Blood Magic Blocked forevermore because writers don't want their Heros sullied by it

Given that there are only 9 specializations I'd think all 9 should have that many variables. If they don't it reduces the desire to try new specs as they will all be the same in the story.

One of most favorite playthroughs was as an aggressive Hawke who was a mage hating mage (it was a self-loathing thing) who used blood magic because they alone had the "wisdom" to use it properly for the greater good.  It was unfortunate I was "forced" to kill Merrill when we purged the mages but the latter "had" to be done.  

The hypocrisy was absolutely delicious.

Only necessary because her use of blood magic caused the plague in the first place. As Calien said, blood magic is a "blind bargain" with unknown forces and unforeseen consequences. Probably why Solas initially didn't have a problem with it - it's just magic. However, he doesn't like necromancy because it is used to control the freedom of spirits and bind them to the mage's will, which does sound very similar to blood magic mind control on mortals. In fact, the Wardens did appear to be doing the same with blood magic binding the demons. So, may be even Solas had revised his opinion of it by the end of DAI.

I disagree with respect to the Wardens because they are known for doing what it takes to end the Blights, including blood magic. However, Hawke was weird because why would a blood mage stay in Kirkwall with all those Templars? Also, everyone noticed when Merrill did blood magic and those who objected said so, but they never had a problem Hawke? That did make for a rather obvious paradox in the narrative.

My personal opinion is that I think it is good that there is at least one form of magic that is now confined to the villains only and which can give them an edge over the heroes. There is more of a challenge if you can't use it yourself. I did find it daft that the Venatori we confronted in DAI never used blood magic on us. We only ever encountered Spellbinders and I never really understood what superior abilities that granted them, since I found them easy enough to kill. In DAO and DA2 I was always wary of encountering blood mages and took them down as quickly as I could because they could do some serious damage to my party but in DAI I had no such worries. So, I welcome to opportunity to be confronted by full blown Venatori blood mages and know that without doubt they are the evil ones.

Exactly. It is not as though either our hero or our companions are going to totally avoid dodgy magical practices. I never understood how the Mortalitasi got away with it in the past but there you go. Ironically, it was necromancy that was considered bad in DA2 (both Quentin and Orsino use it for their horrific magic) but blood magic was okay. Then Dorian popped up as a good mage doing necromancy in DAI and blood magic completely disappeared except among the Wardens controlled by Erimond and Corypheus, even though the Venatori were from Tevinter so you would think there would be more of them.

I have to admit the funniest thing in DA2 was that Glandivalis, the sword that Andraste gave to Shartan, had a 2% chance of mind controlling your enemy.   That is a low possibility but still ironic considering who the sword it originally belonged to, Andraste's mother.     

I will be disappointed if necromancy isn’t a morally ambiguous option. Given in Dreadwolf Take You, they make a point to mention Solas freeing the bound spirit, I’m optimistic it will be explored at least a little. If they want to restrict blood magic to enemies, I’m fine with it as well. To use an analogy, it would be like participating in the meat packaging industry vs being a cannibal. Both are ethically dubious at best, but only one straight up violates social mores.

I suspect lack of blood mages in Inquisition was rooted in lack of familiarity with frostbite engine. Most enemies had the same kits available to them as the characters, after all. Now that they’ve had a decade to learn their engine, that won’t be an issue. Hopefully.

Weekes is writing Tash a lord of Fortune who hunts dragons.
She is killing an endangered species for the glory and the bling.
So she's the kind of hero we want around ?

I understand not wanting blood magic because you don't wanna waste story ressources on combat spe. But implying it's all about the moral high ground is silly.

Some of the what-about-isms I have seen in this thread are an interesting read. 

But we aren't hunting down Dragons in Veilguard 'for the glory and the bling', even if that is what will result for such things but the set up we got from the Thedas Calls trailer and the blog stuff which came out makes it quite clear that the Dragons are causing issues, destroying property, taking lives. And humans do tend to hunt other creatures or otherwise neutralize them if they are a danger to human lives. Other less then sentient creatures also hunt down different creaturs if there lives are also threatened. That does tend to be a pretty universal law and the one reason why, no matter what else happens with Solas's plan, his plan to cause mass casualties needs to be stopped. So, while it might be a grey choice, its still a justified one. 

Which is a whole different ball of wax from demon binding, mind control, blood sacrifice, the works. For largely the same reasons. Stripping someone of their free will or their life are pretty much two big moral lines that one shouldn't cross unless under the most extreme circumstances. Again, maybe they couldn't worded it better, but honestly they are perfectly right. Blood magic while it may be 'morally neutral' by itself it opens up the possibility for a lot of evil, the quick and easy path. I think this has been best seen with Rezaren from Tevinter Nights, just how quickly one can go from 'I will use my own blood' to 'die slaves!' So they may have other reasons for doing it but it seems perfectly reasonable to restrict it based on moral grounds because it can be. 

Weeks didn't say that DAVe won't have any mature themes. If anything, we've been told the opposite in some of the interviews. And Tevinter Nights is not exactly a book for children either. So I don't think the reason for not letting Rook (and protagonists in future games, i guess) to be a blood mage is that Bioware doesn't want to make people uncomfortable.

Absolution.

I have no interest in mages or magic anyway, so whether we have access to blood magic or not doesn't affect me. I'm more concerned about the loss of templar as a spec for warriors than the loss of blood magic (which we didn't have for a long time) for the mages.

If going forward they remove it from the lore entirely, it would be an issue though. Dark and mature themes are what makes Dragon Age different from the hundreds of bland high magic, high fantasy settings out there.

That's something that we shouldn't know ahead of time...and is really just being arbitrarily decided by the devs.  It's their narrative so they get to do that but I do think you sacrifice player agency when doing those sorts of things.

Besides, it's not like Dragons were peaceful, we've seen plenty of scenes of them causing death and destruction. Yes Tash's motivations are less than noble, but we don't blink because the creatures she's killing aren't exactly the kinds you want to hang around lol.