191 réponses à ce sujet

[ModernAcademic]

Blood magic doesn't need to have an effect on the Veil.

 

Blood magic doesn't need to involve demons.

 

Blood magic doesn't need pain.

 

Blood magic does not need the life force of others.

 

 

And lastly:

 

Blood magic can lead to great sex.

[Spectr61]

And lastly:
 
Blood magic can lead to great sex.

Well said, sir.

That clinches it.

[Jackums]

Equating human susceptibility to a proposed intrinsic nature of the tool is logically flawed.

 

"Blood magic is tempting and many succumb to it, committing categorically evil acts."

 

People perform the acts.

 

This is more an argument for the innate proclivity of humans toward immorality/amorality.

 

The fact that blood magic more easily draws this out does not make it "evil," unless the blood magic itself is creating, from nothing, this behavior within the user, which is not the case as far as the lore goes. Blood magic is tempting for the nature of humans that already exists, prior to blood magic ever entering the equation. People already possess the capacity for committing "evil" long before you apply extreme circumstances or some power-high magic. Unless and until one can affirm that the blood magic itself is controlling the user, the labeling of the tool as evil is more akin to redirecting blame, as it's merely an effective conduit for drawing out the already-present nature within the individual.

 

Further, many of the arguments being repeated on this topic are ascribing very subjective qualities to what defines evil; a common one being pain. Blood magic is fueled/enhanced by pain? Yes. "Therefore it is evil." Why? How did you go from observing it draws potency from pain to equating it to evil? Even applying an axiomatic, commonplace definition of evil, that's still flawed. First you would need to establish why pain itself is an innately evil thing. By that logic, childbirth is an intrinsically evil thing, as it involves extreme physical pain. I anticipate the refute to such a notion would be that the mother is a willing participant in said childbirth. My response is; Exactly. Just as one can willingly submit themselves to pain in order to fuel blood magic.

 

There are layers upon layers of assumptions, logical fallacies, false equivalencies, and unjustified subjective assertions littered throughout the arguments of those claiming an objective evil in an insentient phenomena.

[Scofield]

Ma big swords right evil, a must've chopped up atleast 10k peeps in that play through

 

BAN THE SWORD!!

 

Blood magic an more importantly for myself Spirit Healer, were the best specs in the DA universe. The biggest problem with there removal was the fact the so called "new" tress were rather dull in comparison an very much boring, hopefully there removal was only cause of the narrative cause a sure as hell be dumping this franchise fast if a dont get ma healing back, granted you could sort of build a semi crappy support class mage but barrier was no substitute an that guard keek was well aye keek

 

Specialization/skill tress, for me, was the biggest let down in DA:I, a mean seriously them was some boring stuff right there, in DA:O n DA2 was constantly replaying them games for months, every damn day, tweaking an trying out new stuff, in DA:I after a coupla play throughs it was like "err right seen it all" that for me was a huge step back

[Aren]

Blood magic doesn't need to have an effect on the Veil.

 

Blood magic doesn't need to involve demons.

 

Blood magic doesn't need pain.

 

Blood magic does not need the life force of others.

 

-Blood magic always weaken the veil when it is used and if the spell is powerful enough

-It attracts demons ,whenever is used there are more higher chance that a demon attention will be captured

-It works on pain always,always!In order to use blood magic health instead of will power is used

blood magic works on the life forces whatever is the one of the mage or the one for others persons.

[Aren]

 

Equating human susceptibility to a proposed intrinsic nature of the tool is logically flawed.

 

"Blood magic is tempting and many succumb to it, committing categorically evil acts."

 

People perform the acts.

 

This is more an argument for the innate proclivity of humans toward immorality/amorality.

 

The fact that blood magic more easily draws this out does not make it "evil," unless the blood magic itself is creating, from nothing, this behavior within the user, which is not the case as far as the lore goes. Blood magic is tempting for the nature of humans that already exists, prior to blood magic ever entering the equation. People already possess the capacity for committing "evil" long before you apply extreme circumstances or some power-high magic. Unless and until one can affirm that the blood magic itself is controlling the user, the labeling of the tool as evil is more akin to redirecting blame, as it's merely an effective conduit for drawing out the already-present nature within the individual.

 

Further, many of the arguments being repeated on this topic are ascribing very subjective qualities to what defines evil; a common one being pain. Blood magic is fueled/enhanced by pain? Yes. "Therefore it is evil." Why? How did you go from observing it draws potency from pain to equating it to evil? Even applying an axiomatic, commonplace definition of evil, that's still flawed. First you would need to establish why pain itself is an innately evil thing. By that logic, childbirth is an intrinsically evil thing, as it involves extreme physical pain. I anticipate the refute to such a notion would be that the mother is a willing participant in said childbirth. My response is; Exactly. Just as one can willingly submit themselves to pain in order to fuel blood magic.

 

There are layers upon layers of assumptions, logical fallacies, false equivalencies, and unjustified subjective assertions littered throughout the arguments of those claiming an objective evil in an insentient phenomena.

i find this whole argument to be laughable,how does one even compare childbirth and blood magic in the first place,especially by using pain as the argument?

Blood magic is enhanced by pain,the more the pain the more powerful is the spell,it's literally feed on pain.

[Qun00]

Equating human susceptibility to a proposed intrinsic nature of the tool is logically flawed.

"Blood magic is tempting and many succumb to it, committing categorically evil acts."

People perform the acts.

This is more an argument for the innate proclivity of humans toward immorality/amorality.

The fact that blood magic more easily draws this out does not make it "evil," unless the blood magic itself is creating, from nothing, this behavior within the user, which is not the case as far as the lore goes. Blood magic is tempting for the nature of humans that already exists, prior to blood magic ever entering the equation. People already possess the capacity for committing "evil" long before you apply extreme circumstances or some power-high magic. Unless and until one can affirm that the blood magic itself is controlling the user, the labeling of the tool as evil is more akin to redirecting blame, as it's merely an effective conduit for drawing out the already-present nature within the individual.

Further, many of the arguments being repeated on this topic are ascribing very subjective qualities to what defines evil; a common one being pain. Blood magic is fueled/enhanced by pain? Yes. "Therefore it is evil." Why? How did you go from observing it draws potency from pain to equating it to evil? Even applying an axiomatic, commonplace definition of evil, that's still flawed. First you would need to establish why pain itself is an innately evil thing. By that logic, childbirth is an intrinsically evil thing, as it involves extreme physical pain. I anticipate the refute to such a notion would be that the mother is a willing participant in said childbirth. My response is; Exactly. Just as one can willingly submit themselves to pain in order to fuel blood magic.

There are layers upon layers of assumptions, logical fallacies, false equivalencies, and unjustified subjective assertions littered throughout the arguments of those claiming an objective evil in an insentient phenomena.

Sorry to break it to you, but your choice of vocabulary doesn't impress anyone here. Working hard to decorate the house doesn't give it a stronger foundation.

People that condone blood magic are always clinging to this hypothetical world of willing participants and blood mages that are perfectly satisfied with using their own blood. I'd sooner focus on how it is actually done than a hundred could's and would's.

More importantly, blood magic isn't just an object like a sword is a hunk of metal. Some things in the world are mainly defined by a combination of actions rather than how it manifests physically. Singing and dancing aren't about the microphones and clothes.

And actions can be judged. A certain practice can be judged. If everything an activity entails revolves around death and misery or derives directly from beings that embody this (demons), then it should be outlawed.

Do you folks want an example of proper use and misuse? Regular magic represents the responsible use of guns. Blood magic represents the guy shooting up a school.

[The Baconer]

I think I already said this in another topic concerning blood magic, but...

 

I can't think of a better way to catch spies of Solas and the Qunari. 

[KaiserShep]

Regular magic represents the responsible use of guns. Blood magic represents the guy shooting up a school.

That doesn't really make sense, because whether or not the magic actually harms anyone (other than probably that mage) is entirely up to the person that wields it. A regular mage could conceivably burn an entire village to the ground just as a bloodmage could sacrifice a lot of unwilling victims to augment their powers. If a non-bloodmage were to incinerate a lot of people, is there any meaningful difference between that person and one that made blood sacrifices?

[Medhia_Nox]

At best... mentally unstable self-mutilators.

 

At worst... homicidal megalomaniacs.

 

Any and all blood mages are pathetic.

[Qun00]

That doesn't really make sense, because whether or not the magic actually harms anyone (other than probably that mage) is entirely up to the person that wields it. A regular mage could conceivably burn an entire village to the ground just as a bloodmage could sacrifice a lot of unwilling victims to augment their powers. If a non-bloodmage were to incinerate a lot of people, is there any meaningful difference between that person and one that made blood sacrifices?

Offensive spells take lives when used. Blood magic spells take lives in order to be used, which will either proceed to end more or at least ruin them as victims of somebody's demonic dealing.

[thats1evildude]

Blood magic doesn't need to have an effect on the Veil.

 

Blood magic doesn't need to involve demons.

 

Blood magic does not need the life force of others.

 

It doesn't, but if you're not going to use blood magic to its fullest potential, why use it at all?

[The Baconer]

It doesn't, but if you're not going to use blood magic to its fullest potential, why use it at all?

 

That is a strange question. For each task hath its tool, and every tool, a task. 

[thats1evildude]

It's just that you have this thing that works best when used for evil purposes and becomes more effective the more horrible things you do with it, and yet the argument is that the thing isn't "evil" because you don't HAVE to use it to do horrible things. Yeah, sure, but why have blood magic at all if you're just going to half-ass it?

 

Someone saying "Blood magic doesn't have to be evil" is effectively the same as using a hand grenade as a paper weight. It's absolutely possible, but it's not really utilizing the hand grenade for its intended purpose. Plus, it's probably not a great idea to keep explosives around your house.

[Aren]

I think I already said this in another topic concerning blood magic, but...

I can't think of a better way to catch spies of Solas and the Qunari.

I don't think that you will be able to trick a master mage like Solas with child's trick like mind controlling.
I'm sure that against the Evanuris he had to fought against more dangerous perils and spies.

[The Baconer]

It's just that you have this thing that works best when used for evil purposes and becomes more effective the more horrible things you do with it, and yet the argument is that the thing isn't "evil" because you don't HAVE to use it to do horrible things. 

 

Yes, kind of like how one could use fire magic to light torches and campfires, or they could wield it with the intent to kill and boil someone in their own fat. Interestingly enough, it seems very few people find the latter usage offensive or distasteful.  

[thats1evildude]

The fire doesn't burn any hotter when you're using it to roast people, though. Unlike blood magic, which only gets better the more unspeakable atrocities you use it for.

[BansheeOwnage]

It doesn't, but if you're not going to use blood magic to its fullest potential, why use it at all?

Why set my oven to high when only need to cook something on medium? I'm sure there are tons of things you could do with it that don't require violently, passionately killing hundreds of elven slaves.

 

The fire doesn't burn any hotter when you're using it to roast people, though. Unlike blood magic, which only gets better the more unspeakable atrocities you use it for.

Well, technically it does burn hotter. Because you want to inflict maximum damage to them, unlike lighting a torch to average fire temperature.

[The Baconer]

The fire doesn't burn any hotter when you're using it to roast people, though. Unlike blood magic, which only gets better the more unspeakable atrocities you use it for.

 

If the aim is to use the power to inflict more unspeakable atrocities, it gets better... but even that will have its utility (Tirena "The Rock" Johnson). 

 

Of course, there's more legal or at least fashionable ways of magical-empowerment-through-violence. Like cannibalizing spirits, or people. 

[ModernAcademic]

If all blood magic weakens the Veil, then the Joining and the DR should do it as well.

 

They don't.

[thats1evildude]

Why set my oven to high when only need to cook something on medium? I'm sure there are tons of things you could do with it that don't require violently, passionately killing hundreds of elven slaves.

Like forcing griffons through the Joining? That worked out wonderfully.

[The Baconer]

Like forcing griffons through the Joining? That worked out wonderfully.

 

I mean... it kind of did. It's why there's still a world for our protagonists to save. 

[thats1evildude]

I mean... it kind of did. It's why there's still a world for our protagonists to save. 

 

That's debatable.

Spoiler

Maybe the Joined griffons were necessary to end the Blight, or maybe they would have found other options. The Wardens' willingness to always make the tough choices doesn't always lead to the best possible outcome; it resulted in them being the dupes of Corypheus in DAI, for instance.

And it hampered the ability of future Wardens to end the Blight. In four hundred years, the Wardens never came up with a replacement for the griffons. And I don't think we can count on always having a nearby tower to jump off of in order to bring down the Archdemon.

[The Baconer]

That's debatable. Maybe the Joined griffons were necessary to end the Blight, or maybe they would have found other options. 

 

Yeah, but that's really vague, and not terribly useful given the circumstances. 

[Illegitimus]

If all blood magic weakens the Veil, then the Joining and the DR should do it as well.

 

They don't.

 

The Dark Ritual isn't blood magic.  Nor in fact is the Joining.  Neither of them require a blood magician to perform them.  Not everything someone does with blood is blood magic.