149 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

Should we deny the blood magic specialization to a mage PC? I heard this point raised on another forum and thought it was interesting. Although it does limit one aspect of player freedom, simply not giving a Mage PC the option to be a blood mage would solve a number of problems.

This basically boils down to three arguments:

1) Allowing the PC to use blood magic creates a discrepancy with the setting's established lore. If you have a party member who aligns with the Chantry or at least holds a belief in the Maker, they should at least be hesitant about working with you. They might even be obligated to kill you. And that would hold true for many other NPCs. And yet, in both DAO and DA2, nobody really cares about the PC using blood magic.

2) Learning blood magic should actually be very difficult. Presuming you don't have access to a teacher, the only way to learn blood magic is through contact with a demon, which is how it was handled in DAO. But that also led to a lot of people basically cheating to get the specialization, just as they did with the reaver specialization.

3) It's difficult to model what a blood mage can actually do within the setting. According to lore, blood mages can view the dreams of others and tear open the Veil. A blood mage PC in DAO or DA2 can't do any of that, mostly because it would be totally game-breaking. And it goes further than that: if we're allowing mage PCs to use blood magic, then why don't we also allow them to tow around several slaves and slit their throats whenever the PC needs a power boost?

I want to stress that I'm not arguing blood magic can't be used at all by the PC as a plot point, like when you have Jowan send either the PC or a party member into the Fade using blood magic, or when you have Gascard use blood magic to find Leandra. That's fine.

"Well, maybe Bioware should do more to accomodate blood mages." Well, maybe. The problem with that is I myself don't really favour the mage class; I'm more of a melee person. So are a lot of people. I'm not really keen on the idea of spending a lot of resources to represent a specialization I'm likely to never use.

I'm just saying, there are other specializations that people want to see which don't clash with the setting over much. Shapeshifter, for instance, or Arcane Warrior.

Note: This is not a morality debate. I am not making an argument about the ethics of blood magic. This is not about whether it is is right or wrong for the Chantry to outlaw blood magic. This is strictly a gameplay question.

[Herr Uhl]

Blood magic is an iconic ability for DA. Removing that option for mages would be about as likely as removing Templar for warriors.

[Ziggeh]

thats1evildude wrote...
1) Allowing the PC to use blood magic creates a discrepancy with the setting's established lore. If you have a party member who aligns with the Chantry or at least holds a belief in the Maker, they should at least be hesitant about working with you. They might even be obligated to kill you. And that would hold true for many other NPCs. And yet, in both DAO and DA2, nobody really cares about the PC using blood magic.

I don't think combat is ever going to align with narrative. Even ignoring setting specific things like the Templars selective amnesia around apostates, you have classic RPG issues, like being told to hurry, only to turn round and rifle through the pockets of random dead bandits. I'm of the opinion that in the battle between lore and fun, lore can stick it, I'll deal with the dissonance, I'm really good at that.

thats1evildude wrote...
2) Learning blood magic should actually be very difficult. Presuming you don't have access to a teacher, the only way to learn blood magic is through contact with a demon, which is how it was handled in DAO. But that also led to a lot of people basically cheating to get the specialization, just as they did with the reaver specialization.

I'm not so sure. in DA2 pretty much every mage has blood magic up their loose sleeve. You back them into the corner and the claret is coming out. Maybe they all taught each other.

thats1evildude wrote...
3) It's difficult to model what a blood mage can actually do within the setting. According to lore, blood mages can view the dreams of others, control their minds and tear open the Veil. A blood mage PC in DAO or DA2 can't do any of that, mostly because it would be totally game-breaking. And it goes further than that: if we're allowing mage PCs to use blood magic, then why don't we also allow them to tow around several slaves and slit their throats whenever the PC needs a power boost?

Can't recall DA:O, but Blood Slave in DA2 lets you control a dude and pop him.

[Tootles FTW]

It seems inherently counterintuitive to our role as an Inquisitor to be using condemed magic (what with it's ties to the Chantry)...but perhaps the Inquisition is like the X-Force of Dragon Age and they allow illicit magic and likewise morally dubious tactics to justify their ends?  That would be interesting, especially if your use is acknowledged in-game.

Personally, I bleed enough each month.  I don't need to prolong it by having my mage use blood magic. 

[thats1evildude]

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm not so sure. in DA2 pretty much every mage has blood magic up their loose sleeve. You back them into the corner and the claret is coming out. Maybe they all taught each other.

Well, Kirkwall was something of a special circumstance because of how the Veil was deliberately thinned by the Tevinters. Thus it was far easier for mages to come into contact with demons.

Ziggeh wrote...

Can't recall DA:O, but Blood Slave in DA2 lets you control a dude and pop him.

Sorry, I meant "outside of combat." I can see that phrase will be problematic and so I've deleted it.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 08 juillet 2013 - 08:31 .

[Zetheria Tabris]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Aside from the obvious issue of combat (which I consider to be an abstraction of events more than actually representative), you could always argue that the PC is hiding their blood magic from the people who might object.

 

It should be similar to what Wynne did if you were a Blood Mage after completing the Circle quest. Being a blood mage should definitely be acknowledged, especially by party members who would be against it. Perhaps, if the Persuasion skill is brought back, players would be able to convince the companion no to leave because of their views, or get them to see it as useful.

[Eveangaline]

Tootles FTW wrote...

It seems inherently counterintuitive to our role as an Inquisitor to be using condemed magic (what with it's ties to the Chantry)

The templars also used blood magic, it was how the phylacteries worked. So it isn't as counterintuitive as one would think.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The devs said they were going to make specializations matter more. That seems like an acknowledgement that they've been dropping the ball on reactions to PC blood magic, and like they're inclined to make blood magic a bigger deal. (Or they might be planning on solving this problem by banning blood magic, though I'm predicting the former solution instead.)

[KiwiQuiche]

If any companions have a problem with my Blood Mage, they can yell it to her face so she can harvest their blood for their insolence.

Though I don't want a Chantry dog as the PC. I hate the Chantry and hope we can burn it down and kill the Divine.

[devSin]

Other than playing a blood mage Warden, the only two companions I could ever credibly give blood magic to were Morrigan and Anders.

I'd be fine if they removed it, but it doesn't bother me that much. I just don't ever use it, unless there's some roleplaying reason (come to think, though, I don't think I ever put even a single point into it for Morrigan or Anders, so maybe I only ever did use it for the blood mage Warden, who never made it very far anyway).

[Marvin_Arnold]

You could always justify Blood Magic in DA:O with "Grey Wardens do anything to stop the Blight".

I'm really not sure about a Chantry's Inquisitor™ gaining that ability.

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 08 juillet 2013 - 09:45 .

[DatOneFanboy]

wouldnt give 2 shts if it was, unfortunately we have a sensitive community thats going to complain about it,

[berelinde]

First of all, they've been very careful to say again and again that the protagonist of DAI will *not* have to be allied with the Chantry or believe in the Maker, so Argument 1 is already untrue for at least some protagonists.

Argument 2 is untrue because it is possible to learn blood magic without ever making a deal with a demon. Jowan learned from books. Anders asks Merrill if she learned through an accidental injury, which implies that it must be possible to do so.

That leaves argument 3: game mechanics. Game mechanics have always been a bit out of phase with lore (templars don't have to take lyrium to use their talents, etc.) so imposing strict adherence to lore over this while allowing exceptions elsewhere is questionable.

Personally, I don't care much either way. I never found the specialization all that useful. One of my Hawkes is a blood mage, but I never put a single point in the talent tree, so fat lot of good that did him. It wasn't as if I had any philosophical objections to roleplaying the specialization. I just found it to be more of a hassle than it was worth.

[Luiren]

berelinde wrote...
Personally, I don't care much either way. I never found the specialization all that useful. One of my Hawkes is a blood mage, but I never put a single point in the talent tree, so fat lot of good that did him. It wasn't as if I had any philosophical objections to roleplaying the specialization. I just found it to be more of a hassle than it was worth.

This.  I wouldn't mind if we didn't have Blood Magic. I'd prefer Shapeshifting anyway.

[PsychoBlonde]

 I tend to subscribe to the "if you're not going to do it WELL, don't do it AT ALL" ethos in this case, but I think the precedent of having blood magic available is just too strong at this point to take it out.  The problem as I see it is having the consequence-less blood mage PC running around just completely nullifies the whole "Mages Be Dangerous" concept.  Well, if my PC can run around being specialized in blood magic and never have any consequences for it, how can that possibly be true?

One thing I'd like to note is that this problem is NOT UNIQUE to Blood Mage--people who take the Templar specialization ought to have to consume lyrium regularly and gradually become addicted in order to use their abilities.  Do they?  No, of course not.  I really hate this type of "storytelling" because that's exactly what it is--they're TELLING us a story, not letting us EXPERIENCE the story.  The gameplay has no impact on anything it's just filler so we don't complete the game in 3 hours.  This is actually the primary reason why I hate the White Wolf RPG's--every system comes with a colossal, elaborate setting filled with all sorts of crazy extreme horror and then if you say "okay, where are the rules for doing that?" THEY DON'T EXIST.  Oh, a Solar once created a "garden" using hundreds of people as trapped exhibits?  WHERE IS THE SPELL TO DO THAT?!  There isn't one.  What level do you have to be to do that?  No indication.  Nothing.  It's not a system or a world, just a bunch of "cool-sounding" angsty drivel.

[thats1evildude]

berelinde wrote...

First of all, they've been very careful to say again and again that the protagonist of DAI will *not* have to be allied with the Chantry or believe in the Maker, so Argument 1 is already untrue for at least some protagonists.

But at some point you're going to come into contact with someone who is allied with the Chantry or believe in the Maker. For instance, like Cassandra or Cullen. So unless all those people are automatically your enemies, it strains belief that those people might still be willing to work with you.

berelinde wrote...

Personally, I don't care much either way. I never found the specialization all that useful. One of my Hawkes is a blood mage, but I never put a single point in the talent tree, so fat lot of good that did him. It wasn't as if I had any philosophical objections to roleplaying the specialization. I just found it to be more of a hassle than it was worth.

Well, that's the other side of it. As it is right now, blood mage isn't really all that strong of a specialization. It should be, but because they need to make the classes at least somehwat equal, it's not.

So considering it's a bit weak and it's a bit of a headache lore-wise, why don't we just leave that off the table for PCs to use?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 08 juillet 2013 - 10:34 .

[Maria Caliban]

thats1evildude wrote...

Should we deny the blood magic specialization to a mage PC?

I'd approve of it if they did.

Herr Uhl wrote...

Removing that option for mages would be about as likely as removing Templar for warriors.

Also something I'd get behind.

[DarthLaxian]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Blood magic is an iconic ability for DA. Removing that option for mages would be about as likely as removing Templar for warriors.

and that is GOOD

I would even go further: Give the Specializations more meaning and more abilities (!) and for christ sake, make bloodmagic more powerfull (it was a JOKE for both last titles IMHO - at least compared to what NPC-Mages were capable of doing with it)

as for invading dreams? - no, that's a talent a mage is born with, you can't learn it (that boy in DA...Fenriel i think his name was....had it and had to go to Tevinter to properly learn using his talent!)

greetings LAX

[thats1evildude]

DarthLaxian wrote...

as for invading dreams? - no, that's a talent a mage is born with, you can't learn it (that boy in DA...Fenriel i think his name was....had it and had to go to Tevinter to properly learn using his talent!)

No, viewing other people's dreams is also open to blood mages. That's how Avernus lured Levi Dryden to Warden's Keep: by influencing his dreams.

Dreamers like Feynriel can enter the Fade at will and actually kill people in their dreams.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 08 juillet 2013 - 10:39 .

[DarthLaxian]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

If any companions have a problem with my Blood Mage, they can yell it to her face so she can harvest their blood for their insolence.

Though I don't want a Chantry dog as the PC. I hate the Chantry and hope we can burn it down and kill the Divine.

may i join you when you got it burning (i will bring the BBQ-Stuff  ^^)

greetings LAX
ps: i am not the chantry's inquisitor - they do not own me...i work with them if it suits me - and if they think they can force their crap on my, they will all BURN

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 08 juillet 2013 - 10:39 .

[Magdalena11]

berelinde wrote...

First of all, they've been very careful to say again and again that the protagonist of DAI will *not* have to be allied with the Chantry or believe in the Maker, so Argument 1 is already untrue for at least some protagonists.

Argument 2 is untrue because it is possible to learn blood magic without ever making a deal with a demon. Jowan learned from books. Anders asks Merrill if she learned through an accidental injury, which implies that it must be possible to do so.

That leaves argument 3: game mechanics. Game mechanics have always been a bit out of phase with lore (templars don't have to take lyrium to use their talents, etc.) so imposing strict adherence to lore over this while allowing exceptions elsewhere is questionable.

Personally, I don't care much either way. I never found the specialization all that useful. One of my Hawkes is a blood mage, but I never put a single point in the talent tree, so fat lot of good that did him. It wasn't as if I had any philosophical objections to roleplaying the specialization. I just found it to be more of a hassle than it was worth.

The above plus
Argument 1:  As Zetheria Tabris pointed out, Wynne's got a heck of a lot to say if you 'fess up to blood magic.

Argument 3:  In both DAO and DA2, one of the blood mage talents was tapping into the health of a companion.  I've never felt comfortable doing this but I suppose if the companion was a tank with lots of spare hit points that weren't being used because the blood mage was wiping out the enemy already there's not a lot to lose, especially if you can heal them afterward.  It seems like a morally grey area a bit.

 I usually give my PCs the blood mage specialty because force mage in DA2 and arcane warrior in DAO don't really do much for me.

An area you didn't address was the possibility of demonic possession.  I believe that is one of the risks of turning to blood magic, as Merrill is told often enough.  I suppose this doesn't work well for a PC but that issue is never even thought about.

[berelinde]

thats1evildude wrote...

berelinde wrote...

First of all, they've been very careful to say again and again that the protagonist of DAI will *not* have to be allied with the Chantry or believe in the Maker, so Argument 1 is already untrue for at least some protagonists.

But at some point you're going to come into contact with someone who is allied with the Chantry or believe in the Maker. For instance, like Cassandra or Cullen. So unless all those people are automatically your enemies, it strains belief that those people might still be willing to work with you.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you expect rebel mage companions to support a templar protagonist? I wouldn't. It's quite possible that any protagonist who holds extreme views in any direction is going to meet opposition both in the party and in the game world.

We don't know how they're going to approach the topic of companions with conflicting agendas, but we do know that it's going to happen. Perhaps some companions, quests, or outcomes will only be available for specific builds? That isn't a "con". It adds replayability!

[DarthLaxian]

not if you do not use certain abilities/specializations

greetings LAX