731 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

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.

I was not talking specifically about blood magic. And I can't comment its description in World of Thedas, because I don't have the book so I don't know how it descripes it. And not to offend you, but I don't trust anyone on BSN to give an unbiased quote off it.

I shall be quite clear on my own bias. I think that there is too much non-game work and I am worried about how this will drag enjoyment out of the games. I am ambivalent on the book of the world of Thedas, because one of the thing I enjoyed in this setting were the unreliable narrators of the lore.

But let us take the example of blood magic:

I disagree, the discussion does goes out to about blood magic being inherently bad or not. The game is unclear wherever it comes from demons or not (as the source claiming it comes from demons are not really reliable and we have in game examples of it not coming from demons). There are people taking this source as face value, however, and believing that blood magic is inherently evil. There are also people claiming it is inherently evil simply because it demands blood sacrifice and they think that those sacrifice are, again, inherently evil.

The game too twist this subject in their games by showing good natures people such as Merill, and more ambigious morally natured people like Jowan using blood. Jowan causes far, far more damage with mudane methods than blood magic and I am in the camp who fully believes that Marathari is to blame for what happened to her. But iin both cases the game doesn't say what we shall think. It is left for our interpretation.

I am not saying that the aspect of the discussion you point out doesn't exists, because it doesn. But so does the good/bad thing and the game has not taken a clear, undeniable stance on the matter. You do not regonize that wherever people thinks the sacrifice is worth it or not, might affect their view of blood magic of good and bad.

I don't know what the book does say and frankly I don't care. What I think it should say however is how blood magic work and how it is different from none blood magic. All moral interpretation (or interpretation in general) should be left out. If the writers want to gets a certain message through they should do so in the game. The very fact that we have a different opinion on how blood magic is supposed to be understood (and we both represent a reasonable size of bsn, the vocal fan group) means that they have failed to make a clear message of the moral of blood magic.

Either they must remedy this in the game. Or they most let it stand, because they never intended the answer to be clear-cut. Eitherway it is not something that should be discuss in a book which follows different rules than the games and is to be taken as gospel truth. (I don't know if the book have unreliable authours or not. I am arguing the principle here of writers not making their messages clear in the work, and instead makes it clear in words of god.)

Modifié par esper, 06 mai 2013 - 08:33 .

[Sir JK]

Fair enough Esper. I largely agree with your post.And not trusting anyone to provide unbiased quotes is a very sensible approach, I feel.

As for the book itself, much lore is provided in the same approach as the codex. With in-setting sources. The examples of good uses of blood magic is from such a entry for instance. And yes, I do expect/hope that the same information will be made available to us ingame when required. That one of the in-setting entries in the book has figured in a game does suggest that it's not a fools hope.

I was mostly arguing against the notion that lore is added/changed to fit a certain perception which is what I interpreted Polaris message to be (and if I misinterpreted I apologize). Which is what I disagreed with.

I certainly hope that Dragon Age retains it's magnificent ambiguity. It's perhaps what draws me the most into the setting.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Eleinehmm wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Re: blood magic and violence:

The World of Thedas book specifically says:

"The more violent the pain or death used in blood magic, the more powerful a spell becomes" page 109. Next to the picture with an elf holding a decapitated head.

So a mage that only cuts his own palm with a knife will always be weaker than the mage who gouges out the heart of a terrified and unwilling slave with a dull fork.

Thank you.

Yes, but my def. is from the book too. We don't know if we can make Joining more potent with ****load of blood, so this argument is irrelevant. It still fits the appendix defenition in the book  => Blood magic

It fits part of the description, and that merely being that blood is involved. However, since we can clearly see that the Joinning can be achieved with Lyrium and Dakrspawn blood alone, and thus is not exclusive to blood magic, then it is not Blood Magic persay. If the Joinning was somehow powered by the suffering of the imbider, then logically no one would ever die from it, since their suffering would empower the spell, increasing the likelihood of the imbider's survival.
Simply put if the spell is not powered by blood, and can be cast with Lyrium instead of blood, then it isn't Blood Magic.

[Dave of Canada]

I'd think outside sources would be more accurate in terms of ambiguity, World of Thedas introduces the good and bad aspects of blood magic without trying to come to any conclusion about it. The games have to ultimately approach a conclusion, the games are fairly linear and can't throw all their eggs in one basket as the player molds the approach.

Hell, look at Dragon Age 2's finale. They hamfisted everything. Templar committed crimes? Mage commit double crimes! Oh ****, we need to fix that. Templar, commit double crimes! Mages, triple your crimes now!

I understand that's kinda the point of escalation but it goes to the point that you can't see the characters as people, I laughed the first time I saw the "Tranquil Solution" because I knew it would only get hamfistingly worse from there.

I'm just worried Dragon Age 3 might do the opposite and make everyone appear delicate and ignoring legitimate grievances or side with one faction so blatenly to disregard the other (for example: turning Templar into ME3 Cerberus).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 mai 2013 - 09:05 .

[esper]

Sir JK wrote...

Fair enough Esper. I largely agree with your post.And not trusting anyone to provide unbiased quotes is a very sensible approach, I feel.

As for the book itself, much lore is provided in the same approach as the codex. With in-setting sources. The examples of good uses of blood magic is from such a entry for instance. And yes, I do expect/hope that the same information will be made available to us ingame when required. That one of the in-setting entries in the book has figured in a game does suggest that it's not a fools hope.

I was mostly arguing against the notion that lore is added/changed to fit a certain perception which is what I interpreted Polaris message to be (and if I misinterpreted I apologize). Which is what I disagreed with.

I certainly hope that Dragon Age retains it's magnificent ambiguity. It's perhaps what draws me the most into the setting.

I can certainly understand the frustation with the fans that doesn't accept that changes to the lore can happen simply because not all lore (espically in dragon age) are 100 facts, espically when seen through the eyes on unreliable characters.

I am not sure that is what Polaris meant, but bioware's writer does sometimes on these boards comes very close to the line of saying. 'No this is how things should be understood', instead of showing it in the games. It is understandable because they properly love their world and it is frustrating to see it being understood in a way that was not intented, but that just mean that the writing in the game must be upped.

Example. Leliana in da2. Lob made a thread accusing him of being anti-mage. Now Lob is very biased in this subject, but that doesn not change the fact that Gaiders commet was just wrong to write. There is a very good point in the argument that if you come into da2 wihtout having played da:o you are not going to know who Leliana is and all you see are an chantry spy/agent claiming that only mages are to blame (I don't remember her ever mentioning Meridith).

In some way I don't think it is bad writing. In fact untill Gaider entered the debate I simply suspected that Leliana came across that way because she was seen in the perspective of a potential pro-mage freedom character who didn't know her very well. I was fully expecting that we would get the full story later, and would she her true view being more nuanced than she was willing to discuss with a perfect stranger.

How ever then Gaider came in and (Sorry Gaider, I normally respect you a lot, but not here) and metaphorically stamped with his feet and crossed his arm and said. "Leliana is not anti-mage. Period!". Now it just becomes bad writing because from the persective of a very pro-mage Hawke (and the game begs you to take a stance on the pro-mage/pro-templar thin, so a very pro-mage Hawke will exist.). Leliana comes across as an chantry-agent that basically says 'Mages are to blame'. If she was not meant to come across like that to a pro-mage Hawke, then the writing failed.

I think all Gaider should have said was. 'Hold jugdement untill you hear the whole story' if he had to say something. In fact I think it was a discussing he should have stayed out of and just let the fans duke out between themself.

[Hazegurl]

esper wrote...

I think all Gaider should have said was. 'Hold jugdement untill you hear the whole story' if he had to say something. In fact I think it was a discussing he should have stayed out of and just let the fans duke out between themself.

I agree on a lot of what you said. Another aspect of this that comes to mind is the "Loghain betrays Calian" debate. I honestly see nothing in game that suggests that he was confused or just didn't know he was going to betray Calian until the last moment when the beacon was lit. The moment a player comes on bsn and says "Hey screw that Loghain guy for what he did" some Loghain supporter can just pull out Gaider's comment and proclaim him/herself the victor. I don't mind the author's input as I do find it refreshing to gain a little insight on why certain events happened or how certain characters tick, such as Fenris being written for the Male Hawke(although someone mentioned that they didn't like reading that as it broke immersion for them). But there are just some things that I would prefer a simple "Just wait and see" or "That's an interesting take on x's comment." or silence.

But I can't fault him for going off on Lob. lol!

[Dave of Canada]

Hazegurl wrote...

The moment a player comes on bsn and says "Hey screw that Loghain guy for what he did" some Loghain supporter can just pull out Gaider's comment and proclaim him/herself the victor.

Then an argument breaks out about how Gaider was wrong and threads are made to prove it.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 mai 2013 - 10:26 .

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

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.

Except blood magic can be used for purposes that aren't sinister. Grey Warden mages can use blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn - a monstrous race that threatens all sentient life on Thedas. It's the same reason The Warden from the Circle can use blood magic, and why the protagonist can encourage the unnamed female blood mage to use their blood magic abilities to help stop the Fifth Blight. Merrill uses blood magic to cleanse the shard, and to remove a barrier. Finn uses blood magic to locate the Eluvian hidden in the Dragonbone Wastes.

As for things like mind control, what if a blood mage used it against Vaughan? To protect the women from the Alienage from being raped by him and his cronies? Or other forms of blood magic like Alain, used it to help someone who fell victim to another blood mage who abused their abilities? Or like Malcolm Hawke, in trying to protect the world from a monster who threatened everyone if freed? It's not inherently evil because we see how it can be applied for good uses that aren't evil.

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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. 

Like the Warden-Commander from the Circle of Ferelden who can make Vigil's Keep a successful trading hub?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Solmanian wrote...

If a spell contains Lyrium, than it can't be blood magic. Lyrium is used for "conventional" spells, because it tapping into the fade. Observe the spell jowan/irving use to confront the demon that possessed connor: you can either drain a person dry, or use a ton of lyrium. Lyrium is the power source, not the blood; the blood is used to for it's connection to the darkspawn and archdemons. An unintiated, which is probably any non-mage, would probably have no way of diferentiating between a blood spell and a spell that merely uses blood.

Wasn't the spell that created darkspawn said to use both tons of slaves and tons of lyrium? So then spells can use both power sources.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yes, exactly like the Warden-Commander. If the Warden-Commander ever went rogue, and decided to gather more political power, there would be little mundanes could do to prevent him.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

If a spell contains Lyrium, than it can't be blood magic. Lyrium is used for "conventional" spells, because it tapping into the fade. Observe the spell jowan/irving use to confront the demon that possessed connor: you can either drain a person dry, or use a ton of lyrium. Lyrium is the power source, not the blood; the blood is used to for it's connection to the darkspawn and archdemons. An unintiated, which is probably any non-mage, would probably have no way of diferentiating between a blood spell and a spell that merely uses blood.

Wasn't the spell that created darkspawn said to use both tons of slaves and tons of lyrium? So then spells can use both power sources.

There is nothing that says a spell can't be powered by both. But if a spell can be powered by both, then it isn't truly blood magic, since blood needs to exclusively power the spell. So for a spell to belong to the blood magic school of spells, then only blood can power it. THe ritual the Tevinters used, obviously wasn't pure blood magic, however, since blood is a resource in more abbundance than Lyrium, I can see why they would use both. Or it could have beena  myriad of different spells, a mixture of blood magic and normal magic, all culminating in the Veil Being torn and the portal to the Black City opened.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes, exactly like the Warden-Commander. If the Warden-Commander ever went rogue, and decided to gather more political power, there would be little mundanes could do to prevent him.

The Hero of Ferelden from the Circle of Ferelden can gain more political power. He can receive the teyrnir of Gwaren as the new Teyrn, since Loghain lost the title and land when he was defeated at the Landsmeet, and/or the Hero can become the new Arl of Amaranthine, governing an entire city, an army, making rulings in court, and leading the entire nation of Grey Wardens.

There's also the power of being the national hero who stopped the Fifth Blight, and using your royal boon to ask for your people to be given their independence. I imagine that would have grabbed the attention of every mage from the farthest corners of the world.

However, mage or non-mage, anyone with power can be dangerous. We see the example of Arl Howe and Bann Vaughan illustrate that point. We can also see from the invasions and occupations of the kingdom of the Dales, Nevarra, Kirkwall, and Ferelden by the Orlesian Empire.

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

As for things like mind control, what if a blood mage used it against Vaughan?

Hahaha.

[Hazegurl]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes, exactly like the Warden-Commander. If the Warden-Commander ever went rogue, and decided to gather more political power, there would be little mundanes could do to prevent him.

Pretty much. I have a female mage Warden who asked for a title and land and I'm sure some riches come with that, she's sexing up King Alistair, became warden commander, and destoryed Amarathine thus strengthening Vigil's Keep. Not to mention all the allies gathered during Origins and had all the nobles on her side at the landsmeet. On top of that she's a relative of my mage Hawke who sided with the Templars and became Viscount of Kirkwall.

Oh, what they can achieve if they ever teamed up.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

As for things like mind control, what if a blood mage used it against Vaughan? 

Hahaha. 

I think stopping Bann Vaughan would be a good thing, since he's a morally bankrupt person who should be stopped. The application seems to work on the darkspawn as well.

[Dave of Canada]

Don't argue that tranquility is mind-rape then.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes, exactly like the Warden-Commander. If the Warden-Commander ever went rogue, and decided to gather more political power, there would be little mundanes could do to prevent him.

At least the Warden-Commander tends to have to deal with people worse than he is. Though I see your point.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Wasn't the spell that created darkspawn said to use both tons of slaves and tons of lyrium? So then spells can use both power sources.

There is nothing that says a spell can't be powered by both. But if a spell can be powered by both, then it isn't truly blood magic, since blood needs to exclusively power the spell. So for a spell to belong to the blood magic school of spells, then only blood can power it. 

I haven't read the book; is this in it?

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Don't argue that tranquility is mind-rape then.

You don't seem to know who you're talking to with that comment.

Also, there's a significant difference between stopping a rapist from abducting women (with the example of Vaughan) or a horde of darkspawn who threaten innocent people through mind control via blood magic, and a process that would irrevocably remove the emotions and humanity from a person (prior to the revelation made in Asunder).

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You don't seem to know who you're talking to with that comment.

Xil makes the claim, you support it.

Also, there's a significant difference between stopping a rapist from abducting women (with the example of Vaughan) or a horde of darkspawn who threaten innocent people through mind control via blood magic, and a process that would irrevocably remove the emotions and humanity from a person (prior to the revelation made in Asunder).

Hahahahaha.

[Bleachrude]

*shrug*

It seems like the classic cerberus argument from ME. You can torture, maim and kill but as long as you justify it as "for the good of humanity" apparently it gives you a pass.

Personally, I find it a tad troubling since in real life, that's pretty much the argument FOR torture and many other atrocities.

[Silfren]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Don't argue that tranquility is mind-rape then.

It's not a term I've used--I call it psychic castration.  But I can see why it's called mind-rape, and I also see a clear difference between using mind control in a single, temporary instance to prevent an individual from causing harm to someone, and permanently stripping someone of their emotional capacity because they are considered too weak-willed.  The two situations are in no way morally equivalent at all.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mai 2013 - 12:45 .

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You don't seem to know who you're talking to with that comment.

Xil makes the claim, you support it.

Actually, I pointed out what I thought was Xil's intent in that thread. She and I have our disagreements; our opinion on Hawke, for example.

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, there's a significant difference between stopping a rapist from abducting women (with the example of Vaughan) or a horde of darkspawn who threaten innocent people through mind control via blood magic, and a process that would irrevocably remove the emotions and humanity from a person (prior to the revelation made in Asunder).

Hahahahaha. 

Well, Karl preferred death rather than living as a templar puppet, and Alrik used the Rite of Tranquility to rape mages, so I think there's a stark difference. We saw how inhuman Owain was when he decided to clean in the middle of an abomination outbreak.

As I said earlier, blood magic can be used for good, and I pointed out an example of how even mind control can be used for an altruistic purpose by stopping Vaughan or the darkspawn.

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Don't argue that tranquility is mind-rape then.

It's not a term I've used--I call it psychic castration.  But I can see why it's called mind-rape, and I also see a clear difference between using mind control in a single, temporary instance to prevent an individual from causing harm to someone, and permanently stripping someone of their emotional capacity because they are considered too weak-willed.  The two situations are in no way morally equivalent at all.

While I don't think they're equal, a mage could stop Vaughan in a lot of other non-lethal ways without using blood magic, but simply magic.
The only advantage of mind control would be if Vaughan couldn't remember what happened, so that he could stay hidden  and not expose himself to the noble's rage, but from what I understand, people know that they are controlled. With blood magic mind control a mage would simply have another way to stop Vaughan. He could've stopped him with other magics.