170 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

GabrielXL wrote...

If you played Legacy, you know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world. Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what tool they use to do what needs to be done.

In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that Malcom Hawke only used it under duress and never used it again.  This wasn't a case of "Man, I hate using Allen wrenches.  Haven't you people ever heard of Phillips Head?"  This was more like "I have been forced, on the lives of my family, to do something evil for what I am told is the greater good, and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."

[LobselVith8]

TK514 wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

If you played Legacy, you know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world. Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what tool they use to do what needs to be done.

In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that Malcom Hawke only used it under duress and never used it again.  This wasn't a case of "Man, I hate using Allen wrenches.  Haven't you people ever heard of Phillips Head?"  This was more like "I have been forced, on the lives of my family, to do something evil for what I am told is the greater good, and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."

I think Gabriel's point is that it's a specialization that isn't limited to madmen or monsters, although Merrill might have been better example than Malcolm given the duress involved with Hawke's father.

[Medhia Nox]

Merrill is a self-serving megalomaniac.

Also - if Malcom Hawke truly "never used it again" - and it makes a point to say that. That seems to be a very good indication of what he thought of blood magic - even if he was driven to use it.

And there's no reason to think that NPCs have to have "Specializations" like the PC does. It's a mechanical function of gameplay - not of storytelling. So him using bloodmagic doesn't mean he was a blood mage.

Just like when someone plays football once - doesn't mean they're a football player.

[Tremere]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

If you played Legacy, you know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world. Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what tool they use to do what needs to be done.

In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that Malcom Hawke only used it under duress and never used it again.  This wasn't a case of "Man, I hate using Allen wrenches.  Haven't you people ever heard of Phillips Head?"  This was more like "I have been forced, on the lives of my family, to do something evil for what I am told is the greater good, and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."

I think Gabriel's point is that it's a specialization that isn't limited to madmen or monsters, although Merrill might have been better example than Malcolm given the duress involved with Hawke's father.

Thanks for the dose of context!

On this note, I played my Hawke character with the mind that his father told him of Blood Magic, which furthered his own interest in it. However, he took great umbrage with those who consorted with demons and the like. Merrill and especially Anders <_< had a hard time with my Hawke.

[TK514]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

If you played Legacy, you know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world. Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what tool they use to do what needs to be done.

In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that Malcom Hawke only used it under duress and never used it again.  This wasn't a case of "Man, I hate using Allen wrenches.  Haven't you people ever heard of Phillips Head?"  This was more like "I have been forced, on the lives of my family, to do something evil for what I am told is the greater good, and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."

I think Gabriel's point is that it's a specialization that isn't limited to madmen or monsters, although Merrill might have been better example than Malcolm given the duress involved with Hawke's father.

True, it isn't limited to madmen and monsters.  But you don't have to be either to do something evil.  And as long as Word of God, via World of Thedas, explicitly states that Blood Magic is powered by suffering and death, you will never convince me that it isn't evil.

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Merrill is a self-serving megalomaniac.

I don't think wanting to end the plight of the People makes Merrill a megalomaniac; she was proactive about the path the Elvhen were on, and did something about it.

Medhia Nox wrote...

Also - if Malcom Hawke truly "never used it again" - and it makes a point to say that. That seems to be a very good indication of what he thought of blood magic - even if he was driven to use it.

That would be another example of how similar he is to Anders (given what Leandra and Bethany say about the former Warden).

Medhia Nox wrote...

And there's no reason to think that NPCs have to have "Specializations" like the PC does. It's a mechanical function of gameplay - not of storytelling. So him using bloodmagic doesn't mean he was a blood mage.

Just like when someone plays football once - doesn't mean they're a football player.

The point was a person isn't malevolent simply because they used blood magic. Some Grey Warden mages use blood magic against the darkspawn; some apostates use blood magic because templars can nullify ordinary magic; it's not inherently evil. The Warden from the Circle and apostate Hawke can use blood magic for the same reasons. simply because some abuse this school of magic doesn't mean they it's evil.

[Wulfram]

As long as it's your own suffering, I don't think there's an inherent moral issue. And the suffering of the people you were going to fireball anyway... if it inflicts too much additional suffering on your foes I'd say it was wrong, but it's not the straightforwardest of moral issues.

(And I'm hoping that bit of WoT lore won't make it to the games. It seems like a lame way of shifting the goalposts because people aren't so bothered by blood magic so far)

[Tremere]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The point was a person isn't malevolent simply because they used blood magic. Some Grey Warden mages use blood magic against the darkspawn; some apostates use blood magic because templars can nullify ordinary magic; it's not inherently evil. The Warden from the Circle and apostate Hawke can use blood magic for the same reasons. simply because some abuse this school of magic doesn't mean they it's evil.

Exactly part of what I'm trying to say. Also, the only suffering the Warden and Hawke inflicting on people were those who would do harm to him/her or others. This again drives home the point that evil is in the heart and mind of individuals, not in what they use. If people are made to suffer, it doesn't matter if it's a Priest, a Mage, a Warrior or a corrupt official that's causing it. No one with power is immune.

[TK514]

GabrielXL wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The point was a person isn't malevolent simply because they used blood magic. Some Grey Warden mages use blood magic against the darkspawn; some apostates use blood magic because templars can nullify ordinary magic; it's not inherently evil. The Warden from the Circle and apostate Hawke can use blood magic for the same reasons. simply because some abuse this school of magic doesn't mean they it's evil.

Exactly part of what I'm trying to say. Also, the only suffering the Warden and Hawke inflicting on people were those who would do harm to him/her or others. This again drives home the point that evil is in the heart and mind of individuals, not in what they use. If people are made to suffer, it doesn't matter if it's a Priest, a Mage, a Warrior or a corrupt official that's causing it. No one with power is immune.

So Torture is ok, then.  I mean, as long as you only torture 'bad' people, it's totally fine, right?

There are exactly zero moral or ethical considerations regarding torture, as long as you only torture bad people.  This is what you're saying.

What about torturing good people, for a good end?  Is that good?  If you have to torture a innocent child to save a building full of other innocents, does that make the torture good?  Is that a good act?

I just want to be clear about your position here, so I have a proper understanding about what you consider good and evil.

[Tremere]

TK514 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

If you played Legacy, you know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world. Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what tool they use to do what needs to be done.

In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that Malcom Hawke only used it under duress and never used it again.  This wasn't a case of "Man, I hate using Allen wrenches.  Haven't you people ever heard of Phillips Head?"  This was more like "I have been forced, on the lives of my family, to do something evil for what I am told is the greater good, and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."

I think Gabriel's point is that it's a specialization that isn't limited to madmen or monsters, although Merrill might have been better example than Malcolm given the duress involved with Hawke's father.

True, it isn't limited to madmen and monsters.  But you don't have to be either to do something evil.  And as long as Word of God, via World of Thedas, explicitly states that Blood Magic is powered by suffering and death, you will never convince me that it isn't evil.

The problem with the last part of your statement is that the "Word of God" isn't apparent. The Maker has abandoned his children, so at best, you have the word of his Prophet/Love/Daughter (take your pick). Put in context, this was a person who suffered under the rule of Tevinter Mages, so naturally she would speak against their practices. The problem is that those events occured centuries earlier, so you can hardly blame present day Mages of Fereldan or the Free Marches, et al, for that. Not to mention the words of Corypheus, who draws a big question mark over the claims of the Chantry. True, there may be some Blood Mages who cause suffering and death... At the same time there are those who inflict no harm on anyone who wouldn't do the same to them. In those cases, fight fire with fire and use the best weapon you have available.

Modifié par GabrielXL, 24 octobre 2013 - 05:35 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

You are still saying that doing something horrible to a bad person is perfectly fine...

[Tremere]

TK514 wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The point was a person isn't malevolent simply because they used blood magic. Some Grey Warden mages use blood magic against the darkspawn; some apostates use blood magic because templars can nullify ordinary magic; it's not inherently evil. The Warden from the Circle and apostate Hawke can use blood magic for the same reasons. simply because some abuse this school of magic doesn't mean they it's evil.

Exactly part of what I'm trying to say. Also, the only suffering the Warden and Hawke inflicting on people were those who would do harm to him/her or others. This again drives home the point that evil is in the heart and mind of individuals, not in what they use. If people are made to suffer, it doesn't matter if it's a Priest, a Mage, a Warrior or a corrupt official that's causing it. No one with power is immune.

So Torture is ok, then.  I mean, as long as you only torture 'bad' people, it's totally fine, right?

There are exactly zero moral or ethical considerations regarding torture, as long as you only torture bad people.  This is what you're saying.

What about torturing good people, for a good end?  Is that good?  If you have to torture a innocent child to save a building full of other innocents, does that make the torture good?  Is that a good act?

I just want to be clear about your position here, so I have a proper understanding about what you consider good and evil.

Who said anything about torture? But since you went there, how do you justify a Spirit Mage who inflicts Walking Bomb on an enemy? How about one who practices the Arcane discipline and uses Crushing Prison? Why not go even more ambiguous and say one who uses Entropy magic and puts a group to sleep, just before dropping enormous balls of flame on top of them?

Let's take another possibility... Let's say that Chantry doctrine is completely false or at least grossly inaccurate. Would that still justify all the things done to Circle Mages throughout history? Would that justify what was done to Elves? I'm just wondering why you interject a point that no one was making to justify a position that no one was arguing. A person who tortures anyone is "a torturer" no matter what their reasons are for doing so. As Fenris said in DA2... "Because nothing bad ever happens as a result of good intentions." Still, no one was talking about torture, so I'll let you stew in that thought process. Using real world examples like "The Templars", in retrospect, were the Crusades justified?

So, "Allow me to retort"... I want to be clear about your position here, so I have a proper understanding about what you consider good and evil.

[Tremere]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You are still saying that doing something horrible to a bad person is perfectly fine...

Would gutting them with a sword and letting them bleed out be more to your liking? Decapitation?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Killing anyone should no matter what always be morally questionable. But there is an honesty to a sword that I can appreciate. It is more... honorable... For lack of a better word. Which means I would rank it closer to the acceptable.

[Tremere]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Killing anyone should no matter what always be morally questionable. But there is an honesty to a sword that I can appreciate. It is more... honorable... For lack of a better word. Which means I would rank it closer to the acceptable.

My inner Mage agrees with the first part of your statement.

Honesty is always colored by perception, but I understand your position. Hypothetical situation... You, the honorable swordsman gets accosted by a group of bandits. You are badly outnumbered and as you're being backed into certain doom, all of a sudden, you watch the group in front of you convulse and begin to vomit blood, before collapsing dead. A moment later, your wounds begin to heal and your energy is restored, allowing you to continue the fight from which you emerge victorious. You may not like it... You may not approve, but that Mage saved your life and asked for nothing in return. Why? Because he just doesn't like to see honorable people suffer.

Herein lies the problem... and at least partially because you don't really know what kind of magic was being used. Sure, you could say Blood Magic, but you really don't know. What you do know is that you're able to continue your journey because another person provided aid in a time of need.

Modifié par GabrielXL, 24 octobre 2013 - 05:39 .

[TK514]

GabrielXL wrote...

Who said anything about torture?

You did, when you discussed Blood Magic.  Because that's what fuels Blood Magic.  I just put it another way to make it clear what's being talked about when you say 'Blood Magic'.

GabrielXL wrote...

But since you went there, how do you justify a Spirit Mage who inflicts Walking Bomb on an enemy? How about one who practices the Arcane discipline and uses Crushing Prison? Why not go even more ambiguous and say one who uses Entropy magic and puts a group to sleep, just before dropping enormous balls of flame on top of them?

At what point have I attempted to justify any of those things?

Of course, I would point out that none of those spells, in and of themselves, require suffering.  They may inflict it, and it may be the intended effect but they do not require it as a motive force.  If I use mana to fuel crushing prison on a rock, no one suffers, I've just broken a rock.  If I use blood magic to fuel crushing prison on a rock, someone has suffered to make the blood magic work, even if it is just me from cutting myself.  Blood Magic can not be cast without someone first paying the cost in pain.  Mana based magic, then, is your moral-less tool.  Can be for good or ill, but is not inherently either.

GabrielXL wrote...

Let's take another possibility... Let's say that Chantry doctrine is completely false or at least grossly inaccurate. Would that still justify all the things done to Circle Mages throughout history? Would that justify what was done to Elves?

You'll have to be more clear.  I'm not seeing your point.

GabrielXL wrote...
I'm just wondering why you interject a point that no one was making to justify a position that no one was arguing. A person who tortures anyone is "a torturer" no matter what their reasons are for doing so. As Fenris said in DA2... "Because nothing bad ever happens as a result of good intentions." Still, no one was talking about torture, so I'll let you stew in that thought process. Using real world examples like "The Templars", in retrospect, were the Crusades justified?

So, "Allow me to retort"... I want to be clear about your position here, so I have a proper understanding about what you consider good and evil.

You're the one that was trying to pass off Blood Magic as 'just a tool', and using examples of good people under duress to try to justify it.  And expressing the opinion that only the uneducated would ever villify mages.

GabrielXL wrote...

I understand why (in the context of the
game) Blood Magic is such a bugaboo. Likewise, I understand why there
should be at least some consequence for using it. What I don't like is
all the (demon this, evil that), that the clueless masses of Thedas toss
around to justify their own fears and prejudices. That there are people
who understand the dangers associated with it, is perfectly fine, but
just as there are good and bad people in the world of Thedas, as well as
Mages who have saved their asses on more than one occasion, I don't see
how the story can continue painting Mages in a bad light when there are
so many other wrongs in the world.

If you played Legacy, you
know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world.
Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at
large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the
character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what
tool they use to do what needs to be done.

Your words.

People fear blood mages for a reason.  It isn't just 'look how the Man wants to keep the proles afraid'.  Aside from the fact that it requires suffering, the other thing explicitly stated about Blood Mages is that they are more succeptible to Demonic Possession.  Who wouldn't be afraid of someone who could lose control and murder the entire village?

So.  I don't think Malcolm Hawke was evil.  You're right, there.  He was forced to use evil once to save his family, and it was not his choice.  Go Malcolm.

However, someone who chooses to continually use an evil tool, one which requires suffering to work and which puts everyone around them at increased risk of facing a demon possessed abomination?  You have to wonder about that person's moral compass, regardless of what they believe their intentions are.

Modifié par TK514, 24 octobre 2013 - 12:23 .

[Tremere]

TK514 wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

Who said anything about torture?

You did, when you discussed Blood Magic.  Because that's what fuels Blood Magic.  I just put it another way to make it clear what's being talked about when you say 'Blood Magic'.

You assumed and ran with it.

GabrielXL wrote...

But since you went there, how do you justify a Spirit Mage who inflicts Walking Bomb on an enemy? How about one who practices the Arcane discipline and uses Crushing Prison? Why not go even more ambiguous and say one who uses Entropy magic and puts a group to sleep, just before dropping enormous balls of flame on top of them?

At what point have I attempted to justify any of those things?

Of course, I would point out that none of those spells, in and of themselves, require suffering.  They may inflict it, and it may be the intended effect but they do not require it as a motive force.  If I use mana to fuel crushing prison on a rock, no one suffers, I've just broken a rock.  If I use blood magic to fuel crushing prison on a rock, someone has suffered to make the blood magic work, even if it is just me from cutting myself.  Blood Magic can not be cast without someone first paying the cost in pain.  Mana based magic, then, is your moral-less tool.  Can be for good or ill, but is not inherently either.

They may not require suffering, but they sure do inflict a lot of it. Which was kind of the point.

GabrielXL wrote...

Let's take another possibility... Let's say that Chantry doctrine is completely false or at least grossly inaccurate. Would that still justify all the things done to Circle Mages throughout history? Would that justify what was done to Elves?

You'll have to be more clear.  I'm not seeing your point.

My point is that good intentions can be used to justify anything.

GabrielXL wrote...
I'm just wondering why you interject a point that no one was making to justify a position that no one was arguing. A person who tortures anyone is "a torturer" no matter what their reasons are for doing so. As Fenris said in DA2... "Because nothing bad ever happens as a result of good intentions." Still, no one was talking about torture, so I'll let you stew in that thought process. Using real world examples like "The Templars", in retrospect, were the Crusades justified?

So, "Allow me to retort"... I want to be clear about your position here, so I have a proper understanding about what you consider good and evil.

You're the one that was trying to pass off Blood Magic as 'just a tool', and using examples of good people under duress to try to justify it.  And expressing the opinion that only the uneducated would ever villify mages.

It's a school of magic just like any other. In the hands of the good or the malevolent, that fact doesn't change. Same thing counts for a sword... Or a book.

GabrielXL wrote...

I understand why (in the context of the
game) Blood Magic is such a bugaboo. Likewise, I understand why there
should be at least some consequence for using it. What I don't like is
all the (demon this, evil that), that the clueless masses of Thedas toss
around to justify their own fears and prejudices. That there are people
who understand the dangers associated with it, is perfectly fine, but
just as there are good and bad people in the world of Thedas, as well as
Mages who have saved their asses on more than one occasion, I don't see
how the story can continue painting Mages in a bad light when there are
so many other wrongs in the world.

If you played Legacy, you
know that Malcolm Hawke used Blood Magic to protect the world.
Obviously, this is a story that is not known to the world (Thedas) at
large, but it is part of the lore. On that note, it should be the
character's decisions that affect people's reactions more so than what
tool they use to do what needs to be done.

Your words.

People fear blood mages for a reason.  It isn't just 'look how the Man wants to keep the proles afraid'.  Aside from the fact that it requires suffering, the other thing explicitly stated about Blood Mages is that they are more succeptible to Demonic Possession.  Who wouldn't be afraid of someone who could lose control and murder the entire village?

So.  I don't think Malcolm Hawke was evil.  You're right, there.  He was forced to use evil once to save his family, and it was not his choice.  Go Malcolm.

However, someone who chooses to continually use an evil tool, one which requires suffering to work and which puts everyone around them at increased risk of facing a demon possessed abomination?  You have to wonder about that person's moral compass, regardless of what they believe their intentions are.

Evil is where you find it. Just because someone told you something doesn't make it true. If you bash me over the head with a vase because I don't believe like you do, should I blame the vase and then proclaim all vases evil because they are the instrument of pain and suffering? Would I be wrong? If someone did this to anyone, would you still wonder about their moral compass "regardless of what their intentions were"?

In all honesty, I'm just going to accept that your position is based on whatever truth you hold dear and will likewise acknowledge your opinion. On that note, I have no desire to keep this diatribe going. Let's just say that we have differing opinions and leave it at that. In spite of my passion, I have no need "to be right".

Modifié par GabrielXL, 24 octobre 2013 - 12:54 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd like it if Blood Magic was more powerful OUT of the game.

When I am slicing onions and slip, I want to be able to be able to shoot fire out of my hands! This jambalaya isn't going to cook itself.

[Tremere]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd like it if Blood Magic was more powerful OUT of the game.

When I am slicing onions and slip, I want to be able to be able to shoot fire out of my hands! This jambalaya isn't going to cook itself.

*Hahaha!* Nice! Just don't use it to possess someone and get them to cook it for you. That would be evil.

Modifié par GabrielXL, 24 octobre 2013 - 01:15 .

[Dayze]

I don't think blood magic requires torture or suffering just people's blood....though considering you can do rituals with dark spawn and dragons blood I have to wonder if animals blood could potentially be used.

[TEWR]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd like it if Blood Magic was more powerful OUT of the game.

When I am slicing onions and slip, I want to be able to be able to shoot fire out of my hands! This jambalaya isn't going to cook itself.

This man gets it.

Especially since he's talking of jambalaya.

[TK514]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd like it if Blood Magic was more powerful OUT of the game.

When I am slicing onions and slip, I want to be able to be able to shoot fire out of my hands! This jambalaya isn't going to cook itself.

This man gets it.

Especially since he's talking of jambalaya.

I'm good with this.

[Reaverwind]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd like it if Blood Magic was more powerful OUT of the game.

When I am slicing onions and slip, I want to be able to be able to shoot fire out of my hands! This jambalaya isn't going to cook itself.

Oh great, you don't just make dinner, you bleed all over it.  Remind me to stay away from your jambalaya. 

[Silfren]

Just an FYI for GabrielXL: Word of God doesn't refer to the Maker, but to official Bioware statements.  Here's the explanation at tvtropes.

[TK514]

Silfren wrote...

Just an FYI for GabrielXL: Word of God doesn't refer to the Maker, but to official Bioware statements.  Here's the explanation at tvtropes.

My mistake for assuming that was common enough parlance to be understood.  In this case, by 'Word of God' I was specifically referring to the writing team including David Gaider, Joanna Berry, Sheryl Chee, Sylvia Feketekuty, Ben Gelinas, Mark Kirby, Lukas Kristjanson, Karin Weekes, and everyone else who had input into World of Thedas vol 1.

Modifié par TK514, 24 octobre 2013 - 04:25 .