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

Tbh, i doubt that other parts of Minrathous will have completely different architecture style, because i think Bioware would've already shown us that, either in 2020 trailer or screenshots from the game. I remember there was a concept art with some kind of light/magic show and i think it might've looked a bit different from what we saw, but i can't find it. And i'm not even sure if it looked different in the first place.

time travel as a plot device is almost always a terrible idea- it turns out time travel makes timelines and series of events really really complicated; who would have thought? 

Morrigan states in Inquisition that some of the things she has learned since Origins can be considered blood magic.

I think you may be remembering the comic series Magekiller. There was a seen from Minrathous in there.   I have to admit I raised my eyebrows a bit at the time but it was just in a comic. 

And on that note - Dragon Age: The Veilguard won’t let you use blood magic because it’s too evil - metro.co.uk/2024/07/18/dragon-age-veilguard-wont-let-use-blood-magic-evil-21252473/

'It is indeed an interesting gameplay mechanic, and it would be a shame if it was left out purely because of concerns over the series’ lore, which weren’t an issue in earlier entries.'

Oh wow they got rid of Blood Magic, an evil form of magic that I hated and never played as a blood mage even when I played as a mage.

Sorry but I could care less about one way or the other about this since I prefer to play as a rouge, because mages have glass heads. 

Will that actual lore reason not to employ blood magic come across as authentic, or as forced guidance to morally play the game the "correct" way?

Removing blood magic takes away player agency and limits roleplay opportunities.  Will there be other ways that roleplaying agency be limited because the subject is considered taboo and off limits? For example, perhaps appeasing slavers could possibly be convenient for achieving story goals? ... or will inconvenient dark topics like slavery be ignored or whitewashed because it is not the story "they want to tell".  My concern is that grey areas might be eliminated from the game because they might be "too controversial."  How sanitized will VeilGuard be?

I can't wait to meet Davrin the "green" warden.  

Ah. We're being completely obtuse and ignoring the point entirely then. Carry on as you will I guess.



But Wait!!! There's more! The second gets more to the heart of the issue.

According to BioWare, Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first entry in the series where 'the combat's actually fun' and where characters are 'intentionally' the focus of the storytelling, which seems pretty unfair on the first three games

Much of this has next to nothing to do with blood magic, but okay.

And... people have constantly lambasted the combat in these games. Inquisition tries to be a strange hybrid that doesn't work at all, and the wave system of 2 ruins any merit the faster paced combat might benefit from. There are people that enjoy Origins combat, and I would consider it the strongest of the three, but personally I find it very slow and the amount of tactics needed to win are vastly overstated; moreover, whenever I play a melee character, chances are I'm going to be spending more time playing as Morrigan or Wynne than my character. Not because I can't win with a melee character, but because the set ups for melee are always the same and incredibly boring. DW rogue is probably the first time I've felt differently, because I need to micromanage fairly often for backstabs, but even there the setups very quickly flowchart the same way every time. RTwP is a heavily outdated system that existed primarily as a stopgap between action and turn based. I can't remember the last time Bioware made a turn based game like BG3 or Rogue Trader, so that just seems like a total nonstarter. I admit I will miss being able to control the rest of the party, and that memes like Blackwall soloing high dragons are no longer going to be a thing, but everything else about the change to action genuinely seems like a change for the better.

As for the companions remark, I consider it a gaffe, but I also think people are way overstating what was actually meant by that quote. They're just excited and feel like they've made the best companions yet. There's no shame in having confidence in your new work.

Most of the interesting moral quandaries in the past three games had very little to do with blood magic, so equating blood magic to morality seems strange to me. The bargain with the demon for Connor has no narrative impact in the game itself, it's yet another example of the warden getting to do something terrible without any consequence. There's only benefit. Hell, in that instance, you don't even have the disapproval of your companions as any sort of check, because they aren't there to witness it! At least if you kill Connor, you actually have to confront Isolde on the matter, you have to see how devastated she is by your decision. That's an actual moral conundrum, that's what gray morality actually looks like. Drama, pathos, catharsis. And you can still have questions around magic and ethics without it involving blood magic. Solas hates necromancers and you can talk to Cole about it as well, in Inquisition, where he clearly disapproves. I don't understand why people are so convinced a blood magic specialization is needed to have these debates.