116 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Is it even touched upon whether or not the Warden is a bloodmage? Seems to me that if the character never returns on screen, or at least never touches on the subject or engages in combat, this can stay intact for one's personal head canon.

[Lewie]

I do apolgise for asking but what is the video about?

[Phoe77]

I don't think it's really ever brought up.  I just meant to illustrate why I didn't think that it was an instance when you had to rely on suspension of disbelief to justify the gameplay choice.  

[kalasaurus]

Yeah, my Hawke had some strong reactions to blood magic...

[LadyLaLa]

So, uh, do trailers count as canon? 

Keep in mind, this is before the whole Orsino thing, only 2/3rds of the time that Hawke was in Kirkwall. Keeping in mind a "Straw That Broke the Camel's Back" theory, this might be before it just became too much for Hawke to make excuses for

[Giantdeathrobot]

The Warden and Hawke possibly being Blood Mages  was always a case of gameplay and story segregation. It never made much sense in-universe, just as as it didn't make any sense to make Wynne a Blood Mage in Origins or Anders one in Awakening. That's why it was taken out as an option in Inquisition. As far as the devs are concerned, mage Hawke and mage Warden were not Blood Mages.  

 

It made sense for Wardens to be BMs, to a degree. They get a free pass to use it during a Blight, and get an opportunity to learn it directly from a demon. The only times I made a blood mage was when I made the deal in Redcliffe, it was the one spec I never took without RP reasons. Morrigan dabbling in blood magic makes sense too (in Inquisition she all but admits she is one).

 

What didn't make sense, yeah, was that you could make Wynne one, or that the world basiacally did not react at all to you using blood magic whatsoever.

 

And Hawke being a blood mage made absolutely no sense, that's true. Not only do they never get an opportunity to learn it (admitedly Malcom Hawke was a blood mage of sorts but not the kind the PC could use), but while I can swallow Meredith not touching a Mage!Hawke due to their influence, no amount of gold should ever have stopped the Templars from immediately trying to disembowel someone who used blood magic in broad daylight.

 

I can understand why the writers axed blood magic, really. It's too much of a story breaker to portray in a satisfactory manner for the PC. But if we ever go to Tevinter, they need to bring it back. Tevinter without blood magic would be like America without guns all over the place. It just loses part of its charm.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

yeah, Hawke, the pro-templar blood mage... who now hates blood magic for some unknown reason. choices player makes in those games are completely irrelevant, ridiculed and rewritten to fit the story. how any of you may think it makes sense is beyond me.

[MACharlie1]

After Leandra dies....I mean, how could anyone swallow blood magic is beyond me.

And no. There was never a choice for Hawke to hate his mom.

[Uccio]

The real problem I understand many players have, is that one the one hand, Hawke is bound to be "good" when it comes down to it. On the other hand, blood magic is bound to be evil as far as the writing is concerned. So having a Hawke who can, after the incidents with his/her mother, still use blood magic, is inconsistent & silly. More thought should have been put into this, even back then.

 

I personally think, while possible, a notoriously "evil" Hawke (as well as all the cartoonishly evil options some people seem to be endorse for the sake of it) are as much canon as Shepard not surviving the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2.

 

A good Hawke can also use blood magic. A apostate on the run, with a tool that can help you fight Templars.

[Roamingmachine]

After Leandra dies....I mean, how could anyone swallow blood magic is beyond me.

And no. There was never a choice for Hawke to hate his mom.

 

 

....How could anyone tolerate daggers, swords axes and all the other tools that are used throughout the games to kill on a massive scale? Was the mage that killed Hawkes mum somehow more evil than the serial-killer son of the local magistrate who was in no way a mage?  Tools cannot commit evil. Only people who weild them can. And blood magic is nothing more than a tool, no more or less dangerous than any other kind of magic.  Hawke suffered from terribad writing like a lot of other characters in DAI which is sad.

[Dieb]

Saying all mages are bad because of the actions of one is flawed logic.

 

I'm sure flaws in your logic are your primary concern when basing decisions on the death of a loved one.

 

 

 

....How could anyone tolerate daggers, swords axes and all the other tools that are used throughout the games to kill on a massive scale? Was the mage that killed Hawkes mum somehow more evil than the serial-killer son of the local magistrate who was in no way a mage?  Tools cannot commit evil. Only people who weild them can. And blood magic is nothing more than a tool, no more or less dangerous than any other kind of magic.  Hawke suffered from terribad writing like a lot of other characters in DAI which is sad.

 

I disagree with shunning all mages in general very much. however I just as much believe the "guns don't kill people" notion, blood magic supporters put on display too commonly, is weak at best. Especially since this particular gun requires blood before even spilling it.

 

Not everyone with any other weapon is evil; yet as far as the facts provided by the game are, 99% of blood mages are evil, and the rites necessary to perform it as well as the expected dangers being willing permitted, are considered evil by basic "real world" morals. At least I hope they are for you. It's a path that differs from the others primarily in that it's made to artificially enhance one's might beyond their usual capabilities. That always worked so well in ficitional or factual history, especially for those claiming they're the ONE individual who can handle it.

 

The very source of your power being the craving for more power, is a perpetual motion around villainy at the very best & rarest, yet a downslope spiral towards it in most cases.

[Arakat]

It's not just about the specialization, though. Hawke could make pretty evil blood mage-y choices within the story, as well. I've mentioned this before, but I have a Hawke who made Orana her slave and let a demon possess Feynriel. She also gave Isabela to the Qunari, let Danarius have Fenris back and stabbed Anders, even though she agreed with him and sided with the mages. I find it absolutely hilarious that she became such a preachy goody two-shoes in Inquisition; I don't mind it, since it kinda makes sense that such a cartoonish evil character would just pretend for fun, but the change was pretty extreme nevertheless.

[Ieldra]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I can see Hawke able to compartmentalize, blood magic itself didn't cause his/her mother to die, it was A blood mage, but watching Orsino go nuts, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Even a blood mage Hawke would be able to see that blood magic only brings madness in the end. Wish they hadn't cut that line :/

Well, that's just the thing. There's a world of difference between saying "I've seen too much of this sh*t to trust it", and "It only ever ends badly." One is a personal statement based on experience, the other an ideological generalization. Even "I've never seen it end well" would've been acceptable, but my Hawke would never generalize in that way.

[EmBlue]

I think you can explain away the notion of a blood mage Hawke hating blood mages if you look at how Dorian talks about the way blood magic is viewed in Tevinter. The Vints don't have the same definition of blood magic as the majority of South Thedas... they practice blood magic and deny that it's proper blood magic. I think Hawke could also subscribe to that school of thought... they (Hawke) only use their own blood or that of their allies (so there's implied consent) to fuel spells. Never at any point do they sacrifice innocent bystanders or decide to become a mindless monster (see Orsino). Nor do they set out to sacrifice their allies life entirely to further some cause (see Clarel). So, the way I look at it, there's blood magic... and then there's blood magic.

 

But yeah, I kinda found it jarring to see Hawke adopting such a strong stance all of their own accord because they were your character/ under your control. But considering what happened to their mother... it's not the biggest stretch in the world... and Hawke's always been a much more defined character than the Warden/ Inquizzy.

[Solbranthius]

What people need to remember is that as of the end of DA2 Hawke is no longer in their hands. There is no possible way for Bioware to accommodate every individual's take on the character and since time has passed it makes a lot of sense as to why even the most optimistic and pragmatic version of Hawke comes to loathe the type of magic that has been the primary source of strife in his life.

[MACharlie1]

What people need to remember is that as of the end of DA2 Hawke is no longer in their hands. There is no possible way for Bioware to accommodate every individual's take on the character and since time has passed it makes a lot of sense as to why even the most optimistic and pragmatic version of Hawke comes to loathe the type of magic that has been the primary source of strife in his life.

you'll always have players who INSIST that the PC is theirs and that it's bad writing if they can't determine every aspect of it. "if I want my PC to be a priest of Dumat who is also a fire fighter, then I should dammit!"

[Roamingmachine]

 

I disagree with shunning all mages in general very much. however I just as much believe the "guns don't kill people" notion, blood magic supporters put on display too commonly, is weak at best. Especially since this particular gun requires blood before even spilling it.

 

Not everyone with any other weapon is evil; yet as far as the facts provided by the game are, 99% of blood mages are evil, and the rites necessary to perform it as well as the expected dangers being willing permitted, are considered evil by basic "real world" morals. At least I hope they are for you. It's a path that differs from the others primarily in that it's made to artificially enhance one's might beyond their usual capabilities. That always worked so well in ficitional or factual history, especially for those claiming they're the ONE individual who can handle it.

 

The very source of your power being the craving for more power, is a perpetual motion around villainy at the very best & rarest, yet a downslope spiral towards it in most cases.

 

Primarily, the blood in the casting comes from the caster itself. No evil there. Sacrificial rituals you describe can be used for more power, but that is up to the caster. How is it any diffrent from a lord sending his underlings to die in wars for his own gain (except the mage will kill a lot fewer people)?  And from what i've seen, about 90% of people seen holding weapons in the games will attack the player at one point or another, thus making them 'evil'.

[Il Divo]

Primarily, the blood in the casting comes from the caster itself. No evil there. Sacrificial rituals you describe can be used for more power, but that is up to the caster. How is it any diffrent from a lord sending his underlings to die in wars for his own gain (except the mage will kill a lot fewer people)?  And from what i've seen, about 90% of people seen holding weapons in the games will attack the player at one point or another, thus making them 'evil'.

 

The problem with the "it's up to the caster" argument is that it ignores the total consequences of what happens if a Mage "goes rogue". Theoretically speaking, any form of power can be abused. Or not abused. The latter does not mean that we indulge everyone in their desires. Whether it's allowed is in direct contrast with how badly the tool can be abused. An insane person could take a knife from his kitchen and murder someone on the street, but there are limits on what he can do compared to Mage Connor, for example. 

 

As an example, there are certain advantages to dictatorship, in comparison to full on democracy. But the potential for full on abuse means that most people would not want a dictator in control, due to the consequences if they "went rogue" or even because the potential for abuse of their successors. 

 

Same basic concept with Blood Magic. In the Grand History of Thedas, there very well may have been a Blood Mage (ignoring player characters) who restricted his use of Blood Magic to himself/willing companions in the defense of good. We know Blood Magic is used in the Joining Ritual and it was likewise used to seal Corypheus by Hawke's Father. But as a point of contention, Bioware has gone out of its way to explicitly show us "normal" Mages whom we can sympathize with. I don't think there's been a point where we've had a sympathetic Blood Mage from the writers. At least not in a "we should tolerate it" sense. 

[Ieldra]

What people need to remember is that as of the end of DA2 Hawke is no longer in their hands. There is no possible way for Bioware to accommodate every individual's take on the character and since time has passed it makes a lot of sense as to why even the most optimistic and pragmatic version of Hawke comes to loathe the type of magic that has been the primary source of strife in his life.

They could've been a little more careful. As I said, there's a world of difference between "I've seen too much of this sh*t to trust it" and "It's never worth it." I could rationalize the former as being in character for all of my Hawkes, even the blood mage, but the latter sounds moralizing, and most of my Hawkes HATED moralizing.

[Ieldra]

Same basic concept with Blood Magic. In the Grand History of Thedas, there very well may have been a Blood Mage (ignoring player characters) who restricted his use of Blood Magic to himself/willing companions in the defense of good. We know Blood Magic is used in the Joining Ritual and it was likewise used to seal Corypheus by Hawke's Father. But as a point of contention, Bioware has gone out of its way to explicitly show us "normal" Mages whom we can sympathize with. I don't think there's been a point where we've had a sympathetic Blood Mage from the writers. At least not in a "we should tolerate it" sense.

Jowan in DAO. You can accuse him of many things, but evil he was not. He used his own blood to defend himself and Lily from the templars, and then Lily immediately turned on him as if he'd just sacrificed a child. That was my first confrontation with blood magic in a DA game, and it left a permanent impression. However strongly the writers tooted the "blood magic is evil" horn later, I could never believe it after that. There are things you can't just retcon.

[Il Divo]

Jowan in DAO. You can accuse him of many things, but evil he was not. He used his own blood to defend himself and Lily from the templars, and then Lily immediately turned on him as if he'd just sacrificed a child. That was my first confrontation with blood magic in a DA game, and it left a permanent impression. However strongly the writers tooted the "blood magic is evil" horn later, I could never believe it after that. There are things you can't just retcon.

 

To defend himself in one specific instance. My first character was also a Mage, so like wise that was my first encounter with Blood Magic too.  

 

He actually explains to Lily that the reason he studies Blood Magic in the first place is because he thought it would grant him more power, which (more than a few times) we've seen lead to **** hitting the fan. Actually, with Jowan, I think it's even worse since we knew he was supposed to be made Tranquil. Somebody who fully admits to being a mediocre mage and couldn't pass their Harrowing is going to be trusted with Blood Magic, something that Mages ten times his skill can't handle?

 

Edit: And to be clear, I was speaking in the "we should tolerate it" sense. 

[Roamingmachine]

The problem with the "it's up to the caster" argument is that it ignores the total consequences of what happens if a Mage "goes rogue". Theoretically speaking, any form of power can be abused. Or not abused. The latter does not mean that we indulge everyone in their desires. Whether it's allowed is in direct contrast with how badly the tool can be abused. An insane person could take a knife from his kitchen and murder someone on the street, but there are limits on what he can do compared to Mage Connor, for example. 

 

As an example, there are certain advantages to dictatorship, in comparison to full on democracy. But the potential for full on abuse means that most people would not want a dictator in control, due to the consequences if they "went rogue" or even because the potential for abuse of their successors. 

 

Same basic concept with Blood Magic. In the Grand History of Thedas, there very well may have been a Blood Mage (ignoring player characters) who restricted his use of Blood Magic to himself/willing companions in the defense of good. We know Blood Magic is used in the Joining Ritual and it was likewise used to seal Corypheus by Hawke's Father. But as a point of contention, Bioware has gone out of its way to explicitly show us "normal" Mages whom we can sympathize with. I don't think there's been a point where we've had a sympathetic Blood Mage from the writers. At least not in a "we should tolerate it" sense. 

 

I wasn't talking about what society allowes or disallowes, i was talking about the inherent good or evil of a thing. And If the potential for abuse would be the yardstick which we define 'good' and 'evil', then we would live in anarchy because all power can and will be abused regardless how that power is gained. As for sympathetic blood mage....

 

 

source: http://pau-norontaus.deviantart.com/

[Il Divo]

I wasn't talking about what society allowes or disallowes, i was talking about the inherent good or evil of a thing. And If the potential for abuse would be the yardstick which we define 'good' and 'evil', then we would live in anarchy because all power can and will be abused regardless how that power is gained. As for sympathetic blood mage....

 

 

Well, beyond the fact that we're all going to be at the mercy of whoever has the most power. You kind of get a Social Contract Theory going. The goal is to provide the least potential for abuse possible. A lot of arguments in defense of Mages do so by making reference to "Well, look at how this is abused!". That's not an argument against Mage control, that's an argument that we have to do a better job of stopping other forms of abuse. Ask most people how they would feel if individuals walked around with rocket launchers taped to the arms, but were "trained" to use them correctly. I doubt you'll find many sympathizers. 

 

And again, when I say "sympathetic Blood Mage", I don't mean the game giving us someone who's a Blood Mage who also happens to be sympathetic. I'm speaking of the game defending the use of Blood Magic via its in character voices. We see this happen with normal Mages, but even amongst their own kind, Blood Magic is viewed as something of a pariah. 

 

Merrill's a fun character, I love her. Her employment of Blood Magic is not something the game seems to be telling us was a good decision. Actually, most of her tragedy is a direct result of her use of Blood Magic, leads to her exile, and the potential death of her entire clan. 

[Dieb]

Using Jowan as an example doesn't help the whole blood magic mumbo jumbo at all.

 

Jowan regrets having used blood magic in the first place after you solve the Redcliffe crisis without it (though many mages chugging funny crystal to the same effect is equally questionable if it were made an actual practice/path - looking at you, Templars), and vows not to do it again. That's not the air of someone who knew what he was doing; frankly, he didn't even have it during the mage origin. He says he can protect her, because he started doing it to gain more power.

 

He was looking for an excuse, as every power hungry, flawed mortal being would. That's just the point. It was never sold differently and then "retconned". In my wacky opinion, the point was to show all facettes of magic and their effects on their whielders: You will ALWAYS find an excuse that just one tiny, little step more is justified; for just this one really, really good reason only. Promise. I swear. I can stop any time. I don't even LIKE all this potential. I'll give it back, like, right after.

 

 

Just for clarity: The concept of using someone's blood to enhance magic power is not evil. I simply call it a concept that cannot be used by emotional beings without turning them into self-righteous idiots eventually. As do many other "concepts" - but this one makes the top tier of that list, so the supposed "disproportional" shunning and precautions are justified. Noone is smart enough to have themselves under control at all time.