Does being a Blood Mage affect the story? Edit
My question is directed both towards Origins and DA2. I thought about it when I played through Awakening. I talked to Anders and he said if the Templars caught him they would accuse him of being a blood mage. I had made him learn the specialization so I had the choice to say "But you ARE a Blood Mage!" to which he just replied "Well... I am now!" That was a minor detail. But it made me wonder if it affects any major event. -- FieryWrath 21:27, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
yeah, i dont think it has any major effects. at least not in origins. you can talk to uldred and say that you're similar to him in someways and he'll reply that you're right and that he can "see it in you". i haven't finished da2 as a blood mage yet, so im not sure if it has an effect in the second game. i doubt anything big, but ya never know. it would definetly make things interesting. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:45, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there is some stuff that got pulled from the game where Wynne can rat you out to the Templars at the end of the Circle of Magi quest. A mod adds it back in but has some bugs or problems. But beyond that I don't believe there's anything in Origins. There's even less impact in DA2. Millahnna (talk) 14:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
Blood magic->Blood Magic Edit
As a nit picker I noticed the lower case m for Blood Magic. The Game does have it as an uppercase M and may want to be updated as such to conform with the game and the rest of the wiki. If it isn't stepping on any toes I can do the needed updates.17:36, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- See DA:NAME. "Blood magic" is the correct English form. Moreover, the game is not always consistent with what's supposed to be written in uppercase and lowercase. --D. (talk · contr) 17:40, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but this wiki has Blood Mage and not Blood mage (many articles follow this especially skills/spell/specializations) if we don't conform this article then we'd have to conform to the rest of the wiki so either follow DA or correct English we have to choose and not 1/2 and 1/2. 18:16, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh kay, I thought it was. 19:35, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree to that but if an admins want it that way because of the reason above than no reason to debate over it, admins is the last say :) 19:45, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Admins do not have the final word regarding editorial issues.
- Regarding using it as a title for a headline, no. The guidelines state that correct English must be used in article titles and within the text. This is a matter of consistency as well. "Titles Like This Makes Reading Hard And Rather Annoying In My Opinion". :P --D. (talk · contr) 19:51, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- If it is that long I agree but 2-3 (maybe 4-5) words it looks far neater for titles, headings and articles in my opinion. This is one of the few articles I have seen like this (with a lower case to conform to English form) and that is why I opt to change to conform with the rest (of the articles) and if admins don't have the last say... then are we suppose to keep debating or get a 2nd/3rd opinion (sorry I am not sure what I was to get from that statement) just in the past for me when in disagreement over editorial issues (and you can guess I have had a few) against an admin there usually not further discussion, unless another admin steps in o.O 20:13, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Then shall I point out that correct English in titles, generally means using title case? The sentence "Jowan was using blood magic" is correct, whereas his best selling book, "Jowan's Big Tome of Blood Magic" containing a chapter titled "Blood Magic in the Starkhaven Circle" would also be correct English. It's a style rule, which is not currently established. What's on the NAMES page covers in-text style rules for capitalization, not headings and title case. I find lack of title case annoying. But long titles which are not concise (or intended as humor) are annoying regardless of how they are capitalized. Legionnaire Scout *talk* 20:32, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- We've been through this discussion regarding using correct English on the wiki in the past (you may want to read it), regarding titles. If you want to make some sort of exceptions, you may open a discussion on the forums, but be aware that saying it looks neater to you isn't a really good argument, as I'd argue it isn't—it's based on personal preferences. Like I have said, it's a matter of consistency. When do you decide that a title containing 5 words should be capitalized because it looks better? What about 6? Just because it's not properly written in some articles does not mean we should change the other articles so it matches this article. It's a slow process to make this consistent, but this is the current guidelines.
- And obviously, if it's a title, it must be written as it is supposed to. Regarding headings, this is covered in DA:NAME, which I thought was clear: "The following naming conventions apply for article titles, categories as well as text within an article." I typed the guidelines, so if there is something that was not clear, you're welcome to ask. --D. (talk · contr) 20:36, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
No you misunderstand the looks neater is in regards to your "Titles Like This Makes Reading Hard And Rather Annoying In My Opinion", you shared your opinion I was just sharing mine. My argument is to conform to other articles and names but as you said it is ""Blood magic" in this case is not the spell or specialization, and as such, should be left in this form." But I thought it was (as a specialization and thought to conform with other talents/spells/specializations). Since then I was merely giving my opinion and querying on the admins don't have the last say statement.20:57, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Conforming to other articles is a somewhat irrelevant and self defeating process when the articles that you mentioned seeing may not be in line with the dragon age guidelines. Ultimately the underlying point is to conform to the guidelines of the wiki, which I believe both admins and users can vote on. Balitant (talk) 04:13, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
Conscience of a Blood Mage Edit
Should I feel bad that whenever I'm in the Chantry in DA2 I feel obligated to perform as much blood magic as possible? I have the same problem in the Gallows. --Ralthimar (talk) 00:17, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
I took out the thing about Uldred only possibly being a blood mage because he obviously was. The Litany of Adralla was used to fight against blood magic and when Uldred tries to turn a mage the Litany can be used to prevent it. Blood magic is needed to turn someone into a demon as seen in the cut scene before you fight Uldred as well as in the quest enimies among us in Dragon Age 2. (184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC))
- When you meet Uldred in the circle tower, he no longer is a (blood) mage, but a Pride Abomination. As demonic powers and blood magic seem to be related, it is no suprise that the Litany also works against the influence of the demon. However, in a conversation you can have with Niall, he says that Uldred summoned a demon before he was possessed and that is only possible through blood magic.--Schrödingercat (talk) 19:05, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
That's my point, he was a blood mage at one point since he had to summon the demon. Whoever was working on the part Notable blood mages seemed to think that Uldred might never have been a blood mage and that only his followers used it for him. (I'm the one who started this talk page) (The Malcom Hake (talk) 19:24, November 7, 2011 (UTC))
Malcom and blood magic. Edit
I know that Malcom used blood magic to strengthen Corypheus's seal, but should he be considered a blood mage just because he used it that one time? He was made to use blood magic by the grey wardens and conversations between Carver, Bethany, and Hawke seem to make it look like Malcom didn't approve of blood magic and wouldn't have used if he was not forced to. (The Malcom Hake (talk) 12:00, November 7, 2011 (UTC))
- I haven't played DAII nor Legacy, so I can't say anything about Malcom, but there is another character that also has (possibly) used a form of blood magic: Morrigan. If you ask what kind of magic the dark ritual is, she says that "some would call it blood magic". Both characters have used blood magic once, so either both of them should be on it, or neither. I'd say neither.--Schrödingercat (talk) 19:51, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need anyone's approval to remove it. If someone contests it, they'll bring it up on the talk page. If you feel something on the wiki is wrong for whatever reasons, you are welcome to edit it.
- As for Malcom and Morrigan, I'm inclined to say no as well, since I don't think it's like they are notably known for using blood magic. --D. (talk · contr) 03:40, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
notable section Edit
I have seen a lot of names on the notable section that, in my opinion, do not belong there. This is what I think should be on it:
- All characters that are a part of the specific group (in this case, blood mages) as canon (e.g. Wynne is always a spirit healer) or become part of it through a possible plot event (e.g. Carver becoming a Templar).
What I think should not be in the section:
- Groups of people, rather then individuals (e.g. the tevinter magisters)
- All characters that become part of the group because the player selected a certain specialization (e.g. Wynne becomming a blood mage). In particular The Warden and Hawke, as well as the possible specializations from all origins companinon.
- I agree as well, it makes a lot more sense than what's there now. I was already in the process of making significant changes/additions to the page, so I'll go ahead and make revisions along those lines while I'm at it. Tell me what you think, and feel free to make changes of your own. --Ralthimar (talk) 03:11, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
Section on general ethics/morality? Edit
Would it be relevant and appropriate to include a subheading with an objective discussion of the ethics/morality of blood magic? My thoughts are that it could include the most relevant arguments for and against its use, especially a formal outline of Chantry doctrine as it relates to blood magic. Tell me what you all think, I believe it would an interesting topic to cover here. --Ralthimar (talk) 21:27, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what it would add to the article that hasn't already been said in other sections of the article though. --D. (talk · contr) 21:40, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
- True. I might just slip in a few more things that the Chantry specifically teaches about blood magic, or move most of the comments regarding the Chantry's views of blood magic into its own section. I think that would make more sense, and avoid redundancies. --Ralthimar (talk) 02:48, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
First Form of MagicEdit
Blood magic was the first form of magic in Thedas. Can anyone produce a reference for this statement? If not it needs to be removed. ----Isolationistmagi 02:24, July 19, 2012 (UTC)