118 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I like how your first sentance mentions have templars are alos caaricatures, but then you compeltely forget that point..even your thread title focuses on mages.


That point aside, BioWare failed ot make magic look dangerous. Why?
Because we kill mages and abominations left and right..easily.
Because we block magical attacks willy nilly - even blood magic.
There is no real feeling of danger.

Make an abomination that literaly destroyed a town/village in front of the player.
Give the player a feeling of helplesness - force him to run.
Have him become a puppet for a blood mage and do something horrible. SOMETHING.

There could have been more instances, like when Idunna tried to make Hawke cut their own throat.

Which was sadly completely wasted by having Hawke use HEROIC WILLPOWER.
Hawke being helpless and having to depend on others would have been far better.

[PizzaThe Hutt]

I still think that last bit of Orsino was the blame of poor writing, through-out my dialogue with him he just seemed like a guy who was trying to do his job and take care of the mages under his charge. He seemed really charming, and then at the end there he goes all crazy blood-mage on us and turns into a zombie abomination or whatever and it just seemed to be highly unnecessary...

[Darth Death]

It was definitely harder to feel sympathetic towards mages...

[Maclimes]

 Remember the Mage Fraternities in the Ferelden Circle in DA:O? They acted like political parties, and I thought they greatly illustrated that all mages are different, and have a wide range of opinions about the church, independence, and "forbidden" magic.

Loyalists thought that all mages should be watched by the Chantry and Templars, and were often devout.

Libertarians wanted to be completely autonomous and free from the Chantry, to let mages rules mages.

Isolationists went even further, wanting all makes to live alone out in the woods somewhere.

Aequitarians were the moderate group, understanding that SOME Chantry presence was a good idea, but wanted some level of freedom, as well.

...

Maybe the Kirkwall Circle just had one Fraternity, that I am naming the "Sanguists", who believe that all mages should be completely insane and kill everyone and worship demons and blood magic. That would explain things, a bit. 

[berelinde]

PizzaThe Hutt wrote...

I still think that last bit of Orsino was the blame of poor writing, through-out my dialogue with him he just seemed like a guy who was trying to do his job and take care of the mages under his charge. He seemed really charming, and then at the end there he goes all crazy blood-mage on us and turns into a zombie abomination or whatever and it just seemed to be highly unnecessary...

Orsino was not supposed to go nuts at the end and allow himself to become possessed if you sided with the mages, and it was definitely an "Oh, carp, we're out of time" inspired decision rather than a rationally considered design decision. The problem was that those who sided with the templars had two bosses to fight at the end and those who sided with the mages only had one. So rather than come up with another boss, e.g. a demon Meredith channeled in using her red lyrium powers, they wrote the most illogical sequence in video game history. True story.

[Xenite]

I just wish they would stop turning mages into abominations every 3 seconds like they did in DA2. They changed it from something horrible into ohhh look another one.

Mage sneezes... abomination!
Someone looks mean at a mage... abomination!
Mage trips... abomination!

[lyriumaddict104]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

I disagree with this.

Well, truth be told I'm not actually against her being a villain for the reasons you stated. In some of my discussions with other posters -- mostly through PM -- I put forth a way the quest could've been better handled to actually make sense due to Grace's emotions on the matter.

So I'm not against it in principle. Just it being forced on us every damn time, because the writers didn't make an effort to really give it its due -- because as you said, it stems back to Decimus.

So when I say it's unnecessary, I don't mean it shouldn't ever happen. I mean that it should be given its due to actually make sense in the future and that the way it happened in-game is unnecessary. Conceptually, it's great. But in practice based on DAII, it's not.

Connor felt more fleshed out then Grace and Decimus, where emotions were still the driving force behind Connor's actions. Different circumstances, but Connor was done better then Grace or Decimus were.

Along with her apparently being an Abomination -- something I think happened prior to the quest's beginning.

I mean, that just sort of kills her motivations and being a character one could relate to or like, if it was all just a Demon's ploy based off of Grace's original feelings. So her being/becoming an Abomination was IMO unnecessary.

And the quest itself makes no sense from the perspective of a consistently pro-mage Hawke.

1) I can denounce Meredith and tell her that she needs to step down. I can agree with Orsino for that matter.

2) I can talk to Thrask, who flat out states that he knows I support the First Enchanter.

3) When I do end up doing this quest, a bunch of Templars and Mages say "We know you're spying for Orsino!" like that's a bad thing. It isn't. The man who is against Meredith sends out the Champion who is also against Meredith to ascertain the truth of why the Mages are going out at night. How is that a bad thing?

4) I go to the Wounded Coast and suddenly Thrask thinks I'm supporting Meredith, for no reason whatsoever.

Bah. It's as if the writers took a downward spiral into the jaws of oblivion where any semblance of a plot was deemed unimportant.

I just wanted to say I agreed with everything you have said about that entire quest. The more I play it the more it irritates me. I always end up on the side of the mages. I actually can't make myself choose the templars, so that never happens. But every time, with a mage-friendly Hawke, I get accused of hunting the mages and templars who are meeting in secret. When you as Hawke first stumble upon that meeting and the mage shouts, "He's spying for Orsino!", why can't Hawke be allowed to at least try to yell something out to the effect of, "what?! No, I'm not. Idiot!" and then stop everything there? At no point can Hawke clear up the misunderstanding, even when Keran (spelling?) tells him/her the conspirators have kidnapped his/her LI or sibling. Thrask, as you've said, thinks you're there on behalf of Meredith. Quests like that one, I believe, are pointless and not well-written or are too rushed to be really a valuable part of the story and Hawke's progress. It's just another quest you do.

Grace didn't haven any dimension, to me. It's a nice effort to try to pretend she does but it just seems like she's another character who comes back later in the game so that a new character with a new (small) storyline didn't have to be developed. I know that people in the real world really do blame others for things that aren't their fault and hold a grudge but for the game's sake, her blaming Hawke for Decimus' death is lame (it just doesn't work for me).This quest just felt like a job to me. Nothing I was invested in or cared much about. Even though we killed her boyfriend, I don't feel she was worthy enough to stick to Hawke's backside like a bad rash (thanks, Isabela). We do have the option of telling her that he attacked first but even that doesn't seem to penetrate her thick skull. And anyway, she was just someone I desperately wanted to kill after a couple of playthroughs. She acts like she's innocent but she goes from asking me to kill the man (Thrask) who's the only one standing between her and the templars who will actually show her no mercy, to trying to claim she had no part of her lover's use of blood magic (convenient to use that line when he's dead and she's caught) and that she's just trying to save the lives of her companions as well as her own. She didn't do that too well. If she had just been trying to survive she should have thought of some other bargain besides asking me to murder a man who's trying to help her (great wanting to kill someone you don't even realize is on your side) in cold blood. Like someone else has said, those nitwits (Grace, Decimus and friends) couldn't even tell Hawke and party weren't templars out to get them. I'm all for trying the new thing of having people the PC saves come back later to bite him/her in the hindquarters but at least make the storyline one worth getting involved in. I hate Grace and try to kill her or have her killed each playthrough but it fails.

Good enough topic, even if it's been done before. Seems the mindless portrayal of mages as demon-loving fanatics is a way to introduce conflict without giving players something they have to think too hard about. This game made a big leap from the almost passive mages of DA: O to the apostates who use blood magic everywhere and all the time in this game. When they mentioned blood magic in DA:O it didn't seem like such a big deal. This game brought the issue front and center. And even the blood magic spells were stronger, I think. I remember the first time "hemorrhage" ( think it's called that) drained my Hawke in a few seconds, dead. But what could the entire mage/templar conflict have been like given enough time, effort, thought, etc. to develop it without using violent, crazy, and maybe even desperate mages who resort to blood magic and demons to get what they want? Aside from Uldred, in DA:O who was crazy enough to make mages look bad enough to justify their imprisonment? I think that blood magic and demons serve to hide the real issue: humans (and in DA's case, elves, dwarves too) fear what is different and what they can't understand. Blood magic allows non-mages to pretend to others and to themselves that there's nothing deeper (or wrong) with their oppression of mages in both games (even if there weren't the slightest chance mages could be possessed, they'd still be locked up for having been born different).

I like what the story tried to do, as I see it. Perhaps more time would have allowed the story to be better developed, to make it deeper, I guess. I agree, all the bad mages were one-dimensional, silly, or just outright obnoxious. The "Band of Three" helps explain a little bit why so many could have gone crazy but why have ones like Tahrone who had to wear lipstick that matched the color of her robes? It was actually so freaky, I still have a hard time getting past it to whatever she's saying. As a foil to Anders, possibly, they all look even worse and he actually looks better. He's the only mage in the game with a decent enough plan who could think of trying something other than blood magic to achieve his goals. Quentin just felt like a DA interpretation of stories from shows like CSI and just another reason to kill off another of Hawke's dwindling family.

[Captain Cornhole]

well maybe it's because all mages are stoopid

[GavrielKay]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I know GavrielKay and others have suggested that this was done to show that mages are dangerous, but I think that depicting mages in such a manner was ridiculous - are we supposed to be afraid that magic is dangerous, because Dragon Age II makes it seem as though we need to be afraid that free mages will become one-dimensional caricatures who will act illogically, and do stupid things because the Plot dictates.

I just noticed I got a call out by name on this thread

I have come around to a new theory about the DA series:  they have decided to cater to casual gamers.

I've read several articles now on how surveys show that most people don't want more than 40ish hours of gameplay so that it will fit into their busy lives.  So, you get 40 hours of button mashing with just enough story to make it something more than space invaders.  Financially, this may be a success for them.  And I suppose in this ecomony, I should be happy that some developers and writers will get to keep their jobs.

If you loved DA:O for its open world, more nuanced decisions and tons of content - you just may have to find a new franchise to love.  EA / BioWare can now make lots of money from selling games half the length of DA:O and then even more money by selling DLC to people who are craving more content.

I'm not sure if I will buy DA3.  I will wait to see what the reviews say.  But I will not buy it expecting that they've gone back to the roots of the franchise in DA:O.  I would only buy it expecting it to be around 40 hours of entertainment.  An interactive movie where most of the plot is set and every now and then I can inject a bit of dialog (with the bonus of it being a surprise what exactly my character will say due to lousy paraphrasing).  If we're lucky, the characters will have a better script.

I haven't gotten a sense that DA3 will give us back our control of character development and personality.  Things like the inability to be atheist and keeping the voiced protagonist show me that BioWare intends to own our character and just let us take him/her out for a drive now and then.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 16 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

You know, it is possible Grace was jsut bats*** evil and was playing you, pretending to be nice and all.
Wouldn't be the first time for more evil characters to act with some subtelty and pretend to be nice, at least for a while.

And yes, what was done with both the mages and templars in DA2 is horrible. They are both mostly caricatures.
Frankly I think the writers realised too late they made the templars look too bad and instead of taking time to fix it, they just turns half the mages into crazed loonies.

[Fallstar]

Yup, would be nicer to see more moderates on both sides.

Instead of mages like 

http://puu.sh/JUuH

and

http://puu.sh/JUzc

and normal Templars instead of them conforming nicely to this.

Not that I have anything against Anders and Merril, they're two of my favourite companions, but they're hardly the poster boys/girls for mage rights.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 19 juillet 2012 - 05:00 .

[Maclimes]

I thought the relationship between Gregoir and Irving in the DA:O was perfect. There was obviously some animosity and resentment between the two, as they both wrestled with the needs to protect those under their care. But there was also obviously a healthy respect, and possibly even friendship between the two.

[Fallstar]

Maclimes wrote...

I thought the relationship between Gregoir and Irving in the DA:O was perfect. There was obviously some animosity and resentment between the two, as they both wrestled with the needs to protect those under their care. But there was also obviously a healthy respect, and possibly even friendship between the two.

I wouldn't say perfect, but Gregoir was definitely acceptable. He did his job sure, but he only calls for the rite as a last resort and is willing to accept outside help. If Gregoir had been knight commander of Kirkwall, you have to wonder if things would have gone wrong so badly.

[IanPolaris]

DuskWarden wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

I thought the relationship between Gregoir and Irving in the DA:O was perfect. There was obviously some animosity and resentment between the two, as they both wrestled with the needs to protect those under their care. But there was also obviously a healthy respect, and possibly even friendship between the two.

I wouldn't say perfect, but Gregoir was definitely acceptable. He did his job sure, but he only calls for the rite as a last resort and is willing to accept outside help. If Gregoir had been knight commander of Kirkwall, you have to wonder if things would have gone wrong so badly.

Difficult to know for certain, but I think we can make some guesses.  Given how Gregoire (apparently) insisted that the Veil was too thin during the US sacrifice ending in DAO, I would guess that at the very least Gregoire would push Elthina and the Chantry hard to move the tower outside of Kirkwall to a place where the veil was at least a bit stronger.  I think his experience with a tower outside any major city would enhance the arguement for this being doable and necessary.

I also think that Gregoire would take a firm line with Orsino and insist he take a real leadership position with his fellow mages, and I do think Orsino would be at least willing to work with Gregoire...or at least pretend to which would negate much of the tension.

Finally, Gregoire honors and enforces the chantry's own rules on everyone.  I am not saying a slimeball like Alrik might not have happened, but he wouldn't be tolerated for very long once Gregore got wind of it.  I also see Gregoire being willing to deal with the champion once that was necessary, but conversely, I also think that if Gregoire were in charge the would-be champion would have been captured and hauled off to the tower almost the moment he stepped off the boat and cast magic...self defense or no.  In short I see Gregoire being a very tough but fair KC and as such the Kirkwall incident wouldn't have happened...at least not while he was in charge.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

Not that I have anything against Anders and Merril, they're two of my favourite companions, but they're hardly the poster boys/girls for mage rights.

Merrill's fine, she just had a terrible adoptive mother. And there's barely any such thing as a "normal" templar, so far as I can tell; they go out of their way to recruit religious zealots.

I thought the relationship between Gregoir and Irving in the DA:O was perfect. There was obviously some animosity and resentment between the two, as they both wrestled with the needs to protect those under their care. But there was also obviously a healthy respect, and possibly even friendship between the two.

Obviously it was a close relationship; they both agreed on the Chantry imprisoning the mages. Irving is unimpressive at best and Greagoir is a bloodthirsty mindraping bastard; the only point of distinction he can offer is not being outright sadistic, but that's not much.

[MisterJB]

Fine? Merril is the very opposite of fine. She is a foolish child whose arrogance and naivety destroyed dozen of lives including that of her adoptive mother who was a much better mage and elf than Merril.

She is living proof the Templars are right.. She is a mage that was never on the Circle, she was free and she still found a way to justify using blood magic.

[Sidney]

They might not all be crazy but the ones we deal with are - mostly. Then again all the nice, stay-at-home, live and let live other types aren't ones we run into either. Your job description does tend towards unpleasant encounters.

It is important to show the abomination "issue" as important. That is what makes the Chantry/Mage issue more interesting. if possession was a myth or a real oddity it makes the Chantry into monsters. You make abominations a not uncommon event and mages go from being an oppressed minority to a public health hazard how you deal with them gets more complex.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

Fine? Merrill is the opposite of fine.

Merrill is a Dalish elf who has arguments with Anders over his refusal to accept that she has different religious views than he does (i.e. her view that spirits are spirits, not "Children of the Maker" like he does). She handles blood magic responsibly for several years, she uses magic proficiently, and she understands that all spirits are dangerous.

In essence, I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

MisterJB wrote...

She is a foolish child whose arrogance and nativety destroyed dozen of lives including that of her adoptive mother who was a much better mage and elf than Merrill.

Marethari was a grown woman who decided to endanger her entire clan and become an abomination without warning anyone. It seems to me she fell prey to Audacity. The clan can attempt to murder Merrill and Hawke in cold blood. That isn't Merrill's fault. The Keeper was a grown woman; the hunters are adults as well. I blame them for their actions, not Merrill.

MisterJB wrote...

She is living proof that the templars are right.

By being a blood mage who won't abuse her abilities? By being a good person who wants to be proactive about the plight of the People? I have respect for Merrill trying to end centuries of the elves going on a downward spiral.

MisterJB wrote...

She is a mage that was never on the Circle, she was free and she still found a way to justify using blood magic.

She cleansed a shard of the darkspawn taint. I don't see what's wrong about that. Considering that Grey Wardens are created through blood magic, and some mages from the order use blood magic to defeat the darkspawn, I don't see the point in vilifying blood magic.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Merrill is a Dalish elf who has arguments with Anders over his refusal to accept that she has different religious views than he does (i.e. her view that spirits are spirits, not "Children of the Maker" like he does). She handles blood magic responsibly for several years, she uses magic proficiently, and she understands that all spirits are dangerous.

Oh, I dislike Anders as well, don't you worry.
All Spirits are dangerous but demons are the most dangerous of them all and she is constantly asking for their help. At least a Spirit of Faith or Justice won't lie to you at every turn.

Marethari was a grown woman who decided to endanger her entire clan and become an abomination without warning anyone. It seems to me she fell prey to Audacity. The clan can attempt to murder Merrill and Hawke in cold blood. That isn't Merrill's fault. The Keeper was a grown woman; the hunters are adults as well. I blame them for their actions, not Merrill.

But you would blame the Circle for Isolde's actions.

Marethari's only crime was loving her daugther too much. She warned Merril of the inherent dangers and evils of demons and blood magic who tought she knew better than her elder. Had Merril heeded Marethari's advice, nothing would have happened. The clan would have simply moved on.

By being a blood mage who won't abuse her abilities? By being a good person who wants to be proactive about the plight of the People? I have respect for Merrill trying to end centuries of the elves going on a downward spiral.

By consorting with demons. I respect Merril's motives, they were good. But the templars warn that even the noblest of mages can fall prey to temptation and heed the words of demons.
Merri was fooled by a demon and would have become an Abomination if not for Marethari.

She cleansed a shard of the darkspawn taint. I don't see what's wrong about that.

What is wrong is that she consorted with demons to do that. A better solution would have been to find a way of paying for smuggled lyrium.

Considering that Grey Wardens are created through blood magic, and some mages from the order use blood magic to defeat the darkspawn, I don't see the point in vilifying blood magic.

Blood Magic may not be inherently evil but those who can teach it to mages (demons) are. They will either corrupt or possess the mage.

Sometime, evil is necessary to do good but that doesn't mean it stopped being evil. Such is the case with the Joining. 
Those who would use blood magic must understand what they are doing, the risk they pose to themselves and others. Avernus, for instance, is a good example of just how quickly blood magic can go awry. 
Consorting with demons because "it's not their fault they are who they are" is not the right mentality.

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 juillet 2012 - 08:25 .

[Fallstar]

MisterJB wrote...
Blood Magic may not be inherently evil but those who can teach it to mages (demons) are. They will either corrupt or possess the mage.

Sometime, evil is necessary to do good but that doesn't mean it stopped being evil. Such is the case with the Joining. 
Those who would use blood magic must understand what they are doing, the risk they pose to themselves and others. Avernus, for instance, is a good example of just how quickly blood magic can go awry. 
Consorting with demons because "it's not their fault they are who they are" is not the right mentality.

There are many different sources of blood magic though. You can learn it from a book or another blood mage and not once do you have to come close to a demon. 

Simply using blood as an additional source of power, and one that can be used even against Templar abilities, is no worse than using normal mana. If a blood mage reads a book on basic blood magic that allows him to do so, there is nothing wrong with that. 

Things could become morally dubious when you consider that blood magic can be used to summon demons and control minds. But since a mage can do all sorts of far worse things anyway (create a firestorm, cause an earthquake, make you explode etc.), a bit of mind control kind of pales in comparison.

Also Anders summons a pair of shades (hunger or sloth demons) without a hint of blood magic. People who are all "but it lets you summon demons" well mages can do that anyway. The blood magic aspect just lets you do so with blood rather than mana.

Finally, I don't see why people have a problem with mages having to force a demon to make them learn blood magic. Seeing as the chantry exposes every mage to demons in the Harrowing, any mage who has passed the Harrowing should be able to withstand a demon's lures (or else the Harrowing would be redundant surely?) and therefore learn blood magic from a demon safely.

[MisterJB]

DuskWarden wrote...
There are many different sources of blood magic though. You can learn it from a book or another blood mage and not once do you have to come close to a demon.

Anders states in DA2 that, in order to use blood magic, a mage has to look into the eyes of a demon and accept its offer. Maybe a book; like what happened with Connor; could teach a mage how to contact a demon but it would still involve a demonic deal.

Simply using blood as an additional source of power, and one that can be used even against Templar abilities, is no worse than using normal mana. If a blood mage reads a book on basic blood magic that allows him to do so, there is nothing wrong with that.

I can find a lot of wrong things with using magic that not even the templars can keep in check, mind you. It can easily lead to corruption, for one, dreams of grandeur, using slaves to fuel that blood magic, etc.

Things could become morally dubious when you consider that blood magic can be used to summon demons and control minds. But since a mage can do all sorts of far worse things anyway (create a firestorm, cause an earthquake, make you explode etc.), a bit of mind control kind of pales in comparison.

If a blood mage take control of the mind of an emperor, he can cause much more damage than an earthquake.

Also Anders summons a pair of shades (hunger or sloth demons) without a hint of blood magic. People who are all "but it lets you summon demons" well mages can do that anyway. The blood magic aspect just lets you do so with blood rather than mana.

Every other piece of lore tells us blood magic is required to summon demons. If Anders summons demons, then he has either learned blood mage in desperation to defend the Circle or Justice/Vengeance makes him the exception, not the rule.

Finally, I don't see why people have a problem with mages having to force a demon to make them learn blood magic. Seeing as the chantry exposes every mage to demons in the Harrowing, any mage who has passed the Harrowing should be able to withstand a demon's lures (or else the Harrowing would be redundant surely?) and therefore learn blood magic from a demon safely.

Blood magic and demons are never safe.

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 juillet 2012 - 08:54 .

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

All spirits are dangerous but demons are the most dangerous of them all and she is constantly asking for their help.

Anders makes it clear that the distinction between spirits and demons are Andrastian (religious). Andrastians see spirits as "the Children of the Maker," and demons as spirits who turned their back on the Maker in jealousy over mortals, with Anders making it clear that Andrastians think demons can be broken down into different sins. Merrill doesn't share his religious beliefs, so she doesn't believe in the Andrastian view of spirits and demons.

However, Merrill makes it clear that she sees all spirits as dangerous. As for "constantly," what do you mean? She learned blood magic from Audacity, and then sought him again several years later because she wasn't able to restore the Eluvian. I don't see how that means she is constantly dealing with the denizens of the Fade.

MisterJB wrote...

But you would blame the Circle for Isolde's actions.

You can't really compare the two. I think the Chantry of Andraste can be blamed for teaching hatred, distrust, and fear towards mages for nearly a millennia, which has lead to Andrastians murdering mages for natural disasters. They teach Andrastians that mages are "cursed." In contrast, Marethari made a choice because Merrill studied lore and extrapolated information from the shard, refusing to capitulate to Marethari's demands and leaving the clan of her own volition.

MisterJB wrote...

By consorting with demons.

With Audacity, who was imprisoned in a totem by ancient magic. Merrill makes it clear to an aggressive Hawke that she had no intention of releasing Audacity. Marethari releasing Audacity makes it apparent that the only one who fell prey to a demon was the Keeper.

MisterJB wrote...

What is wrong is that she consorted with demons to do that.

Where is Merrill supposed to get money to pay for smuggled lyrium? Who is she supposed to contact to get lyrium? I think you're making incredulous demands here. I don't see the problem in Merrill gaining knowledge from an imprisoned demon who can't escape without a mage intentionally letting it loose.

MisterJB wrote...

Blood Magic may not be inherently evil but those who can teach it to mages (demons) are.

Mages can learn blood magic from books and other mages. It isn't strictly limited to demons.

Also, Merrill explicitly says that all spirits are dangerous.

[Fallstar]

MisterJB wrote...
Anders states in DA2 that, in order to use blood magic, a mage has to look into the eyes of a demon and accept its offer. Maybe a book; like what happened with Connor; could teach a mage how to contact a demon but it would still involve a demonic deal.

Which is a product of Anders' limited understanding. He is heavily against blood magic in DA2 (unlike Awakening where he will actually acknowledge being a blood mage if you make him one, with a chuckle) and has nothing to do with it. Meaning he is hardly an expert on such matters. 

I can find a lot of wrong things with using magic that not even the templars can keep in check, mind you. It can easily lead to corruption, for one, dreams of grandeur, using slaves to fuel that blood magic, etc.

Sure it can lead to that. That doesn't mean it will lead to that however. There's also all the positive benefits of blood magic that are conveniently ignored. It'd sure help healing if you had a blood mage around to control the flow of blood in the victim and prevent them from bleeding to death/internally haemorrhaging. 

Also everything has a bad side. The mages don't turn on the Templars to get Lyrium, or attack dwarven traders and steal it from them. If they don't do that, why would they commit the far more heinous crimes of slavery and murder? Talking about the average mage now, not in Tevinter where there is a culture of slavery.

If a blood mage take control of the mind of an emperor, he can cause much more damage than an earthquake.

Sure he could make that Emperor declare war or start executing his subjects. Equally some men with swords could take said Emperor's family hostage and coerce him into doing the same. Or the Emperor could become mentally ill and do it of his own accord. Lots of terrible things could happen with the power an emperor wields. Blood magic is a possibility for sure, but are you going to ban swords, or demand the emperor step down from power if he shows signs of mental deterioration? That'd set a very dangerous precedent for policy regarding mental health in such a powerful empire. You can't base your conclusions on things with such a slim possibility.

Hell, apparently there were near a hundred blood mages in the vicinity of Viscout Dumar but not one of them tried to take over his mind.

Every other piece of lore tells us blood magic is required to summon demons. If Anders summons demons, then he has either learned blood mage in desperation to defend the Circle or Justice/Vengeance makes him the exception, not the rule.

Which pieces of lore say you can't summon a demon with normal magic? I must have missed those. I definitely read codex entries about summoning demons with blood magic, but not one mentioned that blood magic was the only way of doing so.

Finally, I don't see why people have a problem with mages having to force a demon to make them learn blood magic. Seeing as the chantry exposes every mage to demons in the Harrowing, any mage who has passed the Harrowing should be able to withstand a demon's lures (or else the Harrowing would be redundant surely?) and therefore learn blood magic from a demon safely.

Blood magic and demons are never safe.

Then why are mages put through the Harrowing? If you cannot stand the lures of a demon even after passing it then it is irrelevant and has no purpose, other than the Templars' amusement?

Finally I would like to say that while blood magic and demons may not always be safe, they can be mastered by a strong enough mage. 

The Scrolls of Banastor, though not exactly the place to look for moral guidance, detail that in order to learn the mind control aspect of blood magic, you have to summon a demon into yourself and remain in control. In other words, any time someone who isn't an abomination uses a mind control spell, that person has bested a demon in a battle of wills. Which means that demons can be defeated, seeing as both the Warden and Hawke can learn that spell, and certainly aren't abominations. Whilst they are dangerous, for a strong enough mage blood magic and demons are safe to use.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:29 .

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Anders makes it clear that the distinction between spirits and demons are Andrastian (religious). Andrastians see spirits as "the Children of the Maker," and demons as spirits who turned their back on the Maker in jealousy over mortals, with Anders making it clear that Andrastians think demons can be broken down into different sins. Merrill doesn't share his religious beliefs, so she doesn't believe in the Andrastian view of spirits and demons.

Yes, Pride Demons can be insidious, no doubt. I'm sure Audacity was very nice and helpful.
The templars have broken down spirits into different beliefs after careful observation and study of their behavior. It's an academic study, not a superstitious belief in a Maker/Creators.
The dalish should give it more credit.

However, Merrill makes it clear that she sees all spirits as dangerous. As for "constantly," what do you mean? She learned blood magic from Audacity, and then sought him again several years later because she wasn't able to restore the Eluvian. I don't see how that means she is constantly dealing with the denizens of the Fade.

I remember Merril summoning a demon to break the seal on Sundermount when you first meet her. I can't tell for sure the frequence she deals with demons but it was more than twice.

You can't really compare the two. I think the Chantry of Andraste can be blamed for teaching hatred, distrust, and fear towards mages for nearly a millennia, which has lead to Andrastians murdering mages for natural disasters. They teach Andrastians that mages are "cursed." In contrast, Marethari made a choice because Merrill studied lore and extrapolated information from the shard, refusing to capitulate to Marethari's demands and leaving the clan of her own volition.

Mages have done their fair share to earn that distrust and fear. For instance, Merril and her demonic deals.
Isolde feared losing her son to the Circle. Marethari feared losing her daugther to a demon.
Were the Circle more welcoming, maybe Connor would have never summoned a demon. And had Merril never listened to Audacity, Marethari wouldn't have been possessed.  

With Audacity, who was imprisoned in a totem by ancient magic. Merrill makes it clear to an aggressive Hawke that she had no intention of releasing Audacity. Marethari releasing Audacity makes it apparent that the only one who fell prey to a demon was the Keeper.

Merril was being fooled and would let the demon out through the Eluvian, intentionally or not.

Where is Merrill supposed to get money to pay for smuggled lyrium? Who is she supposed to contact to get lyrium? I think you're making incredulous demands here.

I think any solution, harder though may be, it's infinitelly preferable to making a deal with a demon.

I don't see the problem in Merrill gaining knowledge from an imprisoned demon who can't escape without a mage intentionally letting it loose.

Audacity was going to use the Eluvian to escape. I'm sure Merril only had good intentions and took many precaution. It still backfired horribly.

Mages can learn blood magic from books and other mages. It isn't strictly limited to demons.

Allow me to repeat my answer to Dusk:
"Anders states in DA2 that, in order to use blood magic, a mage has to look into the eyes of a demon and accept its offer. Maybe a book; like what happened with Connor; could teach a mage how to contact a demon but it would still involve a demonic deal."
And blood magic can easily corrupt the user, regardless of demons.

Also, Merrill explicitly says that all spirits are dangerous.

Not all spirits will lie to you at every turn. Demons will.