326 réponses à ce sujet

[Original182]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...
I assume you mean anti Chantry propaganda?

The Chantry will invoke the Rite of Anullment on the whim of the Revered Mother. That's all. It is one persons decision, based on a situation that they do not witness first hand. To think that kind of power would never be abused is naiive.

You'll then need to prove that the Chantry did abuse their power. We don't know why the previous Rites of Anulment were used. Maybe they did abuse, maybe they didn't. We can only speculate.
And all the while visiting Chantries, I only see them minding their own business and offering prayers. I haven't seen a single evil act by them in-game, so it is a VERY thin argument to compare them to real life abuses by real life churches.

Blood magic allows mages to perform more powerful acts than they otherwise could purely with mana. Blood magic itself isn't evil, as others have pointed out, and the use of blood magic can only reasonably be deemed evil when you factor in the intentions of its user.

Would using blood magic to kill the archdemon be evil?

Anything compared to the archdemon is a lesser evil. In an alternate universe, if genocide can kill the archdemon, people might take that too. But that doesn't make it less evil.
And I will still argue that you should restrict blood magic to killing the archdemon, and no more.

[Riona45]

Original182 wrote...


Just because the Chantry says so, doesn't make it entirely false. Doesn't make it true either. That kind of thinking is very cynical.

Not cynical, skeptical--which is a good thing.

[Jacks-Up]

Alex Savchovsky wrote...

Original182 wrote...You'll then have to show WHY blood magic is not evil. Saying that it is not evil because the Chantry are automatically wrong is a very poor argument.

BTW, I already did.
I said that no power is evil or good by nature, and I also said why is that. And what did I get? "It's evil because it's dangerous". Huh? Climbing mountains is dangerous, is it evil? Flying into the space is dangerous, is it evil? Even the armies are dangerous - but I don't recall someone shouting at Loghain "booo, maleficarum!!". Although he DID kill lots of people, including a king, with a single command.

No you didn't your points were countered by 2 people on the previous page.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Jacks-Up wrote...

Read below

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And what is done for that case? You're not making an argument for yourself here. No one, even the most evilest people in human history, did stuff just to be evil. They all had their warped reasons.

Magic is a tool, but not all tools are qual. I can use an axe for many things. A nuke? Well, my options are far more limtied. Some tools are practicly designed with no "good" use for them. High-level blood magic is made to dominate and drain.

Ok, I JUST got you to define evil for me, which you said is defined as morally questionable and/or morally wrong behavior, but based on this quote you've offered you're suggesting that a non sentient force, which is incapable of any kind of morality, is evil? You're not being consistent.


Here's a theory: The Chantry controls the lyrium trade. Maybe they oppose blood magic because blood magic negates the need for lyrium potions?

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

You'll then need to prove that the Chantry did abuse their power. We don't know why the previous Rites of Anulment were used. Maybe they did abuse, maybe they didn't. We can only speculate.
And all the while visiting Chantries, I only see them minding their own business and offering prayers. I haven't seen a single evil act by them in-game, so it is a VERY thin argument to compare them to real life abuses by real life churches.

Destroying an entire nation because they didn't pay lip-service to the Chantry's made up god isn't enough for you?

[The Angry One]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Here's a theory: The Chantry controls the lyrium trade. Maybe they oppose blood magic because blood magic negates the need for lyrium potions?

Probably closer to the truth than we know. :happy:

[Taleroth]

The Angry One wrote...

Original182 wrote...

You'll then need to prove that the Chantry did abuse their power. We don't know why the previous Rites of Anulment were used. Maybe they did abuse, maybe they didn't. We can only speculate.
And all the while visiting Chantries, I only see them minding their own business and offering prayers. I haven't seen a single evil act by them in-game, so it is a VERY thin argument to compare them to real life abuses by real life churches.

Destroying an entire nation because they didn't pay lip-service to the Chantry's made up god isn't enough for you?

I would call it "evil."  More practical, like taxes.

[Curlain]

I admit there are some holes in the 'blood magic alone is dangerous and should be banned' as the entropy spells seem to have allot in common with blood magic (both in terms of stealing life and mind control). I guess the most dangerous aspects of blood magic is actually outside the scope of the spells that actually become avialable to you, and are more to be found in blood magic rituals, such as using other people as a subsititute for mana and/or lyrium as the Tevinter magisters are reputed to have done with slaves and subjects. Kill enough people that way and you can level whole cities (such as the Teninter Imperium did with Arlathlan, that destruction was fulled by blood magic).

So whether it's evil or not, debatable I guess (which is exactly what's going on here ), but I think it's the ulitmate and ulimited potential which would be at the cost of allot of other lives to fuel such great magic is why it is feared and banned (also, it frees mages for lyrium, which would make some nervous as well).

So in some ways it declared evil for somewhat pragmatic and rational fears on where it's use could lead, it's destructive potential is far beyond what is possible in other schools of magic (at least going by Thedas history)

Modifié par Curlain, 02 décembre 2009 - 05:05 .

[MS3825]

(This is to Jacks-Up calling me a Hitler sympathizer)
Ignorance at its' best!
Two famous quotes you remind me of:
"Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
"Fascism will come under the guise of anti-fascism."

People who track down and stop serial killers learn all they can about them. I guess you think the FBI are mass-murder supporters too? Although that's a bad example because serial killers actually have "mental illness", whereas the Third Reich were religious fanatics who tried to find the "holy grail" and the "spear of destiny" which was said to have been the spear that pierced Jesus' chest.

You can call me evil all you want, I bear you no ill will.
I do, however, hope you read a few more history books and use a dictionary.
- Live long and prosper.

Modifié par MS3825, 02 décembre 2009 - 05:06 .

[lavosslayer]

Jacks-Up wrote...

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

It doesn't have to help. And are you going to offer a definition of evil for us?

http://www.google.ca...le&ved=0CAcQkAE

Happy?

Blood magic itself is not inherently evil. Anyone looking at it logically can see that blood magic itself is just a means to an end. It's not until you subdue logic with emotion that the concepts of good and evil come into play and intentions pave the way for perceptions. If you cannot see this simple truth then it is pointless to argue with you because you will just perpetuate the circular argument of moral vs absolute.

People can be corrupted or branded with the concept known as "evil" yet a tool such as blood magic, a hammer or a sword cannot directly inherit a moral trait since it is inanimate and unable to manipulate things on its own. That in itself is basic logic. Here is another example: A dog can be evil because it can choose to obey or disobey its master or attack a person, the dogs teeth or claws are unable to be so because they are inanimate tools that are incapable  of free will and therefore cannot have intentions.

To go with the Hitler concept, Hitler himself could be evil, the acts he commits can be evil (and actually would be what people would use to define him as such) however the tools he uses to carry out his evil are not inherently evil because they cannot have intentions of their own. Not to mention they also happen to be the very same tools used to defeat him in which case following the logic I have seen you use in previous posts would be condoned and applauded as good yet they are only good because the intentions behind them are looked at as good. The guns and bombs still kill...

[Jacks-Up]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

Read below

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And what is done for that case? You're not making an argument for yourself here. No one, even the most evilest people in human history, did stuff just to be evil. They all had their warped reasons.

Magic is a tool, but not all tools are qual. I can use an axe for many things. A nuke? Well, my options are far more limtied. Some tools are practicly designed with no "good" use for them. High-level blood magic is made to dominate and drain.

Ok, I JUST got you to define evil for me, which you said is defined as morally questionable and/or morally wrong behavior, but based on this quote you've offered you're suggesting that a non sentient force, which is incapable of any kind of morality, is evil? You're not being consistent.


Here's a theory: The Chantry controls the lyrium trade. Maybe they oppose blood magic because blood magic negates the need for lyrium potions?

If this sentient force was created and used by only evil people than it's a no brainier to see how it's evil. Sorry but your Blood Mage is evil no matter how hard you want him to be good he's not.

[Original182]

The Angry One wrote...
The point is the ONLY source that say that blood magic is truly 100% evil is the Chantry. Nothing else.
The Chantry are discredited because they're a bunch of oppressive, dogmatic liars.

Again, the Chantry says MANY things. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is wrong. Some things are inherently right and inherently wrong in Ferelden. Maybe they are wrong about certain things, maybe they are right about certain things. Ignore what the Chantry says.

The only concrete proof we have is the actions of it's users, which show iresponisbility/downright evil (Uldred), callous amorality in a world where such is common but a true desire to improve the situation (Avernus) and obstensibly good (Jowan).
You can call Jowan a naive fool who made stupid decisions all you like, but in the end he's a good man who takes responsibility for his actions.

Please give examples of the evil acts that the Chantry did. From the Codex. And tell me why it means blood magic is not evil.

Destroying the elven homeland, attempting to oppress the dwarves in the epilogue, forcibly addicting their templars to lyrium to keep them under control, oppressing the mages, spreading lies and dogma.
Does all that mean blood magic is not evil? No. It means anything the Chantry says about what's evil and what isn't is worth precisely nothing.

Yes, so please ignore what the Chantry says as a source of what is right and what is wrong from now on.

Modifié par Original182, 02 décembre 2009 - 05:11 .

[Original182]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Original182 wrote...

Please give examples of the evil acts that the Chantry did. From the Codex. And tell me why it means blood magic is not evil.

The exalted march?

The exalted march by Andraste freed the elves, and is considered good. So using the blood magic logic, blood magic isn't evil, it's the people using blood magic that makes it evil. So exalted marches aren't evil by itself.

But suppose that the exalted march is considered more evil than blood magic, how does what the Chantry did make blood magic less evil?

I've already made my point in a previous thread. What the Chantry does or doesn't do is irrelevant. Please stop the Chantry-bashing as it doesn't serve any purpose.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Jacks-Up wrote...

If this sentient force was created and used by only evil people than it's a no brainier to see how it's evil. Sorry but your Blood Mage is evil no matter how hard you want him to be good he's not.

Ugh, again, so black and white. When did I ever try to make a case for my blood mage being good.

You're saying it's evil because it's only used by evil people, and they're evil because they use blood magic. That's circular reasoning.

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

Again, the Chantry says MANY things. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is wrong. Some things are inherently right and inherently wrong in Ferelden. Maybe they are wrong about certain things, maybe they are right about certain things. Ignore what the Chantry says.

I don't recall when the Chantry has ever been particularily right about anything.
Much like real life, all they ever say is that which will convenience themselves and their grip on power.

Yes, so please ignore what the Chantry says as a source of what is right and what is wrong from now on.

So what do you have left that tells you blood magic is evil?

[Alex Savchovsky]

Jacks-Up wrote...
Sorry but your Blood Mage is evil no matter how hard you want him to be good he's not. 

This about summarizes all your arguments "sorry but you're wrong and I'm right". OK, in this case, you're simply a troll and I should not answer you again, unless you get some reasonable arguments.

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

The exalted march by Andraste freed the elves, and is considered good. So using the blood magic logic, blood magic isn't evil, it's the people using blood magic that makes it evil. So exalted marches aren't evil by itself.

But suppose that the exalted march is considered more evil than blood magic, how does what the Chantry did make blood magic less evil?

I've already made my point in a previous thread. What the Chantry does or doesn't do is irrelevant. Please stop the Chantry-bashing as it doesn't serve any purpose.

Exalted Marches are simply a glorified term for an amassing of a multi-national faith-based army. Like a real world Crusade.
Thus the concept isn't evil. The way the Chantry have used it however, to smash opposition and preserve their ill-gotten hegemony however can be said to be.

And you clearly don't get how this relates to blood magic. The primary source for the idea that blood magic is evil IS FROM THE CHANTRY so yes, the Chantry's credibility is very important here.
Since they have none, you have little basis for calling blood magic inherently evil.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Original182 wrote...


The exalted march by Andraste freed the elves, and is considered good. So using the blood magic logic, blood magic isn't evil, it's the people using blood magic that makes it evil. So exalted marches aren't evil by itself.

Freed the elves? The Exalted March on the Dales is what I was referring to. They wiped out the second elven homelands and enslaved them, on the basis that the elves wanted to continue worshipping their own gods.

[Original182]

The Angry One wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...
A kitchen knife is dangerous but they don't require you to register it like a gun. 

We give our Law enforcement offers Guns but not RPG's or viles with the Ebola virus in them to threaten criminals with.

Prove that blood magic is that much more dangerous than regular magic, even though a regular mage can in fact become an abomination and summon demons.
Yes, a blood mage can control people. That's why you regulate it, not ban it outright and make people do it in secret.

For that matter why is Entropy legal but not Blood magic? Both are similar in a lot of ways, right down to subverting a target's mind.

Jacks probably has hit on why blood magic is such a negative stigma. Blood magic is to guns, what kitchen knives is to regular magic.
As for the proof, we saw that Jowan could sacrifice Isolde to allow a mage to enter the Fade to save Connor. A magic that doesn't use mana, but can use blood is considered very dangerous. It may act as a gateway to tempt people to kill other people to power their spells.
As for regulation, guns are banned in my home country (Brunei), and in most of asian countries. And no we do not feel oppressed. Brunei is pretty peaceful. Banning blood magic then is not considered unacceptable or oppression.

[Nosuchluck]

Blood magic is really no more dangerous than normal magic. Unless you're trying to tell me that stuff like raise undead, turning your enemy in to a walking bomb or waking nightmare are all "good" spells.

Modifié par Nosuchluck, 02 décembre 2009 - 05:24 .

[Alex Savchovsky]

Original182 wrote...

Jacks probably has hit on why blood magic is such a negative stigma. Blood magic is to guns, what kitchen knives is to regular magic.
As for the proof, we saw that Jowan could sacrifice Isolde to allow a mage to enter the Fade to save Connor. A magic that doesn't use mana, but can use blood is considered very dangerous. It may act as a gateway to tempt people to kill other people to power their spells.
As for regulation, guns are banned in my home country (Brunei), and in most of asian countries. And no we do not feel oppressed. Brunei is pretty peaceful. Banning blood magic then is not considered unacceptable or oppression.

There is but one single difference.
I am sure your army uses guns, no matter if they are banned or not.
And in the case with blood magic, they don't ban its use, "the guns", they ban the very knowledge. Which just doesn't seem right. 

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

Jacks probably has hit on why blood magic is such a negative stigma. Blood magic is to guns, what kitchen knives is to regular magic.
As for the proof, we saw that Jowan could sacrifice Isolde to allow a mage to enter the Fade to save Connor. A magic that doesn't use mana, but can use blood is considered very dangerous. It may act as a gateway to tempt people to kill other people to power their spells.
As for regulation, guns are banned in my home country (Brunei), and in most of asian countries. And no we do not feel oppressed. Brunei is pretty peaceful. Banning blood magic then is not considered unacceptable or oppression.

A gun can only be used to injure or kill someone.
Blood magic has more applications than simple injury. It can suppliment regular magic, research with blood magic can be very beneficial as with Avernus' case (it doesn't REQUIRE the death of others, that simply makes it *faster*, Avernus himself says this when you demand he do more ethical research).
The dangers of blood magic in killing others for powerful spells are more of a reason to regulate it instead of banning it outright, only Chantry dogma says otherwise.

[Original182]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Original182 wrote...
The exalted march by Andraste freed the elves, and is considered good. So using the blood magic logic, blood magic isn't evil, it's the people using blood magic that makes it evil. So exalted marches aren't evil by itself.

Freed the elves? The Exalted March on the Dales is what I was referring to. They wiped out the second elven homelands and enslaved them, on the basis that the elves wanted to continue worshipping their own gods.

I think the Exalted March is the perfect comparison to blood magic.
We see here people so quick to say the Chantry is evil based on exalted marches. But when we say blood magic is evil, oh we're ignorant.
Ok, so you picked the "evil" exalted marches that the Chantry did, meaning that the Chantry is evil. But if I try to pick the evil blood mages who attacked me in the Circle, Uldred, etc, then you automatically say "But what about Jowan? He may have made stupid mistakes, but he was a good man at heart". So not all blood mages are evil.
You are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Blood Magic users, but not the Chantry, despite there being good Chantry people. The actions of a few blood mages do not represent all of them, but the actions of the Chantry means they evil!

Truly this discussion is selective thinking at its best.

[Jacks-Up]

Original182 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...
A kitchen knife is dangerous but they don't require you to register it like a gun. 

We give our Law enforcement offers Guns but not RPG's or viles with the Ebola virus in them to threaten criminals with.

Prove that blood magic is that much more dangerous than regular magic, even though a regular mage can in fact become an abomination and summon demons.
Yes, a blood mage can control people. That's why you regulate it, not ban it outright and make people do it in secret.

For that matter why is Entropy legal but not Blood magic? Both are similar in a lot of ways, right down to subverting a target's mind.

Jacks probably has hit on why blood magic is such a negative stigma. Blood magic is to guns, what kitchen knives is to regular magic.
As for the proof, we saw that Jowan could sacrifice Isolde to allow a mage to enter the Fade to save Connor. A magic that doesn't use mana, but can use blood is considered very dangerous. It may act as a gateway to tempt people to kill other people to power their spells.
As for regulation, guns are banned in my home country (Brunei), and in most of asian countries. And no we do not feel oppressed. Brunei is pretty peaceful. Banning blood magic then is not considered unacceptable or oppression.

Actually Magic is like a gun & Blood Magic is more like viles with the Ebola virus. There is actually no good you can do with this except not use it or destroy it.

A Tyrant would love to get his hands on one and use it on his enemies but no good leader would find a use for it.

[Nosuchluck]

That's an insane comparison. How is Blood magic like Ebola when normal magic isn't? Remember walking bomb and infectious hexes? I don't get why normal magic is so different. It's just as sinister.