168 réponses à ce sujet

[jedidotflow]

By and large the problem with magic in Thedas is that everyone can't easily work out how to do magic. Which creates a power imbalance that can lead to abuse. Hence Tevinter. If Magic was universal it would eliminate a lot of that sort of problem.

Of course this is undermined by the sense the games tend to give that mages aren't all that much more powerful than warriors.

(Another problem is that occasionally mages seem to find things that are more equivalent to nukes than conventional explosives. And that's not a problem that'd be solved by letting everyone have their own nukes if they want them. Plus there's the whole "get possessed, go crazy" thing)

 

Solas will fix that.

[KaiserShep]

Can't really say that it's evil in and of itself, but I can say that it's frikkin' gross. 

[Lumix19]

I don't think it needs to be stated specifically.

I think blight magic would fall into this category as well, since it corrupts the user and does harm to them. Fade magic, in itself, doesn't do harm. Blood and blight magic, no matter its use, does harm. There may be other magics out there that also fall into this category that haven't been revealed. So, why list them out, especially if they haven't been discovered/invented at this time, when it can just be generally stated? If she stated specifically, that could be interpreted to mean that blight magic is okay since it isn't stated specifically, and no one knew until The Calling novel that non-darkspawn could use blight magic.

Purposefully harming one's self isn't a good thing either.


Edit: If a mage is so weak that they can't do something that the mage believes must be done, like saving an orphanage or something, then that mage could resort to blood magic out of desperation. Saving the children is a good thing, but that doesn't make the harm done by the mage a good thing. The good may overshadow the bad, but the mage should strive to not have to resort to harming someone (even one's self) in order to do good. It's an end justifies (or doesn't justify) the means kind of thing.

Edit2: Just to emphasize, blood magic requires harm. It thrives on harm and pain. The greater the suffering, the greater the magic. I don't think that is a magical school that needs to be advanced or developed.

I actually misread that verse, Andraste doesn't single out magic when talking about harm and provocation, she just says that

All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,
From the lowest slaves
To the highest kings.
Those who bring harm
Without provocation to the least of His children
Are hated and accursed by the Maker.

Doesn't mention anything about magic at all. The previous verse, as mentioned, talks about "turning the gift against his children" but that's up to individual interpretation.

I will point out that Idunna uses it get the truth without causing harm, although it does seem to cause discomfort. That could be quite useful if used appropriately.

But I do agree that it's very much an "ends justifies the means" thing. Makes it more of a tool then evil though.

[Iakus]

Using blood magic to augment your spells because you lack lyrium doesn't make you weak, incompetent or deranged.

It does make you quite desperate though. Blood magic isn't just a different power source, it's an entirely new way of using magic. One that doesn't draw power from the Fade. And has a variety of potentially very bad side effects

[Illegitimus]

Restricting blood magic to those in power isn't exactly the best idea, ComedicSociopathy. The result of your setup would be that those in power have their pet blood mages while everyone else will still get killed for it.

 

Also, you drastically overstate the danger of blood magic that doesn't involve mind control, human sacrifice and demon summoning. Upgrading a regular spell with your own blood is no more problematic than using a bigger gun rather than a smaller one, something also achieveable with lyrium. Of course those in power will want people to believe it's *all* much more problematic, because they have a vested interest in monopolizing power.

 

Restricting knowledge tends not to work. The most likely result is that it ends up exactly in the hands of those you don't want to have it, while everyone else stays defenseless because they're afraid to break the law and learn to defend themselves - or fall into the hands of demons because they aren't allowed to learn from books. I say let everyone learn, and let those of goodwill help to fight those who use it for evil purposes. If I were a mage in Thedas, I would be honored to join such a force, but at the same time, in the face of forbidden knowledge I'd be severely tempted to call on a demon just to spite those in power, at the risk of my life and sanity. 

 

Ah so we let everyone learn a path to power which is most effectively exploited by killing captives or volunteers and then count on those who kill their volunteers with good intentions to keep those more malignly inclined in line.  

[Lumix19]

It does make you quite desperate though. Blood magic isn't just a different power source, it's an entirely new way of using magic. One that doesn't draw power from the Fade. And has a variety of potentially very bad side effects

It doesn't necessarily have to be out of desperation though. If I was a Mage who feared the Fade and demons, but not magic itself, blood magic might seem an attractive prospect because it doesn't rely on a connection to spirits or demons and it supposedly makes it harder to enter the Fade - it's tied to the physical.

[Daerog]

Actually, World of Thedas Vol. 1 page 109 says that "Mages who experiment with blood magic are more susceptible to demonic spirits, such as pride demons, and risk becoming abominations by way of possession." So, while the mage may think that it is "safer," it is actually riskier.

 

 

Also, while blood magic doesn't make one weak, it shows that one is weak to need to resort to it. A powerful mage does not need blood magic and can do large spells without large quantities of lyrium. Solas was able to do a lot of crazy magic in Trespasser, and he doesn't/didn't use blood magic.

[Urzon]

Actually, World of Thedas Vol. 1 page 109 says that "Mages who experiment with blood magic are more susceptible to demonic spirits, such as pride demons, and risk becoming abominations by way of possession." So, while the mage may think that it is "safer," it is actually riskier.

I'd imagine that blood mages are only more susceptible to demons because either the constant letting of blood weakens the Veil in the area (which happens to both mages and muggles alike) or the demons make a habit of going out of their way to target them because they're more prone to risky or dangerous behavior/situations since they're practicing "forbidden" magic. Because it's been stated before that unlike regular magic that has to draw on the Fade to power spell casting, blood magic is able to bypass this by directly drawing the power from the blood itself. (I'm guess this is where the "More harm = more power" comes from for blood magic, since more harm usually means more blood being spilt to draw power from.)

That would mostly leave the only way for demons to be able to tell if a mage was a blood mage or not is when the mage is asleep and the spirits/demons are allowed access to their thoughts and dreams. Other than maybe blood magic putting a target on their back when it comes to demons, that would put them on equal footing as other mages when it comes down to resisting them. It all comes down to the mage's willpower.
 
 

Also, while blood magic doesn't make one weak, it shows that one is weak to need to resort to it. A powerful mage does not need blood magic and can do large spells without large quantities of lyrium. Solas was able to do a lot of crazy magic in Trespasser, and he doesn't/didn't use blood magic.

If a mage had to resort to blood magic, they were obviously put into a situation where they thought they couldn't get out of by normal means. Because what would be the point to resorting to it if they knew they could get out of the situation otherwise? But, I wouldn't say that a mage's skill and power when it comes to regular magic somehow makes them less likely to turn to possibly resort to it if put in life threatening situations. Even really powerful mages would crumble like wet tissue paper if hit with a Smite or Spell Purge from a Templar or Seeker, and a powerful demon or abomination would easily be able to match or exceed a powerful mage in casting ability.

 

A powerful mage might be able to get out of more life threatening situations in which a lesser skilled mage might have had to turn to blood magic to survive, but that doesn't somehow make them immune to those types of situations.

 

Solas also had thousands of years to hone his magic, and he also has access to all sorts of powerful magical items and text to augment is own power. If it wasn't for is basilisk ability, and knowing not to put himself into stupid situations, I'm pretty sure he could still be taken down by an ambush made up of powerful Templars and/or Seekers, because he would still be susceptible to their "enforcement of reality" as long as the Veil Is still active. All that would leave him as is a bald egg-headed elf "god" with tons of magical ability but no ability to actually cast anything.

[Ieldra]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Andraste is indeed the Bride of the Maker and her Chant is indeed his work.
 
Is the argument from authority then wrong?  In a setting where religious authority far outweighs that of secular authority such a position needs to be entertained.

An interesting question. You're presenting quite the knot of logic here. If this were science, the answer would be a clear "yes" - the arguement from authority is wrong. Authority never has any legitimate impact on the truth of a proposition.
 
However, there is no ultimate truth in matters of morality. In spite of their formal similarity to normal statements about the world, statements about morality don't describe anything. They're more like affirmations of belief. That means, if you're recognized as a moral authority, in some way you make your statements true for the community or society that recognized you as an authority, while another "truth" might be recognized by other cultures. 
 
This problem does not go away if you assume that the Maker exists, because there is no reason why a creator god should have moral authority by default. There simply is no way to establish an objective truth about morality.
 
So the question comes down to this: if we speak about Thedas, should we accept its mix of ideologies as the foundation of *our* debates? Should we refrain from letting our own out-of-world perspective inform the debate? In questions of morality if not necessarily in everything else, that would be, as I see it, highly unproductive, because the reason why these debates are interesting is exactly that we can connect them to our own lives and cultures, by analogy if nothing else.
 
it is possible that your average South Thedosian scholar would accept an argument from scripture as valid in matters of morality, in a similar way this was done in Europe's Middle Ages, though sometimes very subtly. We, however, are under no obligation to do the same. Even if we speak for our characters, the only requirement I see is that our position can plausibly exist in-world.

[Ieldra]

Also, while blood magic doesn't make one weak, it shows that one is weak to need to resort to it. A powerful mage does not need blood magic and can do large spells without large quantities of lyrium. Solas was able to do a lot of crazy magic in Trespasser, and he doesn't/didn't use blood magic.

That statement makes no sense. Whether or not you need an extra power source for your magic doesn't just depend on how powerful you are, but on what you want to do. Obviously, Solas can't unmake the Veil just with his own power, or he would've done it already. Still, he's one of the most powerful mages in existence.

Furthermore, there is no reason why anyone should be limited to what they can achieve unaided. In fact, the history of human civilization is one of overcoming our natural physical limitations. The use of strength-augmenting tools like pulleys and the use of magic-augmenting substances like lyrium or blood are functionally identical. The risks are also functionally similar, depending on learning and experience to avoid: an incompetent user of a pulley can have themselves crushed by a heavy falling object, the incompetent user of lyrium can become addicted or insane, the incompetent user of blood can become possessed or insane.

So no, to resort to a tool to augment your unaided power doesn't make you weak on an absolute scale, nor in comparison with anyone else. All it means is that your goal exceeds your unaided strength. Most of what we do is of that kind, and in some areas, has been of that kind for most of our history.

BTW:
This thread could be a case study in how people use flawed logic in debates like this. I get that blood magic is an unpleasant thing that disgusts many people for more or less valid reasons. Human sacrifice is abhorrent, and the idea of mind-control deeply disturbing even though we can imagine situations where it would be justified. On an emotional level, of course that informs how we feel about blood magic in general. None of that justifies any descriptive claims though, such like "users of blood magic are weak". Arguments of that kind are likely to be non sequiturs.

[Ieldra]

Ah so we let everyone learn a path to power which is most effectively exploited by killing captives or volunteers and then count on those who kill their volunteers with good intentions to keep those more malignly inclined in line.

No. [*sigh* If it's not flawed reasoning ability, it's selective reading]. I'd depend on those who don't do human sacrifice to use their knowledge of blood magic to fight those who do. The Litany of Adralla is an example of how such things could work. It's explicitly mentioned that Adralla studied blood magic.

[ShadowLordXII]

Solas will fix that.

 

Yeah because his last few great plans have worked out so well.

[Iakus]

It doesn't necessarily have to be out of desperation though. If I was a Mage who feared the Fade and demons, but not magic itself, blood magic might seem an attractive prospect because it doesn't rely on a connection to spirits or demons and it supposedly makes it harder to enter the Fade - it's tied to the physical.

Except blood magic weakens the Veil.  Which makes sense given it is magic based on pain and violence.

[Iakus]

That statement makes no sense. Whether or not you need an extra power source for your magic doesn't just depend on how powerful you are, but on what you want to do. Obviously, Solas can't unmake the Veil just with his own power, or he would've done it already. Still, he's one of the most powerful mages in existence.

Furthermore, there is no reason why anyone should be limited to what they can achieve unaided. In fact, the history of human civilization is one of overcoming our natural physical limitations. The use of strength-augmenting tools like pulleys and the use of magic-augmenting substances like lyrium or blood are functionally identical. The risks are also functionally similar, depending on learning and experience to avoid: an incompetent user of a pulley can have themselves crushed by a heavy falling object, the incompetent user of lyrium can become addicted or insane, the incompetent user of blood can become possessed or insane.

So no, to resort to a tool to augment your unaided power doesn't make you weak on an absolute scale, nor in comparison with anyone else. All it means is that your goal exceeds your unaided strength. Most of what we do is of that kind, and in some areas, has been of that kind for most of our history.

BTW:
This thread could be a case study in how people use flawed logic in debates like this. I get that blood magic is an unpleasant thing that disgusts many people for more or less valid reasons. Human sacrifice is abhorrent, and the idea of mind-control deeply disturbing even though we can imagine situations where it would be justified. On an emotional level, of course that informs how we feel about blood magic in general. None of that justifies any descriptive claims though, such like "users of blood magic are weak". Arguments of that kind are likely to be non sequiturs.

There are some functional differences though.

 

At some point, the power needed to fuel a blood magic spell requires death.  Simply cutting yourself or a willing subject only gets you so much power.  At what point does a human (or elven, or qunari, etc) sacrifice become okay?  Where is the line drawn?  That by itself gives blood magic a philosophical/moral question that lyrium does not.  And given Tevinter's vague line of what is or isn't "real" blood magic, that's a question that can lead to a very slippery slope.

 

Plus no pulley in Thedas risks tearing open the Veil and letting demons pour through 

[Ieldra]

Except blood magic weakens the Veil.  Which makes sense given it is magic based on pain and violence.

Except that it's actually based on life force. And that you don't need a connection to the Fade to use it. The lore about this is all over the place.

[Iakus]

Except that it's actually based on life force. And that you don't need a connection to the Fade to use it. The lore about this is all over the place.

Not much is really known about blood magic or its capabilities at all.  Last Flight made that pretty clear.  Hmm, if DA4 really is going to be set in Tevinter, I wonder we'll have a chance to explore blood magic a bit more?

 

But while blood magic does seem to draw upon life force, it is stronger when that life is drawn out painfully.  And we also know that pain and death (not just by magical means) weakens the veil.  Thus why it's thin in places where violence has taken place.

 

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if weakening the Veil is one reason demons teach blood magic to mortals

[Ieldra]

There are some functional differences though.

 

At some point, the power needed to fuel a blood magic spell requires death.  Simply cutting yourself or a willing subject only gets you so much power.  At what point does a human (or elven, or qunari, etc) sacrifice become okay?  Where is the line drawn?  That by itself gives blood magic a philosophical/moral question that lyrium does not.  And given Tevinter's vague line of what is or isn't "real" blood magic, that's a question that can lead to a very slippery slope.

 

Plus no pulley in Thedas risks tearing open the Veil and letting demons pour through 

That was not the point of my reply. The functional similarity is that the use of none of these tools makes you "weak". That blood magic presents a special moral question is uncontested, but a different matter and unconnected to that.

[Amne YA]

- blood magic is evil, it changes people and it alters their mind - blood magic  give access to abilities that are different from normal magic. like controlling person's mind and others. and it changes the person that uses it to a powerful greedy person. so yes, it evil

[TastesLikeTNT]

It isn't inherently evil, of course. Not a whole lot of good you can do, specifically, with blood magic, however. Though, as a person with certain blood-related cycles, I can think of an excellent reason to use it.

[Ieldra]

It isn't inherently evil, of course. Not a whole lot of good you can do, specifically, with blood magic, however. Though, as a person with certain blood-related cycles, I can think of an excellent reason to use it.

New revelation of Thedas lore: women can do more powerful blood magic with their own blood That must be why we never see female mages doing human sacrifice. 

[Akiza]

It is a tool like any other magic. It depends on how that tool is used.

Problem is that it seems that blood magic call somehow demons,which are evil creatures.

Use blood magic too often result always into a demon influence,also no mage are willing to use his/her own blood

[Bleachrude]

*shrug*

 

Doesn't help when the player can use it and not really suffer any bad effects. Of course players will see it as JUST a tool because to the players that is what it is....it's only the lore that actually says it is a bad thing....it's somewhat similar to why "blight sickness" is somewhat trivalized since other than citscenes, we rarely deal with it (nobody in inquisition gets the blight, none of other companions in Origins get it and only our sibling is potentially affected by it in DA2)

[Baekwan]

I think necromancy is worse XD how is it more acceptable?

[Daerog]

*snip*

 

 

*snip*

 

 

Okay, I am saying "weak" in the sense that they were not strong enough to not pull off what they wanted without resorting to something that is drawn from suffering. If the mage was "stronger," they wouldn't need to do that and still pull of what they wanted. Resorting to blood magic means the mage should strive to get better so to not have to resort to such wickedness.

 

Blood Magic is a crutch. It is a boost to magical power, but it is a power that is drawn from immoral means (drawn from suffering/pain/harm).

 

I do see reasons why people should limit themselves if it is to prevent evil/wrong from needlessly being done.

 

If one has to resort to blood magic to save a bunch of children, okay, I won't really fault them for it. However, they resorted to something that is dangerous and is rooted in suffering. It would be better if they didn't have to, if they trained themselves more to not need to resort to something like that.

 

Solas has had many centuries of growing in power, and for a while he was weakened, but he does show (with his basilisk ability and such) that blood magic isn't necessary to perform strong magic. One can try to use enchanted devices and such to augment magic, instead of resorting to blood magic.

 

A mage using lyrium or not using blood magic can still be a villain (and go against the will of the Maker, and I say this because if the Maker is real, then what the Maker dictates is the truth of the reality he created), but that doesn't make blood magic any more innocent. Fade magic is not rooted in harm, blood magic is. You cannot have blood magic without harm, even if that harm is no more painful than a hair being pulled. Fade magic does not grow in strength from pain or death, but blood magic does because it is tied to "life force."

 

I don't think it is a problem knowing blood magic, but it should be a discouraged thing and a last resort. In my opinion, anyway, constantly going with the end justifies the means will corrupt an individual.

[Ashagar]

I think necromancy is worse XD how is it more acceptable?

 

Because you can't mentally enslave people with it, you can't summon demons with it, you aren't likely bargaining with demons to learn it and it isn't inherently corruptible like blood magic is.