MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Let's be more clear about it. I say when A attacks B without justification or provocation, A loses all claims to impunity, ethical or otherwise, from how B might counteract. You dispute this? If so, on what grounds?
On the ground that two wrongs never make a right. Just because many (not all) Templar might be evil ****s doesn't give mages the right to do the same.
Danger in what sense though? All offensive spells are dangerous, in one way or another. And to be clear, from what we really know, issues with blood magic arise from such things as potential to control minds of others, from the potential to give power by draining blood of others, and so on.This is hardly all of what blood magic is. I think this has been repeatedly mentioned in the discussions that have happened here.
In context of this arguement, I'm no refering to
all blood magic. I'm fine, for the most part with the Joining. I am refering to mind control, demon summoning, and using blood (yours or anothers) to make a bigger boom. I'm refering to the dark and violent side of blood magic. That should
never be embraced.
They bind mages, as in those mages are chained for life. Don't you see anything wrong with that?
No. I'm against the Circle too.
The Joining leads to an eventual death, albeit for a noble cause.
Still, what we have seen is but a fraction of all blood mages in existence. We have no clue about how many are in the wild, and in what state of existence they are in.
This is true.
It isn't also far fetched to believe some escaping Circle mages might turn to blood magic for self-protection - against hunting Templars; anything to give them an edge, to surive free of the shackles of the Circle and Chantry.
That doesn't mean its right. States have used violence as a means of control, that doesn't mean in order to fight oppression its okay to blow up a building. I
understand why mages turn to blood magic. I just don't agree with it,
I think it is ambiguous to judge because we've not been shown the whole truth, to be very honest.
Nor should we ever be. Personally, I'd be upset if it was ever stated 'blood magic just ain't that bad' and I think a lot of fans of the concept would be upset if the developers came out and said 'its evil, even if you're using it for good reasons'.
Also, I have no clue about what you mean by "holy art." Are you alluding to some divine thing? So, if I understand your postion correctly, are you suggesting that if blood magic was sanctioned by some deity, it would automatically become "good" irrespective of how mages might use it?
I really didn't mean anything by the whole 'holy art' thing, other than the general concept of blood magic being forbiddon, even by the Dalish. In general, it's considered questionab;e no matter how you use it - period/
You're recommending a life of hiding for mages? Doesn't that mean that you don't believe that mages in general would intentionally hurt others? If they can do so peacefully in hiding, what do you think would prevent them from doing the same in a more open, accepting society?
As Thedas currently is? Yes. A life of hiding for mages is best. They could live in a normal, accepting society and that's something that they should strive for. You really can't do that by using blood magic though.
Morrigan has lived a life of exile, of constant movement, of trying to escape hunting Templars. A life that has probably shaped her into a power-hungry mage. In other words, a life of an apostate - an outlaw of an inherently corrupt system, that brands mages as dangerous just because of an accident of their birth. Is this the kind of life you want all mages to endure? But why?
No. I don't agree with the Chantry or the Circle. However, in the current system, if a mage wants
true freedom - being bound to no Circle, demon, or law other than their own - they really don't have a choice. And yes, Morrigan is an apostate but I wouldn't call her anything else even by the Chantry's standards.
Retour en haut
