1008 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I was merely justifying the learning of blood magic itself, not the usage of it, prior to the violence. I got an impression that you were suggesting that one ought to learn the art after the abuse has happened - which to me makes little sense.

It's not entirely clear how it is that a mage actually learns blood magic. If a demon is required and it can be instant (which DA:O suggests) then a mage could be concerned and then learn blood magic as the abuse is going on.

Are asking when does one come to the conclusion that a war has ended? So that morality can be used as a barometer once again? I don't have an answer to that one. I don't think the answer is an easy one.

No. I'm asking how does one know it started in the first place. Nations usually put foward a casus belli and declare it, but we're talking about essentially a prison population and their guards. At what point do we say, these two are at war? And if they are at war, why does that not justify the harsh eploitation and oppresion of the templars, with the Circles just as prison camps?

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages being chosen to be leaders isn't much different than "nobility" being chosen to rule a nation, since democracy doesn't seem to exist in Thedas.

But this is exactly a reason why non-mages pushed for the Circles. Not just because they were terrified of the potential of another Tenvinter, but because they wanted to dislodge mages from their role as 'natural' leaders.

Putting aside the immorality of the Circles, this is nothing more than socialism with 'magic' instead of 'wealth'.

[Uccio]

I didn´t like the fact that even young mages would burst into abominations every time they lost control. It was like they had demons inside them waiting to take controll. Also all mages who used blood magic were violent power hungry beasts who would also burst into abominations at will (Merril being the only exception, and Hawke if you decided to take the blood magic option). It was like the blood magic itself made characters evil even though it was supposed to be ancient form of magic used by old empires. Self determination did not play a role at all.

[MichaelFinnegan]

In Exile wrote...

It's not entirely clear how it is that a mage actually learns blood magic. If a demon is required and it can be instant (which DA:O suggests) then a mage could be concerned and then learn blood magic as the abuse is going on.

Not sure if I understood that correctly, so let me know if my reply missed the point.

For me that is a big IF. One would have to assume that the demon would have to agree with the offer instantaneously, too; and let us not forget that the body would be left behind when this deal is going on. I still think it is quite possible to learn blood magic outside the influence of a demon - and, if so, I think a mage who believes he/she will be the next victim is very much valid in learning it beforehand. An act of violence would only happen if the blood mage decided to strike first, without provocation.

No. I'm asking how does one know it started in the first place. Nations usually put foward a casus belli and declare it, but we're talking about essentially a prison population and their guards. At what point do we say, these two are at war? And if they are at war, why does that not justify the harsh eploitation and oppresion of the templars, with the Circles just as prison camps?

Ok. I think we have to actually agree upon a first cause. I think the oppression of the mages could be construed as a cause that triggered it. If so, more oppression (either way, I suppose) would only be considered as a further cause to continue the war.

And, well, not necessarily a war of sorts, but a conflict of lesser dimensions. But I still think the argument of morality going out the window holds - with the primary objective becoming to win the war. Any breach of morality on either side resulting in perhaps a stronger or like-response from the other.

As to how do we know it's actually a war? I suppose significant number of individuals on either group might required to be involved - best as I can think at the moment. Not with so much as a formal declaration of war as such.

[Foolsfolly]

Deztyn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

To the best of my knowledge, we have exactly one codex that discusses a mage-turned-abomination going on a rampage.  It's in, I believe, the codex that discusses the inception of the Right of Annulment.  Anyway, according to that codex, the abomination was on the loose for a full year before being caught, and in that time had killed seventy people.

I'm sorry to say, I'm underwhelmed by that revelation.  Seventy murders over the course of a year doesn't strike me as a catastrophic level of Doom.  That's fewer than two deaths a week.  Any person can cause that level of damage, with nothing more than their bare hands.  If possessed mages are supposed to be so much more apocalyptically dangerous than a non-mage, or even just a non-possessed mage, that codex fails to convey it.

.... Connor Guerrin.

Meredith's own sister killed a great number, including all of Meredith's family, before being put down. I cannot remember the number killed since it's been 2-3 months since I played the game.

Abominations are threats.

Ukki wrote...

I didn´t like the fact that even young mages
would burst into abominations every time they lost control. It was like
they had demons inside them waiting to take controll. Also all mages
who used blood magic were violent power hungry beasts who would also
burst into abominations at will (Merril being the only exception, and
Hawke if you decided to take the blood magic option). It was like the
blood magic itself made characters evil even though it was supposed to
be ancient form of magic used by old empires. Self determination did not
play a role at all.

Ancient Empires that may have fallen due to their corruption. Despite strong opinions on both sides of the Blood Magic issue neither game has been 100% for or against Blood Magic. There's been two Blood Mages who weren't complete monsters in the series thus far (Merrill and Lowen).

And possibly the PC but it's never mentioned and it's entirely optional.

[Torax]

I'm guessing you mean Jowan.

[TEWR]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Mages are men too, and in a way by being locked up because they're mages their magic is ruling over their lives.

Not sure I understood this one.

Hmmm..... how to best phrase this....


Ok. What I'm saying is that the fact that a mage is a mage determines that they are locked up in the tower for their lives. In essence, their being a mage rules over their life and how they live it.

Both really. Most of the populus fears anything to do with a mage. Should a bad harvest occur and they discover a child with magical talent, they will blame him for it and form a mob to kill him.

Haha. Yes, likely.

Well, Wynne says that it happens. So I guess it does happen in Thedas.

More or less what happens is the evil side do, well, evil things. They kill anyone they want to and use the an equivalent to most of Thedas' hatred for blood magic. They use spells that are far more dangerous and lethal, and are the ones that should be banned. One is an instant kill spell.

That's true enough. But they oversee themselves - which is a key difference for me. Good mages make it a point to defeat evil ones. But the lives they lead is one of secrecy.

That's why I think the Mages' Collective is, while not the right way to go, a little bit better than the Circle. The codex entry says that the people who are a part of it never stray away from the Maker's mandate (meaning they don't practice blood magic since it's Chantry taboo). The blood mages we meet in Collective quests aren't a part of the Collective, but are threatening the safety of a member.

I only remember seeing one Abomination in all of the collective quests, and he only killed one person: his mentor.

[Torax]

The key thing to remember is how Fenris states his opinion of mages. That they will always resort to blood magic if the need is great enough. Be it survival or hunger for power. Why he fears mages that govern over themselves. The ones who seek power would thrive greatly. Meanwhile Kirkwall is the polar opposite of that. If you treat the mages as animals/pets and forget that they are still people. If you threaten them repeatedly, abuse them and so on? The same is true of the "If the need is great enough." Fenris even admits that what he was feeling about Kirkwall's circle was wrong. The emotions he was feeling were the types that could truly lead to trouble.

But even Fenris has trouble finding a better alternative. Hawke & Bethany were lucky to have a Father who was trained in the Circle already afterall. Maybe even had them do his own form of Harrowing at some point while they growing up. Who knows?

Modifié par Torax, 19 juin 2011 - 06:28 .

[dragonflight288]

Bethany is put through the Harrowing the very moment she is taken to the circle if you leave her behind the Deep Roads. Doesn't matter what training she may have had, the templars put her through it immediately. I think they were hoping to kill her.

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

Hawke & Bethany were lucky to have a Father who was trained in the Circle already afterall.

Based on the codex entries from the Mage Pack, no one really knows Malcolm's past. Although he acted as a mercenary throughout the Free Marches, he never spoke about where he grew up or what he went through. According to the codex "The Long Trek," it reads:

"Malcom would never tell his wife or young children where he was from; it was a bloody tale that forever gave him nightmares. When their love was still fresh, Leandra once pressed him on the subject. All he would say is, "Freedom's price is never cheap, but that was hundred leagues and a lifetime ago." His haunted gaze lingered on his favourite boots, and he would say no more."

[The Baconer]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Based on the codex entries from the Mage Pack, no one really knows Malcolm's past. Although he acted as a mercenary throughout the Free Marches, he never spoke about where he grew up or what he went through. According to the codex "The Long Trek," it reads:

"Malcom would never tell his wife or young children where he was from; it was a bloody tale that forever gave him nightmares. When their love was still fresh, Leandra once pressed him on the subject. All he would say is, "Freedom's price is never cheap, but that was hundred leagues and a lifetime ago." His haunted gaze lingered on his favourite boots, and he would say no more."

Not to mention the fact that The Fugitive's Mantle appears to be some kind of Chantry robe. I'm surprised more people aren't wondering what the heck is up with that.

[In Exile]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Not sure if I understood that correctly, so let me know if my reply missed the point.

For me that is a big IF. One would have to assume that the demon would have to agree with the offer instantaneously, too; and let us not forget that the body would be left behind when this deal is going on. I still think it is quite possible to learn blood magic outside the influence of a demon - and, if so, I think a mage who believes he/she will be the next victim is very much valid in learning it beforehand. An act of violence would only happen if the blood mage decided to strike first, without provocation.

You're entirely right. You can learn blood magic without involving demons. I just didn't consider that particular scenario.

The thing is, magic itself is very powerful. You can burn things alive, freeze them, paralyze and crush them... mages have lots of options open to them prior to blood magic, which is a technically a morally neutral tool in many cases (though not with mental domination).

I wouldn't personally say that a mage is entitled to engage in morally questionable conduct (e.g. learning banned magic) when there are perfectly viable relatiatory tactics open.

Ok. I think we have to actually agree upon a first cause. I think the oppression of the mages could be construed as a cause that triggered it. If so, more oppression (either way, I suppose) would only be considered as a further cause to continue the war.

I agree with you so far. What I want to highlight is that the reasoning is, as you alluded, reflexive. If war justifies atrocities, then it can potentially justify the continuing atrocities that started the war in the first place.

And, well, not necessarily a war of sorts, but a conflict of lesser dimensions. But I still think the argument of morality going out the window holds - with the primary objective becoming to win the war. Any breach of morality on either side resulting in perhaps a stronger or like-response from the other.

I am a strong believer of the 'principled conduct' approach. By that, I mean that I think a conflict ostensibly for a moral end (preventing exploitation) ought to be conducted morally; otherwise you are essentially falling back on self-interest to justify the conflict, and that's universally applicable and can justify obviously immoral ends.

As to how do we know it's actually a war? I suppose significant number of individuals on either group might required to be involved - best as I can think at the moment. Not with so much as a formal declaration of war as such.

I should clarify. That was a question that was largely rhetorical, to get at the moral reflexivity.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Hmmm..... how to best phrase this....

Ok. What I'm saying is that the fact that a mage is a mage determines that they are locked up in the tower for their lives. In essence, their being a mage rules over their life and how they live it.

Ok. I see that as meaning magic is both a gift and curse at the same time.

There is one difference to how I look at things, though. To me "with great power comes great responsibility" can be taken to mean that one should use it with care so as not to harm others and/or that it ought to be used to help others. I do not necessarily subscribe to the latter, i.e. the altruistic sentiment - I believe that aspect should largely be at the discretion of the individual.

Both really. Most of the populus fears anything to do with a mage. Should a bad harvest occur and they discover a child with magical talent, they will blame him for it and form a mob to kill him.

Haha. Yes, likely.

Well, Wynne says that it happens. So I guess it does happen in Thedas.

I don't remember this one. But Ok.

That's true enough. But they oversee themselves - which is a key difference for me. Good mages make it a point to defeat evil ones. But the lives they lead is one of secrecy.

That's why I think the Mages' Collective is, while not the right way to go, a little bit better than the Circle. The codex entry says that the people who are a part of it never stray away from the Maker's mandate (meaning they don't practice blood magic since it's Chantry taboo). The blood mages we meet in Collective quests aren't a part of the Collective, but are threatening the safety of a member.

I only remember seeing one Abomination in all of the collective quests, and he only killed one person: his mentor.

I think independently of the Chantry or Maker's mandates, one could arrive at objective standards of what is right or wrong. One could simply think in terms of magic not being used to harm others and derive systems of justice. For instance, if it can be unequivocally proven that blood magic is in and of itself harmful, then so be it - ban it, never practice it.

I believe it infinitely better if the Circle or the Mages Collective that forms itself of volition and necessity, and of free association is far better than one that is forced by arbitrary standards imposed by someone else.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 20 juin 2011 - 03:56 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

In Exile wrote...

You're entirely right. You can learn blood magic without involving demons. I just didn't consider that particular scenario.

The thing is, magic itself is very powerful. You can burn things alive, freeze them, paralyze and crush them... mages have lots of options open to them prior to blood magic, which is a technically a morally neutral tool in many cases (though not with mental domination).

I wouldn't personally say that a mage is entitled to engage in morally questionable conduct (e.g. learning banned magic) when there are perfectly viable relatiatory tactics open.

But magic is powerful relative to what? That is an important thing to consider also, I think.

I look at blood magic as a giver of power, and not necessarily an immoral tool. The immorality of it comes in my opinion on how it is used - by taking the blood of others, by trying to mentally manipulate others, and so on.

So, that said, when I look at instances of abuse, I see an unfair fight for the mage - with the oppressors having the upper hand: what with restrictions on lyrium usage, with perhaps a disadvantage of numbers to add to that, and with the ability of templars to repel most forms of magic. In that scenario, I believe the mage has little options but to plunge for what is preached and not necessarily proven as an immoral art.

Ok. I think we have to actually agree upon a first cause. I think the oppression of the mages could be construed as a cause that triggered it. If so, more oppression (either way, I suppose) would only be considered as a further cause to continue the war.

I agree with you so far. What I want to highlight is that the reasoning is, as you alluded, reflexive. If war justifies atrocities, then it can potentially justify the continuing atrocities that started the war in the first place.

Yes. But please note that I merely made an observation. I don't think that as retaliation one should fall toward questionable behavior - such as further abuse.

And, well, not necessarily a war of sorts, but a conflict of lesser dimensions. But I still think the argument of morality going out the window holds - with the primary objective becoming to win the war. Any breach of morality on either side resulting in perhaps a stronger or like-response from the other.

I am a strong believer of the 'principled conduct' approach. By that, I mean that I think a conflict ostensibly for a moral end (preventing exploitation) ought to be conducted morally; otherwise you are essentially falling back on self-interest to justify the conflict, and that's universally applicable and can justify obviously immoral ends.

I am with you on this one. But I think we need to draw clearer lines. Do I think that if some party A attacks B, then B should hold back in any way with its agression? I think not. Do I think that B should resort to some kind of abuse, perhaps like the one that A was resorting to? No.

As to how do we know it's actually a war? I suppose significant number of individuals on either group might required to be involved - best as I can think at the moment. Not with so much as a formal declaration of war as such.

I should clarify. That was a question that was largely rhetorical, to get at the moral reflexivity.

Ok.

[Dave of Canada]

I'll just step out of the shadows for five seconds.

In Exile wrote...

You're entirely right. You can learn blood magic without involving demons. I just didn't consider that particular scenario.

Honestly, I doubt the possibility of blood magic being learned without demons. Ignoring the ingame mechanics of the specialization tome (Reaver had one too even if you had to drink wyvern blood), almost everything points to demons playing some role in the learning of blood magic.

The Scrolls of Banastor, probably one of the most indepth studies of a blood mage that we've recieved, pretty much says that if you want a blood mage's power then you have to summon a demon and force them into servitude or give yourself to them.

[dragonflight288]

Right...so the Orlesian Warden commander...or a Hero of Ferelden who didn't make the deal with the desire demon in Connor's dreams...the fact that they can learn blood magic from a book in Awakening is simply a figment of my imagination, influenced by a demon I had never met. Good to know.

[HSHAW]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just step out of the shadows for five seconds.

In Exile wrote...

You're entirely right. You can learn blood magic without involving demons. I just didn't consider that particular scenario.

Honestly, I doubt the possibility of blood magic being learned without demons. Ignoring the ingame mechanics of the specialization tome (Reaver had one too even if you had to drink wyvern blood), almost everything points to demons playing some role in the learning of blood magic.

The Scrolls of Banastor, probably one of the most indepth studies of a blood mage that we've recieved, pretty much says that if you want a blood mage's power then you have to summon a demon and force them into servitude or give yourself to them.

Alternate idea: The scrolls encourage you to go to demons because they can instantly shove the knowledge into your head.

[Dave of Canada]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Right...so the Orlesian Warden commander...or a Hero of Ferelden who didn't make the deal with the desire demon in Connor's dreams...the fact that they can learn blood magic from a book in Awakening is simply a figment of my imagination, influenced by a demon I had never met. Good to know.

Except... you know, you can be a Reaver from a book too! Even if it's impossible with the lore due to how it works. Also happens to be sold from the same vendor!

And the other way to learn magic in Awakening is making a deal with the Baroness!

HSAW wrote...

Alternate idea: The scrolls encourage you to go to demons because they can instantly shove the knowledge into your head.

Could be possible but it apparently details a lot of blood magic rituals and the like, I doubt he'd skip the basics and simply write "Deal with demons" if it wasn't the only option.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 20 juin 2011 - 06:58 .

[In Exile]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
But magic is powerful relative to what? That is an important thing to consider also, I think.

The sharp, pointy, stabby thing templars carry around.

I look at blood magic as a giver of power, and not necessarily an immoral tool. The immorality of it comes in my opinion on how it is used - by taking the blood of others, by trying to mentally manipulate others, and so on.

Blood magic, moreso than any other kind of magic, has multiple immoral uses as a consequence of being used, not per se how it is used. For one, it needs blood. That means your blood (so you're hurting yourself, but let's file that under Mill's principle and say it's neutral) or the blood of others, and that gets into issues of consent (which are always thorny). Mental domination is, I would argue, de facto immoral.

So, that said, when I look at instances of abuse, I see an unfair fight for the mage - with the oppressors having the upper hand: what with restrictions on lyrium usage, with perhaps a disadvantage of numbers to add to that, and with the ability of templars to repel most forms of magic. In that scenario, I believe the mage has little options but to plunge for what is preached and not necessarily proven as an immoral art.

Lyrium is supposed to be addictive; I would say that lore-wise, most mages would stay away from lyrium potions.

This argument - non-blood magic is uselss against templars - depends very much on how and how well templars can resist magic.

That being said, I don't think it's arguably that most uses of blood magic have been shown to be immoral. It's just that we could argue that they're justified in certain cases.

Yes. But please note that I merely made an observation. I don't think that as retaliation one should fall toward questionable behavior - such as further abuse.

Certainly. It's a slippery slope, though. As a mage, once you kill a templar, you're an apostate, More likely than not, you're in the kill-on-sight category. That's a desperate situation to be in. And that opens the door to very unsavory possibilities.

I am with you on this one. But I think we need to draw clearer lines. Do I think that if some party A attacks B, then B should hold back in any way with its agression? I think not. Do I think that B should resort to some kind of abuse, perhaps like the one that A was resorting to? No.

Right. We're on the same page so far. I think the thorny moral issue comes when you try to unpact what reasonable retaliation means, within the contex of the DA setting and with respect to what templars can resist and what mages can dish out.

To go back to blood magic, let's suppose most spells are largley useless against templars. Let's further suppose that templars win the propaganda war, because of the widespread blood magic. Mages are generally morally upright, but still use animal sacrifices to fuel their magic.

Is it moral for mages to use mental domination to force templars to fight each other? Should mages, in controlled circumstances, summon demons to wreak havoc in templar ranks?

I think we can justify the more traditional offensive (I mean this in the military sense) uses of bloodmagic as mere technologies of war. 

[Nightdragon8]

I agree with In Exile assessment of the blood magic issue.

I would also like to add that it seems that the Templars protection of magic does not include Blood magic. At least seen what was done in DA:O Magi Origin story. The only defense seems to be a book they kept in the tower to prevent the mind domination from happening. So that may also be the reason Blood Magic is banned. It is because they can't even remotely defend against it.

In Witch hunt. Fin does say that it is a "Grey area" to use blood as an ingredient.

In a way it has to be somewhat tolerated to a degree because of the use of Phylacteries. Thats the magi's blood in the vial that they use to find the magi to hunt them down.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just step out of the shadows for five seconds.

In Exile wrote...

You're entirely right. You can learn blood magic without involving demons. I just didn't consider that particular scenario.

Honestly, I doubt the possibility of blood magic being learned without demons. Ignoring the ingame mechanics of the specialization tome (Reaver had one too even if you had to drink wyvern blood), almost everything points to demons playing some role in the learning of blood magic.

I think it is possible to learn blood magic without demons, just as one could learn spirit healing without spirits; I have argued about this earlier, but I haven't received a good enough counter argument to it. Perhaps you can elaborate more on why you have such doubts.

The Scrolls of Banastor, probably one of the most indepth studies of a blood mage that we've recieved, pretty much says that if you want a blood mage's power then you have to summon a demon and force them into servitude or give yourself to them.

But what power are the scrolls talking about exactly? "This is the true power of blood magic: the flesh and the mind are inseparable, and therein lies the power to influence and control minds." That tells me the end goal of those scrolls is in fact mind control, with both blood magic and demons as the means to achieve it.

This is as best as I could understand it: The first step is to understand the relation between realm of dream (the Fade) and the realm of flesh (the "real" world). The second step is to understand how the interrupting of the flow of blood grants access to the mind. The third step is to best a demon so as to actually gain a foothold into another's mind and therefore his/her flesh/blood.

HSHAW wrote...
Alternate idea: The scrolls encourage you to go to demons because they can instantly shove the knowledge into your head.

I would say that going to demons could be a necessary part of gaining the power to control the minds of others. As to whether or not demons are required to link the power of one's own flesh (blood) to the Fade is still unclear to me.

[MichaelFinnegan]

In Exile wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
But magic is powerful relative to what? That is an important thing to consider also, I think.

The sharp, pointy, stabby thing templars carry around.

I think I misplaced my sentence above from its explanation below. After all, a templar is more than just a warrior.

Blood magic, moreso than any other kind of magic, has multiple immoral uses as a consequence of being used, not per se how it is used. For one, it needs blood. That means your blood (so you're hurting yourself, but let's file that under Mill's principle and say it's neutral) or the blood of others, and that gets into issues of consent (which are always thorny). Mental domination is, I would argue, de facto immoral.

I go by the thinking that the blood of a person is his own property. So, I don't necessarily subscribe to what others might happen to think about it. So I have no issue with that. I agree with the rest of your argument - although, the assessment of the morality of mental domination could become a bit jittery in some contexts that you bring up below.

Lyrium is supposed to be addictive; I would say that lore-wise, most mages would stay away from lyrium potions.

Would that include a desperate mage seeking some way to escape her suffering? The issue is that lyrium is actually a non-option for the mage: how would a mage get instantaneous access to it, given all the regulation?

This argument - non-blood magic is uselss against templars - depends very much on how and how well templars can resist magic.

True, but please note that abuses do happen - they are successful. It tells me that abusing templars might actuallly be targetting weaker mages or perhaps younger, less experienced mages - ones whose powers haven't yet reached their full potential.

That being said, I don't think it's arguably that most uses of blood magic have been shown to be immoral. It's just that we could argue that they're justified in certain cases.

Yes, I simply see blood as being instant access. Now, one could argue, how much can a mage do with his own blood, how many spells can he cast, and so on. What if it is not sufficient to the task at hand. It could spiral out of control.

Certainly. It's a slippery slope, though. As a mage, once you kill a templar, you're an apostate, More likely than not, you're in the kill-on-sight category. That's a desperate situation to be in. And that opens the door to very unsavory possibilities.

Yes, a very good point, in my opinion. I would say if the mage actually is able to defeat or even kill her templar oppressor and escape, that in itself is something - a desperate act to become free. If that act is successful, then it is another story altogether. Something to the likes of - live today, fight tomorrow, or something.

Right. We're on the same page so far. I think the thorny moral issue comes when you try to unpact what reasonable retaliation means, within the contex of the DA setting and with respect to what templars can resist and what mages can dish out.

Yes, agreed.

To go back to blood magic, let's suppose most spells are largley useless against templars. Let's further suppose that templars win the propaganda war, because of the widespread blood magic. Mages are generally morally upright, but still use animal sacrifices to fuel their magic.

Is it moral for mages to use mental domination to force templars to fight each other? Should mages, in controlled circumstances, summon demons to wreak havoc in templar ranks?

Sohpia Dryden and Avernus come to mind.

That would certainly make it... complicated, I guess. I mean what that ultimately boils down to is: should one uphold morality over survival or should it be the other way around, knowing in this case that one precludes the other. I could say it could be thought about contextually. Before answering this question, we may need to consider who initiated the conflict in the first place; how unfair was the fight to the one who was attacked; what implications this might have upon innocent bystanders - if we consider the demon example, what havoc would it cause after the task for which it was summoned. At least with the templars fighting each other, I could understand it to an extent, seeing that it doesn't go out of context of the conflict.

And this will certainly go back to the "reflexive" argument we had earlier - it could certainly lead to a vicious circle of events, although I don't think it comes under the category of abuse that we discussed earlier.

I think we can justify the more traditional offensive (I mean this in the military sense) uses of bloodmagic as mere technologies of war. 

Yes. Justify it somewhat unambiguously, I might add. I think it has validity, because it gives a mage a ready source (blood) to defend herself with.

[nightscrawl]

Sorry, I didn't want to read all 30 pages on this but I will just respond to the original post.

LobselVith8 wrote...

... we never really get the
opportunity to see the dark side of the Circle of Kirkwall under the
Templar Order in the same way we do with the mage antagonists we're
forced to deal with, and no one ever mentions the children in the
Gallows when the Right of Annulment comes up.

As you quest along, in order to see both sides it helps to talk to people that are walking around. After you free Grace, or force her back into the circle (either way, she ends up there), be sure to click on her as well as Alain. Each have a couple of different things to say in Part 1, and something new in Part 2. You can also talk to Thrask and Feynriel (if you made him go to the circle instead of the Dalish) again. Talking to NPCs in this manner gives more insight on the story. They mention beatings and other things (which I don't recall all of at the moment).

Also, in an example of how party banter actually adds to the overall story, you can read/hear an interesting exchange between Anders and Sebastian:

Sebastian: You seem very angry.
Anders: And here I thought the Chantry was against mind-reading.
Sebastian: Did something happen to you in the Circle? I understand there were problems in Ferelden...
Anders: Are you saying a mage can only be unhappy in the Circle if demons were involved?
Anders: No, it's not about Uldred. It's not about being beaten or raped by a templar— that does happen, but I've been fortunate.
Anders: It's a larger principle: the freedom every man, woman, and child born in Thedas have as a natural right.
Sebastian: You were given to the Circle. I was given to the Chantry. Hawke was driven away from home by the Darkspawn.
Sebastian: None of us are free.

And really, there is no farther place to look for a man who joins the Templar Order because he craves power, rather than actually believing he is doing right in protecting the world from mages, than Ser Alrik. That man is a piece of trash. And this may sound very cynical of me, but I doubt he is/was the only one of that type in the Order. Jobs like that tend to attract such people.

I actually think the devs really did try to present both sides. However, it might have been a bit more helpful in the anti-mage side to show that there are mages like Severan from The Stolen Throne who craved power, like any non-mage. And then there's our friend from Origins, Uldred. Uldred had all of the things to make him into the poster boy for the templars: powerful/experienced/learned mage, a craving for power, and the desire he already had as a member of the Libertarian fraternity to break free from the Chantry's control all combining into one horrific incident that nearly cost Ferelden its entire circle. Unfortunately, the devs didn't really do that. Ultimately they focused so much on Blood Magic and mages turning to it and demons out of desperation, that the message of real danger mages can pose was lost.

You also mention poor Leandra in All That Remains. Quentin was insane, obviously. However, I don't really see his actions as different from a non-mage in his position of a grieving spouse. Losing his wife made him insane. Fortunately for him, he was also a mage, so he just had greater resources to do something about it. I'm sure some will point out that he was (most likely) conducting his research before his wife died and the insanity happened, but research doesn't necessarily mean he would murder a bunch of women as he ended up doing.

I could present arguments for both sides, most of which I got just by playing the game(s). So, they are there and waiting to be discovered. Some things have to be implied, like the children who would be murdered in the Annulment. No, you don't see any children if you side with the templars and start culling the circle. But the evidence that smart forum goers present of Bethany's letter to Hawke, as well as taking a throwback to Origins where you do see children who would have been killed is all pretty strong.

In the end though, no matter whose side you are on, Anders was right about one thing: there MUST be a change. Hawke helped to affect that change. We'll just have to see how it ends up.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 20 juin 2011 - 12:31 .

[In Exile]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I think I misplaced my sentence above from its explanation below. After all, a templar is more than just a warrior.

Yes, that's true. I was just trying to draw apart the imbalance of power. A templar has to neutralize the mana of a mage to stand on even footing, or get the advantage in the exchange.

I go by the thinking that the blood of a person is his own property. So, I don't necessarily subscribe to what others might happen to think about it. So I have no issue with that. I agree with the rest of your argument - although, the assessment of the morality of mental domination could become a bit jittery in some contexts that you bring up below.

Indeed. There's always the argument that self-harm is immoral in and of itself, but I don't buy it.

You're right about mental domination. Interrogation of POWs is a good example. Mental domination gives you, effectively, 100% acurate information (in the sense that you know it is the truth). That really changes the 'ticking time bomb' scenario.

True, but please note that abuses do happen - they are successful. It tells me that abusing templars might actuallly be targetting weaker mages or perhaps younger, less experienced mages - ones whose powers haven't yet reached their full potential.

Or templars could just be intimidating mages. Without a sympathetic Knight-Captain, the templars can really do as they please.

Yes, I simply see blood as being instant access. Now, one could argue, how much can a mage do with his own blood, how many spells can he cast, and so on. What if it is not sufficient to the task at hand. It could spiral out of control.

It has to be self-policing, too. The templars won't give mages any leeway for only using blood magic to boil their innards and blow them up, instead of tearing apart their minds.

That's what I see the moral issue (re: conduct in war) as in general. It's about what you're willing to deny to keep yourself from descending into barbarism.

I think that's particularly important with the mage/templar war, because if the mages win, they overthrow the entire political system they were held under. When it comes time to create a new system, or a new state, it's that moral conduct that will be the difference between a just and unjust society.

Yes, a very good point, in my opinion. I would say if the mage actually is able to defeat or even kill her templar oppressor and escape, that in itself is something - a desperate act to become free. If that act is successful, then it is another story altogether. Something to the likes of - live today, fight tomorrow, or something.

Fenris made the point in-game, which I agree with, that a mage could always get pushed far enough to justify any magic. The issue is whether or not that circumstance actually makes the use of the magic immoral.

A good example being the Grey Wardens. They exist because of blood magic. Mages were pushed far enough, in their desperation, to use it to create an order that might, as a last-ditch hope, defeated the archdemon.

That would certainly make it... complicated, I guess. I mean what that ultimately boils down to is: should one uphold morality over survival or should it be the other way around, knowing in this case that one precludes the other. I could say it could be thought about contextually. Before answering this question, we may need to consider who initiated the conflict in the first place; how unfair was the fight to the one who was attacked; what implications this might have upon innocent bystanders - if we consider the demon example, what havoc would it cause after the task for which it was summoned. At least with the templars fighting each other, I could understand it to an extent, seeing that it doesn't go out of context of the conflict.

And this will certainly go back to the "reflexive" argument we had earlier - it could certainly lead to a vicious circle of events, although I don't think it comes under the category of abuse that we discussed earlier.

Thinking on the issue, I think we could say pragmatically that we want the sort of right conduct that would enable building an equitable society instead of an exploitative one. It's easy to go from oppressed to oppressor, particularly when the fear, pain and shame of your oppression is still fresh in your mind.

At the very least, I think that if you are going to carry out a campaign for an ostensibly moral reason (i.e. end the exploitation of the oppressed) you ought to hold yourself to a higher standard.

Yes. Justify it somewhat unambiguously, I might add. I think it has validity, because it gives a mage a ready source (blood) to defend herself with.

Agreed.

[Herr Uhl]

In Exile wrote...

A good example being the Grey Wardens. They exist because of blood magic. Mages were pushed far enough, in their desperation, to use it to create an order that might, as a last-ditch hope, defeated the archdemon.

Just a nitpick, that was during the height of the Tevinter Imperium and blood magic wasn't nearly as stigmatized, if stigmatized at all, as it is "now".

So I don't think it was a case of them being pushed to it.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 20 juin 2011 - 05:29 .