Examples, please. All I see in these threads from blood magic apologists are theories about the good use of blood magic. I have yet to see one in games.
Here is one, codex. The mind control thing is something I just pulled out of my head, but it is so obvious that it could be used for it.
*snip*
When that didn't work, they added a further retcon in WoT2 that posited that it's actually "pain magic" rather than blood magic. This has been, to this day, ignored by most fans because it doesn't make any sense given what was established in the two games before. In fact, I found this coarse and all too transparent attempt at manipulation insulting.
*snip*
This is from WoT vol.1.
Here is one, codex. The mind control thing is something I just pulled out of my head, but it is so obvious that it could be used for it.
And which one of those are undeniably good example? Judging by Demands of the Qun that magister would have achieved better results with fireballs. The rest are questionable at best and atrocious at worst.
Examples, please. All I see in these threads from blood magic apologists are theories about the good use of blood magic. I have yet to see one in games.
If the writers want you to believe blood magic is evil, of course they'll only show evil applications. However, if the established spells have obvious good applications as an irrefutable consequence of how they work, the hypothesis "blood magic is intrinsically evil" can't be established. Here's an example: we know that mind control spells exist and that they can be used at a distance. That means that a blood mage can use mind control in a hostage situation to save the hostage, if there are enough people around willing to act as a power source. And we know they don't have to die or suffer permanent damage, whatever the in-world codex entries say. Example: Jowan.
BTW, the term "blood magic apologist" implies that I have to justify my position against a common default position. I do not think so. A tool can't be evil or good, that should be the default position, and the burden of proof lies with the one who challenges it.
This is from WoT vol.1.
Sorry about that. I meant WoT1, which came out after DA2.
And which one of those are undeniably good example? Judging by Demands of the Qun that magister would have achieved better results with fireballs. The rest are questionable at best and atrocious at worst.
Not the best example given that this was written by someone opposed to blood magic, but consider this:
(1) The criticism of Tirena of the Rock is not based on ethics, but on pragmatism. That her spell was less efficient than another she might have used says nothing about the morality of the action, and since she didn't damage anyone but herself and the acceptable targets I can't see any ground for condemnation. Also, the criticisim is based on the qunari's reaction, so it would've been perfectly fine to use the same against another acceptable target.
(2) The lovers' example is completely false. Blood magic in general does not require a death, and anyway if the caster only uses their own blood there's no ground for condemnation. Anyone can choose to die.
This Codex entry is an example of the nonsensical reasoning some people in-world use to justify the idea that blood magic is evil. That is unsurprising, since if people really want to believe something, they will use nonsensical "reasoning" if necessary. There are millions of cases where belief overrides any other mental faculty.
The really frightening possibility is that the writer who wrote this didn't just put beliefs into fictional people, but might actually believe their own "reasoning". I have a hard time believing that one of the experienced writers would make a magister use such obviously flawed logic, so it's quite possible they gave the task to someone who never engaged in moral reasoning before.
EDIT: In fact outside the protagonist and companions has there ever been a truly sane Blood Magic user? that wasn't for questionably moral reason?
Another reason it is considered "evil" is that, according to some codex entries, Templar abilities are not very effective against blood magic, making its users harder to control. Because if people who are the de-facto army of the chantry, the chosen people of the Maker, fail against a power, wouldn't that mean blood mages are using a power that goes against the maker?
At least I think that it's another reasoning used by the Chantry.
Not the best example given that this was written by someone opposed to blood magic, but consider this:
(1) The criticism of Tirena of the Rock is not based on ethics, but on pragmatism. That her spell was less efficient than another she might have used says nothing about the morality of the action, and since she didn't damage anyone but herself and the acceptable targets I can't see any ground for condemnation. Also, the criticisim is based on the qunari's reaction, so it would've been perfectly fine to use the same against another acceptable target.
(2) The lovers' example is completely false. Blood magic in general does not require a death, and anyway if the caster only uses their own blood there's no ground for condemnation. Anyone can choose to die.
This Codex entry is an example of the nonsensical reasoning some people in-world use to justify the idea that blood magic is evil. That is unsurprising, since if people really want to believe something, they will use nonsensical "reasoning" if necessary. There are millions of cases where belief overrides any other mental faculty.
The really frightening possibility is that the writer who wrote this didn't just put beliefs into fictional people, but might actually believe their own "reasoning". I have a hard time believing that one of the experienced writers would make a magister use such obviously flawed logic, so it's quite possible they gave the task to someone who never engaged in moral reasoning before.
Exactly. The best example was using blood magic as a healing/life transferring magic. That is why I took it. But the others were plain stupid. A Magister used blood magic to make himself a monster, yes, example of bad judgement. Like someone playing with a gun in a shooting range. Yes, looking into the barrel while your finger is in the trigger is not smart.
And then the Tirena of the Rocks. So she was there to stop a enemy who was out to completely destroy her country, her society and herself. So she used the best weapon she thought would stop them. The writer makes it seem like the Qun would be more lenient if blood magic would not have been used, which is plain ridiculous. The Qun is out to assimilate everyone, the fact that she used blood magic or not had zero effect on the qunari determination to conquer Tevinter.
To be fair I have yet to see a blood magic is traditional evil magic outside dragon age in both games books and even in ancient myths that is used to place curses, summon demons, mentally dominate people and generally fuel black magic. Its traditional evil magic for good reason given its uses which makes it much hard to put it in even a neutral light.
I wouldn't say it's evil, though some of its applications can be (mind control, blood sacrifice). Though even then I guess you could argue that there are exceptions (using mind control to stop someone hurting someone else, a willing blood sacrifice, etc).
I think it's more that blood magic is a very reckless thing to use, considering how easily it can spiral out of control or encourage someone to seek more power via any means.
I have to say one of the things I love about BioWare games is that they build this ambiguity right into the game purposefully. Ask 10 NPCs this question, and you'll get twenty answers 
It's great. Games that have simplistic answers to these kind of questions would not lend themselves to this kind of intelligent debate. 
For what it's worth, here's world-creator and former lead writer David Gaider's own thoughts on the subject, from a Lady Insanity interview:
LI: Well, I did want to talk about the red lyrium, but I'm more interested in how blood magic works. There are a lot of...not "conflicting" opinions that we've heard from "oh, Bioware considers this" with blood magic. Like, is it - I believe the phrase "Is blood magic inherently evil?" Is it?
DG: That is a...there's an amount of judgment call. Even I, as a creator, I could come out and say "Yes, blood magic is inherently evil" but what would that even mean? What is the nature of evil there? Are we talking about morally evil? Morally wrong? Are we talking about evil as far sort of like a corruptive influence as far as darkspawn? There is evil - there is blood magic as is defined by the chantry, which is more involved in the use of blood sacrifice and mind control. But blood magic really goes further than that as well. I mean if you really think of it, the use of phylacteries is a type of blood magic. The Joining is a type of blood magic. So, I think it's a situation where blood magic is something that is often used for evil, but ultimately, it is a tool. Yet, one must address the moral question of it. If you have something like blood magic that is easily used for evil and so commonly used for evil, it presents such a tempting route to evil purposes. Does that mean that it should not be regulated or controlled or probably disallowed entirely? Sort of - I think the topic is more in common with gun control than anything else.
So, I think it's a situation where blood magic is something that is often used for evil, but ultimately, it is a tool. Yet, one must address the moral question of it. If you have something like blood magic that is easily used for evil and so commonly used for evil, it presents such a tempting route to evil purposes. Does that mean that it should not be regulated or controlled or probably disallowed entirely? Sort of - I think the topic is more in common with gun control than anything else.
Solas says it's a powerful, but dangerous tool. So it's definitely evil
thats not the point of what I said. the point of what I said was that the writers decided it was "evil". that means until they change their minds, the only people who will be unaffected by the "corrupting" effect of Blood Magic are the protagonists and their companions.
Ah yes, but magic in general is considered to be evil (most of people of Thedas, particularly the chantry-goers). By proxy, that is the scenario that the writers created. Blood magic is far worse.
And this is one thing I liked about Inquisition -- the fact that it showed the two sides (mages and templars) making a mess of things. The mages aren't entirely to blame, though the prejudice is still there.
You can kill a man with a fork if you try hard enough. Does that mean that a fork is evil?
New class for next DA4 please. Dual fork wielder!
New class for next DA4 please. Dual fork wielder!
Solas says it's a powerful, but dangerous tool. So it's definitely evil
You can kill a man with a fork if you try hard enough. Does that mean that a fork is evil?
Remember that banter between Anders and Fenris?
Anders: So we agree that it doesn't take a demon for someone to be a vicious killer? Good.
Blood magic, normal magic, fork, knife or bow are not evil. A man who uses that to kiil or torture is evil.
And again we come to the example of Quentin. Would he have been a madman without blood magic? Probably. Would he have kidnapped and killed those women if all he had at his disposal was a fork (or even a sword)? Not likely, since he wasn't just mindlessly killing them for the kicks. A fork or a sword doesn't allow you to reanimate dead, summon demons to get the upper hand or rip the Veil.
???? What has one to do with the other ???? Or was that a joke?Solas says it's a powerful, but dangerous tool. So it's definitely evil
And again we come to the example of Quentin. Would he have been a madman without blood magic? Probably. Would he have kidnapped and killed those women if all he had at his disposal was a fork (or even a sword)? Not likely, since he wasn't just mindlessly killing them for the kicks.
Have you watched "The Silence of the Lambs"? It features something quite comparable with what Quentin did, all without blood magic.And again we come to the example of Quentin. Would he have been a madman without blood magic? Probably. Would he have kidnapped and killed those women if all he had at his disposal was a fork (or even a sword)? Not likely, since he wasn't just mindlessly killing them for the kicks.
It's inherently more dangerous than some forms of magic, but not evil in itself.
Like most other spells, tools and weapons, the good or evil that is produced depends on the knowledge, intent and skill of the user. A skilled blood mage with a good heart can use blood magic for good intentions and results while an equally skilled elemental mage can use their power to terrorize and oppress muggles for fun.
But how's that different with weapons or tools?
Why not? He was killing them to "create" a body of his dead wife. I think he would still have killed them (with a sword or fork) and made that awful Frankenstein but it wont be alive without bloodmagic
Have you watched "The Silence of the Lambs"? It features something quite comparable with what Quentin did, all without blood magic.
Also, if guns didn't exist, all those school shootings of the recent years wouldn't have occured. Does that make guns evil?
In Quentin's case he wasn't killing them because they reminded him of his dead wife. He was using their body parts to revive her, that they had to be killed for that was a side effect of his goal. If there were no possibility to recreate his wife with blood magic, he'd likely wouldn't even come up with this plan.
All that proves is that blood magic is a tool that can easily be misused. No one is contesting that.In Quentin's case he wasn't killing them because they reminded him of his dead wife. He was using their body parts to revive her, that they had to be killed for that was a side effect of his goal. If there were no possibility to recreate his wife with blood magic, he'd likely wouldn't even come up with this plan.
Retour en haut