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

depends on what you mean by preaching I suppose but it hasn't been an issue to this point. BioWare's always had strong companions with some strong opinions, sometimes they can get preachy and the audience sometimes confuses their position with BioWare's. Yet then you have different opinions from different characters that can get just as...firm. just look at the three mages in Inquisition and their position on the Circle, slavery, and schools of magic.

Or sanctimony ...

And therefore the "correct" way.  And the game is only made possible by the people who purchase it...something fewer and fewer game developers recognize today...and where we stand today any potential next installment will depend on the gaming community purchasing DAV in significant numbers.  If they continue to bungle the marketing and the game ends up DOA...or the story ends up being about messaging and there's only one way of being a hero stripping away player agency in the process we're not going to see a future DA game...or ME for that matter.  Or at the very best we can hope for is EA returns them to the previous model of live services...MP, microtransactions, and overpriced DLC to fill in the story with elements that should have been included in the game in the first place.

What is this even supposed to mean? 

Alright they don't want you to be a Blood Mage because it doesn't make sense for the story they want to tell. That's all there is to it. Making a big deal out of it is completely arbitrary when there are other "correct" ways to play that can be similarly self-serving and/or evil. You just can't be a Blood Mage, and I've even given you both combat-related and lore reasons for why they probably thought it wasn't a good fit. What faction would even allow Blood Mages? Each spec is tied to one. They are literally the enemy faction. It makes zero sense to be wielded by the heroes in this installment.

Yet, one of the main companions is a Necromancer with a skeletal butler, and it's being treated completely normally. Most games would treat him is an enemy that needs to be destroyed. Why not recognize this? Because it would instantly dismantle your argument.

It's so weird how some of you are trying to relate this to some in-game, or even worse an in-world agenda. 

I lowkey find Necromancy a lot more distasteful than Blood Magic (when you use your own blood, though) so idk how I'll be able to stand Emmrich and his skeletal servant. I could only stand Dorian somewhat cause he didn't really animate the dead and it was mostly about bombs and horror and such.

Maybe this game will be the one to turn me into a fan. I doubt it though haha.

If anything i saw blood magic as a good example of being an corruptive influence, where initial uses even ones for noble ends would gradually change the personality and demeanor of the user and they start making excuses for the sacrifices and violations of peoples mind until you would eventually give in to the lust for power and influence and start readily sacrificing multitudes.
Anyone thinking that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely would understand this that alot of villians start off with noble intention and that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Is there an in game or in book example of someone actually noble sliding down such a slippery slope?
The Grey Wardens in DAI were being manipulated, the Warden who both doomed and saved the Griffons made no such slip. Merrill remained stable for 7 years and even finished the mirror without going evil if you supported her. Papa Hawke also used blood magic at the behest of the Wardens- and then swore off it with nary a mention of a struggle. Then there was the researcher in Awakening, no clear urge to take over the world there. Jowan was a scared idiot and if left to his own device, becomes a local do-good hero. Every other blood mage began with questionable or outright lacked morals to begin with- IF we knew them at all. Most of the time they were just mooks.

---

you're right Hawke wasn't your Hawke in Inquisition but a Hawke that was older and had a much different mind set. As for the rest of your list there was some parsing if you meant for DAI or Veilguard, seems like you meant both so.

There is blood magic.

Right about brood mothers...but what does that have to do with player choice?

There are mabari.

There are ghouls in Inquisition and no expectation for them not to be in Veilguard.

Spiders webbed up my Inquisitor plenty and were way creepier in Inquisition.

There were deals with demons and were about as fulfilling as they were in Origins (money, Stat boosts).

Demons are virtually the same unless you refer specifically to the big tidied desire demons and that design was detracting from their purpose.

Slavery/ second class citizenry/ indentured servitude was not only in DAI but was an integral part of the plot.

Imo one shot encounter enemies were some of the worse parts of DAO, it made the Darkspawn a joke.

Blood splatter is in Inquisition and they already said it'll be in Veilguard.

Crossbows- in

Traps/ setting Traps-in, there is a whole rogue spec centered around that plus other consumable traps/ grenades.

Sneak attacks- in

The Warden ritual- not seen but hasn't been removed so much like an earlier comment on blood magic everytime you see a Warden they've done the joining.

Real consequences-admittedly the 'real' part makes this very vague and opinion based but we certainly saw the consequences of our actions many times in DAI.


From here I'm just not sure of your point which could come down to vagaries of language. But I think I've got it down to three options.

1. You are lamenting the pure loss of these things- which is fine but since most of these things are still in DA and no indication of them leaving it does under cut things.

2. That these things make the game less mature- sure ok but none of these things sound that mature to me by themselves. Sure they can be taken that way but we have also seen plenty of examples of franchises that don't and deal with such things very immaturely, including DA.

3. That such things represent a loss of player agency- and a good deal of your list we could never do.

Suffice to say though, either way,I believe DA is fine. DA is not a mature/ great RPG because of these things but DA is a great RPG because of how it's dealt with and utilized such topics. It's the overall tone and player choice that matters not any one thing. And indeed, you didn't mention it but look at rape. Origins had that, inquisition didn't. Is it's exclusion suddenly mean DA is no longer mature? Indeed if we kept having rape scenes, or broodmothers, or scantily clad demons...don't you risk descensitizing the audience? Running the risk of parody? Gratuitousness? Make it boring? Fiction needs to be allowed to try different things from time to time, doesen't mean it's bad, just different.

Felix is technically a ghoul. You only see it fully realized if you go to save the mages as opposed to the templars.


Some got changed, yes. Others were the same, and some were new.

I do remember a few times getting webbed by spiders, but it wasn't often.

I do agree that Thedas doesn't quite feel like Thedas anymore, not since DA 2, anyway. But, everyone has made good points in this discussion.

The idea of a former player character becoming an NPC is an interesting idea, but Inquisition definitely doesn’t do Hawke justice (heh) at all. My canon Hawke generally was close enough to suit, but any Hawke that went off the common critical path choices in 2 felt completely mischaracterized.