626 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Not so sure about that.
The PC obviously has nothing to worry about if they choose to use blood magic, but I am of the opinion that there is something about it that corrupts the user. Whether immediately, or eventually may be what is due to willpower.

I don't have an issue with magic in general, but I make an exception for blood magic.

If it's inevitable, what about Avernus or the Magisters?
Mages like them won't risk their mind getting taken over if they had no way to prevent it.

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.

Varric's cousin says hello.

[Ieolus]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

[Hellion Rex]

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

I would call Avernus pragmatic to an extreme, but not necessarily "corrupt".

[Laughing_Man]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Not so sure about that.
The PC obviously has nothing to worry about if they choose to use blood magic, but I am of the opinion that there is something about it that corrupts the user. Whether immediately, or eventually may be what is due to willpower.

I don't have an issue with magic in general, but I make an exception for blood magic.

If it's inevitable, what about Avernus or the Magisters?
Mages like them won't risk their mind getting taken over if they had no way to prevent it.

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.

I didn't read the comics so I can't comment on that, and the Magisters do more than just blood-magic,
they butcher slaves and summon demons, so I don't think that says alot on a mage that uses the simple version.

Avernus's corruption is likely due to the taint, which is barely held back by his studies and blood-magic.
His morality  is another case, but that's just gray-warden ideology taken to the extreme.

[sandalisthemaker]

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

That could be seen as pragmatic, not just corrupt.

[Cainhurst Crow]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Not so sure about that.
The PC obviously has nothing to worry about if they choose to use blood magic, but I am of the opinion that there is something about it that corrupts the user. Whether immediately, or eventually may be what is due to willpower.

I don't have an issue with magic in general, but I make an exception for blood magic.

If it's inevitable, what about Avernus or the Magisters?
Mages like them won't risk their mind getting taken over if they had no way to prevent it.

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk with blood magic.

You make it sound like the darkside of the force, which I don't think it is or is what bioware was going for with it.

[sandalisthemaker]

eluvianix wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

That could be seen as pragmatic, not just corrupt.

He he.
I guess I know your stance on blood magic then.

[Ieolus]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

He was a Grey Warden... his goal was not power, but research into the taint to further the goals of the Wardens.  That never changed into being evil or anything resembling demonic stuff.  He demonstrated that blood magic could be used as a means to an end and nothing more.

[Laughing_Man]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

As far as I know the only thing that makes simple blood-magic questionable, is the chantry's dogma.
And I bet that alot of the mages who used blood-magic, did it only because their backs were against the wall, and were surronded by a ring of templar swords.

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk.

Ok, now you have to define what corrupt means.

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

That could be seen as pragmatic, not just corrupt.

He he.
I guess I know your stance on blood magic then.

Indeed.  
I would have it used pragmatically. I certainly do not advocate it to be used for personal gain.

[Plaintiff]

You might as well ask me what my opinion is on nuclear power. Blood magic is a power source, it has no inherent moral value. The issue is in how it's obtained and what it's used for.

[Hellion Rex]

TheRedVipress wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Being fine with doing morally questionable things in order to gain power.
Granted, many if not most mages who take up blood magic may already be of this mindset. So I admit that there is a chicken/egg senario here, but I'll try to dig up some evidence...

As far as I know the only thing that makes simple blood-magic questionable, is the chantry's dogma.
And I bet that alot of the mages who used blood-magic, did it only because their backs were against the wall, and were surronded by a ring of templar swords.

I agree. In the early days of the Chantry and Templars, I bet it was extremely chaotic and dire. Back then, and perhaps even now, if Templars had me against a wall, I would do anything to live.

[Hellion Rex]

Plaintiff wrote...

You might as well ask me what my opinion is on nuclear power. Blood magic is a power source, it has no inherent moral value. The issue is in how it's obtained and what it's used for.

Ah, there is the answer I sought. An open mind, one not made of mush. -Flemeth

[sandalisthemaker]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Not so sure about that.
The PC obviously has nothing to worry about if they choose to use blood magic, but I am of the opinion that there is something about it that corrupts the user. Whether immediately, or eventually may be what is due to willpower.

I don't have an issue with magic in general, but I make an exception for blood magic.

If it's inevitable, what about Avernus or the Magisters?
Mages like them won't risk their mind getting taken over if they had no way to prevent it.

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk with blood magic.

You make it sound like the darkside of the force, which I don't think it is or is what bioware was going for with it.

Where do you think they are going with it then?
I am of the opinion that it is inherrently dangerous if not out right evil.  People learn it from demons. One person can use it seemingly without consequences, while another falls prey to corruption/or possession- whether due to their own willpower, or chance is up for debate.
Gameplay/story segregation renders the PC immune to any ill effects.  Hopefully DA:I introduces some consequences.  Would be interesting if nothing else.

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Not so sure about that.
The PC obviously has nothing to worry about if they choose to use blood magic, but I am of the opinion that there is something about it that corrupts the user. Whether immediately, or eventually may be what is due to willpower.

I don't have an issue with magic in general, but I make an exception for blood magic.

If it's inevitable, what about Avernus or the Magisters?
Mages like them won't risk their mind getting taken over if they had no way to prevent it.

Technically, Avernus is corrupt.
Not possessed, per say, but he is quite corrupt due to years of prolific blood magic use.

Many magisters are also depicted as corrupt, such as in the comics.
Full on possession is probably rare, but there is always the risk with blood magic.

You make it sound like the darkside of the force, which I don't think it is or is what bioware was going for with it.

Where do you think they are going with it then?
I am of the opinion that it is inherrently dangerous if not out right evil.  People learn it from demons. One person can use it seemingly without consequences, while another falls prey to corruption/or possession- whether due to their own willpower, or chance is up for debate.
Gameplay/story segregation renders the PC immune to any ill effects.  Hopefully DA:I introduces some consequences.  Would be interesting if nothing else.

Funny, Jowan learned from a book. And didn't someone mention that most mages discover it when they accidentally cut themselves?

[sandalisthemaker]

eluvianix wrote...

Funny, Jowan learned from a book. And didn't someone mention that most mages discover it when they accidentally cut themselves?

Sure, I'll admit to some inconsistencies.
But Merrill and the Warden learned it from demons.  So did the original magisters, apparently.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Plaintiff wrote...

You might as well ask me what my opinion is on nuclear power. Blood magic is a power source, it has no inherent moral value. The issue is in how it's obtained and what it's used for.

Nuclear Power is bad and you should feel bad about it. I'm with Japan and Germany.

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Funny, Jowan learned from a book. And didn't someone mention that most mages discover it when they accidentally cut themselves?

Sure, I'll admit to some inconsistencies.
But Merrill and the Warden learned it from demons.  So did the original magisters, apparently.

Or, it has also been theorized that elves of Arlathan also could have taught them (magisters) blood magic. Personally, I think it is probably a mixture of both.

[sandalisthemaker]

eluvianix wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Funny, Jowan learned from a book. And didn't someone mention that most mages discover it when they accidentally cut themselves?

Sure, I'll admit to some inconsistencies.
But Merrill and the Warden learned it from demons.  So did the original magisters, apparently.

Or, it has also been theorized that elves of Arlathan also could have taught them (magisters) blood magic. Personally, I think it is probably a mixture of both.

Just like with other aspects of the lore, I think they are purposefully keeping things vague/open to interpretation.

When I get around to my bloodmage character in DA:I, I'm going to roleplay him/her as a mage who feels the only way they can stop the Veil Tear and Red Templars is to resort to using blood.  And he/she will feel conflicted and guilty about it. Makes for an interesting character IMO.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 23 septembre 2013 - 05:34 .

[Ieolus]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Where do you think they are going with it then?
I am of the opinion that it is inherrently dangerous if not out right evil.  People learn it from demons. One person can use it seemingly without consequences, while another falls prey to corruption/or possession- whether due to their own willpower, or chance is up for debate.
Gameplay/story segregation renders the PC immune to any ill effects.  Hopefully DA:I introduces some consequences.  Would be interesting if nothing else.

Let me guess, you are a follower of the Chant of Light?

[DadeLeviathan]

 Honestly, I don't think we've been given enough information about it. There's already been enough information to suggest that blood magic was used by the ancient Elves without demonic intervention, so there must be a way to learn it without demons, unless it was misinformation and the elves really did use demonic aid. Honestly, I would like to see more sides to the issue, and be able to play a character who can take part in that discussion. A character who utilizes blood magic as another tool, and uses it for good as well as personal enlightenment would be an interesting character.

And I don't mean use it for good in the sense of Jowan, who was about as emotionally stable as a barrel of coked-up monkeys with severe borderline personality disorder, or Merril, who was basically a walking, talking -- yet adorable -- anti-blood magic ad.

Yet as the PC in DA2, you are able to learn blood magic without demonic aid, and are able to utilize it to help people. You can actively choose to not use your allies to fuel your power, and only use your own blood. I think more argument from in-game NPCs to support the idea that blood magic isn't inherently evil (while actually being emotionally stable and intelligent enough to hold such an opinion without looking like a raving lunatic or a naive idiot) would be very interesting. I think that putting blood magic in the 'definitely evil' folder would go against the morally ambiguous atmosphere that Dragon Age has seemed to be attempting to grasp since the beginning. Anders would have been a great example for how an abomination is not necessarily evil, and can be a force for good, if he hadn't gone completely nucking futs in the third act and blown up the damn chantry (which would have been filled with innocent people at the time). 

"I have a great idea guys. Let's commit an act of terrorism by blowing up a house of worship while it is filled with innocent people. That will show everybody that mages don't need to be feared by innocent people, and that we are not something to be feared and locked up forever. Tomorrow, we shall burn down an orphanage to prove our solidarity in our protest the notion that mages are evil child killers. And then we'll eat some steak to prove that we're vegan."

,,,sorry, I got sidetracked. More discussions on the moral ambiguity of blood magic would be most welcome and I think that such a discussion would compliment the atmosphere that Dragon age seems to be trying to achieve.

[sandalisthemaker]

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Where do you think they are going with it then?
I am of the opinion that it is inherrently dangerous if not out right evil.  People learn it from demons. One person can use it seemingly without consequences, while another falls prey to corruption/or possession- whether due to their own willpower, or chance is up for debate.
Gameplay/story segregation renders the PC immune to any ill effects.  Hopefully DA:I introduces some consequences.  Would be interesting if nothing else.

Let me guess, you are a follower of the Chant of Light?

No.
I am not a fan of the Chantry, and I am mostly neutral in the whole Mage/Templar thing.  
Scratch that, I am slightly pro-mage. I see the point of the Circles, but I don't think they are run properly.  The Templars take things too far. If I had my way, I would get rid of them (whether through violence is up for debate) and replace them with some other group that actually looks out for mages.

On the flip side, I have problems with blood magic, specifically.

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Funny, Jowan learned from a book. And didn't someone mention that most mages discover it when they accidentally cut themselves?

Sure, I'll admit to some inconsistencies.
But Merrill and the Warden learned it from demons.  So did the original magisters, apparently.

Or, it has also been theorized that elves of Arlathan also could have taught them (magisters) blood magic. Personally, I think it is probably a mixture of both.

Just like with other aspects of the lore, I think they are purposefully keeping things vague/open to interpretation.

When I get around to my bloodmage character in DA:I, I'm going to roleplay him/her as a mage who feels the only way they can stop the Veil Tear and Red Templars is to resort to using blood.  And he/she will feel conflicted and guilty about it. Makes for an interesting character IMO.

I applaud you. That shall make for an interesting blood mage. Sounds similar to mine.

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Where do you think they are going with it then?
I am of the opinion that it is inherrently dangerous if not out right evil.  People learn it from demons. One person can use it seemingly without consequences, while another falls prey to corruption/or possession- whether due to their own willpower, or chance is up for debate.
Gameplay/story segregation renders the PC immune to any ill effects.  Hopefully DA:I introduces some consequences.  Would be interesting if nothing else.

Let me guess, you are a follower of the Chant of Light?

No.
I am not a fan of the Chantry, and I am mostly neutral in the whole Mage/Templar thing.  
Scratch that, I am slightly pro-mage. I see the point of the Circles, but I don't think they are run properly.  The Templars take things too far. If I had my way, I would get rid of them (whether through violence is up for debate) and replace them with some other group that actually looks out for mages.

On the flip side, I have problems with blood magic, specifically.

Mind control and demon summoning?