348 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

DA:O did a better job of separating the mage from the actual blood magic. In DA2 on the other hand it was portrayed it as more evil and gave the impression that any mage that delved in it would turn out bad.

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...

DA:O did a better job of separating the mage from the actual blood magic. In DA2 on the other hand it was portrayed it as more evil and gave the impression that any mage that delved in it would turn out bad.

How so? In DA:O all the blood mages were idiots. I suppose that's a step up from insane psycopath in DA2, but it isn't really separating the two out. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Merril wasn't bad. She was irresponsible, yes, but not a selfish or homicidal person.

[draken-heart]

Aaleel wrote...

DA:O did a better job of separating the mage from the actual blood magic. In DA2 on the other hand it was portrayed it as more evil and gave the impression that any mage that delved in it would turn out bad.

I thought it served to make the final, badly written plot more badly written.

[Aaleel]

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

DA:O did a better job of separating the mage from the actual blood magic. In DA2 on the other hand it was portrayed it as more evil and gave the impression that any mage that delved in it would turn out bad.

How so? In DA:O all the blood mages were idiots. I suppose that's a step up from insane psycopath in DA2, but it isn't really separating the two out. 

I mean like a blood mage (ex Jowan) would use blood magic as a tool but wasn't evil or crazy.  In DA2 pretty much every mage that used blood magic was portrayed as evil and in a lot of cases bat ball crazy (ex: The elf that killed his wife, Orsino, the one that tried to kill her kids, etc)

Modifié par Aaleel, 22 août 2013 - 11:17 .

[Quyk Sylvyr]

Part of the problem is that Bioware has always been evasive on exactly how blood magic works.  I've always been under the impression that it doesn't have to be learned from demons.  Rather, demons offer it as an incentive for trade because knoweldge of blood magic is hard to come by.

I've never seen it as inherintly evil.  I actually found it interesting that people suggested using a knife was more ethical than controlling someone.  What if it was someone you really didn't want to kill but they mistakenly believed that you were in the wrong?  Is it better to kill them or force them to walk away?

What if the situation with Conner had played out differently and there hadn't been enough time to go to the Circle of Magi in DA:O?  If the only two choices were to kill a child or use the death of a willing mother to save the child? 

If a mage is using their own blood, is it  "self-harm" or can it be characterized as "self-sacrifice" if done for the right reasons?

You can probably tell how I'd answer these questions, which is why I say it's not inherintly evil.  And as others have mentioned, keep in mind even the chantry uses blood magic for phylacteries. 

[Darnalak]

Eh, I've always had a different view on Bloodmagic. Generally anyone use it was a flaming coward (Jowan, The lamo First Enchanter of Kirkwall), so to me it was a tool of the weak. So Evil? Maybe, but it just seemed to be used to get one up on someone, which to me IS evil (or at least, well, pansy). Tevinter Imperium may or may not fall into the same category, I haven't read enough to know, but from the few encounters in DA2, yeah, they're either wimps or powermad too.  

I mean really, who needs more than a good handfull of fireballs to solve a problem?

Modifié par Darnalak, 22 août 2013 - 11:22 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Darnalak wrote...

Eh, I've always had a different view on Bloodmagic. Generally anyone use it was a flaming coward (Jowan, The lamo First Enchanter of Kirkwall), so to me it was a tool of the weak. So Evil? Maybe, but it just seemed to be used to get one up on someone, which to me IS evil (or at least, well, pansy). Tevinter Imperium may or may not fall into the same category, I haven't read enough to know, but from the few encounters in DA2, yeah, they're either wimps or powermad too.  

I mean really, who needs more than a good handfull of fireballs to solve a problem?

A fireball will take down a ship. A blood mage who drains himself dry can sink a fleet. Now you know why people use it, and why the Chantry wishes they didn't.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 août 2013 - 11:27 .

[Darnalak]

Meh, see, in that case I'd just send a couple rogues to assassinate the captains and take the damned fleet. turning them into blood prisons is excessive.

[EmperorSahlertz]

cjones91 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Can Blood Magic be evil even if it's just a tool?

Sure.

So if there were experiments done to cure cancer but the methods were evil, you would still condemn it?This is why I look at things in a gray perspective because something that's useful should'nt be discarded based on morality.

Much of human anatomy and physical thresholds were mapped by **** scientist who used unwilling human test subjects. We today make great use of the research they did, and it advanced the field a great deal even. It is however widely accepted, that these experiments were horrible and inhumane and should ahve never taken place, despite the results.
The end doesn't always justify the means. If there is a better way to achieve the same result, then do that.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 23 août 2013 - 12:11 .

[cjones91]

Darnalak wrote...

Meh, see, in that case I'd just send a couple rogues to assassinate the captains and take the damned fleet. turning them into blood prisons is excessive.

And those rogues would have to reach the ships first hoping they don't get blasted out of the water, while a  mage can point and shoot fire.

[spike08]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm sure that you can cite many examples in the lore of people using blood magic for good.

I know one. Dragon Age Origins. A child has become an abomination. The choice is either to kill the child or enter the fade and free the child from the demon. In this situation, there is no lyrium available to send a Mage into the fade, so the only other option is to kill the child or kill someone else with blood magic in order to enter the fade save the child.

The child's mother volunteers to sacrifice herself through blood magic to save her child. A mother sacrificing herself for her child. Nothing evil about that.

Modifié par spike08, 23 août 2013 - 12:30 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

cjones91 wrote...

One thing I hear people say is blood magic is evil because it can control minds or summon demons,however would'nt be fair to say that blood magic isn't evil just the person who uses it for bad things?Blood magic can be used for good and I don't really see the point in demonizing something that is a tool at best.

Disclaimer: Haven't read whole thread, and am leaving aside the discussion that blood magic is considered inherently evil in some quarters.

The strength of blood magic grows proportionally stronger the more violent the bloodletting is. That said, it's very difficult to conceive that violence, especially bloodthirsty violence, can ever be 'good', which makes it very easy to believe that a magic which draws its strength from this is evil.

If the violence inflicted is only on the self one could perhaps argue it's not as evil, but even self-harm isn't considered good in many societies.

[leaguer of one]

Aaleel wrote...

DA:O did a better job of separating the mage from the actual blood magic. In DA2 on the other hand it was portrayed it as more evil and gave the impression that any mage that delved in it would turn out bad.

More like alot of bad mages went inot it, not that it made people evil. Look at Merril, she did not become evil by using it.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Can Blood Magic be evil even if it's just a tool?

Sure.

So if there were experiments done to cure cancer but the methods were evil, you would still condemn it?This is why I look at things in a gray perspective because something that's useful should'nt be discarded based on morality.

Much of human anatomy and physical thresholds were mapped by **** scientist who used unwilling human test subjects. We today make great use of the research they did, and it advanced the field a great deal even. It is however widely accepted, that these experiments were horrible and inhumane and should ahve never taken place, despite the results.
The end doesn't always justify the means. If there is a better way to achieve the same result, then do that.

Wrong, they mapped the human body using dead bodies.

[leaguer of one]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

One thing I hear people say is blood magic is evil because it can control minds or summon demons,however would'nt be fair to say that blood magic isn't evil just the person who uses it for bad things?Blood magic can be used for good and I don't really see the point in demonizing something that is a tool at best.

Disclaimer: Haven't read whole thread, and am leaving aside the discussion that blood magic is considered inherently evil in some quarters.

The strength of blood magic grows proportionally stronger the more violent the bloodletting is. That said, it's very difficult to conceive that violence, especially bloodthirsty violence, can ever be 'good', which makes it very easy to believe that a magic which draws its strength from this is evil.

If the violence inflicted is only on the self one could perhaps argue it's not as evil, but even self-harm isn't considered good in many societies.

That's still up to the user. That does not mean it's evil. Just dangerious.

[Zanallen]

Blood magic is just a tool, but it is a very dangerous tool. It gives the mage a lot of power over others and power is a corrupting force.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Darnalak wrote...

Meh, see, in that case I'd just send a couple rogues to assassinate the captains and take the damned fleet. turning them into blood prisons is excessive.

See, that doesn't work on Qunari fleets.  Assassinating the captain will not cause them to turn, and is unlikely to cause them to surrender. Also, I don't think the spell in question used blood control, since I can't see that lasting after the magister dies. I was more under the impression that he simply drew on as much power as he could to the point of draining his veins dry, and used it to sink the fleet.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 août 2013 - 01:13 .

[Medhia Nox]

Yes, the inherent nature of a thing can be corrupting and be considered inherently evil.

Does Blood Magic sit in a block of ice in the lowest level of hell one day plotting its dominance over all of God's favored? No.

If your definition of evil is purely supernatural - I suggest a touch more refinement of the concept.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Yes, the inherent nature of a thing can be corrupting and be considered inherently evil.

Does Blood Magic sit in a block of ice in the lowest level of hell one day plotting its dominance over all of God's favored? No.

If your definition of evil is purely supernatural - I suggest a touch more refinement of the concept.

You're saying that its inherently evil, despite the good it can do and the fact that it ended all Five Blights and has two more to go, due to the way that people react to the power it grants?

[Maconbar]

If only this series had a morality meter, then we could determine whether blood magic was evil or not.

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Can Blood Magic be evil even if it's just a tool?

Sure.

So if there were experiments done to cure cancer but the methods were evil, you would still condemn it?This is why I look at things in a gray perspective because something that's useful should'nt be discarded based on morality.

Much of human anatomy and physical thresholds were mapped by **** scientist who used unwilling human test subjects. We today make great use of the research they did, and it advanced the field a great deal even. It is however widely accepted, that these experiments were horrible and inhumane and should ahve never taken place, despite the results.
The end doesn't always justify the means. If there is a better way to achieve the same result, then do that.

Wrong, they mapped the human body using dead bodies.

Anatomy might have been the wrong word to use. But if you are claiming that the ****s didn't commit tests on living human subjects, then you havn't been paying attention in history class. ANd much of this research have helped us since. Now I'm sure everyone would agree that the means of how these results were attained is despicable, but the results are still useful.

[Dave of Canada]

Urazz wrote...

Jorina Leto wrote...

The chantry says blood magic is evil. This means blood magic is evil.

And yet the Chantry needs track their mages with phylacteries that require blood in them.  Gotta love the hypocrites in society.

Blood magic can be used for good things but by it's very nature, it tends to be more evil.

Templar don't become a demon magnet, can't raise the dead and can't mind control by using their magic gps vials. If it's blood magic, it poses no threat unless a demon is inclined to possess the vial.

[BlueMagitek]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

You're saying that its inherently evil, despite the good it can do and the fact that it ended all Five Blights and has two more to go, due to the way that people react to the power it grants?

Let's be fair here, it's most likely just cleaning up the mess it has made.  You certainly don't call someone "good" for picking up the pieces of pottery they've broken.


Also, evil things can be used to do good.  </Malconvoker>

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

leaguer of one wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

One thing I hear people say is blood magic is evil because it can control minds or summon demons,however would'nt be fair to say that blood magic isn't evil just the person who uses it for bad things?Blood magic can be used for good and I don't really see the point in demonizing something that is a tool at best.

Disclaimer: Haven't read whole thread, and am leaving aside the discussion that blood magic is considered inherently evil in some quarters.

The strength of blood magic grows proportionally stronger the more violent the bloodletting is. That said, it's very difficult to conceive that violence, especially bloodthirsty violence, can ever be 'good', which makes it very easy to believe that a magic which draws its strength from this is evil.

If the violence inflicted is only on the self one could perhaps argue it's not as evil, but even self-harm isn't considered good in many societies.

That's still up to the user. That does not mean it's evil. Just dangerious.

Well, like I said, it all depends on how you view violence against other living creatures, in all their various forms, and self-harm.

For instance, if it isn't evil to roast darkspawn with a fireball, why would it be evil to destroy them with blood magic? But if it's evil to violently cut yourself in the first place, then all blood magic stems from an evil act even if the purpose is considered good, which is when you get into the whole ends-justify-means debate.

It is not a black and white issue for everyone, and it's not necessarily right to claim that whether or not something is evil is solely up to the person who uses it. Even if they are the only one directly affected it doesn't mean they are the only one affected full stop.