It seems to me to be yet another Bioware retcon (like Lelianna, Templar powers requiring Lyrium, ect) to change the lore to fit their argument rather than use the existing lore to tell the story they want. That's harsh but that's how I see it.
-Polaris
Yeah, but they still have to make sense when they use words right? lol
Defies logic or not, that is what they said. It could potentially have something to do with the fact that BM allows you to mind control so it could affect your mental abilities for all we know.
But your argument does not account at all for addiction. Addicts can love someone and care deeply for them but still hurt or even sacrifice them when it comes to their addiction. I grew up with a really great friend of mine who got hooked on meth at college. He was one of the nicest do anything for a friend guys I knew, the last time I visited him in rehab he probably would have slit my throat for a fix. Addiction is not logical. Maybe BM works that way as well. It certainly sounds like it from what has been said.
Sorry Kain, your arguments seem to mostly be coming from the area of you don't like the clarification of the role of blood magic in Thedas. It isn't all hunky dory just another form of magic. It has consequences, and they aren't limited to "the Andrastians won't like you".
I have no problem with addiction like THAT, then they just have to retcon the lore properly and explain it properly. It's not about power then it's about getting high. If a blood mage would feel really good every time they used blood magic, then it would make sense, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. Kinda like Ardat-Yakshi.
My point was it would be quite easy for them to implement that in the game. Obviously they are not removing blood magic because of something as simple as NPC and party interactions.
You could run off the majority of your companions one way or another in DAO, and they have stated that your party members won't quite be the social puppets they were in DA2. So it stands to reason that if they are taking out blood magic it isn't because of an issue as trivial as pc interactions.
The developers only said race and class would be acknowledged, so it's unknown if there's enough time for the specializations to be addressed as well. It may be an issue of being unable to properly acknowledge it in the narrative, given the negative perception Andrastians have about this school of magic.
I thought in DA:O, you had to do something pretty evil to unlock blood magic....make a deal with a demon to let them continue to posses a child. I don't know about everyone else, but the only reason I unlocked it was because I happened to be playing a mage on my "evil" playthrough.
So...if you have to do evil things to use blood magic...wouldn't that make it evil?
DA2's really the game that made it not seem evil, because none of the specializations had any effects on the story, nor did they require you to do anything to unlock them. So I just see it as, they're not making the same mistake they did in DA2, rather than retconning how evil blood magic is.
Their only mistake in DA:O with blood magic was not having people ever react to it - and again, they don't want to make that mistake again. And even though blood mage is my favorite spec, if accurately representing blood magic in DA:I breaks the story (which it probably does), I'm ok with not having it.
So...if you have to do evil things to use blood magic...wouldn't that make it evil?
But that's not the point... Evil is subjective, but hey let's just for the sake of an argument say it's evil. So what now? Blood magic is evil and it's not available to the pc why?
I thought in DA:O, you had to do something pretty evil to unlock blood magic....make a deal with a demon to let them continue to posses a child. I don't know about everyone else, but the only reason I unlocked it was because I happened to be playing a mage on my "evil" playthrough.
So...if you have to do evil things to use blood magic...wouldn't that make it evil?
Actually if you had a Coercion of 4, you could make the demon teach you bloodmagic, leave Conner forever, and escape with it's life.
The point is you don't have to do evil things to use bloodmagic although admittedly that's it's reputation. You don't have to use anyone's blood but your own (or maybe a knowing volunteer), and you don't have to use your magic to do evil things.
-Polaris
I thought in DA:O, you had to do something pretty evil to unlock blood magic....make a deal with a demon to let them continue to posses a child. I don't know about everyone else, but the only reason I unlocked it was because I happened to be playing a mage on my "evil" playthrough.
So...if you have to do evil things to use blood magic...wouldn't that make it evil?
You can force the Desire Demon to nullify the contract with Connor and still learn the specialization from her in exchange for her life, or ask the Baroness to teach it to you at a time when the protagonist believes she's simply another mage, which is reinforced by WoT reading that it's a school of magic that can be taught, and isn't restricted to knowledge that can only be learned from spirits.
We have an apostate like Merrill who uses it for years without becoming villainous or amoral, so I don't see how it's supposed to be automatically corrupting when the story shows something entirely different.
DA2's really the game that made it not seem evil, because none of the specializations had any effects on the story, nor did they require you to do anything to unlock them. So I just see it as, they're not making the same mistake they did in DA2, rather than retconning how evil blood magic is.
Duncan also countered the protagonist saying it was evil by pointing out that some Grey Warden mages use it to combat the darkspawn, so I don't see how it's supposed to be inherently evil.
Their only mistake in DA:O with blood magic was not having people ever react to it - and again, they don't want to make that mistake again. And even though blood mage is my favorite spec, if accurately representing blood magic in DA:I breaks the story (which it probably does), I'm ok with not having it.
Wynne was supposed to mention it in a deleted scene with Irving and Greagoir, if your blood mage sided with the mages.
You know what's really evil? Swords! They are made for only one purpose - to kill people. People that possess swords start to feel the power to take away someones life and start to threaten other people with their swords. Swords corrupt people, anyone who possesses a sword will face bad consequences for having one.
Guest_JujuSamedi_*
Wynne was supposed to mention it in a deleted scene with Irving and Greagoir, if your blood mage sided with the mages.
The only reason that scene was deleted (or so we were told at the time) was because it kept on bugging the Landsmeet scene and DAO had run out of developement time. Frankly the scene IMO was pretty silly considering that (per DG IIRC) Grey Warden Mages (and only Grey Warden Mages) are legally sanctioned to use blood magic in time of blight and do not fall under Chantry law.
-Polaris
The only reason that scene was deleted (or so we were told at the time) was because it kept on bugging the Landsmeet scene and DAO had run out of developement time. Frankly the scene IMO was pretty silly considering that (per DG IIRC) Grey Warden Mages (and only Grey Warden Mages) are legally sanctioned to use blood magic in time of blight and do not fall under Chantry law.
-Polaris
Yeah, the development time was also the reason the scene where The Warden can betray Morrigan to the templars was also cut. However, I'm not surprised that it's an issue if the protagonist openly admits to using blood magic; both Irving and Greagoir are more than willing to brush off Wynne's concern if the protagonist gives the flimsy excuse that it's merely "Grey Warden magic".
I have no problem with addiction like THAT, then they just have to retcon the lore properly and explain it properly. It's not about power then it's about getting high. If a blood mage would feel really good every time they used blood magic, then it would make sense, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. Kinda like Ardat-Yakshi.
No, addiction doesn't mean high. Addiction in this case would mean that every time they use blood magic they want more power from it and they become less concerned about who they use to get that power from just as long as they are able to get more, to the point that they start using their friends and allies and don't care what the cost is.
The developers only said race and class would be acknowledged, so it's unknown if there's enough time for the specializations to be addressed as well. It may be an issue of being unable to properly acknowledge it in the narrative, given the negative perception Andrastians have about this school of magic.
Granted, but I don't see them taking it completely out of the game rather then scripting the necessary reactions to using blood magic that would be needed. It wouldn't take that much to allow for Follower A is anti blood magic, if you are a blood mage you have a rocky relationship with them and they eventually leave. The Chantry is extremely anti BM if you openly use BM then they will be nearly impossible to cooperate with. It wouldn't be any more difficult then scripting reactions to you being a Qunari or Dalish with some of the interactions.
The problem is that they can't figure out a way to bring the consequences they want for blood magic into the game in a sensible way. Its either not enough of a cost to get across the problem of blood magic or it is too harsh and gimps the character.
But that's not the point... Evil is subjective, but hey let's just for the sake of an argument say it's evil. So what now? Blood magic is evil and it's not available to the pc why?
This is why I don't think it has anything to do with being evil perse`, they don't have an issue with us being a souless murdering serial killer if we wish to be, it isn't about it being good or evil, it is about them not having a way to truly show the consequences of using blood magic.
There's nothing in the lore that even suggests that would be the case, so I find that incredibly at odds with what we actually know. I also recall Gaider saying at one point that it pertained to the user, and that while it could be corrupting, it wasn't necessarily so.
It was said plenty in the promotion stuff and the bsn boards prior to the launch of DAO. DA2 didn't mesh with that and I don't know if they painted themselves into a corner by having Merril be a blood mage and didn't want to say she was automatically evil, but the early launch and promotion lore from DAO and the comments they made with DA2 do not mesh up well at all regarding BM.
No, addiction doesn't mean high. Addiction in this case would mean that every time they use blood magic they want more power from it and they become less concerned about who they use to get that power from just as long as they are able to get more, to the point that they start using their friends and allies and don't care what the cost is.
The problem is that they can't figure out a way to bring the consequences they want for blood magic into the game in a sensible way. Its either not enough of a cost to get across the problem of blood magic or it is too harsh and gimps the character.
This is why I don't think it has anything to do with being evil perse`, they don't have an issue with us being a souless murdering serial killer if we wish to be, it isn't about it being good or evil, it is about them not having a way to truly show the consequences of using blood magic.
There is no such thing as power addiction, that's gibberish. I already made a point about it.
What consequences? What is supposed to happen if you are a blood mage.
There is no such thing as power addiction, that's gibberish. I already made a point about it.
What consequences? What is supposed to happen if you are a blood mage.
Except it has been specifically mentioned at times that blood mages have the danger of no longer discriminating between who's blood they use to fuel their spells. And yes power can be addictive. Just as celebrity and such can be addictive. It doesn't affect everyone the same way just as alcohol and such doesn't but that doesn't make it non addictive.
The consequence---Eventually you don't care who you use as your private blood battery. There have been references to demons and weakening the veal that aren't as substantiated by the lore-we know blood magic can seal a weakened veal but not really how or why and it was just one instance.
Except it has been specifically mentioned at times that blood mages have the danger of no longer discriminating between who's blood they use to fuel their spells. And yes power can be addictive. Just as celebrity and such can be addictive. It doesn't affect everyone the same way just as alcohol and such doesn't but that doesn't make it non addictive.
The consequence---Eventually you don't care who you use as your private blood battery. There have been references to demons and weakening the veal that aren't as substantiated by the lore-we know blood magic can seal a weakened veal but not really how or why and it was just one instance.
No it hasn't and it couldn't have been stated. We are going in circles. Power is addictive to those that want it, and people want power for some other sake. Fame is a goal in and of itself, power is not, power is used for specific goals. Power is not a physiological thing to be addictive like that.
No it hasn't and it couldn't have been stated. We are going in circles. Power is addictive to those that want it, and people want power for some other sake. Fame is a goal in and of itself, power is not, power is used for specific goals. Power is not a physiological thing to be addictive like that.
Really? People don't accumulate power as a goal in and of itself? People become powerbrokers because they like to be in the position of being able to get things done. They like for people to have to come to them and need help. Lots of people in politics, the corporate world, and other areas are all about acquiring more power without having a specific goal in mind other then having that power.
I agree though, if you don't think power is addictive there is nothing left to really discuss.
For what it's worth, David Gaider I believe, said in a panel discussion that Blood magic is not inherently evil or corrupting. It's not like the dark side of the force. He said the issue is that becase it can let you mind control people and raise the dead and invade dreams etc that the power it gives you is corrupting, in the same way that political power can be. If you can force someone to agree with you with a wae of the hand...wouldn't you d it? It's a slippery slope. Blood mage hands people a bunch of new abilities that cannot be effectively defended against and it would take a person of extremely good character to keep from abusing them (ie malcolm hawke/merrill)
Really? People don't accumulate power as a goal in and of itself? People become powerbrokers because they like to be in the position of being able to get things done. They like for people to have to come to them and need help. Lots of people in politics, the corporate world, and other areas are all about acquiring more power without having a specific goal in mind other then having that power.
I agree though, if you don't think power is addictive there is nothing left to really discuss.
No I don't think that power is addictive, I think that some people want power and some don't, and what every person does with power also varies, it depends on the individual. Power is not a physical thing that gets you addicted like alcohol, it's an idea, and people care about different ideas, it's not universal.
No I don't think that power is addictive, I think that some people want power and some don't, and what every person does with power also varies, it depends on the individual. Power is not a physical thing that gets you addicted like alcohol, it's an idea, and people care about different ideas, it's not universal.
Granted, Alcohol isn't universally addictive either. I drank like a fish in college and haven't been even tempted to have a drink in 6 years.
For what it's worth, David Gaider I believe, said in a panel discussion that Blood magic is not inherently evil or corrupting. It's not like the dark side of the force. He said the issue is that becase it can let you mind control people and raise the dead and invade dreams etc that the power it gives you is corrupting, in the same way that political power can be. If you can force someone to agree with you with a wae of the hand...wouldn't you d it? It's a slippery slope. Blood mage hands people a bunch of new abilities that cannot be effectively defended against and it would take a person of extremely good character to keep from abusing them (ie malcolm hawke/merrill)
This is the point I've made time and again. Evil is found in the person and their actions, not in the means they use to go about their business. Likewise, in reference to what you say about abilities that cannot be defended against... If a swordmaster puts their sword against someone's throat and demands that the person follow their lead or die, there's certainly not much that person is going to be able to do against the swordmaster. The same would be the case if the mage was a pyromancer. "Follow me or watch your family be incinerated" -or- "Follow me or I'll have your entire family arrested as heretics", can be a pretty persuasive statement if you don't have the means to stop the person saying it.
For what it's worth, David Gaider I believe, said in a panel discussion that Blood magic is not inherently evil or corrupting. It's not like the dark side of the force. He said the issue is that becase it can let you mind control people and raise the dead and invade dreams etc that the power it gives you is corrupting, in the same way that political power can be. If you can force someone to agree with you with a wae of the hand...wouldn't you d it? It's a slippery slope. Blood mage hands people a bunch of new abilities that cannot be effectively defended against and it would take a person of extremely good character to keep from abusing them (ie malcolm hawke/merrill)
Which panel at which con? Do you have a source for him saying that? I've been looking and I can't find it. I even looked for Mike Laidlaw as another developer that might have made that comment on this and I haven't found it yet.
Edit: The only direct developer statements I've read are from Cameron's a week ago, stating flat out that blood magic is evil. I've spent 20 minutes since I posted checking old convention panels, old articles and other statements. They'd been quiet on that front up until now. The only things I read was Mike Laidlaw mentioning that blood magic is in DA2 for the player mainly due to the Rule of Cool, and that no one gives the Champion a hard time for being a blood mage because they are afraid of him/her. Even that isn't sourced, it's just something I read on a gamefaqs forum. Not exactly known for being a reliable news source.
This is the point I've made time and again. Evil is found in the person and their actions, not in the means they use to go about their business. Likewise, in reference to what you say about abilities that cannot be defended against... If a swordmaster puts their sword against someone's throat and demands that the person follow their lead or die, there's certainly not much that person is going to be able to do against the swordmaster. The same would be the case if the mage was a pyromancer. "Follow me or watch your family be incinerated" -or- "Follow me or I'll have your entire family arrested as heretics", can be a pretty persuasive statement if you don't have the means to stop the person saying it.
Evil definitely is part of their means. If their goal is "expand the territory of my country" and their means is "the systematic genocide of sorrounding peoples", then we've got someone whose end is arguably immoral and whose means is abhorrent.
This is the point I've made time and again. Evil is found in the person and their actions, not in the means they use to go about their business.
So it isn't possible for a good person to be corrupted through or by the actions they take?
Look, I posted a long time ago on here that the evil debate about blood magic has little to do with it not being in the game. It is the way they implement it as being evil/having consequences that is the problem. Either they haven't found a way to tie the consequences to the game play or they haven't found a way that being a blood mage makes you select evil choices I am not sure, but it isn't that BM is or isn't evil, it is a problem of how they can show it in the game.
So it isn't possible for a good person to be corrupted through or by the actions they take?
No. There are no good people, only different people with different goals. Nothing comes out other than whats already there.
Retour en haut