43 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenB]

 This is one thing that's always confused me about the Dragon Age series. To me, the basic use of blood magic doesn't seem particularly negative. When one's own blood, a willing second party, or even an enemy's is used, blood magic doesn't appear any different to me than normal magic. The associated negatives are obvious, of couse, namely slave sacrifice in Tevinter use and deals with demons, either for acquisition or amplification. I haven't seen any evidence that either is strictly necessary, though. Slavery certainly isn't. 

The demon part seems shaky. Do you have to make a deal with a demon to practice blood magic? We know there exist books on the mechanics of blood magic, I assume probably even a wealth of them. I took the Mage Origin to imply that Jowan had learned blood magic from books, which were mentioned, when an association with demons was never made with him. I remember in party banter Anders asks Merrill if she acquired blood magic "by accident" having cut herself and realizing the power, or if she made a deal with a demon. Whether he's being sarcastic here is unsure, but it didn't seem so to me, which would imply you could learn to use blood magic without outside intervention. 

But from there comes another question; How inherently wrong is dealing with demons? Is making a deal once to acquire the information and then never contacting a demon again too risky to justify? We repeatedly see people summon demons in the games and it doesn't necessarily always end in their death or possession. I can't help but find repeated dealings with demons unintelligent for the ongoing risk involved, but it does seem to be more of a morally grey action than an act you could call flatly wrong. The supposed consequences remain as a risk and not as a certainty.

The first thought I would jump to is that the Chantry has overly stigmatized these uses of magic, but we see from Merrill's use that the Dalish are also strongly opposed to it. The only groups we've heard much about so far that allow, or even encourage, the use of such things are the Tevinters and the Grey Wardens. The Wardens, we know, have a "whatever it takes" attitude concerning their constant fight preventing and ending blights. I also get the impression they have a similar attitude as the Legion of the Dead, that they basically give up their life before to be a warden and that dying in pursuit of the ultimate goal is inevitable. Risk is something they're willing to play fast and loose with, it seems to me. The Tevinter nation seems very brash about their use of magic to a point of arrogance, or at least that's the impression I've gotten from the available sources, most of which are strongly biased. I also get the impression between the lines, however, that the Imperium is more knowledgable about the mechanics of magic than any other nation because magical research is highly encouraged instead of heavily restricted. Is it possible that a very strong magister could hold weaker demons in check with a small enough margin of risk to be considered acceptable?

What are your opinions? Do you think blood magic and/or the use of demons and spirits are inherently bad and should always be avoided, or do you think they're acceptable for use by those who are educated and cautious about their application? What, if any, circumstances do you think the use would be acceptable under?

[Forst1999]

I don't see the big problem with blood magic. It just seems to be a easier way to fuel magic. As long as it isn't used for mind control, or requires unwilling sacrifices, it's ok.
Now demons. It certainly is possible to control demons. Look at how many mages summon shades or even wraith demons to fight for them. But also look how Arvernus lost control over them. It tore the veil. I think it isn't a good idea. As for deals with demons...they generally seem to backfire. Even if the demon seemingly demands nothing of you, what it gives you probably further it's agenda (look at Merrill's case). It sure is possible to get the better part of the deal, but i think the risk is to high. In the end, the demon risks nothing, the mage risks his very being and soul. Even dealing with "spirits" seems to be a bad idea, as they are just so different from mortals that it might backfire in unpredicible ways (see Anders' case).

[Sir JK]

Blood magic is more trouble than it's worth. First, even not considering the real scary stuff, it grants the mages considerable power. These are people that even normally have access to significantly more power than the average person in the first place. Furthermore, it also grants you access to scary stuff like mind control. Doesn't matter if you choose not to use it. A choice can always be changed.
And finally... drawing blood from someone is always a risk. Doesn't matter if it's just a drop or a slice across the wrist. It is always a risk. Especially in a pre-antibiotics society. The risk of causing consierable injury or an infection is considerable. And that's not taking into account the blood the magic itself consumes. Those few situations where you just need a little more... will end up causing deaths. And that's simply unacceptable.

As for demons. A demon will always seek to manipulate you. They're clever, experienced and prey on your very emotions. It isn't quite as easy as just saying no. A deal with a demon is a faustian deal in the true sense. If you think you got away scot free or ahead... that's when you're in real danger. Noone is as easy to manipulate as someone who thinks they've outwitted the manipulator.

[Vit246]

Blood magic does not necessarily have to involve demons or the use of unwilling sacrifices. It can be used simply to fuel other magics. It can come from demons but thats only because demons are the easiest source to learn it from, aside from books, mages and self-teaching. Making deals and summoning demons is not really wrong or even unacceptably dangerous. The Tevinter Imperium has been doing it for about 2000 years so they obviously have a sort of mastery over it and know how to not have it backfire on them. Is it surprising that many non-Tevinter mages suck at properly using demons? Blood magic and demons are simply tools and weapons. There is no inherent overpowering corrupting influence that forcefully compels the mage to use it for sinister purpose. They can be controlled and used by a disciplined mage.

I don't think a demon summoned from the Fade into the real world is suppose to be able to possess an unwilling host. That's not how possession works in DA.

And the Dalish are opposed to Merrill's involvement with the Eluvian, not her blood magic.

[Urzon]

I never had a problem with blood magic. Just as long as you aren't forcefully taking blood from you friends, and you aren't using mind domination for laughs.

That and, I always see making deals with demons kinda like dealing with a drug dealer. They will give you the first hit for free, to get you addicted. After that, all deals are on their own terms. Sure, people might say they are able to quit whenever they want, but when they run out of options; they always come back.

[katling73]

Vit246 - I think you might be glossing over the dangers of the whole demon summoning thing there. After all, you're not just summoning a demon, asking it for something, it says sure and then you both go on your way. You're making a deal with it and demons are clever, manipulative and very good at finding the loopholes in the deals to screw you over. Even Merrill didn't (or refused to in her obsession) see the dangers in her deal with a demon.

We're also never specifically told what many of the deals are. Or rather we tend to know what the human or elf gets. Merrill gets help in fixing her mirror. Connor gets his father not dying - though there's a classic demon deal right there. Sure Arl Eamon wasn't dead, the demon kept its part of the deal, but he's not exactly alive either. But conversely we never, as far as I can recall, get to know what the demon gets (other than perhap possession and a way into the real world - but is it really that satisfying when once the host is killed, they go back?). We sometimes learn their hidden agenda ie. Merrill's demon planning on using her and the mirror to escape into the world in truth and not through a host but what did Merrill actually promise the demon in return for its aid? What did Connor promise the demon?

In terms of blood magic, I think blood magic does fall into the tool category as long as you're using your own blood. Once you start using other people's blood, either willingly or unwillingly, you start to cross a bit of a moral and ethical line. What I'd be interested to know is whether using someone else's blood changes the nature and strength of the magic? Does using the blood of a sacrifice give you more power? I feel it's sort of implied a little in the fact that the Tevinter magisters will so quickly and easily sacrifice a slave when they need power. If they got sufficient power from just cutting their palm then why would they need the slave? So I tend to see blood magic as being a little addictive once you start using other people's blood. The power you can access is greater so the temptation to do it again grows and grows. The mage starts making excuses at first about why he needs to use other peoples blood then the excuses become weaker and weaker until finally he doesn't care any more.

[Gervaise]

Deals with demons always carry an associated risk and can be considered wrong from the point of view that demons do not have people's best interests at heart, whether the individual doing the deal with them or innocent bystanders.

However, I have been giving some more thought to the blood magic aspect and wonder if the reason it is held in such fear is because of the chantry strictures about it. When the Grey Wardens originally used blood magic to imprison Corypheus its use was not illegal and it would appear it was the only magic strong enough to hold him. Other posters have pointed out that using phylacteries with the mages blood in order to track them is in fact blood magic - as evidenced by Gasgard du Puis' using the same method to track the victim of Quentin. Blood magic was originally outlawed because an early Divine decided that this was the interpretation of a certain passage in the Chant of Light, although the passage did not specifically identify blood magic. A suspicion has started forming in my mind that the Chantry might have been against blood magic because it allowed greater independence from them, since they control the flow of lyrium. Lyrium itself does not seem without risk, particularly in its raw form. The lyrium sword seemed to have had an adverse affect on the minds of both Bartran and Meredith in much the same way a demon would have done.

I was originally always against blood magic because it was implied in Origins you could only learn it from a demon and in fact you had to surrender Connor to the demon for it to teach you. Use of it in that way is wrong. Also Malcolm Hawke and Anders both seem to be against it but both had formerly been part of the Circle system and thus heavily influenced by chantry teaching on the matter. Marethari did say to Merrill before she was killed that "you always knew your blood magic had a price", which again would suggest that the Dalish do view it in a bad light, but as Merrill said, that was her risk to take and so far as we know, she had not made any promises to the demon, which after all had contacted Merrill and the Keeper in their dreams before Merrill started to use blood magic.

There are things you can do with blood magic that you do not appear to be able to do with ordinary magic - such as dominate people's minds, but beyond that I now wonder if blood magic, like lyrium, is just a tool that mages use and the good or evil it does is dependent on the character of ther person, not the nature of the magic.

[Gervaise]

Like Katling73 I would also be interested to know why blood sacrifice seems to increase the potency of the blood magic. Is it actually the blood itself or the death of the victim(s) which give the magic its strength? Large scale deaths thin the veil, so may be it is not actually blood magic but death magic which is fuelling the spell.

[Lynata]

I seem to recall that it was mentioned in "Legacy" that the usage of blood magic by the Grey Wardens was not common and something they only did because they had no other choice. The mage doing it - Hawke's father - certainly did not seem proud of it, quite the contrary. I wonder how much blood was needed there. Note that the prison does not bear the usual Grey Warden symbol, but has a chalice and a drop superimposed on it...

As far as the effects of blood magic itself are concerned, I think it could be "just" the lure of power that comes with it, and the fact that the spell is powered directly by someone's lifeforce - imagine you were a mage that doesn't feel exhaustion and could cast spells at will ... until the friend who volunteered for a few drops of blood suddenly drops dead. I think it is the sheer power that corrupts, the chance to play god even beyond a normal mage's abilities. Who could resist this? I'm sure there are some, but generally it would prove to be too much for many, which is why things like the Tevinter Imperium and so many mad blood mages have happened, and which could be the reason for why it was finally outlawed.

The Chantry seems to have a general interest to limit the use of magic to "as little as possible" (at first they even only allowed the mages to cast light spells), so they could easily see blood magic as something that just isn't necessary at all and comes with too high a risk - both to corrupt people and twist them faithful do-gooders to evil maniacs, and to give them the ability to successfully rebel against the templars guarding them. There are few things considered more dangerous than a blood mage. It could also be a big stigma because so many blood mages hang out with demons (learning it from them), so that the few who didn't are automatically assumed to have done likewise.

Regarding demons and spirits - I think it could be that, aside from possibly furthering a demon's agenda by doing the things he or she wants, what the demon could gain from a pact is the mortal's remembrance. Demons and spirits seek ways to cross the Veil into the mortal world, and maybe a connection between the demon and a mortal's mind creates a "link" that the former can use to anchor himself to reality, slowly tightening his grip until he can cross over. At first it's just a dream, then you start hearing his voice in your head, and then ... BAM! possession.

Just a wild theory, mind you.

Modifié par Lynata, 24 novembre 2011 - 08:29 .

[AlexXIV]

Well it's bad if it backfires. Basically, what Merrill also thinks, if you are careful enough, nothing bad will happen. Because demons can only try to trick you in their deals, and if you get tricked by a demon bad things happen. But if you manage to trick a demon to help you without giving it anything of value, you win. It's a sort of game. Good if you win, bad if you lose.

Reason why most people think it is a bad thing to deal with demons, or to use bloodmagic is because few have the willpower and cleverness to get out of it unharmed. Most people who use bloodmagic or deal with demons fall prey to it. Or at least cause alot of harm to others, if not to themselves.

And that's probably because some few get away with it. Morrigan, Merrill, the protagonists, etc. But they are the exception, not the rule.

[Lynata]

I wouldn't say that Merrill "got away with it"... Admittedly, I did not complete her quest myself - it just seemed too dangerous to my character - but the information on the DA wiki on what happens when you let her see it through doesn't exactly sound nice.

The greatest danger of dealing with demons is probably that everyone thinks he can get away with it, that everyone thinks he has the willpower, that it wouldn't happen to him, that he will be careful enough. Which, given enough time, will very likely result in that person growing used to it and letting down his guard, which is what the demon has been waiting for since the beginning.

Expecting to remain forever vigilant when dealing with demons is like wanting to stay awake forever. At some point you will get tired.

Modifié par Lynata, 24 novembre 2011 - 09:49 .

[TEWR]

RavenB wrote...

The demon part seems shaky. Do you have to make a deal with a demon to practice blood magic? We know there exist books on the mechanics of blood magic, I assume probably even a wealth of them. I took the Mage Origin to imply that Jowan had learned blood magic from books, which were mentioned, when an association with demons was never made with him. I remember in party banter Anders asks Merrill if she acquired blood magic "by accident" having cut herself and realizing the power, or if she made a deal with a demon. Whether he's being sarcastic here is unsure, but it didn't seem so to me, which would imply you could learn to use blood magic without outside intervention. 

one should make note of the fact that the Chantry forbade blood magic long ago and more than likely burned most -- if not all -- of the books on the subject at that time.

Which doesn't mean that books on the subject written by other experts in the field wouldn't rise up later. But at that time blood magic was made illegal and forgotten.

I believe that one need not learn blood magic from a demon all the time. Demons are able to remember everything about the arcane, as it is eternal in the Fade. So it's my belief that because of the lack of books that teach blood magic, if one wanted to learn it they would need to turn to the only creatures that do know: Demons.

But, if books on the subject were to arise -- and they indeed may exist in Tevinter where blood magic is technically legal, albeit with no restrictions at all -- one wouldn't need to rely on a demon to teach them.

But from there comes another question; How inherently wrong is dealing with demons? Is making a deal once to acquire the information and then never contacting a demon again too risky to justify?

yes and no. This is exactly what Merrill did. She only went to see Audacity three times.

1) With Marethari, where she learned that he was trapped and would continue to be trapped, thus harming no one as Marethari said.
2) when she learned blood magic
3) when she found out Marethari became an Abomination.

But that was a special case where the demon was sundered from the Fade entirely. In other cases, the demon would be connected to the Fade and there would still be that risk of possession. The mage might learn from the demon and never contact them again, but if they let their guard down for even a brief instant they might be possessed by that demon.

You see, it's my belief that the whole "blood magic leads to increased possession" schtick is due to the mages letting down their guard due to arrogance at how much power they may have, and thus the demon preys upon that weakness.

But Merrill happens to be one of the few blood mages we've seen who doesn't let her guard down, possibly due to her vowing to never use anyone else's blood. Since she uses her own blood, she's weakening herself and has to be even more vigilant.
 

We repeatedly see people summon demons in the games and it doesn't necessarily always end in their death or possession. I can't help but find repeated dealings with demons unintelligent for the ongoing risk involved, but it does seem to be more of a morally grey action than an act you could call flatly wrong. The supposed consequences remain as a risk and not as a certainty.

Indeed, while the risk will always be there, one can play a demon before he/she gets played themselves.

What are your opinions? Do you think blood magic and/or the use of demons and spirits are inherently bad and should always be avoided, or do you think they're acceptable for use by those who are educated and cautious about their application? What, if any, circumstances do you think the use would be acceptable under?

I don't think blood magic is inherently bad. Certainly it's prone to abuse, but that makes the mage and not the magic bad.

I would however refrain from the summoning demons bit and dealing with them bit, unless for the latter the demon is sundered from the Fade like Audacity was. Thus, they pose no threat unless you're as stupid as Marethari was.

[thats1evildude]

There was sufficient evidence in Origins that bargaining with demons was a fantastically stupid idea, but DA2 really hammered it home. Demons will trip you every time; even if they honour their deals to a point, they always withhold information or lie about some aspect of the bargain.

Merrill's dealings with Audacity is a prime example, but there are more within the game. The hunger demon in the Primeval Thaig tries to betray you after defeating the Rock Wraith. Torpor lies when it says it will leave Kirkwall alone. Allure led Lady Harriman to sacrifice her entire family.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 24 novembre 2011 - 11:20 .

[AlexXIV]

Lynata wrote...

I wouldn't say that Merrill "got away with it"... Admittedly, I did not complete her quest myself - it just seemed too dangerous to my character - but the information on the DA wiki on what happens when you let her see it through doesn't exactly sound nice.

The greatest danger of dealing with demons is probably that everyone thinks he can get away with it, that everyone thinks he has the willpower, that it wouldn't happen to him, that he will be careful enough. Which, given enough time, will very likely result in that person growing used to it and letting down his guard, which is what the demon has been waiting for since the beginning.

Expecting to remain forever vigilant when dealing with demons is like wanting to stay awake forever. At some point you will get tired.

Well there are several threads about Merrill and her responsibility. I don't think there was ever consense or ever will be. But matter-of-factly the demon possessed the keeper, not Merrill. And it was the possessed Keeper who attacked Hawke and Merrill. If Merrill were possessed it be different but the demon never got anything useful out of Merrill, while Merrill managed to restore the mirror with the demon's help. Up to the point Marethari meddles, Merrill played the game rather well in my opinion.

Yeah everyone thinks they can get away. Some of them are fools and some of them manage. I think you can compare it to a gun. In the hands of the right person it can be useful. For example a cop. In the hands of children most likely something bad will happen. So my opinion on this topic that there is nothing inherintly evil about it, but only a very limited number of people who can and should handle it.

[AlexXIV]

thats1evildude wrote...

There was sufficient evidence in Origins that bargaining with demons was a fantastically stupid idea, but DA2 really hammered it home. Demons will trip you every time; even if they honour their deals to a point, they always withhold information or lie about some aspect of the bargain.

Merrill's dealings with Audacity is a prime example, but there are more within the game. The hunger demon in the Primeval Thaig tries to betray you after defeating the Rock Wraith. Torpor lies when it says it will leave Kirkwall alone. Allure led Lady Harriman to sacrifice her entire family.

I didn't say you are supposed to trust demons. Demons will always try to trick you. So the trick is to trick them. It is nowhere written that demons are smarter than men. Some are, some are not. And the fact that they bargain means that can't just take everything they want. They need you to agree. It is a simple bluff. Demons will play nice, they will give you what you ask. To win your trust. So the first thíng to know is to never trust a demon. Then whatever he gives you will be for free. Because what it wants from you, your trust, you will never give it. That's what Merrill said to Anders when she told him that there are no 'good' spirits. No matter if you deal with demons or spirits, you will have to deal with their 'nature'. Basically what happened to Anders was worse than anything that happened to Merrill. Merrill was dealing with a demon and Anders with a spirit. What does that tell us? That spirits are more dangerous than demons? No. It tells us that dealing with either demon or spirit is always dangerous, even more so if you don't know what you are doing. And I don't remember an event that shows that Merrill didn't know what she was doing.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 25 novembre 2011 - 12:03 .

[Lynata]

AlexXIV wrote...
I think you can compare it to a gun. In the hands of the right person it can be useful. For example a cop. In the hands of children most likely something bad will happen. So my opinion on this topic that there is nothing inherintly evil about it, but only a very limited number of people who can and should handle it.

You mean demon pacts or blood magic? If the former, I have to disagree, strongly - you could say that magic in general is akin to a gun; it gives its owner power he wouldn't have otherwise, thus tempting him to abuse it. But a demon, being a sentient being with a will of its own, is a step up from this. A demon is like a bulldog you lead around on a leash. You think you can control him, but ultimately you cannot ever be sure he might not do something you did not want or would have never expected, up to turning around to attack his "owner".

As far as Merrill is concerned, on this subject I would trust the Keeper's knowledge more than her (obviously rather naive) pupil - though I will admit that this is merely my cautious side seeing the potential risks and consequences (as perceived due to what the games show us) being too great. I'll take your word for it having been discussed to death, though. I guess it's a topic not dissimilar from the mages-vs-templars thing.

Regarding demons/spirits - aren't they one and the same? I seem to recall having read something like that, basically that demons are nothing but "evil spirits", or rather, spirits tainted by the negative emotional aspect they have chosen(?) to focus on.

Modifié par Lynata, 25 novembre 2011 - 12:19 .

[AlexXIV]

Lynata wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I think you can compare it to a gun. In the hands of the right person it can be useful. For example a cop. In the hands of children most likely something bad will happen. So my opinion on this topic that there is nothing inherintly evil about it, but only a very limited number of people who can and should handle it.

You mean demon pacts or blood magic? If the former, I have to disagree, strongly - you could say that magic in general is akin to a gun; it gives its owner power he wouldn't have otherwise, thus tempting him to abuse it. But a demon, being a sentient being with a will of its own, is a step up from this. A demon is like a bulldog you lead around on a leash. You think you can control him, but ultimately you cannot ever be sure he might not do something you did not want or would have never expected, up to turning around to attack his "owner".

As far as Merrill is concerned, on this subject I would trust the Keeper's knowledge more than her (obviously rather naive) pupil - though I will admit that this is merely my cautious side seeing the potential risks and consequences (as perceived due to what the games show us) being too great. I'll take your word for it having been discussed to death, though. I guess it's a topic not dissimilar from the mages-vs-templars thing.

Regarding demons/spirits - aren't they one and the same? I seem to recall having read something like that, basically that demons are nothing but "evil spirits", or rather, spirits tainted by the negative emotional aspect they have chosen(?) to focus on.

Demons and spirits are the same. Like humans and humans are the same. If you get what I mean. They are, but they are not. I don't think demons choose. They are beings of the Fade, in the mortal world they get corrupted. The first demons, as far as I know, came to be as they entered the mortal world in curiousity. The chantry says because they were jealous of the Maker's love for mortals. We don't know if that is the truth.

People however tend to look at spirits as benevolent or neutral beings while demons are clearly evil. But they all work the same way. Any spirit can become a demon. Like Justice. And they all follow their nature, like Justice. Just that justice doesn't appear as bad as for example pride. At first sight. Maybe that makes spirits even more dangerous, because people foolishly believe they are their friends, when they are not.

No, dogs can be educated, they can actually be your friend. Demons and spirits can't. They always follow their nature, or corrupted nature. They may like you and you them, but they won't break with their nature for friendship. See Anders and Justice. I see it more like playing poker. You know your opponent wants to win. The whole pot. If you play to the very end you will lose because the demon has the longer breath. So you play along until you get what you want and then you get the hell out. Information can be very valuable, especially considering that spirits and demons are seemingly immortal. So I would think that trying to get information of them that is otherwise lost is a good cause. But you have to know how much you can get until you stop, and you have to know what and how much you can give without running into a trap.

[WhiteKnyght]

Spirits and Demons aren't the same. David Gaider confirmed that.

Demons embody sins while Spirits embody virtues. They also have completely different appearances and the side effects of possessing a living host are completely different.

In Dragon Age, to safely deal with a demon you must be ready and able to screw them before they screw you.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 25 novembre 2011 - 12:50 .

[Plaintiff]

Blood magic isn't inherently evil. It's a form of magic like any other. I have always been of the suspicion that the Chantry forbids it because a) Templars can't effectively defend against it and the possibilities re: mind control make it impossible to regulate in the same way as normal magic. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the Chantry would use blood magic to further its own agendas if it wasn't so dangerous.

I take Blood Magic and its users on a case-by-case basis. There's just too much ambiguity around the issue to make a blanket declaration one way or the other.

I don't think consorting with demons is a requirement, although it does seem like the quickest and easiest way.

I think demons get a bad rap in general, actually.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 25 novembre 2011 - 03:58 .

[Plaintiff]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Spirits and Demons aren't the same. David Gaider confirmed that.

Demons embody sins while Spirits embody virtues. They also have completely different appearances and the side effects of possessing a living host are completely different.

In Dragon Age, to safely deal with a demon you must be ready and able to screw them before they screw you.

They might not be the same, but that definition only holds water when your idea of "sin" and "virtue" lines up with the Chantry's.

It's very telling that these "demons" take the names of human traits that the Chantry considers negative; Pride, Rage, Desire and Sloth. I see no evidence of demons referring to themselves as such. There's actually nothing wrong with these traits in moderation. I see no reason why "Desire Demons" can't be Spirits of Healthy Sexual Expression instead. It's not wrong to want things, it's not wrong to be proud or angry about something. Laziness might not be particularly desirable, but it's ultimately harmless. Oh, and aren't hunger demons a thing too? It's kind of hard to see how humans are supposed to help that. If our bodies didn't tell us when we were hungry, we'd starve and die.

Conversely, we've seen that these "virtuous" spirits can be just as bad as their "sinful" counterparts, even if they don't necessarily mean to be. Justice is harsh and unbending, and seemingly incapable of mercy. This is obvious even in Awakening, when he wants Velanna to be executed outright for committing murder, with no consideration for the fact that she was duped by the Architect. He also takes Anders to task for keeping a pet, because it's "slavery". Justice is also extremely prone to bouts of rage, one of the "sins" that demons supposedly embody. If embody is even the right word for it. Chantry lore (in one of the few instances where I think it's actually accurate), says that spirits and demons are shaped by the dreams they encounter in the Fade. They aren't actually capable of creating anything of their own. Justice doesn't embody justice, he merely emulates it as seen through a dream, which would explain why his concept of it is so skewed.

Wynne's "Faith" spirit may seem benign, and maybe it is, but we've also seen the damage that blind, unquestioning zealotry can cause, in characters like Meredith.

I think Isabela and Merrill combined provide the most accurate summation of the facts; spirits and demons are merely ideas, living in a world of ideas, and all of them are dangerous.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 25 novembre 2011 - 04:18 .

[Lynata]

AlexXIV wrote...
I don't think demons choose.

Me neither. If what we are being told is true, it almost seems as if the spirits of the Fade are by default "empty", devoid of focus and purpose. It is only when they look at the mortal world that these strange beings can taste emotion, and like a kid eating chocolate for the first time, they crave for more. They focus on this emotion, taking on its traits until it becomes their identity. And in the case of sins, this is when you get a demon.

As far as moderation is concerned ... the issue could be that these strange beings of the Fade are not satisfied with moderation, instead wanting ever more. Spirits and demons seem to lack any sort of morals, so they do not even have a feeling that what they do might be wrong. The only thing they feel is the invigoration from pursueing the trait they have adopted. It's quite some time since I played Awakening, but I vaguely recall an explanation like that.

Thinking about this further, perhaps Anders is actually less to blame than Justice. Up until now I would have thought that the former corrupted the latter, but the only thing Anders did was focusing Justice' purpose; the thirst for vengeance seemed to come from Justice himself more than the mage. And it grew worse over time. Who knows: If Justice would ever lay claim to a city, its laws could grow ever harsher until even things like accidentally bumping into a merchant's kart is punishable by death or some silly stuff like that. Now this would be a tragic development of a former hero.

Modifié par Lynata, 25 novembre 2011 - 04:58 .

[SkittlesKat96]

From the looks of it consorting with demons is too risky and is nearly always bad...even the Grey Wardens only used it very rarely.

Imo it really is just too risky and not worthwhile. That said I don't think all blood magic is that bad.

[RavenB]

Vit246 wrote...

And the Dalish are opposed to Merrill's involvement with the Eluvian, not her blood magic.

I got the impression they were opposed to both. I know at one point Merathari even specifically says, "you always knew there would be a price to pay for your blood magic." I think the blood magic is as much a problem for them as the Eluvian. 

[RavenB]

katling73 wrote...

In terms of blood magic, I think blood magic does fall into the tool category as long as you're using your own blood. Once you start using other people's blood, either willingly or unwillingly, you start to cross a bit of a moral and ethical line. What I'd be interested to know is whether using someone else's blood changes the nature and strength of the magic? Does using the blood of a sacrifice give you more power? I feel it's sort of implied a little in the fact that the Tevinter magisters will so quickly and easily sacrifice a slave when they need power. If they got sufficient power from just cutting their palm then why would they need the slave? So I tend to see blood magic as being a little addictive once you start using other people's blood. The power you can access is greater so the temptation to do it again grows and grows. The mage starts making excuses at first about why he needs to use other peoples blood then the excuses become weaker and weaker until finally he doesn't care any more.

To me, it only crosses a moral line if the people you're using blood from are relatively innocent or uninvolved in your conflict, like slaves. I don't see any issue using it from enemies that you were going to kill, anyway. No matter what class you are in the DA games, you dish out wholesale slaughter to a massive amount of people and creatures. I don't see utilizing their blood as taking it too far.

I didn't get the impression that someone elses blood was stronger, so much as that more blood made for stronger spells. It's the same idea with lyrium. The more of it you have, the more and more powerful spells you can do. I don't think there's any real proof that it's addictive, however. We know lyrium is addictive and it's still peddled as the acceptable source for magical enhancement. I haven't seen any evidence that blood is addictive in terms of blood magic. The Tevinter society, as far as we know it, has no qualms with the sacrifice of slaves for blood magic. I don't think those magisters needed an addiction. Their culture already taught them that sacrificing slaves is the rational and acceptable course of action under those circumstances. I think it's more the social system they've lived under for generations, not the medium of magic they're using.