61 réponses à ce sujet

[Mistic]

That's a good point, and there are times that I personally feel the Inquisition drops the ball as well.  Notably, IMO, the handling of the Adamant situation as what seems to me to be a punitive siege (with what I feel is a lack of discipline in the Inquisition troops) rather than potentially a diplomatic mission that could have saved lives, and the feeling almost of an imperialist invasion I get from the march (a relic of the Exalted March expansion?) on the Arbor Wilds (especially odd when playing as an elf).

 

I understand the feeling. I would have welcomed some kind of excuse ("we sent diplomats but they refused to listen" or something like that). After all, there was a war table mission in Nevarra about a Venatori mage probably mind-controlling the king (a clear reference to LOTR) and the best option was the diplomatic route, actually. It isn't as if there wasn't such an excuse to justify taking part in the ball ("we tried to warn Celene, but for some reason we've failed every time").

 

Nevertheless, I think there wasn't much love for the Wardens among the Inquisition, with the obvious exception of Blackwall, and I'm not talking just about companions. Remember the "Stick this in your taint, Blighty!" line in Adamant? And the rest were ready to stomp over Warden rights that predate every country and organization except Tevinter. Depending on your choices, the Inquisitor can be the only thing between the Wardens and a world that forgets they owe their existence to the order. "We doubt when we're safe, when Blight is not at our throat".

[Dieb]

Is she? I found the idea of getting rid of the remaining archdemons rather compelling, and given that the Wardens *are* sworn to sacrifice their lives for fighting the Blights, even the demon summoning made sense. Erimond did hold an offer they couldn't refuse to at least consider seriously. 

 

Blood magic is the Thedosian equivalent of the gun control debate.

 

Those who support it claim they need it, and opposition is too incompetent to use it properly. The opposition claims that empirical evidence is a guarantee that things will go south regardless.

 

Personally, I found the plan to be ludacrous and comically silly (the gross sacrifices necessary for something that has never been anything but an assumption), but I did appreciate the fact that they tried to remove some of the one-dimensional heroism from the Grey Wardens as an organization.

[zambingo]

Guns are not sentient. Yet. At least. ;-)

Blood Magic/Demon Deals is a bit more than Gun Control.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 What kind of a nitwit would tell someone to do some good by joining the Grey Wardens??

 

 

Grey Wardens fight a hopeless war against Darkspawn. Aside from the ability to slay Archdemons, nothing they do is of any significance because Darkspawn multiply faster than Wardens can kill them. Next, being one cuts your lifespan much shorter, so any "good" you do with the Wardens is curtailed by dying young, whereas a normal person can do as much (or more) for longer.

[Dai Grepher]

^But you also have to keep in mind that not everyone knows the truth about the Grey Wardens. So it's a question of if your Inquisitor knew the truth or just the heroic tales.

[Wulfsten]

Yes, she was. Clarel is a villain who has an opportunity for redemption. Pop Culture wise, she follows Darth Vader's basic path. Being able to redeem yourself doesn't change what you were, it just allows you to live on /or be remembered differently.

 

Actually, she's not really that similar to Darth Vader. Clarel is a different archetype, the hero who's been tricked into doing something villainous. Clarel has the best interests of the world and innocent people at heart throughout her actions, which happen to be misguided. 

 

Darth Vader was not misguided. He was wholly and fully evil, reveling in dominance, oppression and cruelty. Late in his arc, a moment of epiphany with regards to his son leads to a total unraveling of his character, and redemption. But that's quite different. 

[WardenWade]

I understand the feeling. I would have welcomed some kind of excuse ("we sent diplomats but they refused to listen" or something like that). After all, there was a war table mission in Nevarra about a Venatori mage probably mind-controlling the king (a clear reference to LOTR) and the best option was the diplomatic route, actually. It isn't as if there wasn't such an excuse to justify taking part in the ball ("we tried to warn Celene, but for some reason we've failed every time").

 

Nevertheless, I think there wasn't much love for the Wardens among the Inquisition, with the obvious exception of Blackwall, and I'm not talking just about companions. Remember the "Stick this in your taint, Blighty!" line in Adamant? And the rest were ready to stomp over Warden rights that predate every country and organization except Tevinter. Depending on your choices, the Inquisitor can be the only thing between the Wardens and a world that forgets they owe their existence to the order. "We doubt when we're safe, when Blight is not at our throat".

That makes sense, and it would have been great to have these options   The narrative is kind of stacked against the Wardens, which actually makes me wonder a bit what might be in store for them?  And you're right about the Inquisitor being able to stick up for them.  Most people at this point seem determined to forget they may ever need Wardens again, and the Inquisitor may be the only one besides Blackwall (and your Warden ally) who sees their value.

[zambingo]

Actually, she's not really that similar to Darth Vader. Clarel is a different archetype, the hero who's been tricked into doing something villainous. Clarel has the best interests of the world and innocent people at heart throughout her actions, which happen to be misguided.

Darth Vader was not misguided. He was wholly and fully evil, reveling in dominance, oppression and cruelty. Late in his arc, a moment of epiphany with regards to his son leads to a total unraveling of his character, and redemption. But that's quite different.

I know the Prequels were horrible but...

[Cz-99]

I was looking for a "I don't care what you do with your life," option when I stumbled upon the elf girl. Ended up recruiting her on accident. Didn't know she ends up dying if she joins the Warden, but her presence was so small and meaningless that I don't think I would've recognized her in the Wardens anyway.

 

Didn't care for Clarel much either. I didn't hate her, but I just remember thinking you can't be this stupid. The guy that's helping her is literally the embodiment of a Disney cardboard cutout villain. He's even got the scumbag voice and creeper 'stache combo down. But then again they are Orlesian wardens, so it's to be expected.

[Mistic]

The narrative is kind of stacked against the Wardens, which actually makes me wonder a bit what might be in store for them?  And you're right about the Inquisitor being able to stick up for them.  Most people at this point seem determined to forget they may ever need Wardens again, and the Inquisitor may be the only one besides Blackwall (and your Warden ally) who sees their value.

 

I understand it to a certain point. Except Morrigan, Leliana and Sera (notice that she approves keeping the Wardens), no one has seen first-hand what the Blight really does or how dangerous the Archdemon is. Not even our resident Wolf God.

 

Of course, depending on choices, the Hero of Ferelden can be a folk hero... but only in Ferelden.

 

Clarel's men in the Storm Coast noticed that the Fereldans were unexpectedly nice to them, because the country remembers it was the Wardens who saved them. In Orlais? Not so much. It's a case of dying of success: most Blights took years to defeat and scourged different countries, but the Fifth was stopped in a year and inside the borders of a single country.

 

Didn't care for Clarel much either. I didn't hate her, but I just remember thinking you can't be this stupid. The guy that's helping her is literally the embodiment of a Disney cardboard cutout villain. He's even got the scumbag voice and creeper 'stache combo down. But then again they are Orlesian wardens, so it's to be expected.

 

Tevinters in general don't have the best reputation in the south, so a scumbag Magister who looks down on everyone else, thinks blood magic solves everything and has horrible fashion sense is pretty much what any Orlesian would expect of them. However, Tevinter was also the first country to sign the Warden treaties and they've helped the Wardens in previous Blights.

 

The problem is that the timing was too convenient and that Clarel was too eager to act on her own, desperate because of the fake Calling, without consulting other Wardens or asking for their help. It's a weakness of the Order's organization: decentralization makes for a quicker response in times of crisis but also leaves Warden-Commanders' without supervision (a Mistress Woolsey in their keep, as the Warden in Amaranthine, doesn't seem enough).

 

[Ieldra]

Blood magic is the Thedosian equivalent of the gun control debate.

The comparison fails. Reasons:

(1) You can take a way a gun without taking away basic human rights, you can't take away magic without damaging an individual's mental health.

(2) Consequently, the blood magic debate is about making use of a dangerous tool you already have (since the use of blood for magical power is apparently very intuitive), as opposed to having or not having a dangerous tool. 

 

Thus, the "gun control analogue" of the blood magic debate would be about the question of whether it is allowed to use a dangerous tool you already have - like a gun - for legitimate reasons, such as self defence, or not, where the argument for the "no" is that legitimate use tends to lead to illegitimate use over time.

 

As rule, I would consider it grossly unfair - a serious case of blaming the victim - to condemn someone for using his own blood (or a gun) in their own defence, Self-defense does not become illegitimate just because of an ideological predisposition against certain kinds of tools, nor does murder become any better or worse for using or not using a prescribed tool. The argument that legitimate use tends to lead to illegitimate use fails in cases where you can't take away the tool without mentally damaging the potential user.

[Dieb]

Hey, I was just saying that as the click-bait equivalent of a post's introductory sentence.

I didn't claim it's a circumstancially sound analogy, like I pointed out, it was really meant to compare the nature of the discussion and its participants.

 

 

For the sake of it:

 

You are confusing my opposition against blood sacrifices with an opposition against blood magic itself. Like Solas says, blood magic cannot be evil, and thus, condemned. I don't despise guns, as much as I don't despise cops, hunters or athletes. I despise people who harm other people with guns. I frown upon a cop who fails to keep his cool and shoots an attacker in the face rather than the knee. I despise the notion that the ends justify the means.

 

Victim blaming is sort of a tought-terminating-cliché in this case, that's confusing all magic with blood magic a little. Nobody takes away that tool, because it is never there to begin with - until you decide you needed that little push. The very point of blood magic is using magic that is absolutely not  within your powers. The power is not within yourself, rather your blood opens a stronger connection to the Fade, from where more of it can then be drawn. Everything is justified in self-defense naturally, including blood magic and bunny rabbits, as long as the only harmed party is the attacker. That goes without saying. However, normal people don't even have the option to defend themselves with normal magic - I have trouble imagining a situation where your only option to survive is using colossaly powerful magic spells involving blood rituals, which still passes as self-defense.

 

Do I have a problem with a mage using his own blood to cast spells? I would be worried what could have called for it, but it's their decision.

Is it ever justified sacrificing someone else's blood (i.e. either killing or torturing them, see WoT), for the obligatory higher cause? Never. But that goes for any similar measure besides BM as well.