confirmed that they were in fact the first to use blood magic.

I am very intrugued as to what exactly Ishmael and the Formless One are. I'm guessing one is a Pride Demon.

[Chrumpek]

Okay blood magic doesn't have to involve demons if the persons willpower is strong enough or he doesn't practice rituals. But a mage can pact with a demon to grant him "more power" or so and that isn't blood magic or at least I think it shouldn't be since blood mages pact with for it,

[Emperor Iaius I]

MorningBird: Again, though, if you have Anders there with you, he says that she performed a summoning, which requires blood magic. The syllogism takes the form: if blood magic, then demon. The blood magic is the necessary condition, not the demon--at least in this particular instance.

DJ0000: Codex entries are almost always excerpts from in-universe works. Who wrote the entry on Xebenkeck? It's not dispositive evidence either way: remember, each of the three theories (demons, Arlathan, and Old Gods) are proposed by in-universe sources. They honestly don't know from whence blood magic came.