Dragon Age Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Dragon Age Wiki
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blood magic article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Does being a Blood Mage affect the story?[]

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. 71.243.47.100 (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[]

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.  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 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.  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 18:16, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
"Blood magic" in this case is not the spell or specialization, and as such, should be left in this form. You don't write, "Jowan was using Blood Magic", but rather "Jowan was using blood magic". --D. (talk · contr) 18:28, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oh kay, I thought it was.  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 19:35, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Does this hold true when the name is used as a title or heading? Does not title case apply at that point? Legionnaire Scout *talk* 19:38, 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 :)  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 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  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 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)
Actually, I was in the Manual of Style, but found it under "Section headings" where it is rather clear. I still disagree with it, but can agree with consistency. Legionnaire Scout *talk* 20:55, 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.  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 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[]

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)

No, it's a game and you need to calm down. (24.250.44.11 (talk) 21:48, November 6, 2011 (UTC))

Uldred[]

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. (24.250.44.11 (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.[]

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)

I agree, I'm just a bit hesitant to take it out without some type of approval from an admin or something. (The Malcom Hake (talk) 20:55, November 10, 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[]

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.

As I said, this is just my own opinion, and I will be happy to discuss it.--Schrödingercat (talk) 19:37, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --D. (talk · contr) 03:40, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
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?[]

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 Magic[]

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)

well, i haven't tackled DA2, the pnp rpg or any of the fic yet, but that smells mighty fishy. i'll check the shops for anything remotely resembling an objective treatment of 'magic in thedas' (the pnp if anything, i'd imagine). Yeti magi (talk) 03:22, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Irving, Vivienne and Fiona as blood mages[]

the phylacteries states that first enchanters creates phylacteries, phylacteries is just as much blood magic as using your own blood instead of lyrium to power a healing spell for your ally, in the creation of phylacteries codex it says

"I let Medine take the lancet this time. The tremor in my hands was worse that day, and I didn't want to make too deep a cut. I held the boy close, and Medine made a small, neat incision on his palm, exactly as instructed. I felt the boy struggle and start to cry. He tried to pull away, but Medine gripped his hand firmly, letting the blood run into the phial.

Then Medine cast the spell, like we practiced. Within the phial, the blood churned, and grew bright in the presence of the mage to whom it was bound. It was done. Another phylactery, another link forged. He was leashed to the White Spire.

The boy could not look away from the glow."

it sounds like blood magic just like any other blood magic, it's way it's kept a secret from everyday people of thedas, it's just as much blood magic as using your own, if you were to ask any other person in thedas and explain how the magic with how it is created and then if that's any different from using your blood for a healing spell if you can't afford your own lyrium, more would have said their both blood magic, it's just that the chantry doesen't see it that way and wants to make everyone believe it so, other people would still see it as blood magic, the dalish, etc etc would still see it as much as blood magic as anything else, it's just that the chantry wants you to believe it that way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn123456789 (talkcontribs)

I disagree, and have removed their names. Phylacteries are technically blood magic, but we also have evidence from both interviews and Finn (in game) that they are a grey area. Also, First Enchanters are not seen as blood mages. Therefore, the change was reverted for the moment, as consensus was not reached. However, a note about phylacteries and First Enchanters was added to 'Present Day Thedas' as their creation is technically blood magic. ToshiNama (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, and have added their names again Phylacteries are blood magic, blood magic is a grey area in of itself, the blood magic wiki states that blood magic is not evil, their not seen as blood magic by the chantry, mn123456789
I think referring to the First Enchanters as "blood mages" on the page obscures from what most people perusing the page would be looking for. We can argue the semantics of if anyone who makes or is complacent in blood magic as a "blood mage", but notable blood mages to me implies two things: that the person is notable in terms of the Dragon Age universe, and that they are notable for practicing the arts of blood magic to some degree. The average person seeing Vivienne under "blood magic" aren't going to think this is a reference to her being First Enchanter, and having made phylacteries at some point. It's rather misleading and not the purpose of the "Notable Blood Mages" segment. These should be reserved for people who are seen and known to have practice Blood Magic to some sort of degree— certainly beyond the single permitted loophole permitted in Southern Circles. NotYourParadigm (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This is my reasoning as well. Vivienne, Irving and Fiona are certainly not notable for being blood mages and seeing their names on that list would leave most people confused. Evamitchelle (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


Vivienne, Fiona and Irving are characters that plays a big role, it's notable that they practice blood magic, Jowan has done blood magic 2 times, his not a notable blood mage if the requirement is the consistent use of blood magic, neither is Orisino, he did it only ones, first enchanters creates more phylacteries and cast more blood magic spells then Jowan and orisono, it has been added that phylacteries are blood magic which has been confirmed by david gaider and that the first enchanter creates them that would clear up the confusion,I can add to it if need be. fandom.com is about deep diving, https://www.fandom.com/about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn123456789 (talkcontribs)
As a counter to this, Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving never are shown to perform blood magic at all. It's something we assume they've performed, but in terms of how many times they are shown to perform blood magic? Zero times. Jowan and Orsino both perform blood magic in-game, and in both occasions these are major and significant occurrences. Orsino performs a massive blood magic spell in order to become a Harvester, and a boss fight, and Jowan's blood magic use is the central conflict of both the Circle Magi origin as well as the events at Redcliffe. Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving making phylacteries are not even mentioned in-game, just something we are assuming happened. They are not "Notable Blood Mages". NotYourParadigm (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Fandom (originally Wikicities, and later Wikia) was a new platform that built off the core technology powering Wikipedia in order to super serve the needs of an incredibly passionate set of customers: fans!Before Fandom, fans couldn't dive deep into the lore or world of their favorite tv show, movie or game. For example, fans who visited the Luke Skywalker page on Wikipedia would only learn about Mark Hamill. They wanted a place where they could learn more about Luke, the character, as if he were a real person (and dive deep on the rest of the Star Wars Universe while they were at it). If Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia", then Fandom is the rest of the library - a deep repository of information about fictional universes.

the wiki is here to allow people to dive deep in to the lore accoridng to about us mn123456789

just becauce they are show to have cast a blood magic spell ones doesen't mean they are notable blood mages, their preformence of blood magic is notable but their not notable as a blood mages, the fact that Vivienne, Irving and Fiona practising blood magic is noteable, the wiki is about allowing fans to dive deep into the lore and add a deep repository of information of fictinal universes from what I've read in the about page mn123456789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn123456789 (talkcontribs)
"their preformence of blood magic is notable but their not notable as a blood mages" -- Are saying Jowan and Orsino are not notable blood mages? You don't provide any logic here. Are you then in favour of the addition of Vivienne, Irving, and Fiona as more "notable", and removing them as notable? Because that seems rather ridiculous. Orsino and Jowan's blood magic are not only central conflicts regarding their characters and perceptions of them in-universe, but are also some of our main windows Making phylacteries is not a sufficient example "practicing" blood magic, in my eyes, and doubly so for those who are never even shown or mentioned to have made them anywhere in game. The Blood Magic page already clearly mentions that phylacteries are technically a type of blood magic, and that First Enchanters are the ones who make them, which provides the same information you are by including three known First Enchanters. By your logic, we should list all known first Enchanters as "Notable Blood Mages" because it's very likely they made at least one or two phylacteries in their life, but that obscures the purpose of the section. It should be a focused list of people who are notable in the fact that they practice blood magic as a craft, research it, or advocate for Blood Magic as a school of magic. Vivienne, Irving, and Fiona never (1) are shown making phylacteries or performing any other sort of blood magic (2) talk about making phylacteries or any sort of blood magic (3) talk about blood magic as a craft in any sort of light aside from actively denouncing it as a practice. Phylacteries being a type of blood magic permitted and practiced by the Circle? Notable, and already included in the page. Three chosen First Enchanters presumed to have made phylacteries at some point? Not notable Blood Mages. The section should be reserved for known practicioners of blood magic as a larger craft. NotYourParadigm (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
In Codex entry: The Creation of a Phylactery, quoted above, the phylactery was not created by a First Enchanter, but by an Enchanter, so it's not even a given that Vivienne, Irving and Fiona have ever made phylacteries in their position as First Enchanters. Evamitchelle (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Excellent addition, thank you. Another good reason against their inclusion in the list. NotYourParadigm (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
no need to get passive aggressesive "You don't provide any logic here." and call my basis ridiculous, t's notable that fiona,irving and vivienne who plays a big role in the game practive blood magic there for they are notable blood mages, you're the one who's argument doesen't make any sense at all, I too can get passive aggressive, their not, they don't consistintly practice their blood magic, casting a spell using blood magic only ones ones doesen't make you a notable blood mage, that's ridiculous, that's not what notable blood mage, means, just becauce you have a perspection of what it means doesen't make it so, I have another perpserpetion of what a notable blood mage is and someone else might have a different perspetion on what deems is noteable, it's still notable that characters that plays as big of a role as them practice blood magic, they are blood mages worht of noting since they play such a big role in the games
the codex the creation of a phylacetery was though by a first enchanter, and the other wiki states so —Preceding unsigned comment added by mn123456789 (talkcontribs)
"From The Memoirs of Enchanter Reva Claye, 8:72 Blessed" An Enchanter is not the same thing as a First Enchanter. Evamitchelle (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
"they don't consistintly practice their blood magic, casting a spell using blood magic only ones ones doesen't make you a notable blood mage, that's ridiculous, that's not what notable blood mage, means" -- So you agree with NotYourParadigm's main point. We also do not see or hear of them practicing blood magic and can only assume that they created phylacteries. Yes, they are notable mages, but I would not include them in this kind of list on that basis. Think of the typical end user--if someone is simply playing the game and looking for blood mage characters or perhaps writing a fanfiction--would they care for Vivienne, Irving, and Fiona being on the Notable Blood Mages list? Also consider the precedent you are trying to set: based on the same arguments you've already set forth, it sounds like you would consider Vivienne a spirit healer. Mrrrauder (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

no I don't agree with notparadigm maint paint, a first enchanter creates more phylacteries using blood magic then orisono have cast blood magic, and the part where you make the argument of a typical user, I refer to what I wrote earlier, you can read where what this fandom https://www.fandom.com/about is about, you can just read the first part "Before Fandom, fans couldn't dive deep into the lore" I haven't made research into spririt healing sorry, mn123456789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by mn123456789 (talkcontribs)

Much of your argument is based solely on presumptions. You are assuming that the First Enchanter is making many phylacteries on the regular, while Evamitchelle's remark above that this is not even true, the Codex shows that just rank and file Enchanters may be the ones to create them. This, all the while we have no evidence that any of the included Enchanters have even created a single phylactery. By contrast, Jowan and Orsino performing blood magic successfully in-game does have grounds to presume they have been performed blood magic more on the regular. Jowan even admits as much to Lily in the Circle Mage origin, that he thought learning blood magic would make him a better mage, confirming that he had been performing blood magic prior to that moment. With nothing but speculation and assumptions to support Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving as having even made Phylacteries, plus the fact phylacteries alone do not count as active practicing blood magic as a specialization, I am also going to remove their names again. They are not even confirmed to have ever performed blood magic, and so at this point their inclusion is purely speculation based on presumptions rather than supported by canonical evidence (ignoring the argument of if Phylactery makers are even "notable" blood mages). The wiki actively discourages any posts that are including speculation; see the Editing Guidelines DA:EDIT. NotYourParadigm (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
it's not based on any assumptions,when 24 hours have gone by, I will add their names again, I'm not adding them becauce their speculative, I'm addding them becauce that's what the sources say. it's in the blood magic article "Phylacteries are technically blood magic, and are created by the First Enchanter" and the phylacteries article, phylactery is a vessel, often a glass vial, containing the essence of a magical being. The Circle of Magi and the Chantry use small phylacteries filled with blood—taken from an apprentice mage by the First Enchanter of their Circle

Phylacteries is blood magic: source https://www.ladyinsanity.com/blog/davidgaider-interview-gaymerx

everyone is gonna have different perspection on what notable is, I'm gonna have to ask to be engaged in good faith please

—Preceding unsigned comment added by mn123456789 (talkcontribs)

Fandom communities are also built through consensus. Please wait until this discussion is resolved before reverting the page again. Also, please sign your posts with the signature function (fourth icon on the top bar or writing 4 ~) to make the conversation easier to follow. Evamitchelle (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
If you continue adding information that is clearly not at a consensus level after opening up a talk topic, that is not acting in good faith. DO NOT add the information until the talk page has run its course and consensus has been reached. The Wiki runs on volunteers, people who put in a great deal of effort, discussion, transparency, and consensus. This is clearly something that you are passionate about, but the sourcing does not seem to support adding those three First Enchanters as 'notable' blood mages, as they are not shown nor directly indicated to do *any* blood magic, much less notable. I noted the point of the phylacteries, and added that in under 'present day' because it is valuable information, and something we can cite to multiple sources. However, the sections serve different purposes. Again, DO NOT keep adding the names, but continue the discussion here. At this point, there are only four people who have spoken up. Other editors of the wiki may do so as well. ToshiNama (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with adding Vivienne, Irving and Fiona to the list of notable Blood mages solely because they are/were First Enchanters. Phylacteries are a form of blood magic, indeed, and they are created by senior mages - either First Enchanters or regular Enchanters, as Evamitchelle pointed out. Adding every senior mage to the list of notable blood mages would only create confusion about the prevalence and function of blood magic in the present day Thedas. From what little evidence there is, many high-ranking mages might've been tasked with creating a phylactery at some point in their career - unless there's a clear confirmation that a specific mage has done so on a regular basis, I think they should not be considered notable blood magic users. We have no canonical evidence that Vivienne Irving or Fiona have made phylacteries themselves. I vote against automatically classifying all First Enchanters and Enchanters as blood mages. The paragraph about phylacteries' creation included in the main text of the article is sufficiently informative, in my opinion. Ammocharis (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
vivienne,fiona and irving are characters that plays a big role in the game that makes them notable as blood mages,just becauce their more on one side doesen´t make them right, that rules says nothing about reaching a concensus, 2 different articles states that "phylacteries" are blood magic, and that the first enchanter creates them, and irving, vivienne and fiona has been first enchanters, is there are rule about consensus, if there isen´t I´m gonna new information if it's well-sources like this, becauce I care about the fandom, I still had a revert left, I only think I reverted 2 times, if there a rule about consesus I'm sorry, do not revert my changes until we reached a consensus, if there is. The sources are pointing towards vivienne, fiona and irving having created phylacterie as first enchanters,and they play such a big role it would make them notable, and thanks for showing me how to make a signature, Mn123456789 (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
You can find the DA wiki's stance on consensus here: "The Dragon Age Wiki strives to reach consensus when it comes to editing. [...] The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Also, you shouldn't remove other users' comments from talk pages. Evamitchelle (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
okay I diden't know must have missed it I'm genuinly sorry, I dispute/disagree with the fact that Irving,Fiona and Irving isen't blood mages, do not remove it until we reached a consensus, like I've said many times, the codex creating a phylacterie shows a first enchanter teaching what is presumed to be a younger mage to create them, and there's 2 articlies backing up that the first enchanter creates the phylacteries, and phylacteries have been confirmed to be a type of blood magic by david gaider, the only users comment I've removed that I know of, is myself when I was logged out, if then I accidently deleted another comment I'm sorry Mn123456789 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
You might have missed my earlier comment because this talk page is quite hard to read, but the codex entry you mention was written by Enchanter Reva Claye, which is not the same thing as a First Enchanter. As for consensus, you should note that it doesn't need to be unanimous, and that as the one who introduced the change, it's on you to make the case for the addition. From the guidelines: "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article." Which means that in the absence of consensus, we would revert the list to what it was before, meaning not including Fiona, Irving and Vivienne's names Evamitchelle (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No one here argues that phylacteries aren't a form of blood magic, and it's made pretty clear that they are created by senior mages - both First Enchanters (according to character dialogue) and Enchanters (per Codex entry: The Creation of a Phylactery that you quote so much). This fact has been noted in the main text of the relevant articles. The point of disagreement is the assumption that every First Enchanter has engaged in phylactery creation, and whether that makes them notable blood mages. You're conflating two different points - that Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving are characters that play a big role in the game (making them notable) and that they are blood mages based on assumption that every First Enchanter has personally engaged with phylactery creation. The "notable characters" lists serve a purpose of identifying characters who have a clear, relevant connection to the topic. If you believe that every single character who might've created a phylactery should be listed as a notable blood mage, then you'd have to write down each and every First Enchanter as well as ęvery Enchanter. This would make the "notable blood mages" section rather chaotic and impractical to readers who wish to read up on blood magic practices in Thedas. Ammocharis (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
ah I've read it all now and understand, thanks,the blood magic page reads "Phylacteries are technically blood magic, and are created by the First Enchanter" the Phylacteries article reads this, A phylactery is a vessel, often a glass vial, containing the essence of a magical being. The Circle of Magi and the Chantry use small phylacteries filled with blood—taken from an apprentice mage by the First Enchanter or an Enchanter, do you agree or disagree that fiona,vivienne and irving has been first enchanters yes or no Mn123456789 (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
All three characters are First Enchanters. However, the very article you point to makes a deliniation between phylacteries and the Joining, which are technically blood magic, and the Chantry's definition of blood magic, which involves using blood, made more powerful by pain, death, and suffering, or the school of blood magic, which focuses on controlling other people's minds. In the case of Jowan, he uses the death of a mother to push someone into the Fade - that is entirely under all definitions of blood magic. In the case of Orsino, he uses recent death and blood to become a monster. That also counts under all definitions. In the case of Uldred, he's actively binding spirits, and there's no doubt from the various banters and codices that he was actively training blood mages. In the case of Fiona, Irving, and Vivienne, it's conjecture, and at least Irving and Vivienne are actively against the Chantry's definition of blood magic. Once again, I think that having the note about phylacteries - with link to the interview - is sufficient to bring out the fact of phylacteries without presenting information in such a way that a casual reader of the wiki would get confused. None of the three names you mention are what are recognized in-game or in-lore as 'blood mages.' As Ammocharis stated, the two items (notable people and use of blood magic) are being conflated. Please see above, with the discussion on whether Malcolm Hawke should be added as a blood mage. At the moment, consensus is clearly against including the three First Enchanters as blood mages, and I would make the same argument should we have more Mortalitasi names: that while necromancy is *technically* blood magic, that doesn't make every Mortalitasi someone that would qualify as being included under the section. ToshiNama (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree we can make a deal I could I add them under trivia they play such a important role in the game it's worth noting, and it's worth showing both partys has their faults Mn123456789 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Toshi already added the fact that Enchanters and First Enchanters create phylacteries, which are a form of blood magic, to the article. Seems to me like a good compromise already. Evamitchelle (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you're missing the purpose of the Wiki, Mn123456789. It's not to assign fault or take sides in any of the various discourse, it's to provide as clear and cited information as possible in a neutral fashion, and to be a resource to the fans and Bioware alike. That is why I added the information to 'Present Day' as it's information worth including, and why I'm opposed to muddying the waters for the fanbase by expanding the intent of 'Notable Blood Mages' beyond its purpose. ToshiNama (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand Toshinama, the about us page states that the wiki is about deep diving, that's why I don't think we should exlude important information,if we only include apostates and exclude blood mages under the chantry we aren't prividing information in a neatrual fashion, we are taking sides,only having apostates under notable blood mages and excluding blood mages of the circle isen't a neatral fashion, but this isen't going anywhere,
No information is being excluded. The Wiki page now clearly talks about the fact that Enchanters (not only First Enchanters) make Phylacteries, and how this this certainly a form of blood magic but seen as a "Grey Area" in universe. In addition, it is not only apostates that are listed. Orsino and Uldred both are members of the Southern Circles, as well as the various Tevinter mages who are known to practice blood magic, who are not apostates either. There are three main cruxes of this argument that make the addition of those three First Enchanters a poor addition to the wiki, in my eyes:
(1) Speculation. None of these characters are ever confirmed to have made a phylactery at all in universe. Our provided lore shows that First Enchanters as well as normal rank-and-file Enchanters both are capable of making phylacteries. The wiki actively discourages including any information that is based on speculation. The logic of "other First Enchanters have made phylacteries, thus all First Enchanters must have made phylacteries" is speculation and not supported by concrete lore.
(2) Semantics of what is a "Notable Blood Mage". As said before, the "notable" is not in the fact of "is this a major character", as at present we have relatively minor characters included in the section, such as Tarohne and Caladrius. The "notable" is referring to if the character's use of blood magic is significant. This section is currently populated either by characters whose primary specialization or school of study is known to be some form of blood magic (such as Merrill, Quentin, Avernus) or who are involved in conflicts and plots that revolve around their use of blood magic (such as Jowan, Uldred, Grace). I would see an argument to be made in this department if a Circle Mage studied the science and mechanics of making phylacteries as their main focus of research, or if they were involved in some sort of plot or conflict involving the making of phylacteries and how it is perceived as blood magic. But Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving fit neither of these categories.
(3) Obscuring relevant information. As Ammocharis pointed out, even ignoring the first two points, this would set a precedent of including every known First Enchanter in the list of "Notable Blood Mages", which would obscure the point of the section. The average user looking at the Blood Magic page for "Notable Blood Mages" are not going to be interested in seeing characters included because we have presumed they used blood magic at some point in their career. Making this into an exhaustive list of "everyone who could potentially have performed blood magic" is not the intent of the section. For the same reason, we do not list every single known apostate who may have used blood magic off-screen.


I personally would need to see you address these three points in a compelling way in order for me to change my opinion on the matter. NotYourParadigm (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
that's not my point every first enchanter does not play a big role in the game, Uldred and Orisino both became apostasted and we're outspokenly negative against the circles, it is my firm beleif that we can't exclude characters that would shine the circle in a bad light, from the notable blood mage senction, the wiki isen't suppose to pick sides

it's in 3 different articeles that I've found that mentiones that the first enchanter takes a phylactery from new mages and that phylacteries is blood magic, it woulden't if it was illegitimate, do you or do you not agree that fiona,irving and vivienne has been first enchanter? if they are they are blood mages, it's in 3 different articles and perhaps more that the first enchanter takes a phylactery from new arrivals, yes or no

Mn123456789 (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Orsino and Uldred never become apostates, they both are killed without ever leaving the organization of the Circle, and Orsino never is outspoken against the Circle but actively seeks to improve the lives within the Circle. These are not accepted facts or canon. Regardless, that is not the focus of this discussion. Excluding Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving is not a matter of "exclude characters that would shine the circle in a bad light" or picking sides. It is because of the three reasons I listed above. In truth, this sounds more like a matter of you desiring to see three high-profile characters included not for the sake of logical cohesion of lore, but in order to "paint the circle in a bad light", by your own words. This is not grounds for inclusion.
To answer your question, let us look at the sources: in Codex_entry:_Phylacteries, there is no mention it being the First Enchanter that makes the phylactery. Only that First Enchanter phylacteries are stored in a different location. In The Creation of a Phylactery, it is not only clearly written from the perspective of a rank-and-file Enchanter, but also showcases them teaching the method to another junior Enchanter, making reference to the fact that they practiced it prior. In the phylactery entry in The World of Thedas Vol 1, there is also no reference to it being the First Enchanter making them, only that the apprentices provide a sample of blood to be kept. So: no, the codex entries do not say that it is the First Enchanter that takes the phylactery from new arrivals, and in fact imply the opposite. That it is something that is carried out and practiced by the average Enchanter.
Once again, I'd ask you to address the three points I listed above (speculation, definition of "notable", and obscuring relevant information) in order to defend your point of including these three. Right now your argument has not evolved beyond your initial repetition of points we have repeatedly disproved. NotYourParadigm (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

it's in the Consensus article under section, "Reaching consensus through discussion" https://dragonage.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon_Age_Wiki:Consensus "Consensus is an ongoing process on the Dragon Age Wiki; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately"

it's why I asked you for a comprise,vivenne,fiona and irving plays a big role, they are first enchanters and first enchanters creates phylacteries and phylacteries are blood magic, it's worth noting Mn123456789 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


I'd wonder what constitutes a "notable" blood mage, in light of the in-universe contradictions (or at times, rank hypocrisy) concerning the topic, also with regards to the "once done something blood magic, forever guilty" notion that comes up at times - like, say, Malcolm Hawke who was forced to perform a very specialised ritual at swordpoint. Apparently, it is both "notable single event" as well as "could not make tea without sacrificing a dozen slaves".Buckeldemon (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Buckeldemon - that is a good point, and why Malcolm per consensus was to not be included in 'Notable blood mages' in an earlier discussion topic on this page. When I saw that he'd been included anyway, I removed him from the list and added the note that Malcolm used blood magic the once under Warden coercion, in the appropriate DA2 section. If you'd like to re-open that discussion, I encourage you to do so as soon as this one closes!
At this time, it seems like this is a topic that means a great deal to the person who opened discussion. However, the other five people who have commented are opposed for a number of reasons. While I'm certainly not suggesting the topic be closed after only two days, consensus seems to be leaning against their inclusion for the reasons Eva has stated above. The fact of phylacteries being technically blood magic *and* their seen as a grey area has been included at the same point as Necromancy being technically blood magic (if not seen that way from a cultural standpoint) because that information is valid and relevant to see how complex a topic it can be. ToshiNama (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I think Mn123456789 has made some intriguing observations about blood magic and its use with phylacteries and within circles. There is a time and a place for sharing different types of observations. The wiki strives to be an impartial resource that represents lore as close to canon as possible. Without concrete in-universe evidence of Vivienne, Fiona & Irving ever making a phylactery, the proposition that the three of them have done so (& by proxy are blood mages) is a theory. It’s an interesting theory, and one I’d love to read more about, but the wiki is not the appropriate platform for theorizing. Mn123456789, you may find more traction for your ideas as well as a receptive audience if you were to share these thoughts on another platform, like Twitter, tumblr or AO3.

(this comment is from the-invisible-self… I’m having trouble signing on mobile & will edit to fix as I’m able) 73.254.207.246 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

it's not a theory, there's 3 articles stating the first enchanter takes phylacteries,and all 3 of them have been first enchanter, I don't believe it's fair to only name-drop apostates, orisono and ursul became apostates at the end of the game and hide away what would shine the chantry in a bad light, the wiki is about provide information in a neatural fashion, there for from my perspective we shoulden't hide such things away, but thank you for complementing the observations, can we reach a comprismise? add vivienne,fiona and irving somewhere else in this article? Mn123456789 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
"there's 3 articles stating the first enchanter takes phylacteries" Incorrect. As I clarified above, the two Inquisition codex entries concerning phylacteries do not state First Enchanters as being the one to make phylacteries, but instead showcase just regular harrowed Enchanters performing the task. The World of Thedas entry does not specify First Enchanters, either. It is, in fact, only in a dialogue with Ser Thrask where he states the First Enchanter takes phylacteries of apprentices when they arrive. This only serves as a pseudo-confirmation that Orsino performed this duty at the Kirkwall Circle, where Ser Thrask served and observed the process. There is no canonical evidence at present to support that Vivienne, Fiona, or Irving have ever made phylacteries. That claim is purely speculation. NotYourParadigm (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This article already mentions that enchanters (first enchanters and otherwise) may create phylacteries. This is in the last paragraph of the "In present-day Thedas" section. Mrrrauder (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Without concrete evidence that Fiona, Irving, and Vivienne have actually performed Blood Magic, I am highly opposed to their inclusion under Notable Blood Mages. At the moment, everything provided has been conjecture at best. Sir Insomnius (talk) 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I would like to propose we bring this matter to a vote to assess consensus among editors and to decide on next steps for this page in regards to name dropping specific First Enchanters.

Should Fiona, Irving, and Vivienne be added to the list of Notable Blood Mages or namedropped in some manner in the Blood Mage page?

  • Please vote yes Yes if you wish to name Fiona, Irving, and Vivienne in the page and describe where/how.
  • Please vote no Nope if you are not in favor of adding Fiona, Irving, and Vivienne to the Notable Blood Mages list or naming them elsewhere in the page.

Please sign your vote with 4 ~ symbols. I believe leaving the poll up for 3 days (ending on 11 Aug 2021) seems reasonable. - Mrrrauder (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope For reasons I have stated earlier at 18:39 on 7 August 2021 (UTC) Mrrrauder (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope Based on the three main reasons I listed above: they are never confirmed to make phylacteries, making phylacteries alone does not a Notable Blood Mage make, and including anyone who could have potentially made a phylactery will only clutter the section from the more relevant entries. NotYourParadigm (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope there's no idea, I know what everyone is gonna vote, let's get it over with, I also added fiona,irving and vivienne in the blood mage article, the question has been has they need notable blood mages, Mn123456789 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope There is no compelling evidence to include them. Sir Insomnius (talk) 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope The evidence in known lore and resources does not support this. The-invisible-self (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

So the results of the above poll seem to be focused on the inclusion of those three as "Notable Blood Mages" on the Blood Magic page; the matter of including the three in the Blood Mage category is a similar matter that I disapprove of for the same reasons. We don't even have canonical proof than any of those three ever made a phylactery, and I would not consider the act of making a phylactery enough to consider them "Blood Mages" any more than I would consider us to list everyone who could have potentially summoned a spirit as a Spirit Medium or a Spirit Healer. It should be reserved for confirmed cases, and even then, there's a case by case determining if a singular, isolated use of a specialization is grounds enough to warrant inclusion. NotYourParadigm (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope See my posts above. Evamitchelle (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope voted for now. At least until the more general discussion about who's "notable" by whatever criteria is resolved.Buckeldemon (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Blood Magic article overhaul[]

The previous conversation shows that there's some confusion about what counts as a blood mage. It's an issue that's also come up before with the revelation that Mortalitasi-type necromancy is also technically blood magic, though it wouldn't necessarily be considered as such by the Chantry. At this point, I think it would be useful to overhaul the article to try to clarify things. The current sections are pretty large and not well-defined, which makes things hard to find. For example, the fact that phylacteries are a kind of blood magic was already included at the top of the "In present-day Thedas section" when Toshi added it to try to resolve the discussion, which I only just noticed.

There also seems to be different concepts of blood magic:, which differ between Tevinter and the Andrastian Chantry

  1. Magic that uses the power of blood to fuel spellcasting (e.g. powered by sacrifices or use of one's own blood)
  2. Magic that uses blood as a component (e.g. phylacteries)
  3. A school of magic with its own specific spells and not just any spell powered by blood

1 & 2 seems to be the Chantry view, with 2 being considered a grey area by a Circle mage like Finn, while 3 seems to be the Tevinter view. Having a subsection that explains the different perceptions of blood magic would be useful, with info on the types of blood magic the Andrastian Chantry overlooks. For example, I'd add a subsection of Necromancy instead of sticking it at the tail end of the In present-day Thedas section. I'd also create a Necromancer category, which would be included as a subsection of the Blood mages category. That way Dorian, the Inquisitor etc. would be included in the Necromancer category and not the Blood Mages category, which I think would be confusing for a lot of people. personally I was surprised when Dorian was added to this list in May, which is why I added the note as an explanation.

A subsection on Maleficar which links to the main Maleficar article would be useful too, with a note that while maleficar is often used as a synonym of blood mage, the original chant of light verses are: "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him. Foul and corrupt are they Who have taken His gift And turned it against His children. They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones," which does not explicitly mention blood magic, but was interpreted as such by Divine Justinia I. In that vein, we might think about renaming the "Notable blood mages" category to "Notable maleficarum," or add a note that this list is for types of blood magic that are condemned by the Chantry. I also don't think separating that list by installment is particularly necessary. Other lists of this kind don't do it and recurring characters muddy the waters.

It's also worth thinking about changing the header image, which is taken from the IDW comic which, as Mark Darrah put it, strays from the lore. Evamitchelle (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "Mortalitasi revelation": Was there any further elaboration on this in the meantime, especially in in-universe material or is it still just a one-line tweet that MK can delete at any time? For the record, I was the one who rephrased the original addition of this to some pages to better show context surrounding it. [@NotYourParadigm: I'm not sure if we had an edit conflict here, if so, nevermind. Else, I'd ask to please don't insert your response into other's posts, it gets confusing. I'm signing this part here so it is more obvious who wrote what.]Buckeldemon (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I've felt similarly; in universe we've heard that necromancy as a whole has a negative reputation, but nobody has actually in-universe connected that disapproval to being blood magic. If anything, I think it's likely similar to Spirit Magic where the public associates the manipulation of spirits (also present in necromancy) as making deals with demons, and as such blood magic. But right now all we have is the Mary Kirby tweet that says it's blood magic without further explanation. What makes it blood magic? It's not the "fuelled with blood", certainly. Does it count as "requiring blood as a component" since it involves a corpse? That seems like a hazy definition at best; that would likely mean any sort of biology would be "blood magic" too. Not something I'd be surprised to hear of in the Chantry, but right now the MK addition leaves me with more questions than answers. NotYourParadigm (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry @Buckeldemon that's my bad, I thought using the nested replied was enough to make it clear the top level comment was the same author. Won't do it again! NotYourParadigm (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the categorisation of blood magic, I think there's actually four points, dividing Evamitchelle's second point into two:
  1. Fuelling a(ny) spell with blood, instead of mana (what Merrill says she has done to remove the taint from her Eluvian shard)
  2. Spells that contain blood as a component, might overlap with Alchemy? (a potion that includes supernatural blood as a component. Perhaps whatever Grey Wardens do to create the Joining cocktail? Though this might also be #3)
  3. Spells that manipulate blood for a specific effect (a Phylactery)
  4. Spells that manipulate blood and need to be powered by blood (like the infamous blood control)
I'd argue for not sticking specifically to a southern Chantry-only definition. Or any in-universe "official" definition at all (problem here seems to be that the writers at times seem to mix up in-universe definition with meta assessment). What could be done is having a point summarising, say, southern chantric views and then listing potential other cases, even if said "official" definitions don't include these. I wouldn't put an overdose of stock into "Maleficar", as it is just a loaded derogatory term used quite liberally by andrastians, sometimes on any "rogue mage" regardless. In case of "officially condemned Maleficars", I guess we would need a document or quote in essence to point out this... questionable legal status or whatever is within the usual nebulous chantric definitions.Buckeldemon (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Maleficar is also a term that can be used to apply to just any chantry unapproved magic, not simply blood magic. If we wanted to, it'd be more appropriate to list characters we have known to be labelled as 'maleficar' by the Chantry on the maleficar page. I think any confirmed character use of "technically blood magic, but not viewed the same way" could be included in their respective pages (confirmed necromancers in the Necromancer page, known phylactery creators on the phylactery page, etc). Make reference on the Blood Magic page of these practices being considered technically blood magic by different sources in- and out-of-universe. Characters like Dorian and Morrigan being included as "notable blood mages" does not immediately make me think that it's referencing their use of Necromancy or the Dark Ritual. If we start including every "technically blood magic" user, we'll end up having more notes than reasonable. NotYourParadigm (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for starting this off, Eva! I agree with where we are going with this so far. And apologies in advance for the large outline, but it's easier for me to understand and propose edits using the current page layout as a foundation. Comments are italicized and follow a double hyphen.

Lede/introduction -- Rewrite to introduce spells and powers at a high level. See also the Blood Mage (Origins) or Blood Mage (Dragon Age II) pages.

  1. History
  2. Present-day Thedas
    1. The Chantry, Circles of Magi, and the Templar Order -- or 'Southern Thedas'? A brief description of maleficar and phylacteries would go here.
    2. Nevarra
      1. Necromancy -- to be decided per discussion here
    3. Tevinter Imperium
  3. Spells and powers -- I think Buckeldemon categorized most of the uses of blood magic we've seen so far, so I've duplicated the list from above with minor edits. An uncategorizable example would be the Dark Ritual.
    1. Spells powered by blood instead of mana -- what Merrill says she has done to remove the taint from her Eluvian shard
      1. Spells that manipulate blood and need to be powered by blood -- like the infamous blood control
    2. Spells that contain blood as a component -- might overlap with Alchemy? (a potion that includes supernatural blood as a component. Perhaps whatever Grey Wardens do to create the Joining cocktail? Though this might also be #3)
    3. Spells that manipulate blood for a specific effect -- a Phylactery
  4. Blood magic and the Grey Wardens -- Keep or remove? I can see parts of this section being folded into the Present-day Thedas and Involvement sections.
  5. Involvement
    1. Dragon Age: Origins
    2. Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening
    3. Dragon Age II
    4. Dragon Age: Inquisition -- Potentially a new section? The only significant example I can think of is the Grey Wardens summoning demons via sacrifices in Here Lies the Abyss.
  6. Notable blood mages -- Agreed with NotYourParadigm. I would rather we not use the term 'maleficars' here as they have their own page and it's a loaded term. Mrrrauder (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I now also think we shouldn't rename the section to "Notable maleficars." We can just create a separate list on the Maleficar page if need be. But I think we need to define what counts as a "Notable blood mage." Is it any notable mage who has ever performed blood magic? A mage who frequently uses blood magic? The current list is not very clear about this.
As for the outline, I don't think Necromancy should only be under the Nevarra section. The Mortalitasi are the most notable necromancers but they're not the only ones (see Quentin, Dorian). I'm also not sure what the difference is between "spells that contain blood as a component" and "speels that manipulate blood for a specific effect." Finn using Ariane's blood to track down the lights of Arlathan sounds a lot like a phylactery and he described it as a spell that uses blood as a component (according to the article, haven't checked the exact dialogue). Also I'm not sure that "present-day Thedas" is the best title for that section. It seems more focused on the different concepts/definitions of blood magic. Evamitchelle (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the issue with "blood as ingredient" vs. specific manipulation, I suppose I cannot really come up with an example for the former right now, as... we know precious little more about how for example the Wardens make their cocktails, except that it contains blood of an archdemon or other powerful Darkspawn. What I mean is more like making a potion and throwing some blood, elfroot and Felandaris into it. Whereas a phylactery uses the enchanted blood of one individual and creates a tracking device for that specific individual. I only played Witch Hunt once, but as far a I remember, the difference is that the blood of any Dalish elf would have done it, provided it is not blighted, as this is Finn's rationale for rejecting Mahariel's blood if I'm not totally mistaken. I guess that makes phylacteries closer to, say, blood control, than a potion with some blood and other ingredients, with what Finn does being a bit more removed. Ultimately, it is a bit of a moral thing I suppose.Buckeldemon (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
What about instead of "Present Day Thedas", something more like "Throughout Thedas" or "Social Perception" or something similar, since I think that's what's trying to be expressed in the section anyways: how different countries, cultures, and groups have different opinions and viewpoints on Blood Magic. Having subsections for each of the known perspectives in different groups. Right now I'd propose:
  • The Chantry and The Circle (the talk of phylacteries would go here)
  • The Dalish (room to talk about Merrill's disconnect with the opinion of Marethari on its dangers, as well as Zathrian potentially)
  • Tevinter
  • The Grey Wardens (agreed with Mrrrauder on this going as a sub-group here)
  • Other / Individual (for people like Solas who aren't affiliated with a group perspective)
I'd actually propose that a separate section specifically on Necromancy (with a redirect to the necromancy page) addressing in general the MK comment, the mortalitasi and other necromancers, as well as what we known in-uninverse on the perception of necromancy.
I'm also agreed on removing the Notable Blood Mages division by game or entry. In fact, could the inclusion of minor characters perhaps even be pruned down as well? Characters like Fell Orden and Huon, who are side quest characters and not really 'noteworthy' aside from being fought by the protagonist, at some point. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list, after all, so a focus on major characters and main quests would tighten up the section and remove the need for the division by entry. NotYourParadigm (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The recent IDW discussion reminded me that we never finished discussing this. Using what everyone else suggested above, here is my revised proposed outline (comments in italics):

  1. History
  2. Viewpoints
    1. Dalish
    2. Grey Wardens
    3. Qunari
    4. Southern Chantry
      1. Nevarra
    5. Tevinter Imperium
  3. Spells and powers – The section that's hardest to pin down.
    1. Spells powered by blood instead of mana
    2. Spells exclusive to blood magic
    3. Spells that use blood as a component
    4. Necromancy – Might be redundant with the Nevarra section in Viewpoints.
  4. Involvement
    1. Dragon Age: Origins
      1. Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening
    2. Dragon Age II
    3. Dragon Age: Inquisition
  5. Notable blood mages – As Para said, I don't think we need to separate blood mages by installment, since we generally don't do that with other "Notable XXX" sections and multiple characters recur across games. I also agree with paring down the list. There are currently 50 names listed, while the "complete list" (aka the category) lists 53 names. That's almost all the blood mages we know of. Personally I'd cut down the list to about 20 names or so, focusig on major characters.

I've already made changes of wording to the lede and history section, mostly to add info about Elvhenan. I'm planning a lot more edits to the contents of the page because there's a lot of repetition throughout the article. Evamitchelle (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think the changes make sense, including removing DA: tittles & shortening the list to leave only the more "notable" blood mages. Zj24 (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes Agreed. If I had to suggest the approx 20 to keep, these are the ones I narrowed them down to; for the numerous DA2 blood mages, I tried to keep only the "final" blood mage involved in a given quest, so Tarohne but not Idunna, Grace but not Alain, etc.
Thoughts? NotYourParadigm (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd put Thalsian, Hawke, The Warden, and Morrigan instead of Malcolm Hawke (blood mage against his will), Gascard DuPuis (just Quentin's apprentice), Caladrius and Hadriana (your run-of-the-mill Tevinter blood mages). Evamitchelle (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I was consciously trying to avoid Hawke and the Warden because not only are they conditional blood mages only (and for an already large list, including conditional members seems like it could be better used for another character), but for Hawke specifically the specialization seems to be "non-canon" as the use of blood magic never comes up in the story (unlike the Warden, who can be called out by Wynne), and is nearly retroactively "decanonized" by Hawke's DAI appearance where Hawke is vocally against the evils of blood magic lol. I also didn't inclue the "technically blood magic" mages like Morrigan and the necromancers, but I could see a case for Morrigan's inclusion since she herself said it "could be considered blood magic" in game. NotYourParadigm (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
For Morrigan, I think "I know many obscure, forgotten, and forbidden arts. Some of it you might consider blood magic, yes." is pretty much admitting it. But I see your point about Warden and Hawke's conditional nature, and especially Hawke's retcon in DAI. I just think it's kinda weird to have dedicated sections about Hawke and Warden's potential blood magic use under involvement and not have them mentioned in the list. Evamitchelle (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Morrigan and Thalsian are both good picks. Personally, I think the fact that the Warden and Hawke are talked about elsewhere in the article is actually all the more reason their inclusion on the list isn't necessary, since their potential nature of blood mages is addressed on the page. Keep the "notable blood mages" for the characters who are most known for their use of or mastery of blood magic, or whose plots revolve around their use of blood magic (where the Warden and Hawke's use of blood magic is more incidental or secondary to their character). NotYourParadigm (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Evamitchelle (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes I support the overhaul. "Spells and powers" section will be difficult to organize, that's for sure, but I don't have any ideas on that matter right now. Ammocharis (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IDW comics not canon?[]

I've seen discussion about the IDW comics not being canon, has there actually been confirmed anywhere? I've seen that it strays away from lore, do anyone have any links or prints confirming it's not canon? Mark Darrah has tweetet that the comics are canon, https://twitter.com/BioMarkDarrah/status/1019041856359821312 Mn123456789 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As of right now I can't find any "official" links saying the comics are non-canon, but that Mark Darrah tweet is notably framed in context of the Dark Horse comics; we don't know when the IDW comic takes place, but all signs point to it being pre-DAO based on what little things we have to connect it to canonical lore. But there's no 'save states' for it to contradict with, being pre-game, so doesn't make sense in the context of that tweet.

I can make a case for why it seems that BioWare has all but wiped its hands about it:

  • The plot was clearly set up to allow for sequels to the story, with the "Man of Light" and Darkspawn attacks, but we only ever had the single volume created. BioWare has even moved away from IDW as a publishing company, with Dark Horse having published everything since, including the World of Thedas books.
  • The anthology Dragon Age: The First Five Graphic Novels notably does not include the IDW comic, despite it being the "first" graphic novel.
  • The original characters and lore referenced is never brought up in universe, not even in the Mage Origin or during Broken Circle. No Easter eggs, no name-drops, nothing.
  • The only character who appears outside of the comic is Greagoir (whose name is consistently misspelled 'Gregoir'), and who during DAO never mentions the events of the comics, particularly the time he was attacked by a Darkspawn in the Circle Tower, which seems relevant when a Grey Warden comes looking for recruits.
  • On his youtube, [Mark Darrah has made comments] that are very tongue-in-cheek about the story "straying from the lore" as well as saying that he'll probably not share the story of what happened with the IDW comics. I can't find any of the other devs even acknowledging the comic's existence, let alone its canonical nature.

This is also not including all the ways the story either makes up dubious lore or straight up contradicts canonical lore, particularly regarding templar abilities (there's a "magical dampening" crystal, no mention of lyrium), blood magic (implied that blood mages get "stronger" when their blood is spilled, when that's more in line with how reavers work), and the Fade sections particularly (that apparently Fade ghosts exist and can talk to their family). I could cite dozens more, but the comic is... really just a mess, lore-wise.

If we want to get really cheeky, Mark Darrah's tweet of "The comics are canon unless they contradict your save state" could be used to say the IDW comics are blanket non-canon, as so much of the lore directly contradicts everyone's save state. NotYourParadigm (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You made the point not to add Vivienne,Fiona and Irving in the list of notable mages becauce it's not confirmed, is that the premis for edits in the wiki, it must be confirmed, or can you make an educaded guess, becauce if you can't then there's nothing confirming that the IDW comics aren't canon, but if we can, then it's reasonable to believe that vivienne, fiona and irving has made 1 phylactery under their years as first enchanter, I'm genuiny confused on what counts as speculation, can you or someone else make it clearer, I am however willing to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately between this,above or add them in the blood mage catagory, I'm kinda scared people will assume bad faith Mn123456789 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That's what the talk sections are for! When we don't have a clear cut answer in canon or by Word-of-God, and changes are controversial, we come and discuss what we as individuals think is likely, and make a case for its inclusion or removal. Right now, I'm not speaking as an authority that the IDW comics are confirmed 100% non-canon, but making my case with evidence as to why I believe there's sufficient reason to believe they are not canon. If you disagree with this stance, you are welcome to do so, as well as provide counter-arguments for why you think the inverse is true (i.e. why you think the IDW comics should be considered canon) or why my points are incorrect, just as I did regarding your postulation that Vivienne, Fiona, and Irving should be considered Blood Mages. When clear cut answers are lacking, discussion is all we can do, and see what the general consensus is from other users as well. In the case of No Consensus the wiki also has presumed actions that are taken: in the case of removals (such as IDW comic from canon), the material is kept; in the case of additions (such as adding Vivienne, Fiona, Irving as Blood Mages), the material is not added. NotYourParadigm (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I didn't say I was going to add "the IDW comic is non-canon" to the article. I said I wanted to add Mark Darrah's comment that it strays from the lore. Something like this: "It's unknown whether the comic is canon or not; Mark Darrah has noted that it significantly strays from the lore." Insert reference here. I think that's a pretty accurate way of putting it. Evamitchelle (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
You´re not gonna remove the cover? from what I learned about wether Fiona,Vivienne and Irving being notable blood mages or blood mages is that something has to be confirmed to get added to the wiki or removed, if that's that is the requirement, it doesen't meet it from perspective Mn123456789 (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Mark Darrah stated that IDW "strays from the lore," ergo using an image taken from something that does not "stray from the lore" might be more representative. Regardless, we switch canon images around all the time. Evamitchelle (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Notable blood mages[]

I think we need to re-add Hawke, The Warden & The Inquisitor via "conditional" and Dorian Pavus, and Malcolm Hawke as to prevent this list from constantly being edited by other contributors as the aforementioned names are all considered substantial Blood Mages in the DA universe. Zj24 (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really dead set on any inclusion / exclusion from the list. If we re-add the Necromancers I'd suggest making it even more explicit than last time by labeling them (Necromancer) in the list + the note that I just removed because the whole issues with necromancers and blood magic is that our main source (Mary Kirby) doesn't really fit what we've seen in the games so far (e.g. Cullen saying he can accept that necromancy isn't blood magic). Evamitchelle (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm open to either adding a note, adding something to the right via "small" text, or perhaps a separate section labeled "Notable necromancers." Zj24 (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree on Hawke and Warden for the reasons above, but I especially disagree with Inquisitor and Dorian Pavus as I think it bleeds the line of what makes someone a "notable" blood mage. The Inquisitor and Dorian are Necromancers, which in Thedas, does not seem to be considered synonoymous with blood magic (and would, in fact, be confusing as the Trivia section immediately then states "There is technically no Blood Magic specialization in Dragon Age: Inquisition"), and while I agree Dorian and Inquisitor are notable Necromancers, that doesn't inherently make them notable blood mages. Necromancer isn't synonymous with blood mage, and calling Dorian and the Inquisitor "notable blood mages" I think is stretching the definition too much.
The best analogy I could think of would be if we included Cassandra on a page of notable Templars, because of her in-game specialization being the same as the templar spec, and Seekers technically having the same or similar abilities as templars, and even morseo because (unlike necromancy = blood mage) common folk in Thedas can even be heard to be say Seekers are "a kind of Templar, I suppose?" and similar. Sure, there's an argument to be made, but I think keeping the section clean of "debatable" entries is more apt. I believe the overhaul having a section that refers to the status of necromancy and Mary Kirby tweet elsewhere and in the article is more appropriate. NotYourParadigm (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the notes on morrigan is worht it becauce, why did we add it in the first place? becauce not alot of people knows about it? there are other blood mages on the list that not alot knows about, I disagree with the analogy of adding Cassandra as a notable templar, becauce marys tweet about dorians specialisation is not the only evidens we have, she has another tweet where she states "The Nevarrans consider necromancy just a standard burial practice. It's totally blood magic, but nobody would ever argue that point with the Mortalitassi."
I think we need to have critiera for a blood mage being "notable" and stick with it, what you think it means is different from what I think it means and that is different from what the next person might, I think fallstick and dorian is worth noting becauce their one of the few good ones, I don't think some major characters are worth noting becauce the person reading the article already knows of that, there for I don't think their worh noting, everyone will interprete what "notable blood mages" means differently,for that reason I think we need one critiera, more then one is a slippery slope Uskudar15 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
People have expressed confusion about Morrigan's inclusion in the past, which is why I added a note for her specifically and not others. And I don't think removing the most notable examples because everyone already knows about them is the way to go: 1) we should not assume that the average reader does know about them, 2) defeats the entire purpose of having a notable people section to begin with. As for my personal criteria for the list, it's major characters (i.e. involved in a main quest or the main character of a book/comic) or characters who have used blood magic in new & noteworthy ways (Thalsian being the first known user of blood magic, Nereda creating the first Harvester). Evamitchelle (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
okay, why don't you think we should asume that the avarge reader does know about them? why do you think it deletes the purpose? my personal critiera is that it has to be worth noting to the reader, it becomes a slippery slope if we have more then one critiera, as I said everyone is gonna interprete it differently unless we have one, if you only had to pick one criteria so that it doesen't become a slippery slope? Uskudar15 (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The DA wiki should be accessible to players regardless of their levels of familiarity with the lore. As editors, we tend to be more knowledgeable about the lore of Dragon Age that the casual player, and things that might be obvious to us might not be obvious to everyone. As for why I think it defeats the purpose: when I read a list that says notable people, I expect it to include the actual most notable people, and not to exclude people because I should already know about them (going back to my first point regarding being accessible to all players). Finally, I think your proposed criterion is even more up to interpretation that mine. 'Has to be worth noting to the reader' is up to each editor to judge for themselves whereas "is part of a main quest" is a straight-up fact. Evamitchelle (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think it would be best to separate the notable blood mages by categories something like this:

Notable blood mage
  • Avernus
  • Corypheus
  • Jowan
  • Merill
Notable Necromancer
  • Dorian Pavus
  • Hawke (conditional)
  • The Inquistor (conditional)
  • The Warden (conditional)
Other
  • Fallstick
  • Malcolm Hawke
  • Man Of Light
  • Morrigan

This should satisfy everyone. Zj24 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that Hawke and the Warden aren't necromancers; their potential specializations are just normal blood magic. The Warden's inclusion I Can get behind, but Hawke's specialization seems to be gameplay only and non-canon by DAI, as it is never addressed once in DA2 by any character (unlike the Warden, who can be called out by Wynne for being a blood mage), and they are always adamantly against blood magic in Here Lies the Abyss. Also, I'm not certain I follow the meaning of the "other" category, specifically for Malcolm, Fallstick, and the Man of Light. NotYourParadigm (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Evamitchelle. The wiki is written with accessibility of information in mind, since it is a wikipedia first and foremost, not an expert-level forum where only those very deep into the series can understand the articles. The goal should be that someone who has never engaged with Dragon Age before can read a page and gain an understanding of the lore, characters, and events of the series. There should never be an assumption of the reader meeting a minimum requirement familiarity. As such, the note about Morrigan is appropriate, and why major characters should be included in the "notable" section.
As for "fallstick and dorian is worth noting becauce their one of the few good ones"— the notable blood mage section is not supposed to be for including or excluding certain characters because they fit into a personal definition of "goodness" and a desire to present a certain perception of blood magic, as both are highly subjective matters. Even if that were a point of discussion— Merrill, Jowan, and Orsino are all characters who are not just one-dimensional villains (whether they are 'good' is still highly subjective and likely will vary from person to person), but much moreso than Fallstick who is a crony of the Man of Light, who in the IDW Comics serves as the darkspawn-controlling BBEG. I disagree with Dorian and Fallstick's inclusion on the grounds that "include more good ones" isn't good rationale for who to include, and Fallstick's lack of relevance in the greater Dragon Age lore makes him less notable more than characters already ommitted, like Caladrius and Hadriana.
And finally, to summarize my previous comments that Dorian being a notable necromancer is not, in my eyes, grounds to list him a notable blood mage: the fact that necromancy is technically blood magic according to Mary Kirby tweets is addressed in the article already (and will be even more clearly with the overhaul), including a link to the necromancy page where he is already listed as a notable necromancer, again with that page saying that blood magic is considered necromancy according to the Mary Kirby tweets. But treating necromancers as just 1:1 synonymous with blood mages also directly contradicts other aspects of lore and dev comments, namely there being a dev choice to have no blood mage specialization in Inquisition (and instead having necromancy, which implies it is still different on some level of lore or classification), as well as Dorian's entire characterization about loathing blood magic, calling it the "last resort of good men", while apparently practicing a form of blood magic himself. There's nuance to the "necromancy is blood magic" conversation that isn't accurately reflected by just slapping all necromancers with the blood mage label, as well as redundancy to have there be a separate necromancy category in the blood magic page when there's already a notable necromancy section on the necromancy page. NotYourParadigm (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd also rather not have the necromancers in the list because of the conflicting info we have on the subject as outlined by Para above. With that, I would like to create a Category: Necromancers and have it as a subset of Category: Bloog mages so that Dorian, Inquistion etc. aren't directly categorized as blood mages. If we do include them, I think the best way isn't a separate subsection but a (Necromancer) label with a note that links back to the Necromancy section (which I'm currently working on expanding). I'm also confused by what the "Other" category would entail. There's no real debate over whether these characters have used blood magic, just whether they are notable. I'm fine with Malcolm and Morrigan in the general list. As for Fallstick and Man of Light, they're both from a comic that Bioware has spent almost a decade completely ignoring, which I think makes them rather inconsequential. We also have a dev comment saying that the comic isn't very lore compliant so my general stance is to not use IDW as a reference for anything. Also agreed with Para regarding the "few good ones" point.
For The Warden and Hawke, I'm in favor of including them both on the list since other specialization pages generally include them as well, and it is a valid gameplay choice. When it comes to Hawke, the lack of reactivity in DA2 and their condemnation of blood magic are already covered in the involvement section, but we could add a note directly in the list that Hawke's blood magic is never addressed in DA2 and that they criticize blood magic and its users in DAI even if they had the blood magic specialization. Evamitchelle (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not that good with english but what does notable blood mages mean grammatically? why do you think the wiki should be accessable to everyone? the wikia was founded so that nerds could deep dive into their favorite tv show it reads in the about senction, and if it should be accessiable to everyone regardless of familiarity, people new to the fandom won't know who, tarohne,nereda or thalsian is? we have sugnficitant evidens that necromancy is blood magic by mary kirby, characters and orgainsations can have double standards, for example the mortalisi themselfes doesen't consider it blood magic, it is but they don't consider it blood magic, dorian must have learned it from a mortalisi or a mortalisian book, he might not consider it blood magic, as thus he can make those comments about blood magic, same thing with the chantry, they have forbidden blood magic but they still practice it, and again no dev as said the idw comics aren't very lore compliant, mark darrah said that it strays away from lore, which every adaption and book does Uskudar15 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
"new to the fandom won't know who, tarohne,nereda or thalsian is" which is why we link to the character pages on the list so people unfamiliar with the characters can learn more about them, just the same as someone new to the series who may not know who Merrill or Morrigan is. NotYourParadigm (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Being accessible to everyone means that the greatest amount of people will find what they want. "Nerds" can still use the wiki to deep dive into the lore all they want. Including common sense info on the wiki doesn't exclude them, while the opposite would exclude the average player.
I'm using notable as in "A famous or important person." Can you post what your ideal "Notable blood mages" list would look like? Evamitchelle (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I do feel like Viuus Anaxas directly oppose this and it's techically blood magic I interprete it as misleading[]

while technicaly by defintion refers to according to an exact understanding of rules, but words can often have a different way it's being used by the general public, like techically it's being used as sort of but not really and that's how it can be interpretet it was by me, forexample coca cola zero is techically coca cola just with zero calories and alittebit of a bitter aftertaste, by defintion is wrong but technically is being used as sort of by alot of people and I don't want people to interprete it that way, mary kirby says "it is abosloutly blood magic" and there for I think people interpreteting it as "sort of" will be misleading, I also think "Viuus Anaxas directly opposes the suggestion that necromancy is blood magic" since mary kirby writes and it reads before that, that the mortalisi doesen't consider it blood magic, which is why Viuus Anaxas oppose it, since the mortalisi doesen't considered it blood magic per mary kirbys tweet

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that we remove the reference to what Viuus Anaxas canonically says? As should be evidenced by how frequently we discuss and debate such matters, there is a lot that is up for interpretation or contentious and even potentially retconned over the course of the games. It's difficult to say what's "canon" or not, especially since blood magic might have a different definition to everyone both within Thedas and even amongst the dev team. The purpose of the article is to provide as much information as possible so the readers can make their own conclusions. Including both the Mary Kirby tweet as well as the Viuus Anaxas dialogue provides the most complete understanding of how different sources view necromancy in relation to blood magic. NotYourParadigm (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Short description for each notable blood mage[]

Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a very short description that full justify the presence of each character in the notable blood mages list? I don't understand very well some choices compared to others. I would do it myself, but I'm not the most suitable editor for this task (and I don't know if the idea is shared). DAmenso 💬 22:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike adding too many descriptions to lists, especially when the listed items all have pages of their own. I feel like it clutters the list and makes it harder to find information quickly. Which people's inclusion confuse you? Evamitchelle (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you're right that not everyone should have a description.
Danarius is never explain during the article and he seems to me a copy of Caladrius in what he represent for blood magic (and even Hadriana seems to me less important).
The presence of Calien d'Evaliste is necessary? He is already in the header quote of the article.
I understand the particular case of Quentin, but I don't understand the presence of his subordinate Gascard DuPuis.
It is not clear to me the listed Erimond, an underling of Corypheus.
I can understand Grace and Tarohne, but I personally prefer to mantain only one of them. Tarohne is more important for me because she represent the first clear example of maleficar that use forbidden knowledge in the game.
Conditional Hawke and Warden are relevant to justify the listed link? Their pages don't mention any about their use of blood magic and the impact that this have in the lore.
I don't know Rezaren, but I want to hope that his contribution is up to respect all others in the list.
Zathrian is listed without any information in the blood magic article. I don't understand his presence, but I suppose that the reason concern the curse of lycanthropy. DAmenso 💬 09:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This talk page is very long so it's easy to miss but we discussed what "notable blood mages" means in detail earlier and it was a very debated topic. In the end, we mostly agreed on cutting down the list to major characters and mages who had used blood magic in notable ways. From the names you bring up, most fall in the first category. Erimond, Grace, Tarohne, Zathrian, Gascard etc. are all blood mages that we encounter in main & unmissable quests. Rezaren is the main antagonist in Absolution and (without going into too much spoilers) does use blood magic in an interesting way at one point. But ultimately, I don't think everyone is going to 100% agree on every name on the list and I think it's best if we use some leeway. Evamitchelle (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I don't know if that is the best option, anyway I don't entirely agree with those leeway, because the relevance of someone with the topic "blood magic" should not depend on the presence in a main quest or not. Note that the Baroness is in a main quest of Awakening, she has codex entries dedicated, but she doesn't appear in the list of notable blood mages. I expect that the totality of members of a list called "notable blood mages" should be represent the very essence of topic "blood magic", for help people to understand what blood magic is. I know that we can't going to 100% agree, in fact I will never going to propose or edit the article with my preferences. I was asking for short descriptions explaining why those linked people are considered notable by the wiki. DAmenso 💬 14:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of that paragraph is to merely catalogue the notable Blood mages. The information about the evidence of them being a blood mage is presented on their personal character pages and if they don't have one, then we should use a reference and provide a source. We should not justify it on the list itself. Na via lerno victoria 08:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
My point is not justify the evidence of them being a blood mage, but the relevance. If I want see a list of blood mages I prefer to go in the blood mages category. DAmenso 💬 09:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Categories are not formally considered part of the mainspace and thus a page a typical reader would click into. The notable paragraph exists for several reasons, if your objections are about the notable paragraphs in general then this is not the right place. Na via lerno victoria 00:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I refer to this paragraph, much discussed, given the importance of the article itself. I can understand that a wiki mentality tries to conform everything, but sometimes I feel it is necessary to examine the single case. A typical reader don't know also what "notable" means for a wiki. Short descriptions can help people if they are confused on some names like I was. DAmenso 💬 09:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Advertisement