2008 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

A thought on the whole forbidding blood magic bit... There is a rather tenuous analogy to file sharing I might make.

When you have something that is almost impossible for the authorities to detect and punish, then making that thing illegal is all but a farce. People will do it in droves and so few of them will be punished that the overall effect is more highlighting the ineffectuality of law enforcement rather than the inappropriateness of the act itself.

In a post circle society where mages are for the most part free to act... making blood magic itself illegal is just as hard to enforce. It is much better to have laws against the bad outcomes that could occur due to blood magic rather than the magic itself. So, cutting yourself to power a spell to heal your neighbor is ok. Using blood magic to enthrall the village elder gets you executed. In that way, you haven't made criminals out of mages who are doing no harm.

Those are interesting thoughts, and I largely agree.
 
The issue for mages goes beyond this, I'm afraid. The mage "might" be colluding with a demon; and I think blood magic is largely linked with demons and mind control, even though there is no definite proof I've seen. And there may have been a suggestion that blood magic and healing are mutually exclusive. The whole issue with blood magic is that things at this point in time aren't clear.

And, yes, making blood magic illegal doesn't mean it's easier to enforce. I agree with that entirely. Just like you, I also think that bad effects of something are what need to be banned - anything that actually involves harm to others. I'd even go to the extent that using blood magic in self-defense is okay, if it doesn't involve summoning demons or turning the way of abomination.

[TEWR]

Blood magic does happen to have beneficial uses. Blood magic is about the manipulation of blood, gaining abilities from blood, and using blood to amplify regular magic.

The beneficial uses are more evident in the former two, though Merrill demonstrated how the latter one also has beneficial uses. The Joining is blood magic, as are phylacteries. Also, if a person is wounded with a severed artery then a blood mage could manipulate the flow of blood to keep the man alive, at least until a doctor or Spirit Healer arrived.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 janvier 2012 - 10:02 .

[HiroVoid]

Hmm...Alright. I'll concede the point on illegal blood magic though I still feel it's the most easily tempted magic to go into as far as using it for malicious purposes. Of course, if the problem is having so many different mages in places using it....then maybe if they were just put in all one place, we wouldn't have to worry about it....I think I may be on to something.

[dragonflight288]

With great power comes great responsibility....and the ladies sometimes...or the executioner's block because of prejudice.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
About what you said, though, there is one other way to see it: the mages might trade in some of their freedom, to gain safety for themselves - safety from the power they'd eventually learn to control and safety from everyone else. That is a trade-in they do - in theory. I think this was perhaps what a part of the Nevarran Accord was all about. But somehow it has not worked out as planned. Perhaps this is a case of something looking good on paper, but not in reality.

I think an individual has a right to trade in some of their freedom for some other conditional benefit.  Like we trade the freedom to act like jerks in order to log on and particpate in this forum.  It gets harder with society as there are precious few options to enjoy complete anarchy. 

From the codex, it does appear that originally the mages agreed to live in circles so that they could learn and practice magic with less restriction.  Once the Chantry had them all in one place, the restrictions grew rather than lessened.  Now they have to toe the line before their harrowing or be Tranquiled.  And they have to hope all their fellows behave or they can be slaughtered in a Rite of Annulment.  They made a lousy bargain.

This highlights two things:
1)  One should be extremely careful in trading freedom for anything, especially security. 
2)  One should be even more cautious in trading the freedom of future generations

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd say demonology is the most likely school of magic to get into for malicious reasons. Summoning demons is pretty much seeking A) a quick trip to power a tutor for forbidden or dark arts C) a way to bargain for something, in the form of making a deal with the devil, so to speak or D) as a body guard in a fight or as a means to make yourself into an abomination.

All of the above seem like very dangerous and self-serving purposes.

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd say demonology is the most likely school of magic to get into for malicious reasons. Summoning demons is pretty much seeking A) a quick trip to power a tutor for forbidden or dark arts C) a way to bargain for something, in the form of making a deal with the devil, so to speak or D) as a body guard in a fight or as a means to make yourself into an abomination.

All of the above seem like very dangerous and self-serving purposes.

E)opening a tear in the Fade as a consequence of the previous letters  or a fit of insanity.  Happens more often than one might think.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Anders was a monster by the end of DA2, just like Meredith.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Blood magic does happen to have beneficial uses. Blood magic is about the manipulation of blood, gaining abilities from blood, and using blood to amplify regular magic.

What I'm not entirely certain about is whether use of blood for magic always implies dealing with demons. Indeed, what is it inherently about blood that gives a mage the power to do magic from it?

The beneficial uses are more evident in the former two, though Merrill demonstrated how the latter one also has beneficial uses. The Joining is blood magic, as are phylacteries. Also, if a person is wounded with a severed artery then a blood mage could manipulate the flow of blood to keep the man alive, at least until a doctor or Spirit Healer arrived.

Again I'm not entirely certain about all those. But I'd say perhaps the Grey Wardens don't mind using blood magic, or at least people don't generally consider stopping them. Perhaps many look at the Blights as dire enough that they consider the risk-to-reward worthwhile. That is just one instance, and maybe there are more such. Most of the confusion regarding blood magic comes from the reason that the games don't make all the technicalities known.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Again I'm not entirely certain about all those. But I'd say perhaps the Grey Wardens don't mind using blood magic, or at least people don't generally consider stopping them. Perhaps many look at the Blights as dire enough that they consider the risk-to-reward worthwhile. That is just one instance, and maybe there are more such. Most of the confusion regarding blood magic comes from the reason that the games don't make all the technicalities known.

Well, let us not forget that the Templars use Blood Magic regularly, through the keeping of phylacteries to find rogue mages.

So, just as with any world, those in power are always quick to use the same means to maintain power as they declare illegal by others.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

I think an individual has a right to trade in some of their freedom for some other conditional benefit.  Like we trade the freedom to act like jerks in order to log on and particpate in this forum.  It gets harder with society as there are precious few options to enjoy complete anarchy.

I suppose it is like any deal, from which all parties mostly benefit - it'd be absurd, for instance, to make a deal which leaves someone immediately worse off; although the repercussions over the long run may not be obvious. I suppose what you mention as not being able "to enjoy complete anarchy" (which I interpret to mean, "doing whatever we want, without restrictions") comes from the fact that we realize we live in a free society, where our actions have consequences.

From the codex, it does appear that originally the mages agreed to live in circles so that they could learn and practice magic with less restriction.  Once the Chantry had them all in one place, the restrictions grew rather than lessened.  Now they have to toe the line before their harrowing or be Tranquiled.  And they have to hope all their fellows behave or they can be slaughtered in a Rite of Annulment.  They made a lousy bargain.

Perhaps all the rules of the deal among the Chantry, mages, and templars weren't made when the Accord was signed. I suppose the restrictions came later on, and I'm very much interested to learn when and for what exact reasons things like the Harrowing, RoT, and RoA were added to the agreement, if they weren't part of the original agreement. The history is rather bare on that front. But, whatever caused them to come into existence, they've stayed on till now.

This highlights two things:
1)  One should be extremely careful in trading freedom for anything, especially security. 
2)  One should be even more cautious in trading the freedom of future generations

Well, I've always wondered: what makes people think that they can make up rules and regulations that has to be abided by all posterity? Who or what gives them that particular right? Certainly, dogmatic beliefs and ideas, and perhaps even fear, force, and inertia, ought to be at work, that keeps the system going.

For your point #1, I'd say that imprudence, lack of foresight, and perhaps even an unbearable present, are what make people to accept deals that would leave them worse off in the long run. And, for point #2, I don't think people have any necessary right - the future generations ought to decide their fates for themselves.

EDIT: edited for adding clarity.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:37 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Again I'm not entirely certain about all those. But I'd say perhaps the Grey Wardens don't mind using blood magic, or at least people don't generally consider stopping them. Perhaps many look at the Blights as dire enough that they consider the risk-to-reward worthwhile. That is just one instance, and maybe there are more such. Most of the confusion regarding blood magic comes from the reason that the games don't make all the technicalities known.

Well, let us not forget that the Templars use Blood Magic regularly, through the keeping of phylacteries to find rogue mages.

So, just as with any world, those in power are always quick to use the same means to maintain power as they declare illegal by others.

Yes, that's a good point.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I suppose it is like any deal, from which all parties mostly benefit - it'd be absurd, for instance, to make a deal which leaves someone immediately worse off; although the repercussions over the long run may not be obvious. I suppose what you mention as not being able "to enjoy complete anarchy" (which I interpret to mean, "doing whatever we want, without restrictions") comes from the fact that we realize we live in a free society, where our actions have consequences.

My anarchy comment was referring to trading freedom for the benefits of society.  As there aren't very many places one can go where there isn't a society of some sort, that's not really a choice.  Short of finding a deserted island and setting up shop, we pretty much all submit to some government or other.

I think the "immediately worse off" depends a lot on the current situation.  If you're the defeated army, surrendering may put you in a lousy situation, but presumably better than being slaughtered on the battlefield or you'd keep fighting.

Perhaps all the rules of the deal among the Chantry, mages, and templars weren't made when the Accord was signed. I suppose the restrictions came later on, and I'm very much interested to learn when and for what exact reasons things like the Harrowing, RoT, and RoA were added to the agreement, if they weren't part of the original agreement. The history is rather bare on that front. But, whatever caused them to come into existence, they've stayed on till now.

I can certainly imagine the Chantry changing the rules as time went on.  I think we read that the RoA was put in place quite a while before we see the game world though.

A comment I've made before though, is that a lot of people seem to consider innocent mages as less innocent than everyone else.  So performing an RoA which will likely kill innocent mages is somehow OK, in defense of innocent other people.  I find that odd.

Well, I've always wondered: what makes people think that they can make up rules and regulations that has to be abided by all posterity? Who or what gives them that particular right? Certainly, dogmatic beliefs and ideas, and perhaps even fear, force, and inertia, ought to be at work, that keeps the system going.

Once the power is handed over, it's pretty hard to get it back.  The mages put themselves in the Chantry's power, presumably hoping the Chantry wouldn't abuse it.  By the time it was obvious they couldn't help but abuse it, it was too late.

[CrimsonZephyr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Blood magic does happen to have beneficial uses. Blood magic is about the manipulation of blood, gaining abilities from blood, and using blood to amplify regular magic.

The beneficial uses are more evident in the former two, though Merrill demonstrated how the latter one also has beneficial uses. The Joining is blood magic, as are phylacteries. Also, if a person is wounded with a severed artery then a blood mage could manipulate the flow of blood to keep the man alive, at least until a doctor or Spirit Healer arrived.

You could do the same thing with blood flow, theoretically, as a Force Mage, seeing as blood flow has a large pressure and gravitational component, and without having to risk sundering the Veil and letting demons surge forth. Moreover, without the added concern of mind control.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

My anarchy comment was referring to trading freedom for the benefits of society.  As there aren't very many places one can go where there isn't a society of some sort, that's not really a choice.  Short of finding a deserted island and setting up shop, we pretty much all submit to some government or other.

Hang on. I may still be misunderstanding you. In what context are we discussing this? I'm going to assume something, so let me know if my arguments fall off target.

Regarding society and trade: If someone goes to a deserted island and sets up shop, whom will he trade with? The moment we say "trade" we assume more than one person. And I don't find anything wrong with trading itself, since a "fair" trade can happen to the satisfaction of both the parties involved, not limiting their gains in any manner, and not necessarily diminishing the freedoms of either. Society isn't necessarily the problem - it is actually a necessity if we're to enjoy the benefits of mutual interaction.

About society and government: To me society and government don't mean the same thing. Society is just you, me, the whole body of people, interacting with each other in whatever haphazard manner, whether good or bad, beneficial or detrimental. Government, on the other hand, is an organized body that a society empowers to do something - in my earlier, idealistic example, society might empower a government to secure the freedoms of everyone. That the government has never merely stuck to such a goal is another matter, and it is true that more or less we all submit to whatever form of government is in existence. So in that sense I agree with you.

I think the "immediately worse off" depends a lot on the current situation.  If you're the defeated army, surrendering may put you in a lousy situation, but presumably better than being slaughtered on the battlefield or you'd keep fighting.

This is what I had in mind. If we look at the mages, those who agreed with the Nevarran Accord must have got something in return - a relative peace of mind from those considering them a threat, particularly after what happened with the Magisters of Tevinter and the First Blight. I was saying that (some of) the mages must have made that deal because it didn't leave them in an immediately worse-off situation - meaning the templars, instead of hunting them, became their official protectors, and the (White) Chantry offered them sanctuary. So this looks under the circumstances to be a better deal for the mages than what they had earlier, and so too it could be said for the general population; perhaps restoring peace, no matter how temporarily, to all parties involved. I certainly don't think this was a bad deal for the mages. Now, what this later turned into is another story.

I can certainly imagine the Chantry changing the rules as time went on.  I think we read that the RoA was put in place quite a while before we see the game world though.

Actually, I forgot earlier. We do know exactly when the RoA was officially put in place. This was 183 years after the mages came under the protection of the Chantry. I'd say it wasn't brought about for nothing, but it has been in effect for over 750 years, without perhaps an official inquiry into finding a better solution (at least as far as I know). But I have no idea about the RoT or the Harrowing.

A comment I've made before though, is that a lot of people seem to consider innocent mages as less innocent than everyone else.  So performing an RoA which will likely kill innocent mages is somehow OK, in defense of innocent other people.  I find that odd.

Did someone actually say that, using exactly those words? I know on these forums that a lot is left to interpretations. So perhaps we can take one example, just to be clear.

Here is what David Gaider has briefly said about it, in another context. I think he was talking about how the templar order might view it, not necessarily speaking his own mind. To me a position that all mages should be annuled regardless of whether or not every mage has fallen is an indefensible position, simply because not being able to identify a (potential) blood mage among the survivors only to have that mage escape captivity (I'm assuming using mind control) later on, is actually a failing of the system itself. The problem is exactly with "not being able to identify a blood mage under normal circumstances" and with the attendant fact that "not much has been done over the ages to address the fact that blood mages aren't normally identifiable." All this not even considering whether a Grand Cleric or a Knight Commander can even determine precisely when a Circle has fallen beyond salvaging.

And to answer your question about innocence, no, I don't believe an innocent mage deserves any less of a protection or consideration than any other innocent bystander. If protecting all the Circle mages is the duty of every templar, I'd consider the templar who fails in that duty as failing the trust of the mages - regardless of the dangers involved in the task.

Once the power is handed over, it's pretty hard to get it back.  The mages put themselves in the Chantry's power, presumably hoping the Chantry wouldn't abuse it.  By the time it was obvious they couldn't help but abuse it, it was too late.

At this stage, I was talking in the abstract. What you said above is perhaps one of the reasons why agreements are considered binding across all ages. I wouldn't say the Chantry was necessarily abusing its powers, but they may have been grossly negligent, and have taken great liberties in their handling of the mages. A negligence that is already coming back to bite them hard.

[TEWR]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...


What I'm not entirely certain about is whether use of blood for magic always implies dealing with demons. Indeed, what is it inherently about blood that gives a mage the power to do magic from it?

I doubt it needs to be learned from demons. Blood magic deals with the physical realm and not the Fade, so it stands to reason that it originated in the physical realm.

That said, the arcane arts are eternal in the Fade so demons can naturally remember anything magical. This is evidenced by Torpor's comment on it "being rare to see two forgotten magics in the Fade".

It's my belief that when the Chantry banned blood magic they burned any books dealing with the subject and now to actually find a book that teaches blood magic is rare, possibly only really seen in Tevinter.

Again I'm not entirely certain about all those. But I'd say perhaps the Grey Wardens don't mind using blood magic, or at least people don't generally consider stopping them. Perhaps many look at the Blights as dire enough that they consider the risk-to-reward worthwhile. That is just one instance, and maybe there are more such. Most of the confusion regarding blood magic comes from the reason that the games don't make all the technicalities known.

The Grey Wardens do use blood magic as a way to defeat the Blights, 'tis true. Also, the Reaver Joining and the changes it brings were called a "definite form of blood magic" by a mage of a Circle.

Since the Warden Joining consists of ritualistically prepared blood that must be imbibed just like the Reaver Joining, and both give the person that drank them abilities, the Warden Joining is therefore a form of blood magic.

[Phoenix Phire 13]

 I agree. When you feel it is completely amoral to slaughter hundreds in the name of justice(Meredith anulling the tower because of Blood Mages) and you feel that it is completely justified to amorally slaughter hundreds of innocents in the name of your brand of "justice"(Anders killing the innocents of the Chantry), you are an absolute hypocrite. 

And yes, the Chantry-goers were innocents. Blaming the actions of an unjust few (Abusive Templars) is no justification to slaughter the masses who had nothing to do with this injustice. It would be the equivalent of blaming me for the Christian Crusades because I am Christian, or the Holocaust because I am German(More accurately, I am an American of German descent). I have no problems with taking a Pro-mage stance, but defending an action that is ultimately hypocritical is very poor judgement. 

My stance on the conflict:Though I agree that the Mages need more freedom and better treatment (there are MANY examples of abusive Templars) I think that the Circle is needed. Mages cannot simply be free and unwatched, Thedas would be in complete anarchy. I feel that all mages should be forced to go to the circle for at least 6 years, so they can learn basic magic control and demon protection. Templars would need to be less authoritarian and be kinder to Mages (or risk expulsion and deal with Lyrium withdrawl). After these 6 years, mages can choose to proceed with their harrowing(and live in the circle for life) or leave the circle and live in a populated area near a Templar-stationed chantry. These mages would forsake magic in the name of freedom (they would NOT be traquil, however). Etc, etc. 

I believe that compromise is the best solution, tbh. Sorry if I went off topic. 

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Regarding society and trade: If someone goes to a deserted island and sets up shop, whom will he trade with?

Sorry if I said it in too round-about of a way.  What I meant was that while we were talking about voluntarily trading some freedom for some benefit;  it is very difficult to find a place to live utterly free.  Short of the desert island idea, we all live in a society of some sort and continuing to live there imposes restrictions.  Free speech is only free until you use it to do harm etc.  I live in a reasonably free society where I can say and do most things without worrying about being locked in a dungeon for insulting the wrong gov't official, but there are still a fair number of limits on what I can do.

So long as those limits feel reasonable and give the impression of being a benefit to all - as in, I don't want someone else to be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, so I'm willing to not do it either - we pretty much submit to those restrictions on our freedom and don't think too much about it.

It is very reasonable for a person (or a large group of people) to decide to give up certain freedoms in return for having a safer lifestyle.  Precious few people would enjoy total anarchy I think.  I like (for the most part) that my society provides police, firefighters, ambulance drivers and a standing army so that the way of life I'm used to can be maintained.  If that means I have to watch my speed on the highway, so be it.

But, this is very different from any person deciding that someone else should give up their freedom so that they may feel safe.  By which I mean, greater Thedas deciding they feel better with the mages locked away, so they intend to keep it that way.  Taking away someone else's freedom so that you can feel safer is not a moral choice. 

(With obvious exceptions for proven guilt of various crimes...  I'm not going for something silly like no one should ever have to submit to justice blah blah)

Throwing magic and demons into the mix just makes it more challenging to do the right thing.  But it isn't like modern society doesn't have people who can do great harm.  We've got trained snipers, demolitions experts and even commercial jet pilots who can all do great harm if they choose to.  What does modern society generally do about it?  We make it illegal to do the bad stuff, and let the people capable of it know that they will be punished if they violate the law.

We don't lock them up just in case they might decide to go bad one day.  I'd apply the same logic to the situation in the game world.  Yes, mages pose a threat.  They should be trained to handle themselves (for their own protection as well as others) but that's it.  There are laws against doing the bad stuff.  If they break the laws they get punished.  So long as they act the way they're supposed to, society has no business pre-emptively punishing them. 

As to random demon possession while walking to the market to get a sandwich...  well, that's just a random danger like a tornado.  It sucks, no one wants it to happen, but it does so you just have to deal with it.

A comment I've made before though, is that a lot of people seem to consider innocent mages as less innocent than everyone else.  So performing an RoA which will likely kill innocent mages is somehow OK, in defense of innocent other people.  I find that odd.

Did someone actually say that, using exactly those words? I know on these forums that a lot is left to interpretations. So perhaps we can take one example, just to be clear.

Yes, it has actually been said in those words in response to that very question.  Not by a lot of folks, but by some.  The idea that mages have the potential to cause harm makes some people decide mages aren't ever quite exactly innocent.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 20 janvier 2012 - 12:55 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

Sorry if I said it in too round-about of a way.  What I meant was that while we were talking about voluntarily trading some freedom for some benefit;  it is very difficult to find a place to live utterly free.  Short of the desert island idea, we all live in a society of some sort and continuing to live there imposes restrictions.  Free speech is only free until you use it to do harm etc.  I live in a reasonably free society where I can say and do most things without worrying about being locked in a dungeon for insulting the wrong gov't official, but there are still a fair number of limits on what I can do.

So long as those limits feel reasonable and give the impression of being a benefit to all - as in, I don't want someone else to be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, so I'm willing to not do it either - we pretty much submit to those restrictions on our freedom and don't think too much about it.

It is very reasonable for a person (or a large group of people) to decide to give up certain freedoms in return for having a safer lifestyle.  Precious few people would enjoy total anarchy I think.  I like (for the most part) that my society provides police, firefighters, ambulance drivers and a standing army so that the way of life I'm used to can be maintained.  If that means I have to watch my speed on the highway, so be it.

Perhaps it's now my turn to elaborate on something. My perception of freedom, and the role of society in defining that concept, is somewhat different from yours. Being on an uninhabited island would give one opportunities to do things not possible in a society, sure. I could walk down a path in a forest and not care about whether I'd have to be on the footpath. I could claim any patch of land as mine and wouldn't have to worry about anybody objecting. But that is just part of the story. The other part is that I'd be utterly alone - left to the elements of nature. I'd have to do everything for myself. I couldn't go to the nearest store even to buy my food - there would be no store, no someone else to make stuff and offer it for sale. I'd be utterly handicapped, my day in and day out would involve repetitive work, full of utter drudgery, done merely for the sake of surviving. I'd be severely limited to pursue any dream or aspiration, without someone helping me out; and similarly that somebody somewhere would be left to himself without hope for any kind of progress in life.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that living on an uninhabited island as opposed to a crowded society would actually severely restrict us - rob us of the things that we could never hope for or dream about. It'd not be the kind of freedom that we might imagine it to be at first. There would be no theaters to go to, no automobiles to drive. Society - mutual interactions among people - makes all of that possible. And the possibilities are limitless. What we see as some inconveniences, like keeping to a particular side of the road while driving, and in general respecting one anothers' freedoms are nothing compared to what we gain in their stead. So I'd say it's not the society itself that is a barrier to freedom (in that society expands the possibilites of what are possible); but it is the way the society organizes its police powers that can limit us - whether it respects individual freedoms or whether it uses its policemen more to subjugate.

But, this is very different from any person deciding that someone else should give up their freedom so that they may feel safe.  By which I mean, greater Thedas deciding they feel better with the mages locked away, so they intend to keep it that way.  Taking away someone else's freedom so that you can feel safer is not a moral choice. 

(With obvious exceptions for proven guilt of various crimes...  I'm not going for something silly like no one should ever have to submit to justice blah blah)

Throwing magic and demons into the mix just makes it more challenging to do the right thing.  But it isn't like modern society doesn't have people who can do great harm.  We've got trained snipers, demolitions experts and even commercial jet pilots who can all do great harm if they choose to.  What does modern society generally do about it?  We make it illegal to do the bad stuff, and let the people capable of it know that they will be punished if they violate the law.

We don't lock them up just in case they might decide to go bad one day.  I'd apply the same logic to the situation in the game world.  Yes, mages pose a threat.  They should be trained to handle themselves (for their own protection as well as others) but that's it.  There are laws against doing the bad stuff.  If they break the laws they get punished.  So long as they act the way they're supposed to, society has no business pre-emptively punishing them. 

As to random demon possession while walking to the market to get a sandwich...  well, that's just a random danger like a tornado.  It sucks, no one wants it to happen, but it does so you just have to deal with it.

I think much of the reasons which mages are feared for - their powers, potential for becoming possessed, and so on are real, but also something they can't help themselves. And many mages in turn fear losing their own selves and their lives, not only to the demons but also to the people who act on their fear of mages. So there is perhaps something to be gained by all by training mages. Although it's not very apparent who are to train them.

I think the current Circle system is essentially a monopoly - and like any monopoly bereft of competition, it only becomes negligent and ineffectual over the ages. There is no incentive for it to improve, other than by acts of rebellion, as we're beginning to see in DA. So, essentially, what started off as a mutually beneficial deal for all, i.e. the Circle system, has turned into a sort of imprisonment for mages, in some senses.

We could talk about acts of reforms, such as what the Divine and Wynne were aiming for, but the crux of the problem remains. One can patch the system to one's satisfaction, but the fact of the matter is that the next generation would be left to the whims of the next Divine. That is not a long-lasting solution at all - that is just sweeping the dirt under the carpet for the time being, hoping to deal with it later.

To cut the long story short, I more or less agree to what you've written above, especially with regard to how RoA and such work. And I'd have to say the Chantry seems incapable to deal with the current situation. Perhaps the solution is at the end of the DA series, and it'd be interesting to see what's in store.

Yes, it has actually been said in those words in response to that very question.  Not by a lot of folks, but by some.  The idea that mages have the potential to cause harm makes some people decide mages aren't ever quite exactly innocent.

I'll take your word for it. I suppose it's possible for someone to think and say that.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I doubt it needs to be learned from demons. Blood magic deals with the physical realm and not the Fade, so it stands to reason that it originated in the physical realm.

That said, the arcane arts are eternal in the Fade so demons can naturally remember anything magical. This is evidenced by Torpor's comment on it "being rare to see two forgotten magics in the Fade".

It's my belief that when the Chantry banned blood magic they burned any books dealing with the subject and now to actually find a book that teaches blood magic is rare, possibly only really seen in Tevinter.

My question wasn't necessarily about how one learns blood magic, but about whether or not a demon is required to do blood magic. It may be something such as a mage offers her blood and the demon gives the magic in return - a sort of a deal, a favor for a favor.

The Grey Wardens do use blood magic as a way to defeat the Blights, 'tis true. Also, the Reaver Joining and the changes it brings were called a "definite form of blood magic" by a mage of a Circle.

Since the Warden Joining consists of ritualistically prepared blood that must be imbibed just like the Reaver Joining, and both give the person that drank them abilities, the Warden Joining is therefore a form of blood magic.

Well, the Warden Joining is somehow different, I think. It may be a sort of blood magic, true, but somehow the taint in the darkspawn/archdemon blood seems to be the source of magic - if that makes sense. Or perhaps the taint is merely a source of power; similar to way the blood of the (high?) dragon that made the Reavers stronger (at least the way it was shown in DA:O).

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I'd be severely limited to pursue any dream or aspiration, without someone helping me out; and similarly that somebody somewhere would be left to himself without hope for any kind of progress in life.

And that is part of the trade we make by living in a society.  Outside of society I can scream hate speech all I like, I can cut down any tree I like or blare loud music at all hours.  But I probably don't have much time to actually do those things. 

I saw a documentary once about one of the poorer countries in the world (I'm failing to remember which now) but basically, as they had no native domesticated animals to help with farming, they were never able to have any kind of renaissance.  They had to put so much effort into finding enough food to survive, they never got to do anytihng else.

So mages probably don't want to become hermits able to exert blood magic control on the local deer population

[dragonflight288]

My question wasn't necessarily about how one learns blood magic, but about whether or not a demon is required to do blood magic. It may be something such as a mage offers her blood and the demon gives the magic in return - a sort of a deal, a favor for a favor.

Merrill uses blood magic very carefully for roughly a decade, and the only negative consequences that occur are the ones enacted by those around her. The Keeper warned her clan that Merrill may bring back the darkspawn taint and told them she was a bloodmage. Pol, having been raised in Denerim and it is implied he still is an Andrastian (Thank the Ma...creators!) he vastly overreacts to someone who only wished him health and good will. He let fear and preconceptions cloud everything he knew about her.

In Awakening, Anders can become a blood mage and comment on it. He never mentions a demon. Just the irony he's become what the templars feared he already was.

Zathrian uses blood magic to bind a forest spirit, not a demon, into the body of Witherfang.

The answer to your question would be that demons are not required to use blood magic, it just makes Demons more aware of the mage in question, and much more likely to strike a deal that ends in a bloodbath.

[Plaintiff]

Phoenix Phire 13 wrote...
And yes, the Chantry-goers were innocents. Blaming the actions of an unjust few (Abusive Templars) is no justification to slaughter the masses who had nothing to do with this injustice. It would be the equivalent of blaming me for the Christian Crusades because I am Christian, or the Holocaust because I am German(More accurately, I am an American of German descent). I have no problems with taking a Pro-mage stance, but defending an action that is ultimately hypocritical is very poor judgement.

It would not be equivalent, the comparisons you made are completely different from the situation actually occuring in DA2. The Chantry is responsible for the Templars, and it is responsible for creating and perpetrating the culture of bigotry that mages live in. This is not something that happened a few centuries ago, the Chantry is doing those things in the present, in the time that the game is set. They're not some abstract idea, they are occuring while you play the game.

All the people that fought in the Crusades, except maybe the grail guardian in the third Indiana Jones film, have been dead for centuries. There have not been any recent crusades. Similarly, most, if not all of the Germans responsible for the Holocaust are also dead. But when World War II was actually happening, the possibility of innocent civilian deaths was not enough to prevent a multitude of bombings on both sides.

Meredith attacked a group in response to the actions of an unrelated individual. Anders attacked a group in response to the actions of that same group. There's a massive difference.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 20 janvier 2012 - 10:02 .

[TEWR]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...


My question wasn't necessarily about how one learns blood magic, but about whether or not a demon is required to do blood magic. It may be something such as a mage offers her blood and the demon gives the magic in return - a sort of a deal, a favor for a favor.

Ah.

No that doesn't seem to be the case. Blood magic uses blood in place of mana. It isn't a "you scratch my back" type of deal with a demon.

Merrill used blood magic for 7 years without requiring the aid of a demon, as by Act 3 she needs to re-establish contact with Audacity. She had only dealt with him 3 times in the past.

Well, the Warden Joining is somehow different, I think. It may be a sort of blood magic, true, but somehow the taint in the darkspawn/archdemon blood seems to be the source of magic - if that makes sense. Or perhaps the taint is merely a source of power; similar to way the blood of the (high?) dragon that made the Reavers stronger (at least the way it was shown in DA:O).

Indeed. While a slightly different form of blood magic, it's still blood magic all the same because it uses blood for the drinker to gain certain abillities.

I believe the taint and Darkspawn blood are pretty much a joint item. The taint sustains the Darkspawn, and it's an inherent quality in their blood.

That said, Avernus is working on refining the Joining to make it so that people don't die as easily during the Joining. He's trying to refine it to the point where the power is gained and death is less of an issue.

Which makes me wonder what it is he discovered if he was allowed to continue his research.

It's all too secretive. Makes my nose twitch.