348 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

DPSSOC wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

But that can only take you so far, and by the time you reach that limit what's borrowing a little blood from a willing volunteer, then a little more, and a little more, then what's a life from a willing volunteer to go even further.  Alternatively remarkably few people put their well being as lower than others, so if you're willing to harm yourself for power odds are you're not going to have many qualms harming others.  It's like I say to coworkers, I'm not concerned with my own health and safety what makes you think I care about yours.

Okay, but that's not the same as the initial steps being bad. The fact that a mage might waste the life of a willing volunteer doesn't mean it was wrong to use the blood of another. The first act might be a worthwhile thing. And just because you later used others to spare yourself pain doesn't mean it was wrong to use your own blood previously.

And that's the slope.  Blood magic is about power, either the power to do more than you can without assistance or even with lyrium or the power to perform feats you just can't otherwise (mind control).  There are no shortage of excuses to need more power and as you go further down this particular path to power it becomes easy to justify what you have to do to acquire it.

Ultimately blood magic requires people to suffer to fuel it, and it has never been hard for people to justify others suffering for our benefit.

What you're saying is that because of the risk of rationalizing immoral uses of blood magic, its wrong to use the legitimately benign ones? I would agree if there was innate corruption whereby blood magic caused you to want the extra power you can get from being depraved. As it is, the mage can decide that he has as much power as he needs after causing himself to suffer, unless either circumstances dictate that he doesn't, or the mage is a brutal, non-pragmatic slimeball. I'll even admit that there's some risk of him becoming one due to slipping deeper into dark magic, but the fact remains that the initial stages can still be benign, and the later ones don't have to happen merely because the initial ones do.

Obrusnine wrote...

Even regulated blood magic regularly turns out poorly.

Just look at Soldier's Peak.

Either way considering magic is so powerful and there are so many other avenues of magic to pursue, the average mage wouldn't need to experience the dangers associated with using blood magic. It's pointless risk. And meanwhile, using blood magic in a moment of desperation usually ends up with the mage being possessed. 

Blood Magic is an unnecessary risk that puts others in harms way and is usually used due to selfishness. The Chantry may be wrong about a lot of things, but their practices against the use of Blood Magic is definitely one I support. When Mage's already have so much power granted to them, there's no real point to taking the risk of consorting with demon's or causing suffering merely for a moment of power. 

Mage's that would even resort to Blood Magic aren't usually the sort that actually have the humility or respect to wield it.

Are we talking about Blood Magic, or demonic magic? Using demonic magic always seems to backfire. But Blood Magic without demons seems to go reasonably well most of the time.

Summoning demons always seems to turn out poorly. But we've never heard of the creation of phylacteries backfiring, Caladrius and the NPC blood mages who don't use demons don't seem to get possessed, and the Joining is useful enough (and fails safely enough, though worse backfirings would be paid for by the need for this ritual) to be justified.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 29 août 2013 - 07:31 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Blood magic is a corrupting thing. Not in the Saurons ring kinda way, but in a more realistic one - ultimate temptation, countless opportunities for abuse.

Sooner or later, one will succumb. Just like no one can resist torture forever and at some point will break, no one can resist temptation forever.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I saw on a travel show my mother watches that there's fruit stands in rural Europe that work on the honor system. You take the fruit and pay for it, with nobody watching and no real consequences if you don't play fair. More personally, I remember a book stand at my elementary school that worked like that. If it was impossible for humans as a species to resist temptation over the long haul, that business model would fail if the stand had any significant number of repeat customers. Maybe the farmer/school wouldn't lose out the first time the would-be thief passes, maybe not the second, or even the tenth, but eventually that farmer/school would start losing money and in a worst case scenario whatever percentage of the crop/books he/they did that with.

For an in-game rebuttal, see Malcolm Hawke. He used blood magic when ordered to. And then, to the best of everything we know, he never opened himself up again.

Edit: Maybe none of these captures the typical person. But your argument is that its not humanly possible. There is good reason to suspect otherwise.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 29 août 2013 - 07:21 .

[elfdwarf]

disagree on that

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Blood magic is a corrupting thing. Not in the Saurons ring kinda way, but in a more realistic one - ultimate temptation, countless opportunities for abuse.

Sooner or later, one will succumb. Just like no one can resist torture forever and at some point will break, no one can resist temptation forever.

I and sensible people have written countless comments about this matter in this thread, but Blood Mages gotta bleed.

[DPSSOC]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What you're saying is that because of the risk of rationalizing immoral uses of blood magic, its wrong to use the legitimately benign ones?

 
I'm saying that Blood Magic, viewing it as just a tool, can have a moral value.  Blood Magic causes unnecessary harm to accomplish what it does, and it encourages, by its nature, the causing of even greater harm (more harm done = more power).  It can still be used for good purposes but that doesn't change that fact it is, in my opinion anyway, an evil tool.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
For an in-game rebuttal, see Malcolm Hawke. He used blood magic when ordered to. And then, to the best of everything we know, he never opened himself up again.

Edit: Maybe none of these captures the typical person. But your argument is that its not humanly possible. There is good reason to suspect otherwise.

WE knoe too little of Malcom Hawke.

But you are right - my argument is that it is not humanly possible.

Uncorraptable pure pureness exists only in fairytales.

Name one person you would trust with mind control powers and you are confident would never abuse them.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Tenzin Gyatso. I think John Paul II would have qualified too, if you'd asked before he died.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 29 août 2013 - 05:47 .

[BlueMagitek]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

You can say with absolute certainty that it is not a matter of the amount of blood?

That you're limited in potential due to only using your own blood is part of the responsibility question. That you can gain more by using the power irresponsibly is not a suitable excuse for doing so.

As a side note, that the phylacteries were borderline blood magic was pretty obvious already in Origins.

I believe the information is located in the World of Thedas.  So yes. ~_^

Yes, but couldn't you just save more people if you just cut up that lame slave- - I mean, commoner?  I mean, it's just this once.  You can stop the hurricane coming this way if you just sacrifice that one person for your magic.  It would be an injustice of you not to!

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

You can say with absolute certainty that it is not a matter of the amount of blood?

That you're limited in potential due to only using your own blood is part of the responsibility question. That you can gain more by using the power irresponsibly is not a suitable excuse for doing so.

As a side note, that the phylacteries were borderline blood magic was pretty obvious already in Origins.

I believe the information is located in the World of Thedas.  So yes. ~_^

Yes, but couldn't you just save more people if you just cut up that lame slave- - I mean, commoner?  I mean, it's just this once.  You can stop the hurricane coming this way if you just sacrifice that one person for your magic.  It would be an injustice of you not to!

Notwithstanding that I'm sure that's sarcasm, you're arguably right. If its a do or die situation in which you save many lives by killing someone, then the math works. I'm not saying that it's fair; it's not. But I am saying that the alternative is less fair.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Blood magic is much the same in my eyes because even in a best case scenario where you use your own blood without intent to hurt anyone you've done unnecessary harm to pull it off.

''Unnecessary''? - depends on the effectivity of the method.

And to answer the OP's question - no, magic can't be evil, no inanimate thing or power can be inherently evil.
The person using this kind of magic can decided to either use it to do good things or bad things which makes him either evil or benevolent.

Same with a gun, its just a piece of steel sitting there doing nothing. Its not alive and therefore it can't be evil, it does not have its own will.  Nothing evil nor good  happens until someone picks it up.  You might say it was designed to do evil things but thats not true, the person who picks it up can use it to defend someone who is being attacked or he can be the attacker. 

Modifié par The Woldan , 30 août 2013 - 01:32 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The Woldan wrote...

And to answer the OP's question - no, magic can't be evil, no inanimate thing or power can be inherently evil.
The person using this kind of magic can decided to either use it to do good things or bad things which makes him either evil or benevolent.

Notwithstanding that you've summed up my opinion on blood magic very well, that's not true in all settings. There are magics in D&D that are explicitly corrupting and put the caster's soul at hazard by decreasing the good in his heart. This can just be a spell that shifts the character's alignment, but there are also entire classes that jeopardize (or flat-out damn, in the case of a warlock) a character's soul. Furthermore, it seems that necromancy in the Elder Scrolls falls into this, judging by one of the side-books found in Oblivion. The Chantry argues that blood magic does this too, though as I've already pointed out we have from the devs that they're wrong. 

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 août 2013 - 02:52 .

[Giant ambush beetle]

But when the magic user is aware of that this kind of power will drain his soul and leave only an empty corrupted vessel full of hatred and malevolence he already is evil because he accepts side effects that my cause harm to his friends and fellow men. (If he doesn't know that he should have informed himself, stupid people are dangerous and are the ones to blame, not the tools they used to inflict damage)
This kind of magic is not evil, it simply has unhealthy effects on the user which may result in injury and death of innocents. 

 

Modifié par The Woldan , 30 août 2013 - 01:55 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The Woldan wrote...

But when the magic user is aware of that this kind of power will drain his soul and leave only an empty corrupted vessel full of hatred and malevolence he already is evil because he accepts side effects that my cause harm to his friends and fellow men. (If he doesn't know that he should have informed himself, stupid people are dangerous and are the ones to blame, not the tools they used to inflict damage)
This kind of magic is not evil, it simply has unhealthy effects on the user which may result in injury and death of innocents.

That's a reasonable counterargument for TES, but in D&D that magic is considered to be you literally channeling evil. This can be a case of a wizard drawing on stuff that isn't sentient, but is still best left alone, in which case I can still see where you're coming from. Or it can be a case of making a deal with an evil being to gain unnatural power (fueled by this being) that you are expected to do evil with. You are still right that the casters who use this power would not take it if they were not evil, but it is still evil power in and of itself.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 août 2013 - 01:56 .

[Daerog]

Knowing blood magic is no evil.
One can do things that are considered good or mundane with blood magic.
However, the very first thing that one does with blood magic, unlike any of the other schools, is that it causes harm to someone.

So, does the end justify the means? I think that even if the end result is good, it doesn't excuse the means that were done.

The peace in Watchmen between the USSR and US was good. However, Ozymandias is still a mass murderer.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Or it can be a case of making a deal with an evil being to gain unnatural power that you are expected to do evil with

Thats my point exactly, only who can choose to be evil can be evil. The person receiving this power can decide to use it to do good things or to do bad things (or in case the power can only hurt others, not to use it). The power itself is not evil. It may have been given with an evil intention, the power however cannot decide to be evil or not and can never be evil even when it does things that people may consider to be ''bad''. The user has free will and thus is the only element here that can be truly evil.

[Taleroth]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

One can do things that are considered good or mundane with blood magic.

The first thing you can do with magic is self-harm for strong magic. You don't have to hurt other people. Ever. It requires harm only in the broadest of senses. Blood transfusions broadly fit into the same category as a stabbing, but that doesn't mean blood transfusions can't be used for good. You can hurt yourself, you can have volunteers (we call them donors today).

Primal magic and entropy themselves don't really have any use but hurting people.

Modifié par Taleroth, 30 août 2013 - 02:07 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Knowing blood magic is no evil.
One can do things that are considered good or mundane with blood magic.
However, the very first thing that one does with blood magic, unlike any of the other schools, is that it causes harm to someone.

So, does the end justify the means? I think that even if the end result is good, it doesn't excuse the means that were done.

The peace in Watchmen between the USSR and US was good. However, Ozymandias is still a mass murderer.

Notwithstanding that the alternative can be worse by enough to justify such things, it's moot if you pay that price yourself. If Ozymandias had given only his own life, he'd be a hero.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The Woldan wrote...

Or it can be a case of making a deal with an evil being to gain unnatural power that you are expected to do evil with

Thats my point exactly, only who can choose to be evil can be evil. The person receiving this power can decide to use it to do good things or to do bad things (or in case the power can only hurt others, not to use it). The power itself is not evil. It may have been given with an evil intention, the power however cannot decide to be evil or not and can never be evil even when it does things that people may consider to be ''bad''. The user has free will and thus is the only element here that can be truly evil.

Given that the magic and the being giving it are largely the same thing in D&D, (edit: well, divine magic anyway, arcane magic you gain for yourself in most cases) and the being can in most cases revoke it the second it sees a reason to, that's not entirely the case as concerns powers of this sort.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 août 2013 - 02:18 .

[Daerog]

Taleroth wrote...

{earlier quote changed}

Edit:

Purposefully and intentially causing harm to anyone, even one's self, is an evil. One can say that it is for a greater good to be done, fine, but one should really question if there are any other paths that can be done to not have to resort to doing an evil to accomplish a greater good.

Just my current opinion on the matter.

Edit: As for entropy and primal, ya it has the potential to have a harmful result, just like blood magic, but point was that primal and entropy don't cause harm to use, unlike blood magic.

Edit2: Donors, sure, just a knick and bleed and save the day. A minor evil for a greater good.

I'm not really condemning blood magic itself, just saying that magic can be done without causing others to bleed. If one does blood magic for an emergency to save a life, great, it was a call that was made for a greater good, but if it doesn't need to be commonplace and to just harm others or oneself just to levitate a horse for giggles.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 30 août 2013 - 02:21 .

[Taleroth]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

What? You don't think causing yourself to bleed is harmful? Yourself is still a someone, it still causes harm.

Purposefully and intentially causing harm to anyone, even one's self, is an evil.

You basically just said that giving blood or donating a kidney is evil. As well as any number of regular practices.

Rendering harm to someone who is capable of giving and has given consent for a particular good is not even remotely "evil." that's absurdly absolutist.

Modifié par Taleroth, 30 août 2013 - 02:18 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Taleroth wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

What? You don't think causing yourself to bleed is harmful? Yourself is still a someone, it still causes harm.

Purposefully and intentially causing harm to anyone, even one's self, is an evil.

You basically just said that giving blood or donating a kidney is evil.

And adding that kidney to someone else, since it requires slicing them open.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 août 2013 - 02:16 .

[Daerog]

Taleroth wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

What? You don't think causing yourself to bleed is harmful? Yourself is still a someone, it still causes harm.

Purposefully and intentially causing harm to anyone, even one's self, is an evil.

You basically just said that giving blood or donating a kidney is evil. As well as any number of regular practices.

Rendering harm to someone who is capable of giving and has given consent for a particular good is not even remotely "evil." that's absurdly absolutist.

The intention to save a life is entirely good. When one donates, the cutting people open part is pretty much dismissed because it is a greater good being done and no free will is being denied.

Pain and suffering can be done for good, but that doesn't make pain and suffering in themselves a good.

Absolutist? Well, probably for now, this is just my current thoughts, could change tomorrow. Although, it is illogical to think that there is no absolute truth.

Edit: It would be an even greater good if one didn't have to give blood or organs and still be able to save those lives that need it, but we don't seem to be there yet.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 30 août 2013 - 02:28 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Although, it is illogical to think that there is no absolute truth.

I don't think he said that. I think all he said was that you hadn't found it.

Edit: It would be an even greater good if one didn't have to give blood or organs and still be able to save those lives that need it, but we don't seem to be there yet.

Absolutely, but except insofar as we can get closer to that point, that good is currently moot. Edit: even when we get there, I don't think "evil" is how I'd describe anyone who continues to replace such things the old fashioned way. "Inefficient" or "behind the times" maybe, but not evil. (Unless, you know, they forcibly take the organs or blood.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 août 2013 - 02:34 .

[Daerog]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Although, it is illogical to think that there is no absolute truth.

I don't think he said that. I think all he said was that you hadn't found it.

Edit: It would be an even greater good if one didn't have to give blood or organs and still be able to save those lives that need it, but we don't seem to be there yet.

Absolutely, but except insofar as we can get closer to that point, that good is currently moot.

The first part was just a thought being thrown in, not saying the previous poster opposed that thought.

As for the second part, if the cutting people open and taking their organs and blood was good, then why bother developing new tech to avoid it if it is good? The donating is good, the saving a life is good, but doing bodily harm doesn't need to be a good just because it is necessary to accomplish the other tasks which can be viewed as more important than minor pain. Edit: So, we can always strive to do better.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 30 août 2013 - 02:40 .