1858 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

The DA wiki says that phylacteries are a form of blood magic and links an interview with David Gaider as the source. Unfortunately, the linked page is unavailable at this time so I can't confirm it but if a source is given it's usually reliable. I've also read the source myself in the past so I know it has existed at some time, I just don't recall the details.

http://dragonage.wik...wiki/Phylactery

Edit:
Ah, got the link to work. Here is is. then, from the mouth of David Gaider himself. Quoting the full paragraph for context:

"DG: I would say that they [the templar abilities] are magic, they derive from lyrium, which is magic. The tricky thing there is that the Chantry is awfully hypocritical when it comes to magic, in that there are sorts of magic that they will use. Actually I should take that back, it's not necessarily that they're hypocritical, they don't have anything against magic itself. Magic can be useful, they know the mages are useful. It's the elements of possession and blood magic, all the forbidden magic where things get really dicey. Even if Templar magic was recognized as spellcasting, it's not innate to the Templars, if they just stopped taking lyrium eventually they would lose the ability. Although as Alistair proves, they can use the ability for a long time afterwards. I think part of that was just the requirements of gameplay, for us to have a specialization as well, so some of that story doesn't quite match up with the gameplay, and I think eventually we'd like to work the lyrium requirement back into the gameplay as well. Regardless the magic the Templars use doesn't involve mind control, it's not forbidden magic, there's nothing about it--especially since it can only against mages--there's nothing about it that would make the Chantry step in and go "Wow, that's bad." But then we're talking about a Chantry that also has phylacteries in every Circle, which is a type of blood magic, so there's definitely an element of hypocrisy there."

Source:
http://swooping-is-b...om/1286233.html

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 décembre 2013 - 09:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Then Gaider changed his stance, sicne hte last time I've seen him talk, he avoided giving a clear answer on wether it is or isn't really blood magic.

[Ieldra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Then Gaider changed his stance, sicne hte last time I've seen him talk, he avoided giving a clear answer on wether it is or isn't really blood magic.

That doesn't mean he hasn't got an opinion. He just didn't want to end the debate by making a statement ex cathedra. So maybe we shouldn't take the quoted statement from the interview as official, but it has weight nonetheless, coming from a person most knowledgeable about the world.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 décembre 2013 - 11:26 .

[dragonflight288]

@ Ieldra,

Going slightly off-topic here, nice avatar!!!

@ Lotion

And all it does is ultimately prove my point. The devs have confirmed its a type of blood magic, the novels suggest that the templars know it's a type of blood magic (Evangeline) and Gaider said using templar abilities is like using magic. Templars can't be blood mages by virtue of not being mages, but by using lyrium-based magic for their templar abilities and using phylacteries, they are in essence using blood magic.

The evidence thus far is irrefutable.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So what exactly do you think you prove with the phylacteries being a type of blood magic? Is it suppose to make everyone go "oh I guess mages should know blood magic and we should juet let them all go now"?

News flash. Just because the chantry uses a type of blood msgic in tracking escaped mages does nothing to actually dissuade anything, all it does is just brings false equivalency between thst a d mind control blood magic. The wardens used blood magic in the joining, the minute they tried to extend that to controlling peoples minds they were rightfully chased out by people and punished for it.

There are degrees to which something is acceptable, and I would say the joining and phylacteries are an example of thst acceptability. Anything beyond thst crosses the line.

[Medhia Nox]

So, we're saying that phylacteries are a good thing and we should use them for all citizens of Thedas when the mage rebels legalize blood magic?

I'm on board!

Or is "this" where it's okay to make a moral judgement on blood sacrifices and self-mutilation?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 11 décembre 2013 - 03:47 .

[Hellion Rex]

Medhia Nox wrote...

So, we're saying that phylacteries are a good thing and we should use them for all citizens of Thedas when the mage rebels legalize blood magic?

I'm on board!

Or is "this" where it's okay to make a moral judgement on blood sacrifices and self-mutilation?

Number one, the majority of the mage rebels would not legalize blood magic. That is a gross generalization. Two, we are just discussing the relationship between templar abilities and magic.

[Ieldra]

eluvianix wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
So, we're saying that phylacteries are a good thing and we should use them for all citizens of Thedas when the mage rebels legalize blood magic?

I'm on board!

Or is "this" where it's okay to make a moral judgement on blood sacrifices and self-mutilation?

Number one, the majority of the mage rebels would not legalize blood magic. That is a gross generalization. Two, we are just discussing the relationship between templar abilities and magic.

"Legalize blood magic" is such a loaded phrase. Nobody wants to legalize blood sacrifice and mind-control, but I see no reason why using your own blood for power should be outlawed. Jowan did nothing wrong in DAO.

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
So, we're saying that phylacteries are a good thing and we should use them for all citizens of Thedas when the mage rebels legalize blood magic?

I'm on board!

Or is "this" where it's okay to make a moral judgement on blood sacrifices and self-mutilation?

Number one, the majority of the mage rebels would not legalize blood magic. That is a gross generalization. Two, we are just discussing the relationship between templar abilities and magic.

"Legalize blood magic" is such a loaded phrase. Nobody wants to legalize blood sacrifice and mind-control, but I see no reason why using your own blood for power should be outlawed. Jowan did nothing wrong in DAO.

I'm talking about blood boiling, demon summoning, mind control, etc. Upper level blood magic.

[Vulpe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
So, we're saying that phylacteries are a good thing and we should use them for all citizens of Thedas when the mage rebels legalize blood magic?

I'm on board!

Or is "this" where it's okay to make a moral judgement on blood sacrifices and self-mutilation?

Number one, the majority of the mage rebels would not legalize blood magic. That is a gross generalization. Two, we are just discussing the relationship between templar abilities and magic.

"Legalize blood magic" is such a loaded phrase. Nobody wants to legalize blood sacrifice and mind-control, but I see no reason why using your own blood for power should be outlawed. Jowan did nothing wrong in DAO.

There's always the chance of abusing it. Even if abuse of power can be seen everywhere, from mages to templars and from nobles to city guards, when a mage that also uses blood magic abuses his powers the consequences can be very, very bad. 

[Medhia Nox]

@eluvianix: You won't scare THIS big meanie butt (your scathing terminology not mine ) with accusations of gross generalization.

If it weren't for gross generalization the mage rebellion wouldn't have gotten started in the first place. It's very useful (and necessary) when rallying groups of people to a cause. The Templars wouldn't brand every mage a psychotic demon kisser, the Tevinter wouldn't be able to dehumanize people into slaves, and the Qunari wouldn't be able to convert the recidivist!

Gross generalization makes the world interesting - what do you want, everyone to be understanding?  People to listen to other's arguments and try to see if they have merit?  Not on MY BSN buddy!  Not only does it take more time than I'm interested to constantly say "my opinion" "not everyone" "not all the time" - it's an "understood" when I read other people's posts.

@Ieldra2: You know, I believe Gaider has stated that it takes "pain" for blood magic. So, you're hardly going to get the blood through a hypodermic needle... it's self-mutilation, or mutilation for others for it to work.

As for Jowan doing nothing wrong... I disagree, but arguing it will hardly matter.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 11 décembre 2013 - 04:41 .

[Vulpe]

I really doubt that they have other means of extracting blood except for stashing and stabbing.

Speaking of needles, would the blood group play a part when it comes to the potency of the blood ?

[The Elder King]

Making a cut on your hand generates pain. Not as much as cutting a people's arm, or extracting his heart, but it's still pain. And Jowan was able to surprised Gregoir with it.
I'm not a great fan of blood magic, but it can be used without hurting others, or even without hurting yourself too much.

[Hellion Rex]

JulianWellpit wrote...

I really doubt that they have other means of extracting blood except for stashing and stabbing.

Speaking of needles, would the blood group play a part when it comes to the potency of the blood ?

If you are talking about human blood type, probably not. If you are talking about person versus creature, then probably so. Blood magic empowered by dragon's blood could potentially be immensely powerful.

[Ieldra]

hhh89 wrote...
Making a cut on your hand generates pain. Not as much as cutting a people's arm, or extracting his heart, but it's still pain. And Jowan was able to surprised Gregoir with it.
I'm not a great fan of blood magic, but it can be used without hurting others, or even without hurting yourself too much.

I'd really like to have a clarification on the newly-evilized blood magic in WoT I. The way it's presented in-game is different, and two games have enough weight to question the new philosophy's authenticity until explicity confirmed. Anyway, you'd be surprised by how much pain you can generate with a small wound of little otherwise consequence. Self-mutilation is not required. Also, what about clubbing someone? With no blood drawn? I don't think they really thought this through at the DA team.

[Lord Raijin]

If the Chantry can use religion to mind control people to think like they do then blood mages have every right to use magic for the same reason.

[Vulpe]

@eluvianix

I was speaking of the first.Thought maybe the rarity of a group and its "pureness" might play a part in the potency( ex:Negative 0 has no antigens. Everyone can get trasfusions from them, but they can get only from those with the same group).

The second is quite obvious for someone that has some knowledge regarding the lore.

Lord Raijin wrote...

If the Chantry can use religion to mind control people to think like they do then blood mages have every right to use magic for the same reason.

They're using fear to control people. Religion is just the scapegoat .

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 11 décembre 2013 - 05:00 .

[Medhia Nox]

@hhh89: Cutting your hand is still self-mutiliation.

@eluvianix: Ohhh, I see... slaughtering dragons for power and profit is totally okay to you!? I'm calling the Thedosian ASPCA

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 11 décembre 2013 - 04:57 .

[Hellion Rex]

JulianWellpit wrote...

@eluvianix

I was speaking of the first.Thought maybe the rarity of a group and it's "pureness" might play a part in the potency( ex:Negative 0 has no antigens. Everyone can get trasfusions from them, but they can get only from those with the same group).

The second is quite obvious for someone that has some knowledge regarding the lore.

Blood types might have slight impact, but probably only if a blood mage in Thedas were to have knowledge of different blood types.

[Hellion Rex]

Lord Raijin wrote...

If the Chantry can use religion to mind control people to think like they do then blood mages have every right to use magic for the same reason.

Ok, we need to draw a line there. Using religion to influence people is a whole different ball game from using blood magic to literally steer peoples thoughts. One doesn't justify the other.

[Vulpe]

eluvianix wrote...

JulianWellpit wrote...

@eluvianix

I was speaking of the first.Thought maybe the rarity of a group and it's "pureness" might play a part in the potency( ex:Negative 0 has no antigens. Everyone can get trasfusions from them, but they can get only from those with the same group).

The second is quite obvious for someone that has some knowledge regarding the lore.

Blood types might have slight impact, but probably only if a blood mage in Thedas were to have knowledge of different blood types.

Maybe they just have something like a six sense and they can figure out what person has the more potent blood (that if it group type plays a role in all of it )

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
Making a cut on your hand generates pain. Not as much as cutting a people's arm, or extracting his heart, but it's still pain. And Jowan was able to surprised Gregoir with it.
I'm not a great fan of blood magic, but it can be used without hurting others, or even without hurting yourself too much.

I'd really like to have a clarification on the newly-evilized blood magic in WoT I. The way it's presented in-game is different, and two games have enough weight to question the new philosophy's authenticity until explicity confirmed. Anyway, you'd be surprised by how much pain you can generate with a small wound of little otherwise consequence. Self-mutilation is not required. Also, what about clubbing someone? With no blood drawn? I don't think they really thought this through at the DA team.

Bolded 1. Mind clarifying for me on how Blood magic is newly "evilized" in the World of Thedas? I do not have the book, so I would appreciate this info.

Bolded 2. Or perhaps we might be overthinking this.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@hhh89: Cutting your hand is still self-mutiliation.

The term suggests permanent damage, which is not required. And a little pain is nothing if it gets templars off you who're out for your head.

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@hhh89: Cutting your hand is still self-mutiliation.

The term suggests permanent damage, which is not required. And a little pain is nothing if it gets templars off you who're out for your head.

Are you referring to using blood magic to amplify normal spells? Or are you talking about mind control and upper level blood spells?

[The Elder King]

@Ieldra2: I wasn't saying that small wounds necessarily cause little pain. I stated that is less than losing an arm or an heart extraction.