I will ask you then the same question I asked from phantomrachie (which he could not answer), Would all these factions let the world to be destroyed just because the only one person who can close veil tears uses blood magic?
I forgot to mention "Herald of Andraste" title what our Inquisitor would bare no matter what
this is totally pro Orlais and Pro Chantry
1)no blood magic spells but nonmages can be templars
4)straight males have only a humans, non-mages and a pro Orlais Chantry, Tempalrs Li
6)we are called as "Herald of Andraste" no matter who we are and what we do
There are a few things I wanted to point out here.
Patrick Weekes has addressed the "Herald of Andraste" title on his twitter. Based on what he said, it seems that the title is either conditional and doesn't apply to every Inquisitor OR it isn't specifically linked to the Chantry. After all, Andraste didn't start the Chantry and was also a freedom fighter (helping elves) and was possibly a mage herself.
Blood magic and templar abilities are not the antitheses of each other. Blood magic is very powerful and dark magic. Templar abilities are for general purpose use against mages, but I suspect they are less effective against blood mages. The fact that blood magic is not available is a testament to BioWare's new-found commitment to adhering to its own series lore. Realistically, blood magic would be far too overpowered.
Cassandra is not as "pro-Chantry" as you claim. Her character arc, as confirmed by her writer David Gaider, involves a crisis of faith. The fact that she is willing to romance a non-human or a non-Andrastian is proof that she is becoming more open-minded. We have seen glimpses of this in Dawn of the Seeker, which took place about 20 years before Inquisition, in her relations with Galyan the mage and in Dragon Age 2, in which Cassandra drew the conclusion that Meredith (leader of the templars) was to blame for the Kirkwall Rebellion. She didn't blame Anders, the apostate terrorist who Cassandra otherwise would have blamed.
Josephine doesn't appear to be pro-Chantry at all. There's nothing in her biography to suggest that she is pro-Chantry. The fact that she is Leliana's friend says nothing about her religious beliefs. I have plenty of religious and non-religious friends, but I am agnostic.
Blood magic and templar abilities are not the antitheses of each other. Blood magic is very powerful and dark magic. Templar abilities are for general purpose use against mages, but I suspect they are less effective against blood mages. The fact that blood magic is not available is a testament to BioWare's new-found commitment to adhering to its own series lore. Realistically, blood magic would be far too overpowered.
The only testament is that Bio is determined to prevent the player from using a ability which is the most interesting both lore and gameplay/story vice. In a real rpg the player has the right to decide which branch of magic he uses and how, and also bears the responsibility. Bio has added the evilness of blood magic afterwards in the lore, just to moralize it with their own point of view. Having a preset morality on the player is not the way to go.
Blood magic is no more overpowering than any other magic in the game. People have just forgotten what kind of character a mage is. Mage should be the nuclear bomb of the battlefield, not a warrior who fights with light and colour and is on par with other character types.
The only testament is that Bio is determined to prevent the player from using a ability which is the most interesting both lore and gameplay/story vice. In a real rpg the player has the right to decide which branch of magic he uses and how, and also bears the responsibility. Bio has added the evilness of blood magic afterwards in the lore, just to moralize it with their own point of view. Having a preset morality on the player is not the way to go.
Blood magic is no more overpowering than any other magic in the game. People have just forgotten what kind of character a mage is. Mage should be the nuclear bomb of the battlefield, not a warrior who fights with light and colour and is on par with other character types.
Or maybe they didn't want to add 10000 extra lines of dialogue for a single specialization to properly reflect the drastic change that becoming a blood mage is. RPGs limit their player's choices. If the consequences of a specific choice cannot be reasonably included, it's better to leave it out.
And what are you even talking about with your "moralizing it with their own point of view"? People in Thedas consider blood magic to be evil. There are good reasons for that, given that it involves human sacrifice. And yes, it is more powerful than regular magic in that it allows a mage to control the minds of others. To include the blood mage specialization properly, you'd have to give a blood mage the ability to mind control more or less everyone they meet.
Or maybe they didn't want to add 10000 extra lines of dialogue for a single specialization to properly reflect the drastic change that becoming a blood mage is. RPGs limit their player's choices. If the consequences of a specific choice cannot be reasonably included, it's better to leave it out.
Maybe, then again Origins did it just fine. There was a instance in the circle quest where Wynne noticed that the player is a blood mage. If he didn´t have enough coersion he had to fight both Wynne and templars, removing both mages and templars from the support army option. That would have been real rpg consequence for players action, sadly it was removed. Compared to Warders the Inq is a even more special snowflake, he is the only one who can close the veil tear. Who would deny him of using blood magic?
And what are you even talking about with your "moralizing it with their own point of view"? People in Thedas consider blood magic to be evil. There are good reasons for that, given that it involves human sacrifice. And yes, it is more powerful than regular magic in that it allows a mage to control the minds of others. To include the blood mage specialization properly, you'd have to give a blood mage the ability to mind control more or less everyone they meet.
So you don´t see the adding of the "more power through pain" option in lore as an effort to place morality on the blood magic branch? Because it wasn´t there in the beginning.
And I will ask you too the same question I have been asking in this thread before: Would all these factions let the world to be destroyed just because the only one person who can close veil tears uses blood magic?
The only testament is that Bio is determined to prevent the player from using a ability which is the most interesting both lore and gameplay/story vice. In a real rpg the player has the right to decide which branch of magic he uses and how, and also bears the responsibility. Bio has added the evilness of blood magic afterwards in the lore, just to moralize it with their own point of view. Having a preset morality on the player is not the way to go.
Blood magic is no more overpowering than any other magic in the game. People have just forgotten what kind of character a mage is. Mage should be the nuclear bomb of the battlefield, not a warrior who fights with light and colour and is on par with other character types.
The use of regular magic requires lyrium, which is not found everywhere. The mage is limited in this regard. A blood mage is not limited in the same way. Blood is practically everywhere, in the living and the dead (in both humanoids and animals alike). Blood magic is overpowered because its source of power is in such abundance. It also allows the user to control people's minds.
By the way, blood magic has been established as the "forbidden school" since Origins. Here are codex entries referring to the subject. It's not about BioWare's point of view on blood magic, it's about in-universe opinions about blood magic. That's what lore is.
In previous games, the developers decided not to portray the consequences of the player's use of blood magic, which made no sense from a narrative/lore perspective. Other blood mages were hunted down, imprisoned, and/or killed. They ignored the lore in previous games for whatever reason.
Since the developers have decided to have greater reactivity to the player's specialization in Inquisition, a blood mage Inquisitor would require a greater amount of content devoted to him or her. It would drastically alter the story. The lack of blood magic for the player has nothing to do with forcing the player into a particular stance on blood magic. It has everything to do with the story not being able to accommodate such a major development like that, as David Gaider has said.
Also....if the mage were the "nuclear bomb" of the battlefield, then he or she would die from the use of (any) magic too, no? 
And I have no idea what you mean by "fights with light and color" 
Is bloodmage even gonna be in DAI I know it was a specialization in DAO and DA2, but it's not listed as a specialization in DAI or will it be one of the regular schools of magic like the other spells where in DAO and DA2.
More than likely will no be....but I bet my a$$ that it will be in the MP like Arcane Warrior....grrr
Maybe, then again Origins did it just fine. There was a instance in the circle quest where Wynne noticed that the player is a blood mage. If he didn´t have enough coersion he had to fight both Wynne and templars, removing both mages and templars from the support army option. That would have been real rpg consequence for players action, sadly it was removed. Compared to Warders the Inq is a even more special snowflake, he is the only one who can close the veil tear. Who would deny him of using blood magic?
So you don´t see the adding of the "more power through pain" option in lore as an effort to place morality on the blood magic branch? Because it wasn´t there in the beginning.
And I will ask you too the same question I have been asking in this thread before: Would all these factions let the world to be destroyed just because the only one person who can close veil tears uses blood magic?
If it is well established that the Inquisitor is the only hope, then these factions probably wouldn't kill him for using blood magic. It would, however, massively influence pretty much every single interaction and conversation in the entire game. Your point?
And what do you mean by "it wasn't there in the beginning"? Blood magic was considered the pinnacle of evil magic in DA:O. Given that DA:O is the first Dragon Age game, I don't see what you mean by "beginning".
And the implementation of blood magic in Origins was absolutely awful. Do you honestly consider having to pass a single speech check "real rpg consequence"? Why wasn't the ex-templar Alistair horrified by your use of blood magic? Why weren't there templars coming after you after the rumor of your using blood magic spread? Why was Wynne of all people okay with your using blood magic and even with learning it herself? Why didn't Loghain use it against you at the Landsmeet? Why didn't we get to mind control people outside of combat? ... I could continue for about three pages.
There was a massive disconnect between what being a blood mage should entail according to lore and what it did entail in the actual game. That's exactly the kind of lack of reactivity that they want to exclude in this game.
I am right. Just wait and see.
But you still didn´t answer my question. Would all these factions let the world to be destroyed just because the only one person who can close veil tears uses blood magic? I would say no.
Special snowflake guarantees that.
You may very well be right but it's not necessarily your conclusion that I'm debating against but your evidence for it. You've provided nothing but assumptions and inaccurate information to try and prove what you are saying.
You have a conconclusion and you're trying to prove it with wild assumptions with no bases. I'm sure once you play the game, even if there is a way to destroy the Chantry you'll still complain that BioWare were somehow forcing you not too, because you're convinced you're right so you're not even considering other possibilities.
I thought I had answered your question when I said the below:
You don't start out as the Inquisitor, you start out as some guy who becomes the Inquisitor, even if you did start out as the 'mighty' Inquisitor, why would factions who don't like Blood Magic work with you - there would have to be a lore breaking story reason for Templars, Mages, Dalish, etc to work with some who uses Blood Magic, so you'd end up with no allies, except possible the Dwarves because even the rebelling Mages don't like Blood Magic
But let me elaborate further.
At the beginning of the game you are just some guy, some guy that has to gain Cassandra's trust so she doesn't kill you right there, if you are a Blood Mage at the beginning of the game - then you're dead.
If you become a Blood Mage later in the game, then either one of two things has to happen - everyone has to ignore the fact that your are a Blood Mage like in DA:O and DA2 or they have to react to it.
Since BioWare is trying to lessen the disconnect between the lore and the gameplay by making people react to your class, then they'd have to react.
Most of the factions in Thedas think that Blood Magic is evil because it requires you to kill people to use its strongest spells and because you can use it to control people's minds.
This is deeply ingrained in their society and psyche and it is something that even the end of the world might not be able to overcome.
In the minds of most people Blood Magic= Daemons and since the Veil has been torn, then maybe a powerful Blood Mage did that, they did it before, when they polluted the Golden City , the Inquisitor is a power Blood Mage, maybe they torn the Veil and its trying to use it to take over Thedas.
With that line of thinking all of a sudden people don't want to be your allies, they want to kill you because they think it will solve the problem, you tell them that only you can repair the Veil, but why would they believe you, you're a Blood Mage. Cassandra tries to convince them that you are telling the truth but you could've mind controlled her to say that.
The Inquisitor becomes a convenient target for their fear of the unknown.
I will ask you then the same question I asked from phantomrachie (which he could not answer), Would all these factions let the world to be destroyed just because the only one person who can close veil tears uses blood magic?
I'd wait for a response next time before declaring that I can't answer something but I'm not sure you'd be satisfied with any answer that I gave
Mage should be the nuclear bomb of the battlefield, not a warrior who fights with light and colour and is on par with other character types.
If it is well established that the Inquisitor is the only hope, then these factions probably wouldn't kill him for using blood magic. It would, however, massively influence pretty much every single interaction and conversation in the entire game. Your point?
And what do you mean by "it wasn't there in the beginning"? Blood magic was considered the pinnacle of evil magic in DA:O. Given that DA:O is the first Dragon Age game, I don't see what you mean by "beginning".
And the implementation of blood magic in Origins was absolutely awful. Do you honestly consider having to pass a single speech check "real rpg consequence"? Why wasn't the ex-templar Alistair horrified by your use of blood magic? Because he was your friend and you were using it for good. Why weren't there templars coming after you after the rumor of your using blood magic spread? There would be no rumor if no one but party members knew. Why was Wynne of all people okay with your using blood magic and even with learning it herself? Well she is an abomination after all, she trusted the warden with her secret and again knew the warden was using something bad for good reasons. Why didn't Loghain use it against you at the Landsmeet? Because he is not a mage. Why didn't we get to mind control people outside of combat? Game mechanics mostly, I imagine it could have been added into decision sequences just like persuasion checks.... I could continue for about three pages. I could as well...
There was a massive disconnect between what being a blood mage should entail according to lore and what it did entail in the actual game. That's exactly the kind of lack of reactivity that they want to exclude in this game. Blood Magic is a type of power like lyrium just as Mr. Gaider explains in the video above. Even if it is frowned upon or out right forbidden it was in place in DA:O and DA2. I can understand how he wanted to write more about people using it. But removing it due to that reason I just don't agree with imho. If he didn't want to write about the reactions in the last games removing it now due to that reason is wrong to me.
I just hope at some point after launch in a DLC or expansion they do add Blood Magic back to the game due to the simple fact that it was a huge part of the lore of the entire series.
*...*
1. point: Even if he ultimately decided to tolerate your behavior, do you really think there wouldn't be a massive discussion before that?
2. point: Why would only party members know? You frequently fight in public places. How exactly are people supposed to miss the way you ram a dagger in your hand?
3. point: And you really think that she'd consider a benevolent spirit to be the same as blood magic? Even if she did at some point accept it, don't you think she'd at least try to talk you out of it? That she'd - at the very least - strongly disapprove?
4. point: ...what? I was obviously talking about Loghain using the fact that you are a blood mage against you to discredit you.
5. point: Game mechanics? It should have enabled you to get pretty much anyone to do pretty much anything. That's way more than just persuasion.
Maybe, then again Origins did it just fine.
I have not seen the skill lines for DAI, but as it was in 1 & 2 if it is not in 3 I will be sorely disappointed.
Blood mage is not a specialization option in DAI--all 3 of the specializations are completely new: Knight Enchanter, Rift Mage, and Necromancer.
So, no, there will be no blood mage itemization--because there's no blood mage specialization.
Granted, that's not the same thing as saying that there won't be any blood magic in the game. Just that it's not a specialization.
The use of regular magic requires lyrium, which is not found everywhere. The mage is limited in this regard. A blood mage is not limited in the same way. Blood is practically everywhere, in the living and the dead (in both humanoids and animals alike). Blood magic is overpowered because its source of power is in such abundance. It also allows the user to control people's minds.
By the way, blood magic has been established as the "forbidden school" since Origins. Here are codex entries referring to the subject. It's not about BioWare's point of view on blood magic, it's about in-universe opinions about blood magic. That's what lore is.
In previous games, the developers decided not to portray the consequences of the player's use of blood magic, which made no sense from a narrative/lore perspective. Other blood mages were hunted down, imprisoned, and/or killed. They ignored the lore in previous games for whatever reason.
I just can´t understand peoples obsession how a mage can´t be overpowering. Anyone who has ever played rpg´s knows that mages are owerpowering. A mage and a warrior are not and just cannot be on the same page when it comes to being deadly. You are comparing foot soldiers with artillery, it is just not possible.
Being forbidden is not the same as being evil. The beginning reference (Lennard Testarossa) meant that there was no reference to blood magic being stronger if the target feels more pain (while drawing strength from his blood). That was added later to make this school of magic more "evil". Blood magic is a weapon, no more no less. Guns and swords are wepons too, their only goal to kill something, are they evil too? I don´t think so. User decides what happens with the weapon. If your Inq is the only one who can save the world then who would attack him and let the world to be destroyed? Who would do that?
The consequence for the other npc´s and not the pc can be explained in Origins since the player is a Warden. He is outside the law anyway, anyone attacking him knows they are attacking the whole organization too. DA2 I admit is wildly out there with blood magic, but then again the whole game is out there too so no wonder devs couldn´t present blood magic correctly.
Since the developers have decided to have greater reactivity to the player's specialization in Inquisition, a blood mage Inquisitor would require a greater amount of content devoted to him or her. It would drastically alter the story. The lack of blood magic for the player has nothing to do with forcing the player into a particular stance on blood magic. It has everything to do with the story not being able to accommodate such a major development like that, as David Gaider has said.
So you think, but being able to write reactions to regular magic requires no more action than having normal conversation in the game. Reaction mean there is something which causes the reaction, if the player casts regular magic what there is to react to? Why is it different to force factions under the players rule if you are using blood magic compared to brute force which is present through out the demos? So I don´t cut peoples head off to make then do as I say. Instead I use blood magic and they think they are my friends. What is there sooo hard to implement? How would that alter story? And who actually would know if my Inq meets the leader of the Templar faction and casts blood magic on him turning him into pc´s puppet? Does he wear a sign on his chest "I´m a blood mages puppet!!"?
As for the light and colour, see my first paragraph. Mage should not be on the same level as sword wielding warrior. The nuclear bomb reference was pointing to that.
If it is well established that the Inquisitor is the only hope, then these factions probably wouldn't kill him for using blood magic. It would, however, massively influence pretty much every single interaction and conversation in the entire game. Your point?
And what do you mean by "it wasn't there in the beginning"? Blood magic was considered the pinnacle of evil magic in DA:O. Given that DA:O is the first Dragon Age game, I don't see what you mean by "beginning".
And the implementation of blood magic in Origins was absolutely awful. Do you honestly consider having to pass a single speech check "real rpg consequence"? Why wasn't the ex-templar Alistair horrified by your use of blood magic? Why weren't there templars coming after you after the rumor of your using blood magic spread? Why was Wynne of all people okay with your using blood magic and even with learning it herself? Why didn't Loghain use it against you at the Landsmeet? Why didn't we get to mind control people outside of combat? ... I could continue for about three pages.
There was a massive disconnect between what being a blood mage should entail according to lore and what it did entail in the actual game. That's exactly the kind of lack of reactivity that they want to exclude in this game.
There were massive disconnections between a lot of things in DAO but generally it did those things well. Besides even in O, who outside your imminent close group knows you are a blood mage? How would Loghain know? Besides, it would have been easy to implement a spell option to discussion where the pc uses blood magic to clam down angry Alistair, Wynne or Leliana. Nothing that could not be done. Also see my answer to 90´sLuke too, blood magic was deliberately made to look more "evil" to justify the removing of this school of magic from the pc since there is a pre-written storyline which would contradict with it even more than DAO.
But let me elaborate further.
At the beginning of the game you are just some guy, some guy that has to gain Cassandra's trust so she doesn't kill you right there, if you are a Blood Mage at the beginning of the game - then you're dead.
If you become a Blood Mage later in the game, then either one of two things has to happen - everyone has to ignore the fact that your are a Blood Mage like in DA:O and DA2 or they have to react to it.
Since BioWare is trying to lessen the disconnect between the lore and the gameplay by making people react to your class, then they'd have to react.
Most of the factions in Thedas think that Blood Magic is evil because it requires you to kill people to use its strongest spells and because you can use it to control people's minds.
This is deeply ingrained in their society and psyche and it is something that even the end of the world might not be able to overcome.
In the minds of most people Blood Magic= Daemons and since the Veil has been torn, then maybe a powerful Blood Mage did that, they did it before, when they polluted the Golden City , the Inquisitor is a power Blood Mage, maybe they torn the Veil and its trying to use it to take over Thedas.
With that line of thinking all of a sudden people don't want to be your allies, they want to kill you because they think it will solve the problem, you tell them that only you can repair the Veil, but why would they believe you, you're a Blood Mage. Cassandra tries to convince them that you are telling the truth but you could've mind controlled her to say that.
The Inquisitor becomes a convenient target for their fear of the unknown.
So you believe people would automatically know that your pc is a blood mage even without you using blood magic, and would attack him even you have proven that you possses a ability to close veil tears? How about using blood magic mind control on those individuals who can, just by looking at you, know that you are a blood mage? Do you think that would differ much from the coersion or action option we had in DAO And DA2?
I'd wait for a response next time before declaring that I can't answer something but I'm not sure you'd be satisfied with any answer that I gave
You are right and I apologize for it. Should have waited more.
... I could equally say that mages should be about preparation and exploitation of the battlefield. Not throwing fireballs that blow houses to smithereens, but relatively tame abilities like being able to transport themselves between shadows, or casting spells that let them float down drops of any height, or preparing runes that function as explosives when some conditions are met. All the more interesting abilities in D&D had those sorts of things associated with them; stuff that didn't sound that dramatic but let you change context on the opponent in some way or make some preparations, stuff that only worked well with planning or smarts behind it.
That the power of a mage shouldn't be in a fight unless that mage has heavily prepared for it. That that's how you balance the potential power that they can wield if the stars align just right with a world in which there's any sort of reason to play any other character - and still preserve role playing. Sure, lots of power, but only if you've manipulated the environment beforehand or have spec'd into abilities that let you exploit certain features of it on the fly.
That better suits the image of a mage as someone who isn't a front-line fighter and has a lot of book learning behind them, or whose power comes from things that others don't quite understand.
There are varying opinions on what a mage should be depending on what you're playing and what you aim to get out of it. Do I agree that a mage should be more than - say an archer - who happens to use arrows that GLOW! Sure. And if the abilities of the mage are limited to purely or largely DPS style things that don't rely on any real thought - I'll be rather disappointed for that reason. But I wouldn't agree that a mage should automatically be the nuclear bomb of the battlefield. If they were, why would you ever play anything else (and choose to die the first time you ran into one) ?
You do have a point, infact BG did just that. You could have a very powerful mage but to enter a battlefield you had to have pre-learned spells available. If you didn´t there was a good change of getting killed among with the grunts. I don´t know about you but I felt it exhilarating in BG when you came across a unknow mage with group of soldiers and you knew that this was going to be a hell of a fight. You could lose a large porpotion of your team. That was good gaming.
This would only draw attention to how ludicrous such a premise is to begin with... if the Inquisitor dies in battle, the whole world would eventually end because "nobody else can do it." I refuse to believe that humanity would lay down and wait to be slaughtered rather than put all of their effort into finding an alternative solution to the Fade Crisis. It's better to downplay the "special snowflake" angle as much as possible... otherwise the question of why people are willing to let this person risk their life on the front lines becomes hard to ignore.
You do have a good point there too.
I just can´t understand peoples obsession how a mage can´t be overpowering. Anyone who has ever played rpg´s knows that mages are owerpowering. A mage and a warrior are not and just cannot be on the same page when it comes to being deadly. You are comparing foot soldiers with artillery, it is just not possible.
Being forbidden is not the same as being evil. The beginning reference (Lennard Testarossa) meant that there was no reference to blood magic being stronger if the target feels more pain (while drawing strength from his blood). That was added later to make this school of magic more "evil". Blood magic is a weapon, no more no less. Guns and swords are wepons too, their only goal to kill something, are they evil too? I don´t think so. User decides what happens with the weapon. If your Inq is the only one who can save the world then who would attack him and let the world to be destroyed? Who would do that?
The consequence for the other npc´s and not the pc can be explained in Origins since the player is a Warden. He is outside the law anyway, anyone attacking him knows they are attacking the whole organization too. DA2 I admit is wildly out there with blood magic, but then again the whole game is out there too so no wonder devs couldn´t present blood magic correctly.
Mages, like non-mages, have weaknesses and limitations. These have been exploited on many occasions, by the Chantry and the Qun.
It doesn't matter what adjective you use to describe blood magic. Ultimately, blood magic is perceived negatively in Thedas because it requires bloodshed and it has a controversial history, being linked to the ancient Tevinter magisters and the First Blight. As for comparisons to guns, I point you to domestic American politics (where we are constantly debating the issue).
Why would everyone allow the Warden or the Inquisitor to freely use blood magic? Some people aren't aware who these individuals are. Some people probably wouldn't even care. Others would distrust the player's claims. Realistically, the use of blood magic by anyone, including the player, should elicit more than just passive resistance (or ignorance) from everyone.
So you think, but being able to write reactions to regular magic requires no more action than having normal conversation in the game. Reaction mean there is something which causes the reaction, if the player casts regular magic what there is to react to? Why is it different to force factions under the players rule if you are using blood magic compared to brute force which is present through out the demos? So I don´t cut peoples head off to make then do as I say. Instead I use blood magic and they think they are my friends. What is there sooo hard to implement? How would that alter story? And who actually would know if my Inq meets the leader of the Templar faction and casts blood magic on him turning him into pc´s puppet? Does he wear a sign on his chest "I´m a blood mages puppet!!"?
David Gaider said that the developers would have had to devote much more content to the blood mage than the other specializations, if it had been included. It seems that they want greater gameplay/story integration, including greater lore-friendliness. A blood mage Inquisitor would alter the story to a significant enough degree that it would require it's own story. Whether or not you choose to believe a statement by the lead writer of the game, it is basically the only relevant piece of information on the topic of blood magic use by the player in Inquisition.
I will ask you then the same question I asked from phantomrachie (which he could not answer), Would all these factions let the world to be destroyed just because the only one person who can close veil tears uses blood magic?
yes i think they would you have to think like this they have been fighting dark spawn and demons for years not to this scale but still. the inquisitor is not needed to kill demons it be just like the deep roads where dwarves are constantly fighting dark spawn, the surface people will continue fight the demons besides besides they can tranquil him/her into doing what they want or brainwash him/her when they need him/her to close the veil.
yes i think they would you have to think like this they have been fighting dark spawn and demons for years not to this scale but still. the inquisitor is not needed to kill demons it be just like the deep roads where dwarves are constantly fighting dark spawn, the surface people will continue fight the demons besides besides they can tranquil him/her into doing what they want or brainwash him/her when they need him/her to close the veil.
what are you talking about))) Templars and most of all forces of Orlais and Ferelden exept mages cant and never was created to fight with so much deamons..this is even worst than darkspawns because they do not die, now can use all of their potencial and always came back from veil...arrows is sword are useless they will always came back, only magic can stop them
blood magic is mostly the only effective and the most cheap way to fight with mass of deamons
who the hell can tranquil the person who have so deep connection with fade and kick so many asses by simply open veil in front of them and they all will die or be possesed by deamon...noone can, as with those who are reavers, spirithealers...and as we can understand tranquility system cant work on those who are grey wardens because of the powers in their blood and connection with somniary dragons
as Inquisitor we still can have alliances with heretics and apostages and even our companions can be a Solas-apostage dreamer, Cole-deamon killer(who was use blood magic to hide himself), Bull-Qunari and Dorian-blood mage ex-Venatory...and Grey Wardens are not saints and use all for victory
our Inquisition can have all those who use all forbitten magic and do a forbitten stuff by the Andrastians and Chantry Templars standarts
This is a total bullsh*t about we cant represent being as a blood mage...srly we are the guy who can open and close the veil when he wants, this more scary for Andrastians than a dozens of blood mages combine
no matter who we play we are mage..even worst than blood mage by the Andrastians standarts..95% of Andrastians do not see anyone who can do what we do
why noone will blame us that we open fade and start all of this, cos srly we show people that we open and close fade every time and we are was the only survivor
yes i think they would you have to think like this they have been fighting dark spawn and demons for years not to this scale but still. the inquisitor is not needed to kill demons it be just like the deep roads where dwarves are constantly fighting dark spawn, the surface people will continue fight the demons besides besides they can tranquil him/her into doing what they want or brainwash him/her when they need him/her to close the veil.
So you believe people would automatically know that your pc is a blood mage even without you using blood magic, and would attack him even you have proven that you possses a ability to close veil tears? How about using blood magic mind control on those individuals who can, just by looking at you, know that you are a blood mage? Do you think that would differ much from the coersion or action option we had in DAO And DA2?
Guest_Puddi III_*
Retour en haut
