1238 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

hhh89 wrote...

I think the reason they banned blood magic and not other dangerous spells is because the latter could be blocked/neutralized by templars' abilities. Blood magic not.

Which makes sense. Civilized countries don't usually sell armor piercing bullets to civillians.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I think the reason they banned blood magic and not other dangerous spells is because the latter could be blocked/neutralized by templars' abilities. Blood magic not.

Which makes sense. Civilized countries don't usually sell armor piercing bullets to civillians.

But also don't ban them from any and all operations.

[dragonflight288]

hhh89 wrote...

I think the reason they banned blood magic and not other dangerous spells is because the latter could be blocked/neutralized by templars' abilities. Blood magic not.

But they haven't banned all aspects of blood magic, because they still use phylacteries.

[Lord Raijin]

eluvianix wrote...

Ok, first of all, please finish the book, before you start making assumptions just on the chapters you have read.
Remember, that was one man, living at the heart of Templar power in Thedas. He hardly represents the other 13+ Circles in the rest of the Andrastian countries.

dragonflight288 wrote...
As one pro-mage to another, I urge
you to read and finish the book, and not make claims about a character's
motivations before the final chapter. There's a lot that goes on.

I'm planning on it Thanks for the suggestion

[The Elder King]

dragonflight288 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I think the reason they banned blood magic and not other dangerous spells is because the latter could be blocked/neutralized by templars' abilities. Blood magic not.

But they haven't banned all aspects of blood magic, because they still use phylacteries.

Phylacteries can't be used for controlling the mind of mages. But I'd say the major reason why they didn't ban their use is because it suits their interests (they couldn't keep track of mages that escape without them).

[Medhia Nox]

People act like there's a bunch of weird blood fetishists sitting over the vials staring at them tracking wizards for the lulz.  That's what blood mages do, not Templars.

They're fingerprints - or DNA evidence - used when/if someone commits a crime.

That Bioware seems to have totally forgotten about their use seems disappointing - they seem like an excellent alternative to many of the unacceptable actions of the Templars.

I also believe there's a difference between magic that reads blood - and magic that uses blood to power itself.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 17 novembre 2013 - 04:02 .

[The Elder King]

@Medhia Nox: I agree that using a phylactery and controlling the mind of a person, and I think that Phylacteries are necessary regardless of the system adopted post-war. I'm just saying that by the Chantry's definition of blood magic, they're on the same level.

[Jaison1986]

Honestly, I don't really think blood magic is necerally bad, it's another kind of magic. The real issue is how you need to make deals with demons in order to learn it. And there, is were the problem starts.

[Medhia Nox]

@hhh8: You weren't the "people" I was talking about - sorry 'bout that.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 17 novembre 2013 - 04:19 .

[The Elder King]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@hhh8: You weren't the "people" I was talking about - sorry 'bout that.

It's ok. I was just clarifying my point about phylacteries.

[Ieldra]

hhh89 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I think the reason they banned blood magic and not other dangerous spells is because the latter could be blocked/neutralized by templars' abilities. Blood magic not.

But they haven't banned all aspects of blood magic, because they still use phylacteries.

Phylacteries can't be used for controlling the mind of mages. But I'd say the major reason why they didn't ban their use is because it suits their interests (they couldn't keep track of mages that escape without them).

Indeed. So why shouldn't mages use blood magic if it suits their interests? And no, I'm not advocating mind control or demon summoning, it's useful enough without all that because it can overcome a templars' magic resistance, and it can give you access to powers you'd need lyrium for otherwise.

[Ieldra]

Jaison1986 wrote...
Honestly, I don't really think blood magic is necerally bad, it's another kind of magic. The real issue is how you need to make deals with demons in order to learn it. And there, is were the problem starts.

The thing is, you don't! You can learn blood magic from books just as well, as Jowan shows in the DAO mage origin, and as Hawke can do with the Fell Grimoire (which I assume is about blood magic). It's just that books on blood magic are rare because the Chantry destroys them or locks them away.

"Mages often contact demons to learn blood magic", that's a state of things the Chantry has created with its policy of forbidden knowledge.

BTW, here's a Cullen quote I didn't know before today: "Templars have dominance over mages by divine right." (DA2, Act 3). Yeah, right. Now I want to kill him.

 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 novembre 2013 - 04:51 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ieldra2 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I think the reason they banned blood magic and not other dangerous spells is because the latter could be blocked/neutralized by templars' abilities. Blood magic not.

But they haven't banned all aspects of blood magic, because they still use phylacteries.

Phylacteries can't be used for controlling the mind of mages. But I'd say the major reason why they didn't ban their use is because it suits their interests (they couldn't keep track of mages that escape without them).

Indeed. So why shouldn't mages use blood magic if it suits their interests? And no, I'm not advocating mind control or demon summoning, it's useful enough without all that because it can overcome a templars' magic resistance, and it can give you access to powers you'd need lyrium for otherwise.

For the same reason that civillians shouldn't have access to armor piercing bullets... Even if it suits their interests.
Then there of course is also the fact that it further increases the mage's connection to demons, putting him at even greater risk of possession, and thus making him an even greater threat to everyone around him, merely by existing.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So what you're saying is all jedi should give in to the dark side of the force if it suits them for the power boost.

[f37]

Doesn't WoT state that whoever holds a mage's phylactery basically controls him. You can cast spells on them remotely.

[The Elder King]

@Ieldra2: From the Chantry's perspective, it's obvious that they'd forbid it, since templars will be useless to stop them.
From my perspective, I'm not sure. I've yet to form a decisive opinion. For now I could say that while it doesn't have to be used in negative ways (though it's stronger if you fuel your spell by forcibly using the blood of others, and it makes mage more vulnerable to demons), It's still an incredibly dangerous magic.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Mages often contact demons to learn blood magic", that's a state of things the Chantry has created with its policy of forbidden knowledge. 

Considering that blood magic is not a basic necessity; if you were willing to go to a demon just to learn it, then chances are you aren't trustworthy enough to use blood magic in the first place.
That's just like saying it's the government's fault people contact smugglers to acquire drugs and that the solution is to make drugs legal. Nevermind that there are good reasons to keep drugs away from people.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 novembre 2013 - 05:25 .

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed. So why shouldn't mages use blood magic if it suits their interests?

it's useful enough without all that because it can overcome a templars' magic resistance,

Well, the fact that you numbered "violence against templars" as one of the reasons you'd want to learn blood magic right on the very same post doesn't instill much trust.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 novembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Mages often contact demons to learn blood magic", that's a state of things the Chantry has created with its policy of forbidden knowledge. 

Considering that blood magic is not a basic necessity; if you were willing to go to a demon just to learn it, then chances are you aren't trustworthy enough to use blood magic in the first place.
That's just like saying it's the government's fault people contact smugglers to acquire drugs and that the solution is to make drugs legal. Nevermind that there are good reasons to keep drugs away from people.

I do say that, in fact. Laws should be enacted to ensure a reasonable level of safety and fairness. Protecting people from themselves is not the task of the government, and trying to do that just funnels money to organized crime. Also, I don't like the double standards in those stupid laws, and I don't believe in forbidden knowledge since usually it just ensures that the bad guys get it first. Blood magic is a good example. To find a way to protect against it, you must know it, as Adralla's Litany shows perfectly. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 novembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed. So why shouldn't mages use blood magic if it suits their interests? And no, I'm not advocating mind control or demon summoning, it's useful enough without all that because it can overcome a templars' magic resistance, and it can give you access to powers you'd need lyrium for otherwise.

Well, presumably there would be two arguments: (i) there's no way to prevent mages from doing the mind control/demon summoning bit other than an outright ban of blood magic and (ii) replacing lyrium with blood sometimes seems to require fatal sorts of sacrifices. 

It's a question of what's the most effective enforcement. Even if we all that agree that blood magic in is morally neutral. 

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I do say that, in fact. Laws should be enacted to ensure a reasonable level of safety and fairness. Protecting people from themselves is not the task of the government, and trying to do that just funnels money to organized crime. Also, I don't like the double standards in those stupid laws, and I don't believe in forbidden knowledge since usually it just ensures that the bad guys get it first. Blood magic is a good example. To find a way to protect against it, you must know it, as Adralla's Litany shows perfectly. 

There is a difference between a team of trusted specialists with years of experience performing trials in secured locations and legalizing blood magic so any random mage can use if it "suits their interests".

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed. So why shouldn't mages use blood magic if it suits their interests? And no, I'm not advocating mind control or demon summoning, it's useful enough without all that because it can overcome a templars' magic resistance, and it can give you access to powers you'd need lyrium for otherwise.

Well, presumably there would be two arguments: (i) there's no way to prevent mages from doing the mind control/demon summoning bit other than an outright ban of blood magic and (ii) replacing lyrium with blood sometimes seems to require fatal sorts of sacrifices. 

It's a question of what's the most effective enforcement. Even if we all that agree that blood magic in is morally neutral. 

I don't necessarily disagree with a ban on pragmatic grounds. I do mind the ideology behind it though, and as long as the ban is used to keep mages oppressed, and a side aspect of blood magic is used to track mages in order to keep them oppressed, I don't see any reason why mages shouldn't use it in their interests, too.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 novembre 2013 - 05:59 .

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote..
I don't necessarily disagree with a ban on pragmatic grounds. I do mind the ideology behind it though, and as long as the ban is used to keep mages oppressed, and a side aspect of blood magic is used to track mages in order to keep them oppressed, I don't see any reason why mages shouldn't use it in their interests, too.

 

Given its general perception in Thedas, I think BM being used by mages in their uprising against the templars has to be *very* careful. It's kind of like ceeding ground in the propaganda war. I mean, there's obviously the option of using and denying, but then getting found out again feeds into the templar propaganda claims. 

I think that's a first question for the mages: how they want to fight the war. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if the Veil tears get blamed on them more than any other group. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote..
I don't necessarily disagree with a ban on pragmatic grounds. I do mind the ideology behind it though, and as long as the ban is used to keep mages oppressed, and a side aspect of blood magic is used to track mages in order to keep them oppressed, I don't see any reason why mages shouldn't use it in their interests, too.

 

Given its general perception in Thedas, I think BM being used by mages in their uprising against the templars has to be *very* careful. It's kind of like ceeding ground in the propaganda war. I mean, there's obviously the option of using and denying, but then getting found out again feeds into the templar propaganda claims. 

I think that's a first question for the mages: how they want to fight the war. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if the Veil tears get blamed on them more than any other group. 

To be honest blood magic is only way that mages can even have chances win in this war otherwise it will end failure for them they just don't have chance they don't have allies and normal magic is weak don't even mention that they are will fighting with templars who are associating heroes and holly warriors dominant religion and that gives them at least few allies.If mages will lose they will get fault for torn veil if they win they still get fault but no one will could do crap. 

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote..
I don't necessarily disagree with a ban on pragmatic grounds. I do mind the ideology behind it though, and as long as the ban is used to keep mages oppressed, and a side aspect of blood magic is used to track mages in order to keep them oppressed, I don't see any reason why mages shouldn't use it in their interests, too.

 

Given its general perception in Thedas, I think BM being used by mages in their uprising against the templars has to be *very* careful. It's kind of like ceeding ground in the propaganda war. I mean, there's obviously the option of using and denying, but then getting found out again feeds into the templar propaganda claims. 

I think that's a first question for the mages: how they want to fight the war. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if the Veil tears get blamed on them more than any other group. 

I agree that it's probably prudent to avoid blood magic where at all possible. At the same time, on the propaganda front, just say "We don't do mind control, we don't do demon summoning, we don't do human sacrifice" (which will hopefully remain true) and play the phylactery card against the templars. 

I also agree that templars and other people suspicious of mages well will blame the Veil tears on them, but I hope that will become less of a problem after mages are seen to fight against the demon invasion.