886 réponses à ce sujet

[RazorrX]

Using gameplay as a basis for if blood magic is good or bad (or anything really) is rather misguided. Gameplay often totally contradicts lore. Some very quick examples:

According to Lore you *have* to use Lyrium to be able to do templar abilities. Alistair was supposedly given Lyrium and had not burned it all out during DA:O, and was thus incorrect about the skills not needing Lyrium. (David Gaider mentioned this I believe). The player NEVER has to take Lyrium to use Templar Skills.

According to lore you become addicted to Lyrium when you use it. They were even going to have Lyrium addiction in the original game (DA:O) but cut it due to it having too many drawbacks to player fun and dev time. Lyrium addiction starts to make you need more and more to get the same effect, then if you go off of it - insantiy and death. The player can drink lyrium potions like Kool-aid.

The player can be both a mage and a blood mage in the gallows at the very start of the game and all through the first act with no problems what so ever. You could perform blood magic when you save Cullen and he never mentions it, etc. This is a major point where Gameplay TOTALLY contradicts lore. Yet was done so as not to penalize the player. I stress the first act because you no longer have the mercs/smugglers protection and you do not have any money/political power yet. Notice that Bethany is taken away to the circle in act 1 where hawke never is due to gameplay.

Blood magic involves summoning demons and controlling minds. Do note that when Merrill opened the barrier on the Mountain, she summoned a demon to do it. If the player is a mage, or has a mage in the party they will mention that a demon opened the barrier. The player never gets those abilities. There are MANY spells the player never gets. Where is the players teleport that the Serebas use? Where is the neat control spell that the Apostitutes have? etc. Separation of gameplay and lore happens throughout the game.

Blood Magic was added as a player spell for the "awesome button" effect. IE it was cool. They gave good bouses for it but included NONE of the drawbacks because it would hurt gameplay.

So you have to go by lore and the lore is heresay and subject to 'corrections'. Thus the only people who can actually give a clear view of blood magic would be the devs. Until that time I have to go with it is an evil tool that is way to dangerous to use except in the most dire of situations (like the middle of a blight).

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We can't safely say that an Arcane Warrior would be considered a maleficar. The arts had been lost for centuries, and it is doubtful that the Circles even had knowledge of them. Once the art is properly studied and catalogued it can be decided wether it should be declared illegal or not. Though I can't see why the Circles would brand it as a maleficarum art.

There are good reasons for shapeshifters and blood mages to be branded as maleficars though.

Oh please.  The spirit warrior description states that templars treat spirit warriors as such, and spirit warriors aren't even actual mages, unlike arcane warriors.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He could've used normal magic, so that isn't a good example either.

Considering we've established already that Darkspawn blood does work in powering spells, it is a good example.

We're talking about good uses of blood magic. Not "should blood magic have been used here". As such, despite what you may feel the game presents this as a good use of blood magic.

So it is a good example.

Uhm... A good use of anything sorta constitutes that it SHOULD have been used in the given case, and that it was the correct choice of actions. I say that there were alternatives, and thus it was not the correct choice, and therefore NOT a good use of blood magic. And that is mostly because I don't think ANY situation ever calls for blood magic, unless there literally are no other choice, and even then sometimes blood magic still isn't acceptable.

Its always needed. its another source of power and effectivly doubles the mages ability to cast spells. The one who do not use everything at their disposal are the ones that the history books call corpse, worm food or carrion.
Their is no choice in it only pragmatism and survival. Its easy for you to judge but when war really comes to your doorstep you will do the same things Jowan did.

[DKJaigen]

Rifneno wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We can't safely say that an Arcane Warrior would be considered a maleficar. The arts had been lost for centuries, and it is doubtful that the Circles even had knowledge of them. Once the art is properly studied and catalogued it can be decided wether it should be declared illegal or not. Though I can't see why the Circles would brand it as a maleficarum art.

There are good reasons for shapeshifters and blood mages to be branded as maleficars though.

Oh please.  The spirit warrior description states that templars treat spirit warriors as such, and spirit warriors aren't even actual mages, unlike arcane warriors.

It seems to me that the circles only teach magic that the templars can actually counter. The AW would be a templar-killer. Templars work like this: disrupt the magic a mage has and prevent them from casting spells then quickly move in for the kill. It simply does not work for AW's and shapeshifters as they excel in close combat and they dont actually cast spells.  Bloodmages also cannot be disrupted and the templars have no resistance to bloodmagic.

[dragonflight288]

We can't safely say that an Arcane Warrior would be considered a maleficar. The arts had been lost for centuries, and it is doubtful that the Circles even had knowledge of them. Once the art is properly studied and catalogued it can be decided wether it should be declared illegal or not. Though I can't see why the Circles would brand it as a maleficarum art.

There are good reasons for shapeshifters and blood mages to be branded as maleficars though.

The Chantry considers any magic not practiced by the circle as forbidden and any mage practicing it as a maleficar. They Chantry has also removed the Canticle of Shartan for political reasons.

An Arcane Warrior is an ancient elvish form of magic which would allow a mage to wear armor, wield weapons, and fight the Templar's almost on an even footing while also casting spells.

The Templars would most certainly consider any mage practicing it a maleficar. Shapeshifters are considered maleficars. Wynne calls Morrigan one despite her not being a blood mage.

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We can't safely say that an Arcane Warrior would be considered a maleficar. The arts had been lost for centuries, and it is doubtful that the Circles even had knowledge of them. Once the art is properly studied and catalogued it can be decided wether it should be declared illegal or not. Though I can't see why the Circles would brand it as a maleficarum art.

There are good reasons for shapeshifters and blood mages to be branded as maleficars though.

Oh please.  The spirit warrior description states that templars treat spirit warriors as such, and spirit warriors aren't even actual mages, unlike arcane warriors.

Indeed. The Spirit Warrior school is very closely related to the Templar school. If the Templars will brand the distant cousin school of fighting as suspicious at best, then they'd consider the Mage variant as illegal. If a Mage can be on equal footing with a Templar, well, they can't have that now can they?

And seriously Emperor, how can a shapeshifter be branded maleficarum? It's changing into an animal, which will shield a mage from most people. It won't however shield them from Templars, since Templars can sense who is a mage and who isn't (see the Templar in Lothering for a Mage Warden).

If it was up to the majority of the Templars of the Dragon Age -- as in those fanatical ones and not the actual Templars -- all magic would be branded illegal and punishable by death.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 février 2012 - 06:38 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Shapeshfting was probably made illegal, not because of the effects, but because it is hard to control. It is hard to keep a mage in the Circle when he could simply change into a bird and fly away (or a dragon and tear the building down for that matter, though I suspect only Flemeth is capable of that). Also because it apparently lets you immitate other persons, if you so desire, and taht alone is enough to ban its use.

And they can't "sense" a mage like a jedi sense a force-user. It is more like a hunch born from experience. Otherwise there would hardly be any apostates or use for phylacteries.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 09 février 2012 - 07:30 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

We can't safely say that an Arcane Warrior would be considered a maleficar. The arts had been lost for centuries, and it is doubtful that the Circles even had knowledge of them. Once the art is properly studied and catalogued it can be decided wether it should be declared illegal or not. Though I can't see why the Circles would brand it as a maleficarum art.

There are good reasons for shapeshifters and blood mages to be branded as maleficars though.

The Chantry considers any magic not practiced by the circle as forbidden and any mage practicing it as a maleficar. They Chantry has also removed the Canticle of Shartan for political reasons.

An Arcane Warrior is an ancient elvish form of magic which would allow a mage to wear armor, wield weapons, and fight the Templar's almost on an even footing while also casting spells.

The Templars would most certainly consider any mage practicing it a maleficar. Shapeshifters are considered maleficars. Wynne calls Morrigan one despite her not being a blood mage.

It is not the Chantry that decides what magic is taught in the Circles. That decision lies with the First Enchanters and the Knight-Commanders. Since I don't know the intricate workigns of AW spells, I can't comment on wether the Circles would find the spells too dangerous, or if they would be safe to teach.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He could've used normal magic, so that isn't a good example either.

Considering we've established already that Darkspawn blood does work in powering spells, it is a good example.

We're talking about good uses of blood magic. Not "should blood magic have been used here". As such, despite what you may feel the game presents this as a good use of blood magic.

So it is a good example.

Uhm... A good use of anything sorta constitutes that it SHOULD have been used in the given case, and that it was the correct choice of actions. I say that there were alternatives, and thus it was not the correct choice, and therefore NOT a good use of blood magic. And that is mostly because I don't think ANY situation ever calls for blood magic, unless there literally are no other choice, and even then sometimes blood magic still isn't acceptable.

Its always needed. its another source of power and effectivly doubles the mages ability to cast spells. The one who do not use everything at their disposal are the ones that the history books call corpse, worm food or carrion.
Their is no choice in it only pragmatism and survival. Its easy for you to judge but when war really comes to your doorstep you will do the same things Jowan did.

If you actually need everything at your disposal, you have already lost. Make do with less, or not at all.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is not the Chantry that decides what magic is taught in the Circles. That decision lies with the First Enchanters and the Knight-Commanders.

 

source please.

And they can't "sense" a mage like a jedi sense a force-user. It is more like a hunch born from experience. Otherwise there would hardly be any apostates or use for phylacteries.

No, I'm pretty sure they can sense who is a mage. It may not be something all Templars are able to do though. Maybe it's something that gets better the longer you're a Templar or gets better depending on how often you ingest lyrium.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is not the Chantry that decides what magic is taught in the Circles. That decision lies with the First Enchanters and the Knight-Commanders.

 

source please.

 
Other than the countless codex entries and dev quotes that specifially says that the First Enchanters and Knight-Commanders runs the Circle? Sure a Grand Cleric could probably veto a school of magic from being taught. My guess is that they don't often bother with Circle politics.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote... 

And they can't "sense" a mage like a jedi sense a force-user. It is more like a hunch born from experience. Otherwise there would hardly be any apostates or use for phylacteries.

No, I'm pretty sure they can sense who is a mage. It may not be something all Templars are able to do though. Maybe it's something that gets better the longer you're a Templar or gets better depending on how often you ingest lyrium.

Sort of a middle road between our beliefs. I can live with that.

[TEWR]

Other than the countless codex entries and dev quotes that specifially says that the First Enchanters and Knight-Commanders runs the Circle? Sure a Grand Cleric could probably veto a school of magic from being taught. My guess is that they don't often bother with Circle politics.

I may need to reread all the Circle related codexes now. I just can't remember any codexes saying what magic is taught at the Circles is decided by the honchos of each respective Circle.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 février 2012 - 07:54 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Not neccesarily by each individual Circle, but by the College of Magi (or whatev they call themselves). There even is a sentence (can't remember which of the games), in which a Templar specifically says, that teh Templars are not there to rule, but merely to guide and observe.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 09 février 2012 - 08:04 .

[Xilizhra]

If you actually need everything at your disposal, you have already lost. Make do with less, or not at all.

Wait, what? How does this make sense?

[Favourite store on the Citadel]

Wrong. Completely. Especially necromancers. No.

[Xilizhra]

Necromancy ain't nothing but a thing.

I mean, sure, binding demons is problematic, but it seems to be a bit safer than summoning shades.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you actually need everything at your disposal, you have already lost. Make do with less, or not at all.

As i said before the ones who try this **** will go down in the history books as worm food. Do you know who thought as stupidly as you do < Hitler. By not putting the entire german economy to warfare during the beginning of WW2 he lost. He was so confident of the German army he expected that the war in the east would be a short one. Good thing for us he was completely wrong.

Its estimated that the german army would have 2.7 times more material if he did this at the beginning of operation Barbarrosa. If the German army had that much material at the start it would have ended the entire world war their and then in the favor of Germany.

For me its not a question if mages should be using bloodmagic. For me its mandatory that mages learn bloodmagic as soon as possible.

[CrimsonZephyr]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you actually need everything at your disposal, you have already lost. Make do with less, or not at all.

As i said before the ones who try this **** will go down in the history books as worm food. Do you know who thought as stupidly as you do < Hitler. By not putting the entire german economy to warfare during the beginning of WW2 he lost. He was so confident of the German army he expected that the war in the east would be a short one. Good thing for us he was completely wrong.

Its estimated that the german army would have 2.7 times more material if he did this at the beginning of operation Barbarrosa. If the German army had that much material at the start it would have ended the entire world war their and then in the favor of Germany.

For me its not a question if mages should be using bloodmagic. For me its mandatory that mages learn bloodmagic as soon as possible.

Wow, you're bring up Hitler, and in a blatantly incorrect context as well.

What mages need is practical training. They need to learn unit tactics and strategy, to be able to fire masses of spells in a coordinated manner, not to use flashy, arcane spells which might have some short term benefit, but is absolutely impossible to control or to use practically.

Blood magic is not the be-all-end-all power in magic. If you want a proper analogy, think about all of the fancy tech the Third Reich was churning out - rockets, fancy tanks with awesome new gear, jets, etc. And while their advances were important later, it was the Allies being able to mass produce individually inferior, but vastly more cost-effective and practical equipment, that won the war.

Sure, blood magic might amplify power, and it might be a substitute for lyrium, but it has serious drawbacks (extreme blood loss, demons, etc.) Mages would neglect training to be actual soldiers and instead training in blood magic. The Templars would throw everyone they have at the inexperienced mages and bleed them down.

[Xilizhra]

Actually, the blood loss can be handled by using Sacrifice and then having other mages heal the sacrificed one. Not all mages can be using blood magic at once, but it can be used well. And blood magic doesn't seem to require much in the way of training.

[TEWR]

Not to mention you can just use the blood of your foes to power your spells and not your own blood.

If I was being attacked and I was a blood mage, I wouldn't hesitate to use the blood of my enemy to my advantage.

Using the blood of my allies to heal myself is something I'd be extremely apprehensive about. I would only begin to consider it something I might do if they said "Hey, if you're ever in a jam use my blood!" and even then, chances are that I might not do it at all because of how wrong it would feel even with consent. I might just use the blood of my foe to heal myself.

If you actually need everything at your disposal, you have already lost. Make do with less, or not at all.

So if I'm ever put in a position where I need to defend myself against a legion of armed bandits and I just have the clothes on my back and a fork to fight with, I shouldn't ask for armor, a sword, and a shield? I should make do with clothes and a fork or do without?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 février 2012 - 02:02 .

[Xilizhra]

That, however, is rather harder to learn, as you need the One Foot In enhancement of Grave Robber.

[TEWR]

Xilizhra wrote...

That, however, is rather harder to learn, as you need the One Foot In enhancement of Grave Robber.

There's no reason why Sacrifice couldn't work on your foes is there?

[Xilizhra]

I think they have to will the blood out of their bodies to you with consent, as that's most like normal blood magic using your own blood. Forcibly ripping it out of your foes is a different discipline.

[TEWR]

I think they have to will the blood out of their bodies to you with consent, as that's most like normal blood magic using your own blood. Forcibly ripping it out of your foes is a different discipline.

This would make no sense though when applied to characters like Wynne, Anders, and Fenris who abhor blood magic. Why would they consent to a blood mage Warden/Hawke doing all this when the latter two chew out Merrill for being a blood mage? One that has never used and will never use the blood of anyone other than herself for her means?

[Xilizhra]

Wynne and Anders can become blood mages themselves in Origins. It's just gameplay mechanics that they can be subjected to this too.