886 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Proof of that would be nice.  Mages may be beacons inherently, but you are talking about getting a demon to come at a time and place of your choosing for a particular purpose.

Offering to make a deal with a demon or leaving yourself open to one certainly does have it's charms to a demon who's sole intent is possessing a mortal. Considering demons are always there when the mage wants something, I doubt they'd be mysteriously absent when a mage wants something form them.

Facts without evidence.  You don't know that a demon is always there when a mage wants something.  In fact given the number of mage deaths we see not just in Fereldan but Kirkwall where there was no sign of demon interference even under dire circumstances, and how HARD it was for Uldred's demons to possess unwilling mages (he had to break them physically and spiritually and even then it took a very long and very interruptable ritual), I'd argue that having a demon offer to help you even as a mage is relatively rare!

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You haven't given any!  The only think you've shown is that demons can teach bloodmagic and we already know that!

-Polaris

I think you're the one who has to show evidence that blood mages don't need demons to learn. :happy:

Nope.  I am not the one making the positive assertion.  You are.  You are asserting that a demon is required to learn blood magic and I and others have given valid counter-examples.  The burden of proof is on you.

-Polaris

[hoorayforicecream]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You haven't given any!  The only think you've shown is that demons can teach bloodmagic and we already know that!

-Polaris

I think you're the one who has to show evidence that blood mages don't need demons to learn. :happy:

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence (e.g. you can make Anders a blood mage in DAA, but he's not in DA2 regardless of save imports, therefore one can conclude that Blood Mage Anders is not canonical).  It's entirely possible that lorewise, demons are necessary to learn blood magic. The evidence that is not gameplay does not contradict this. It's also entirely possible that demons aren't necessary to learn blood magic. The evidence that is not gameplay also does not contradict this.

Since we can't know for certain, trying to definitively prove either way is unlikely at best.

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

You are asserting that a demon is required to learn blood magic and I and others have given valid counter-examples.

Thanks for the laugh.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You are asserting that a demon is required to learn blood magic and I and others have given valid counter-examples.

Thanks for the laugh.

You're welcome.  Just because you don't accept them doesn't mean they are invalid.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence. *snip*

Though from what we've seen in both games, excluding only the tomes from which we know can't be canon simply because of the existence of the Reaver tome, that blood magic is learned from demons. From the seen cases of people learning blood magic, we've seen people make deals with demons.

The Scrolls of Banastor, which were created by blood mages and filled with blood magic rituals, is supposed to be a way to learn blood magic. Though upon reading the scrolls, which have been written by those experienced on the subject, you're reading how you're supposed to deal with demons to learn blood magic.

The codex entry is found here.

There's nothing that contradicts this, all blood mages we've seen have either dealt with demons and we've been dropped in the know or it's never explored at all. Ian, who seems content with this, uses the never explored factor as evidence that demons are not necessary.

Using ingame examples, it heavily leans upon demons being necessary. They've never explored non-demon blood magic routes, it doesn't mean that demons are necessary but implies it a lot more than demons being unnecessary.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 20 août 2011 - 09:35 .

[Gespenst]

Neminea wrote...

I tend to believe that blood magic comes from demons, because to me, all the references that it isn't is either too intertwined with your own character (ergo imo game mechanics) or based on what a single character says about it (jowan, which I don't trust). Compared to several characters stating it comes from a demon (Merrill, Anders, codexes).

...ooookay.

Neminea wrote...

As I said, I don't know the validity of the wiki, but I have not seen fullout proof that it isn't valid as of yet.

From the same wiki page btw:
While not inherently evil, the Chantry strictly forbids the usage of blood magic as it supposedly eventually leads to corruption.

There's a codex entry in the chantry at some point in DA2 that spells out the chantry's exact justification for banning blood magic - it's based on Transfiguration 1:3

All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,
From the lowest slaves
To the highest kings.
Those who bring harm
Without provocation to the least of His children
Are hated and accursed by the Maker.

Those who bring ham without provocation to the least of His children are breaded and accursed by the Maker

V

Blood mages can use other people's blood for magic

V

Taking other people's blood hurts

V

???

V

Maleficar.

Filament wrote...

Maybe blood mages are easier to possess simply because they neglected their Willpower stat.

Modifié par Gespenst, 20 août 2011 - 09:36 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence. *snip*

Though from what we've seen in both games, excluding only the tomes from which we know can't be canon simply because of the existence of the Reaver tome, that blood magic is learned from demons. From the seen cases of people learning blood magic, we've seen people make deals with demons.

The Scrolls of Banastor, which were created by blood mages and filled with blood magic rituals, is supposed to be a way to learn blood magic. Though upon reading the scrolls, which have been written by those experienced on the subject, you're reading how you're supposed to deal with demons to learn blood magic.

The codex entry is found here.

There's nothing that contradicts this, all blood mages we've seen have either dealt with demons and we've been dropped in the know or it's never explored at all. Ian, who seems content with this, uses the never explored factor as evidence that demons are not necessary.

Using ingame examples, it heavily leans upon demons being necessary. They've never explored non-demon blood magic routes, it doesn't mean that demons are necessary but implies it a lot more than demons being unnecessary.

The scrolls don't prove what you think they do.  They don't say a demon is REQUIRED to learn bloodmagic.  They detail one way that involves demons.

That's all.

-Polaris

[hoorayforicecream]

Dave of Canada wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence. *snip*

Though from what we've seen in both games, excluding only the tomes from which we know can't be canon simply because of the existence of the Reaver tome, that blood magic is learned from demons. From the seen cases of people learning blood magic, we've seen people make deals with demons.

The Scrolls of Banastor, which were created by blood mages and filled with blood magic rituals, is supposed to be a way to learn blood magic. Though upon reading the scrolls, which have been written by those experienced on the subject, you're reading how you're supposed to deal with demons to learn blood magic.

The codex entry is found here.

There's nothing that contradicts this, all blood mages we've seen have either dealt with demons and we've been dropped in the know or it's never explored at all. Ian, who seems content with this, uses the never explored factor as evidence that demons are not necessary.

Using ingame examples, it heavily leans upon demons being necessary. They've never explored non-demon blood magic routes, it doesn't mean that demons are necessary but implies it a lot more than demons being unnecessary.

Jowan's the only example I can think of where they don't say that a demon is involved directly... but since that's all hearsay and unverifiable, I don't know. As such, he is an example of non-gameplay potentially non-demon-related blood magery.

[IanPolaris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence. *snip*

Though from what we've seen in both games, excluding only the tomes from which we know can't be canon simply because of the existence of the Reaver tome, that blood magic is learned from demons. From the seen cases of people learning blood magic, we've seen people make deals with demons.

The Scrolls of Banastor, which were created by blood mages and filled with blood magic rituals, is supposed to be a way to learn blood magic. Though upon reading the scrolls, which have been written by those experienced on the subject, you're reading how you're supposed to deal with demons to learn blood magic.

The codex entry is found here.

There's nothing that contradicts this, all blood mages we've seen have either dealt with demons and we've been dropped in the know or it's never explored at all. Ian, who seems content with this, uses the never explored factor as evidence that demons are not necessary.

Using ingame examples, it heavily leans upon demons being necessary. They've never explored non-demon blood magic routes, it doesn't mean that demons are necessary but implies it a lot more than demons being unnecessary.

Jowan's the only example I can think of where they don't say that a demon is involved directly... but since that's all hearsay and unverifiable, I don't know. As such, he is an example of non-gameplay potentially non-demon-related blood magery.

You are forgetting Anders if the Warden makes him a bloodmage.  No demons involved there either, but the game canon from that point forward (including dialog) aknowledges him as a bloodmage.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  There is also no evidence that Hawke (either Malcome or PC) ever made any deal with a demon, but we know (post Legacy) that Malcome was a bloodmage and your PC can be a bloodmage too sans demon.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 août 2011 - 09:45 .

[Dave of Canada]

Hawke can also be a Reaver without drinking dragon's blood, though that makes very little sense.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

My post was in jest but I think it actually makes sense. People turn to blood magic because they want an easy way to gain power instead of steeling their resolve. Their blood has power in it, so it's tempting to just use that. But playing with that much power while having such weak willpower might make a tempting target for demons. That could explain part of the stigma against blood magic to begin with.

I've said many times that I think the only reason a blood mage gets possessed is because they get arrogant and let their guard down. The power gets to them, and the demons take advantage of the door that was left ajar into their mind. But if a mage doesn't let the power get to them, if a mage doesn't let their guard down, if a mage doesn't use the blood of other people, then I think the demons will have a really tough time possessing anyone short of the Veil being sundered and torn.

Your idea makes sense too.

[GarrusV4karian]

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit PS:  There is also no evidence that Hawke (either Malcome or PC) ever made any deal with a demon, but we know (post Legacy) that Malcome was a bloodmage and your PC can be a bloodmage too sans demon.

Yeah, but no one seems to recognize you as one<_<

[naledgeborn]

Well from a lore-wise perspective there's plenty of books floating around that teaches blood magic. Jowan's slack-jawed ass figured it out so it shouldn't be rocket surgery for mages with moderate training. Demons having to directly teach blood magic to a mage... I don't think so. Now, blood mages having an easier time at attracting demons isn't up for debate. Blood magic is as evil or unreliable as the user. The Warden and Hawke can be perfectly capable blood mages without falling prey to demons. I guess it all depends on the users' strentgh of will - and I don't mean the attribute

[Chewin]

GarrusV4karian wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit PS:  There is also no evidence that Hawke (either Malcome or PC) ever made any deal with a demon, but we know (post Legacy) that Malcome was a bloodmage and your PC can be a bloodmage too sans demon.

Yeah, but no one seems to recognize you as on

Reason being is b/c the programmers decide on the specialization trees after all the writing and dialog is done. So while the writers want want to create reactions, they can't if they don't know if Blood Magic is an option. It would have been a huge ordeal to goback and add a bunch of references. They could have written lines “justin case,” but can you imagine how time-consuming it would be to write alternate lines everywhere “just incase?”

Modifié par Chewin3, 20 août 2011 - 09:50 .

[GarrusV4karian]

Chewin3 wrote...
Reason being is b/c the programmers decide on the specialization trees after all the writing and dialog is done. So while the writers want want to create reactions, they can't if they don't know if Blood Magic is an option. It would have been a huge ordeal to goback and add a bunch of references. They could have written lines “justin case,” but can you imagine how time-consuming it would be to write alternate lines everywhere “just incase?”

Makes sense. It's stupid, but makes sense.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence. *snip*

Though from what we've seen in both games, excluding only the tomes from which we know can't be canon simply because of the existence of the Reaver tome, that blood magic is learned from demons. From the seen cases of people learning blood magic, we've seen people make deals with demons.

The Scrolls of Banastor, which were created by blood mages and filled with blood magic rituals, is supposed to be a way to learn blood magic. Though upon reading the scrolls, which have been written by those experienced on the subject, you're reading how you're supposed to deal with demons to learn blood magic.

The codex entry is found here.

There's nothing that contradicts this, all blood mages we've seen have either dealt with demons and we've been dropped in the know or it's never explored at all. Ian, who seems content with this, uses the never explored factor as evidence that demons are not necessary.

Using ingame examples, it heavily leans upon demons being necessary. They've never explored non-demon blood magic routes, it doesn't mean that demons are necessary but implies it a lot more than demons being unnecessary.

Jowan's the only example I can think of where they don't say that a demon is involved directly... but since that's all hearsay and unverifiable, I don't know. As such, he is an example of non-gameplay potentially non-demon-related blood magery.

You are forgetting Anders if the Warden makes him a bloodmage.  No demons involved there either, but the game canon from that point forward (including dialog) aknowledges him as a bloodmage.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  There is also no evidence that Hawke (either Malcome or PC) ever made any deal with a demon, but we know (post Legacy) that Malcome was a bloodmage and your PC can be a bloodmage too sans demon.

Except you don't see the actual learning process Anders went through to learn it. You don't know wether or not demons were invovled at all. You are simply using this to reinforce your own preconceptions, even though they in no way supports it.

The scrolls of banastor is the only documented source of how to learn blood magic. WHile it does not prove demons aren't neccesary, it proves that demons are involved, or can be at least. There are ZERO evidence, however, of blood magic being learned without the involvement of demons.
This is the part where you insist to use examples, suchas Anders in DA:A and Jowan, as examples of blood magic without demons, even though you have ZERO knowledge of the the learning proces they both went through. You are basically creating the evidence you want out of thin air, and flag them like valid counter-points.

[IanPolaris]

Chewin3 wrote...

GarrusV4karian wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit PS:  There is also no evidence that Hawke (either Malcome or PC) ever made any deal with a demon, but we know (post Legacy) that Malcome was a bloodmage and your PC can be a bloodmage too sans demon.

Yeah, but no one seems to recognize you as on

Reason being is b/c the programmers decide on the specialization trees after all the writing and dialog is done. So while the writers want want to create reactions, they can't if they don't know if Blood Magic is an option. It would have been a huge ordeal to goback and add a bunch of references. They could have written lines “justin case,” but can you imagine how time-consuming it would be to write alternate lines everywhere “just incase?”

I've heard this reason before but it just doesn't ring true.  Bloodmagic was an optional specialty in DAO after all, and given that there only three possible class specializations in the entire game, and given that bloodmagic really, really matters in the setting, it should have been apparent that bloodmagic was going to be a PC option extremely early on. 

Thus I think this is an excuse and a poor one that that.

-Polaris

[naledgeborn]

Chewin3 wrote...

Reason being is b/c the programmers decide on the specialization trees after all the writing and dialog is done. So while the writers want want to create reactions, they can't if they don't know if Blood Magic is an option. It would have been a huge ordeal to goback and add a bunch of references. They could have written lines “justin case,” but can you imagine how time-consuming it would be to write alternate lines everywhere “just incase?”

Wait a minute, wasn't blood mage the very first spec to be confirmed? So yeah, it's more like they didn't want or couldn't fit those lines in.

[Chewin]

IanPolaris wrote...
Thus I think this is an excuse and a poor one that that.

-Polaris

Sing that song to BW.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't think there's enough definitive evidence either way. It's too difficult to separate the gameplay from the lore in this particular case to be used as evidence. *snip*

Though from what we've seen in both games, excluding only the tomes from which we know can't be canon simply because of the existence of the Reaver tome, that blood magic is learned from demons. From the seen cases of people learning blood magic, we've seen people make deals with demons.

The Scrolls of Banastor, which were created by blood mages and filled with blood magic rituals, is supposed to be a way to learn blood magic. Though upon reading the scrolls, which have been written by those experienced on the subject, you're reading how you're supposed to deal with demons to learn blood magic.

The codex entry is found here.

There's nothing that contradicts this, all blood mages we've seen have either dealt with demons and we've been dropped in the know or it's never explored at all. Ian, who seems content with this, uses the never explored factor as evidence that demons are not necessary.

Using ingame examples, it heavily leans upon demons being necessary. They've never explored non-demon blood magic routes, it doesn't mean that demons are necessary but implies it a lot more than demons being unnecessary.

The Scrolls of Banastor were actually created by one mage: Banastor.


Technicalities aside, the scrolls seem to detail how to learn how to control minds through blood magic, not learn how to use blood magic itself.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I don't believe that blood magic automatically equals demons. Most blood magic seems to be heavily linked to the demonic, but most does not=all.

I think, more than likely, the reason all the blood mages we run into seem to be knee deep in demons, is because that is the only way most people in Andrastian Thedas know how to learn it. Blood magic itself is a very difficult thing to define, and even the Chantry's defintion is pretty weird and lacking.

I am inclined to believe that there are probably other methods of learning and performing blood magic, but due to the Chantry's strong prohibitions on blood magic, it is likely alot of this knowlege has been destroyed or lost, and thus, for most mages, the only known source of learning and performing blood magic is demons, who probably like it that way, as it gives them a sort of "monopoly" on the specialization.

And before we go throwing around labels of Blood magic being automatically evil and demonic, it might be a better idea to first actually have a better defintion of what blood magic is and entails. Because as many people have pointed out, the use of phylacteries, as well as the Warden's Joining ritual, are magical rituals and spells that involve the use of blood as a source of power. Yet the Chantry seems pretty hunky dory with both.

[hoorayforicecream]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except you don't see the actual learning process Anders went through to learn it. You don't know wether or not demons were invovled at all. You are simply using this to reinforce your own preconceptions, even though they in no way supports it.

The scrolls of banastor is the only documented source of how to learn blood magic. WHile it does not prove demons aren't neccesary, it proves that demons are involved, or can be at least. There are ZERO evidence, however, of blood magic being learned without the involvement of demons.
This is the part where you insist to use examples, suchas Anders in DA:A and Jowan, as examples of blood magic without demons, even though you have ZERO knowledge of the the learning proces they both went through. You are basically creating the evidence you want out of thin air, and flag them like valid counter-points.

I'd just argue that Anders can't be a blood mage canonically because he can't be one in DA2 and he's totally outspoken against blood magic over the course of the game.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except you don't see the actual learning process Anders went through to learn it. You don't know wether or not demons were invovled at all. You are simply using this to reinforce your own preconceptions, even though they in no way supports it.

The problem is the burden of proof is on you.  You need to SHOW that a demon is required in all cases and that's not apparent here.

The scrolls of banastor is the only documented source of how to learn blood magic. WHile it does not prove demons aren't neccesary, it proves that demons are involved, or can be at least. There are ZERO evidence, however, of blood magic being learned without the involvement of demons.

False and false.  We know that there were bloodmagic books in the circle library and they were being used to learn bloodmagic.  While we aren't given proof, it's easy enough to infer that this is how Jowan learned bloodmagic (and we know that Ulrdred taught his disciples bloodmagic...BEFORE he became an abomination.  In fact Irving unwittingly enabled him to do so in the guise of rooting out bloodmages in the tower).

Thus there is at least circumstantial evidence that you don't need demons to learn bloodmagic.  What's more we are told that Tevinter lore states that bloodmagic first came from Dumat.  The Dalish say the ancient Elves had mastered bloodmagic as well.

This is the part where you insist to use examples, suchas Anders in DA:A and Jowan, as examples of blood magic without demons, even though you have ZERO knowledge of the the learning proces they both went through. You are basically creating the evidence you want out of thin air, and flag them like valid counter-points.

I have at least circumstantial evidence that a demon is not needed to learn bloodmagic.  You have to PROVE that demons are always required to learn bloodmagic and you can't do that.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Chewin3 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Thus I think this is an excuse and a poor one that that.

-Polaris

Sing that song to BW.

See above.  I will gladly sing that song to BW.  I will call it out for what it is.  An excuse for bad writing and a BAD excuse at that.

-Polaris