731 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Good thing you're not writing the story, then.

Note my edit reminding you of how national governments are completely free to train however many templars they want for defense.

[MisterJB]

Ineffectual.

[LobselVith8]

Eleinehmm wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Niether the joinning nor Finn's Ritual is blood magic. They are both magical rituals including blood, but until you can prove that they are both powered by suffering and death, ie, the blood in the spell, then neither is blood magic. Some ignorants might view it as such, but that does not make it so technically.

Actually It is blood magic, as per older DG posts. I have been reading DA lore posts since before the game came out  and it was def. asked and answered by the devs.  The canon might have changed but I  see no indication it had.

Your def of blood magic is not the one that's used in the DA universe  [Blood magic -  The use of blood to power magic , p 177 The World of Thedas)].  Nothing about suffering and death.  Magic using blood instead of/together with lyrium= blood magic 

I think some people would prefer to vilify blood magic rather than acknowledge that it's not inherently evil. They act like the abuses of this specific school performed by the Magisters should condemn all blood magic. There are Grey Wardens and apostates (like Merrill) who haven't used it for malicious purposes.

[MisterJB]

"The more violent the pain or death used in blood magic, the more powerful a spell becomes." World of Thedas, pag 109.

So, yes, I'd say blood magic is inherently evil. It can be used for good, certainly, but that doesn't change the fact that it's magic powered by suffering. It's evil, people.

[Dave of Canada]

Dunno, torturing people sounds good.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 mai 2013 - 05:58 .

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

"The more violent the pain or death used in blood magic, the more powerful a spell becomes." World of Thedas, pag 109.

So, yes, I'd say blood magic is inherently evil. It can be used for good, certainly, but that doesn't change the fact that it's magic powered by suffering. It's evil, people.

Only if you assume that any and all suffering is inherently evil, which would make you a complete pacifist. In any case, it doesn't apply when said suffering is voluntary (not to mention that you can just steal blood from enemies).

And why is what I said ineffectual?

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

A decent point. The mages need to be able to wield enough force that attempting to take forcible control of any Circle would be too risky for any attempt. One idea is that it might involve some kind of agreement that if any Circle is threatened, any agreements that all Circles have with the nations they're housed in are null and void, or some similar arrangement to make other nations come down hard on any single one that breaks the agreement. But to know more, I'll need to see the third game. However, this may be a situation that justifies the presence of court mages who have a... specialized skillset, in case someone has too many ideas.

Mage assassins? So do not touch on pain of death? Leaving aside that dead relatives not tending to make people agreeable (usually they get angry and vengeful) it is also a very quick way to get involved into very messy politics. Besides, if your last resort is to kill political figure... you need a better supportbase.

Not to mention the unmitidgated disaster if anyone learned about this (and knowing courts and Crows... someone will, sooner rather than later). If there's one thing that above all would prove the Chantry right in people's eyes... it would be that.

As for agreements  with nations. Sure, that works. But why would Orlais care about the plight of mages in Antiva? What would the Orlesian mages have to promise Orlais to get them to care?

The Grand Enchanter and whomever leads the semi-templars, who would possibly be of basically equal status.

And if they disagree? Or worse yet, approve of it? To whom should I turn?

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Only if you assume that any and all suffering is inherently evil, which would make you a complete pacifist. In any case, it doesn't apply when said suffering is voluntary (not to mention that you can just steal blood from enemies).

I don't believe evil and good exist.
But my personal feelings are irrelevant, suffering is widely accepted as "evil" hence why any magic that thrives on pain will be of a rather sinister nature.

And why is what I said ineffectual?

The true danger of magic was never mage serial killers; which an increase in the number of templars could help deal with; but mage entrepreneurs, which it can't.

[Xilizhra]

Mage assassins? So do not touch on pain of death? Leaving aside that dead relatives not tending to make people agreeable (usually they get angry and vengeful) it is also a very quick way to get involved into very messy politics. Besides, if your last resort is to kill political figure... you need a better supportbase.

Actually, I meant blood magic-based nudges. Assassination is far too bloody. But this is only one possibility.

As for agreements with nations. Sure, that works. But why would Orlais care about the plight of mages in Antiva? What would the Orlesian mages have to promise Orlais to get them to care?

Because the Orlesian Grey Wardens, for instance, might be cut off from mage support, something that would hopefully get them to lean on Orlesian politicians to do something about that.

And if they disagree? Or worse yet, approve of it? To whom should I turn?

I'd need to know more about the specific situation.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, I meant blood magic-based nudges. Assassination is far too bloody. But this is only one possibility.

And you thought this would somehow make it better? 

I dare say that the outrage at mage assassins at every court will be rather mild compared to blood mages at every court.

Also...a  big danger is that this sort of system premiers the most ruthless mages. The ones willing to kill people around them to fuel their spells... and you just gave them armies.
Does not bode well if they overstep.

Because the Orlesian Grey Wardens, for instance, might be cut off from mage support, something that would hopefully get them to lean on Orlesian politicians to do something about that.

Ah... but couldn't the Grey Wardens do with Ander mages. And let's not forget that Nevarra and Rivain got alternatives in their Mortalitisi and Seers.

I'd need to know more about the specific situation.

Naturally. It's not an easy thing to discuss. But the principle idea remains. The legal system answers to the law. The clergy to their gods and the moral teachings of their religion. The military to their commander. Commanders to their duties. Lords to their vassals. Vassals to their lords.

To whom or what is the international circle beholden?

[Dave of Canada]

Mage assassins would simply cause people to get Templar guards and enforce anti-magic rules, blood mages in court would enforce everyone to hunt down and execute any mage seen in the vicinity of court. Best way to establish mage domination over the mundanes, I'd say.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 mai 2013 - 06:28 .

[BouncyFrag]

MisterJB wrote...

"The more violent the pain or death used in blood magic, the more powerful a spell becomes." World of Thedas, pag 109.

So, yes, I'd say blood magic is inherently evil. It can be used for good, certainly, but that doesn't change the fact that it's magic powered by suffering. It's evil, people.

That is pretty damning and a game changer in how we should look at mages who used blood magic such as Merrill, for example.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 06 mai 2013 - 07:27 .

[Senya]

I think that blood magic should be forbidden given its dangerous aspects. It is an inherently evil form of magic and the only exception to the rule [i]might]/i] be healing related, which still merits strict monitoring to prevent abuse. It might not even be necessary given the Creation school.

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Eleinehmm wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Niether the joinning nor Finn's Ritual is blood magic. They are both magical rituals including blood, but until you can prove that they are both powered by suffering and death, ie, the blood in the spell, then neither is blood magic. Some ignn=orants might view it as such, but that does not make it so technically.

Actually It is blood magic, as per older DG posts. I have been reading DA lore posts since before the game came out  and it was def. asked and answered by the devs.  The canon might have changed but I  see no indication it had.

Your def of blood magic is not the one that's used in the DA universe  [Blood magic -  The use of blood to power magic , p 177 The World of Thedas)].  Nothing about suffering and death.  Magic using blood instead of/together with lyrium= blood magic 

I think some people would prefer to vilify blood magic rather than acknowledge that it's not inherently evil. They act like the abuses of this specific school performed by the Magisters should condemn all blood magic. There are Grey Wardens and apostates (like Merrill) who haven't used it for malicious purposes.

It would seem that some that work for Bioware want to "win" or at least "change" the argument about magic and blood magic in particular, not by winning the argument with rhetoric, but by actually changing the lore.  Of course this has never happened before (sarc...see Right of Annulment).

-Polaris

[Hazegurl]

At least we pretty much know how the Tevinter became the cesspool of depravity it is (although I'm not too shocked). Maybe they began with good intentions toward blood magic, healing, cleansing, etc. Then any good reason could have been given to use it in other areas, then before they knew it, it was all about getting the upper hand, needing the magic to be stronger. "Oh they're just slaves, I'll use the blood of just one." "Oh crap, that noble over there got X position because he used two slaves." And it all goes downhill from there.

[Bleachrude]

re: Money
The circles seem to have the comforts of at least middling merchantmen. Even the Gallows the rooms were better than what you found in Lowtown and similarly, Kinloch hold looked better than the average house in Denerim...nowhere close to the nobles of course but certainly better than the average

The church wasn't paid taxes to in the medieval era...they were EXEMPT from taxes and could charge for resources nobles want (most of the clerking were done by members of the clergy - the printing press was a big blow financially to the church). The church was also the only source of social systems such as orphanages and schools and this was run by tithes to the church as well as whatever they were paid for services rendered.

In Thedas, the chantry seems to provide the same things but there's no indication that tithes are used. Instead, the chantry gets money from two main sources...the hold it has on the lyrium trade AND the money from selling enchanted items.

How exactly are the newly independent circles supposed to support themselves especially if the rite of tranquility is retired.

re: Independence for mages.
Unless they move out of Thedas, each circle is going to be located in a nation (and note that even in Tevinter, the circles STILL answer to the Archon) and those lords are definitely going to expect the mages to be answerable to them.

Remember Daveth? He was going to hang for thievery and this isn't unusual for the time as prison was mainly for political prisoners (aka people you could ransom back). If a mage committed an illegal act, be it as simple as stealing, the lord of the realm will quite rightly expect to be the one in charge of punishment. If a monarch goes to war, he or she will expect that any of her citizenry to answer to them which would include mages.

Right now, the chantry can tell any lord "take a hike" except fro the grey wardens and even here, the grey wardens try to step carefully around the chantry (by not conscripting too many mages at once).

Not so without the power of the chantry for these "independent" mages.

[Sir JK]

Bleachrude wrote...
The church wasn't paid taxes to in the medieval era...they were EXEMPT from taxes and could charge for resources nobles want (most of the clerking were done by members of the clergy - the printing press was a big blow financially to the church). The church was also the only source of social systems such as orphanages and schools and this was run by tithes to the church as well as whatever they were paid for services rendered.

Actually... at least around here... every person owed the church "tenth", which is to say a tenth of what you produced. In addition to this it was also a major landowner, which means it owns fiefs in the same sense that nobles do and had the right to demand tax from the people living the area.

So it became extremely rich.

I made an assumtion that the Chantry might have similar arrangements.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
The church wasn't paid taxes to in the medieval era...they were EXEMPT from taxes and could charge for resources nobles want (most of the clerking were done by members of the clergy - the printing press was a big blow financially to the church). The church was also the only source of social systems such as orphanages and schools and this was run by tithes to the church as well as whatever they were paid for services rendered.

Actually... at least around here... every person owed the church "tenth", which is to say a tenth of what you produced. In addition to this it was also a major landowner, which means it owns fiefs in the same sense that nobles do and had the right to demand tax from the people living the area.

So it became extremely rich.

I made an assumtion that the Chantry might have similar arrangements.

That is correct for almost all of Roman Catholic (Western) Europe.  The Roman Catholic Church was a law unto itself (literally) and Ecclessiastical Law was often above secular law in many places.  In some cases, the Church WAS secular law as well if the Archbishop was also the Feudal Lord.  In any event the Church could and did demand a 10% tithe (tax) over and above whatever the secular lords demanded.

This made settling in church lands popular since the overall tax rate was often much lower.

-Polaris

[esper]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Eleinehmm wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Niether the joinning nor Finn's Ritual is blood magic. They are both magical rituals including blood, but until you can prove that they are both powered by suffering and death, ie, the blood in the spell, then neither is blood magic. Some ignn=orants might view it as such, but that does not make it so technically.

Actually It is blood magic, as per older DG posts. I have been reading DA lore posts since before the game came out  and it was def. asked and answered by the devs.  The canon might have changed but I  see no indication it had.

Your def of blood magic is not the one that's used in the DA universe  [Blood magic -  The use of blood to power magic , p 177 The World of Thedas)].  Nothing about suffering and death.  Magic using blood instead of/together with lyrium= blood magic 

I think some people would prefer to vilify blood magic rather than acknowledge that it's not inherently evil. They act like the abuses of this specific school performed by the Magisters should condemn all blood magic. There are Grey Wardens and apostates (like Merrill) who haven't used it for malicious purposes.

It would seem that some that work for Bioware want to "win" or at least "change" the argument about magic and blood magic in particular, not by winning the argument with rhetoric, but by actually changing the lore.  Of course this has never happened before (sarc...see Right of Annulment).

-Polaris

And this is why I hate Word of God, when it comes to the interpretation, the creators should either be good enough to make the morals they want to make a hundred percent crystal clear by 'show don't tell' and since this can be difficult they should just shut up about the inner moral and other lessons in the story and let the fans discuss it amongst themself.

Bioware have the unfair position of being able to change the world at the drop of a hat after all.

[Sir JK]

Just a quick note: Just because we learn new things that forces us to alter our interpretation of the setting does not mean the writers change lore to alter our perceptions. It need not be a grand conspiracy. Maybe they just add stuff they thought was cool, maybe we were just wrong and it was always like that and maybe they added it to make the story better.
It need not be a grand conspiracy.

[esper]

Sir JK wrote...

Just a quick note: Just because we learn new things that forces us to alter our interpretation of the setting does not mean the writers change lore to alter our perceptions. It need not be a grand conspiracy. Maybe they just add stuff they thought was cool, maybe we were just wrong and it was always like that and maybe they added it to make the story better.
It need not be a grand conspiracy.

I never said that. When the skilled writers knows how to alter perception they managed to do so in their work. Bioware actually suceeded to do so with mages in da2 (I still personally think they took a cheap shot by making charicatures of people, but it doesn't change the fact that many players seemed to change their stance sorely on the content of da2).

It is in my opinion lasy writing to just take a subject that the writer now is widely discussed in their fandom as being a grey area and saying 'Oh yeah this is by the way totally black and white'. If they want to make it black and white they have to find a way to show it in the work it is relevant to and not making suppleant matieral saying: 'This is how you should think'.

[Bleachrude]

re: Chantry vs Catholic church
Then there's one big difference between the two then...it doesn't appear that in Thedas the chantry actually owns that much land. They certainly own the land upon which the chantry itself is located but there doesn't seem to be any indication in either Kirkwall or Ferelden that the chantry owns lands...indeed, in Ferelden at least, the chantry doesn't own any lands whatsoever since the chantry doesn't actually vote in the landsmeet (their denunciation carries weight but they don't actually get a vote)

So the chantry is getting its money from the trade with the dwarves, whatever anyone tithes to them, selling enchanted items and mundane clerking services.

Which beggars the question still...How are the mages going to support themselves especially given how nice the crcles were (again, you may think it is a prison but the actual environment was better than the average person).

You still have the issue of replacing one master with another...Weirdly, I think the only example of non blood mage punishment is Anders and the worse he suffered from escaping was being put in solitary (and it couldn't be THAT long in solitary since he was released back into the general quarters AT LEAST 7 times.

What happens to a mage that steals or uses non blood magic offensively against another?

[Sir JK]

esper wrote...

I never said that. When the skilled writers knows how to alter perception they managed to do so in their work. Bioware actually suceeded to do so with mages in da2 (I still personally think they took a cheap shot by making charicatures of people, but it doesn't change the fact that many players seemed to change their stance sorely on the content of da2).

It is in my opinion lasy writing to just take a subject that the writer now is widely discussed in their fandom as being a grey area and saying 'Oh yeah this is by the way totally black and white'. If they want to make it black and white they have to find a way to show it in the work it is relevant to and not making suppleant matieral saying: 'This is how you should think'.

I don't really think they were ever subtle about blood magic being bad. The grey area in it's use was not whether using it was morally questíonable or not, but whether it was worth the price it carried. In this, nothing is new. We've even seen as much in that Jowan must sacrefice someone to fuel his spell. Nothing else is enough.

Moreover, like Lobsel and Xil says... nothing says you have to kill, torture and maim unwilling victims to use blood magic. Just a quick slash in your palm is enough for most common use. And even when you can't, like Isolde shows us... the victim might very well be a volounteer.
So if the cause is good enough: Save a boy. Gain the power to kill archdemons. Capture ancient evils. Track sought after artifacts. The price might very well be worth it.

Nothing new in this. We've known this all long, even if the nuances were not fully understood. The only thing new here is that violence makes blood magic even more powerful. Something we could have suspected previously (since just slitting a palm is not enough for Jowan) even if it was never outright stated.

And finally... the section on blood magic in WoT also goes out to defend it's use. It mentions that Tevinter folklore frequently features heroes using blood magic to win the day (when all other options are exhausted). It also mentions mapping the fade. Defeating an entire Qunari armada by sacreficing yourself. And curing a loved one of a terminal illness (again by self-sacrefice).
Could those not, in certain perspectives, be seen as good things?

So the question is, as it always was, not whether blood magic is good or bad and safe or dangerous. But whether it's worth it or not.

To me, the answer has always been no. I don't think anyone should have that kind of power (but some of my characters might disagree). But it is a interesting question nonetheless.

[Dave of Canada]

Bleachrude wrote...
Which beggars the question still...How are the mages going to support themselves especially given how nice the crcles were (again, you may think it is a prison but the actual environment was better than the average person).

Option which might upset the Lucrosians: Access their wealth, they've been stocking up their money for generations now by trading with the outside world. Whether or not they'll accept to you using their money in a war that's unprofitable for them is another matter.

Option which might upset most mages: Make weaker mages into Tranquil to manufacture more enchantments and wares to sell.

[Eleinehmm]

Sir JK wrote...

esper wrote...

I never said that. When the skilled writers knows how to alter perception they managed to do so in their work. Bioware actually suceeded to do so with mages in da2 (I still personally think they took a cheap shot by making charicatures of people, but it doesn't change the fact that many players seemed to change their stance sorely on the content of da2).

It is in my opinion lasy writing to just take a subject that the writer now is widely discussed in their fandom as being a grey area and saying 'Oh yeah this is by the way totally black and white'. If they want to make it black and white they have to find a way to show it in the work it is relevant to and not making suppleant matieral saying: 'This is how you should think'.

I don't really think they were ever subtle about blood magic being bad. The grey area in it's use was not whether using it was morally questíonable or not, but whether it was worth the price it carried. In this, nothing is new. We've even seen as much in that Jowan must sacrefice someone to fuel his spell. Nothing else is enough.

Moreover, like Lobsel and Xil says... nothing says you have to kill, torture and maim unwilling victims to use blood magic. Just a quick slash in your palm is enough for most common use. And even when you can't, like Isolde shows us... the victim might very well be a volounteer.
So if the cause is good enough: Save a boy. Gain the power to kill archdemons. Capture ancient evils. Track sought after artifacts. The price might very well be worth it.

Nothing new in this. We've known this all long, even if the nuances were not fully understood. The only thing new here is that violence makes blood magic even more powerful. Something we could have suspected previously (since just slitting a palm is not enough for Jowan) even if it was never outright stated.

And finally... the section on blood magic in WoT also goes out to defend it's use. It mentions that Tevinter folklore frequently features heroes using blood magic to win the day (when all other options are exhausted). It also mentions mapping the fade. Defeating an entire Qunari armada by sacreficing yourself. And curing a loved one of a terminal illness (again by self-sacrefice).
Could those not, in certain perspectives, be seen as good things?

So the question is, as it always was, not whether blood magic is good or bad and safe or dangerous. But whether it's worth it or not.

To me, the answer has always been no. I don't think anyone should have that kind of power (but some of my characters might disagree). But it is a interesting question nonetheless.

A very good thoughtful post, thank you. I don't think I have anything to add here.