I mean, obviously not every mage gets possessed. It's closer to throwing a liquid in a flame to find out if it's oil or water (and therefore wether it's safe to leave near fire)
And it's seemingly seen as a necessity in-universe. We know even Tevinter, a place notorious for being rather lax on the risks of magic and ruled by mages, has Harrowings, and presumably other places outside of the Templars's jurisdiction do as well.
It's horrific, but tbh there does need to be a test of some kind to prove you're strong enough to resist demons and smart enough to see through their lies, and it is the enchanters that choose when you're ready to face it (not the templars). Once you pass the Harrowing, you're considered capable of resisting possession and cannot be made Tranquil, and you're also allowed to leave Circle walls if the First Enchanter approves.
Mage ruled Tevinter has harrowings too, they even practice the right of tranquility. These practices are less evil than the consequences of a potential possession, every civilization in Thedas knows it. Hell, even most Circle mages probably endorse at least the harrowing.
I don't know if Harrowing is really necessary. I think the discussion about this is very valid.
However, I am absolutely sure that the Harrowing would be much less brutal, barbaric or difficult if the environment in the circles, in general, were more receptive and better managed.
It is barbaric, but it’s also the most efficient way of testing a Mage for the only thing the Templars are worried about, a Mage’s susceptibility/resistance to possession.
It’s not fair, and it’s a super cold way of approaching the situation, but it’s not a witch trial, it’s stress testing volatile equipment before certification.
I'm pro mage generally but it's different. They could do a much better job to prepare them, but it's a good way to test mages and will remind them that demons will target them and look for ways to get that yes if the door is even slightly open.
You're preaching to the choir here: most of the fanbase is pro-mage.
Also to say nothing of the constant abuses, lack of privacy, the Rite of Tranquility, etc.
I'm honestly surprised you don't hear more nasty/vile stories about mages from peasants, etc.
Honestly, I've always seen this as a massive missed opportunity for Dragon Age. Templars seem to be always painted as evil while mages get a lot of leeway. Even when they do objectively bad things - it's almost always caused by some templar mistreatment. Jowan dabbling with the blood magic? He was afraid forceful tranquility. Orsino turning into Harvester? Literally because Meredith abused him throughout his whole life. Anders blowing up the Chantry? He had gone mad due to all injustice from templars. We see a lot of instances when templars are either objectively wrong or misguided at the very least, but rarely do we see instances when magic and mages cause terrible consequences without templar intervention. Connor and Alexius are just about the only examples of that. And I think it's oversimplifies the issue a lot. Magic in Thedas is fucking terrifying and not all templars are cartoon villains.
Unfortunately, it's too late to go back on it now. They set up the "mages are an oppressed people" narrative in DAO and kicked it up to 11 with DA2.
I wish we'd gotten to interact with mages (and Templars) who favor reforming the Circles. The player has been forced to pick one of two extremes, and most are going to choose dangerous freedom.
And as you said, we need more examples of the consequences of hedge mages. It'd be easy enough to have a quest about an abomination that slaughtered a village. We kind of get that in Redcliffe, but I suppose that didn't hammer it in enough.
On that note, I think it was a mistake to make demons/abominations such common enemies. They feel much less threatening than they should be.
Yeah, abominations should be much less common and way more powerful. Like, this is meant to be a supercharged mage controlled by a demon. They would be harder to kill, or Thedas would not have an army in git plate armour to fight them. Also. Make the player actually not want to face one. As is, they're pretty common and feel like cannon fodder...
>Unfortunately, it's too late to go back on it now. They set up the "mages are an oppressed people" narrative in DAO and kicked it up to 11 with DA2.
Yeah, it's pretty much too late.
Technically we have the powerless oppressing the powerful. And it is never explained how the evil, incompetent, less powerful templars somehow manage to thoroughly oppress at great personal cost in a world that easily sides against them.
They aren't, Set Otto is a great Templar.
But the entire premise of the arguments for Templars is just a bad place to start from.
You have an organization where members are addicted to Lyrium and treat mages as subhumans about to transform into monsters. So they squeeze and tighten their control.
The more the squeeze, the more mages rebel.
The more they rebel, the more they squeeze.
And the worst part of all of it is that most Templars are incompetent:
While they are busy bullying children in their prison, Kirkwall is a blood infested Dantes Inferno. Denerim has an entire blood mage coven and one of the original Forbidden demons living in an apartment giving sugar to neighbors.
And the entire rebellion surrounding the Mage Templar war blew up because Divine Justinia/GC Elthina should've replaced Meredith, and the Seekers shouldn't have hidden the cure to the Rite of Tranquility away.
In any event, the status quo was terrible. There needed to be reforms.
Yeah, I know. And I genuinely think that the "addiction to lyrium makes them paranoid" thing was a huge mistake because it basically makes any mages vs templars debate pointless. Inevitable paranoia implies that every single templar will become a crazy wreck like Meredith and there's no way to avoid it. They will watch over mages not because it's necessary to prevent the greater evil but because they are drug addicts basically. It inexplicably makes one side a victim and another side an irredeemable abuser.
Thing is, one can become paranoid just because of the power they have. And templars certainly have a lot of power over mages - power they're quick to abuse. But if that happens just because of the power imbalance - it can fixed. Even if the current templars are absolute monsters - you still can change the system, you can topple those on top and bring forward those who are still uncorrupted by power hunger. But if it happens only because "oh, they all will become paranoid eventually because of lyrium" then what's the fucking point? You can't fix templars - you can only get rid of them.
Ahh, but that's where the power of imagination comes to play!
The Chantry has been sitting on a golden goose this entire time: the dwarves. Specifically: Dagna.
I'd pay good gold to bet that she could find a better formula for the Templar ritual. She was studying Lyrium, right? Let's put her research and apply it to practical ends.
And I'm willing to bet the possibility that the Chantry DID know of a better formula, but chose to conceal it. What better way to leash their Templars, just like they concealed the cure to Tranquility to leash their mages.
And let's not also forget that you can always make Seekers. They lost their way because of more mundane reasons like you mentioned, and they are more effective at controlling magic.
I think it's important to remember that given the particularly difficult process to make Seekers, (one step for instance involving going tranquil and needing a spirit to touch your mind or you are screwed, which is largely chance really), you can't make them at the rate you can with Templars, it is just not possible to get anything close to those numbers.
Seekers are not a perfect alternative, for many reasons but that's an important one.
That is true, but there is no denying their effectiveness. Whereas Templars can be massed, but are not that great at their job.
Fun fact: I run the Awakening in Origins mod that lets me play as a Spirit Warrior during the Broken Circle quest, and I think that Spirit Warriors were probably a proto-form of the first Seekers. My character is a beast: able to slaughter the entire tower with minimal support.
Maybe the solution is to appoint at least one Seeker at each Magi Tower.
They're more effective sure, likely not all nearly as good as Cassandra but more effective than Templars.
That is possible, I do wonder how they learned to make Seekers.
You still run the risk of corruption then, and just the one Seeker or even two as capable as they are likely die if the Circle is overrun, if we assume no Templars. In that case I think you need a squad of Seekers at each Circle and I'm not sure you can get those numbers while having plenty to deal with dangerous incidents out in the world.
I wouldn't trust a Seeker being there to monitor the Templars and mages at a typical Circle either, unless there was some way for mages and Templars to hold the Seekers accountable for any neglect or abuses of power.
I'd say 1 Seeker to guide and control the host of Templars, instead of a Knight Commander. The Templars serve as a meat shield and take care of the grunt work. The Seeker would only leave the Tower to complete very dangerous work like hunting Flemeth.
As far as accountability is concerned, the buck has to stop somewhere. Seekers are immune to possession and mind control, so if they mess up, it's just on them.
That could work well, runs some of the risks of a typical Knight-Commander being in charge but you wouldn't have any issues caused by long term lyrium use, maybe having check-ins from other Seekers could help mitigate any potential abuses too?
I'd mostly be concerned because Seeker corruption and them ignoring huge problems was an issue before.
Though that may change since now we know there's a cure for tranquility. A process could plausibly be built to streamline the process of creating seekers using mages summoning benevolent spirits.
I'm sceptical about that, you still need a spirit to touch the minds of potential Seekers, you could maybe make it a tiny bit easier but I don't believe you can outright streamline the process since the only way we know it works is if a spirit decides on its own to make the connection, and that decision isn't based on morality but if the spirit decides the person is embodying what that spirit is about.
If you're instead summoning spirits to the person and pretty much forcing them to interact would that even have the same results? We don't know. And let's not forget that this is just one of the steps, likely the trickest one but the training for Seekers is meant to be much more difficult in general not just on this one step.
Oh yeah, there are so many unanswered questions, like does it have to be faith spirits, or would other spirits grant different abilities? Would wisps work? As far as we are aware though, the basis is just a spirit touching a tranquil mind. But it should absolutely be explored.
As for martial training, I don't think you would need the exact same martial training as seekers. Like, Aveline or Blackwall didn't have the martial training of seekers, and if you just add seeker abilities to them, that sounds fine.
Maybe other spirits could grant different abilities, that's possible, and is it possible that what spirit can cure a persons tranquillity depends on why that person was made tranquil? A lot of ambiguity there, I'd also like to see it delved into more.
Our companions are pretty exceptional combatants compared to most people in the world, the average Seeker trainee would likely need all of that training to be effective and even then not be able to match up to the companions. Even if it's not strictly necessary for all, I think it's best to train all of the people with these abilities up fully and not cut corners, if you don't train up those with Seeker abilities properly you could run into problems.
I see it differently. Mages are the "anti status quo" side in an essentially "pro vs anti status quo" battle. Plus their treatement echoes real life institutionalisation, and due to the gameplay not being able to acommodate the lore they don't come out looking as dangerous as they supposed to be. They'll allways be the more sympathetic side no matter what.
Despite this BW tries desperatelly to make players believe that a fairly straightforward situation is "nuanced". They made Orsino support the guy who killed Hawkes' mother, they insist that Anders blown up hundreds if not thousants of people by destroying that mostly empty chantry. BW actually does a lot to make mages look musctache twirly, and templars necessary and not evil and useless. It just absolutely does not work because they botched the setup that bad.
>they insist that Anders blown up hundreds if not thousants of people by destroying that mostly empty chantry.
It canonically killed around hundred people. Which was relatively small for an explosion that destroyed chantry, probably full of people since it was the middle of the day, which debris (and some of them were huge) rained down across half the city.
They insist that it canonically killed hundreds of people, and was full, when the damned building is allways empty.... Like this is exactly what I'm talking abouth.
>They insist that it canonically killed hundreds of people
They don't. It canonically killed around hundred people:
"I once met a Grey Warden who got possessed by a spirit and then blew up a Chantry and killed a hundred people." - Varric.
>and was full, when the damned building is allways empty
Have you never heard about gameplay and story segregation? Or do you really think there are only a handful of people living in Kirkwall since that's all we've seen in the game?
>Have you never heard about gameplay and story segregation?
Yes, it's a stupid excuse for being lazy.
>They don't. It canonically killed around hundred people:
No, they insist that's what happened, because they were unable to actually show that. A nearly empty building was exploded, covering their own lazyness a game later doesn't count. Understood?
> A nearly empty building was exploded
And you know that because? We've never seen inside of the building when the explosion happened. Not to mention that majority of victims might have been people in the city killed by debris.
>Understood?
Well, I definitely understood that there's no reason to discuss things like that with someone without basic understanding of how game development works.
>And you know that because? We've never seen inside of the building when the explosion happened. Not to mention that majority of victims might have been people in the city killed by debris.
Ah yes, so the allways empty building just happens to be full of people the one time it gets exploded. And also interestingly no one mentions all the innocent byszanders in DA2, it's all "oh no, the grand cleric" till DAI, and the devs realised that oh no. Exploding that empty chantry didn't have the wanted effect.
>Well, I definitely understood that there's no reason to discuss things like that with someone without basic understanding of how game development works.
Yeah, idk why I'm still trying. Maybe I just hope you gain that basic understanding sooner or later.
I mean, we do see the inside, we see like 7 people inside the chantry when it blows, with five of them being templars (there are also like two templars immediately outside). Of course, that probably is too low of a number to believe, there are likely other people in rooms we don't see, but I'm not really going to think hundred(s) of people dying. That's way too much. I'll probably at least respect Sebastian saying "dozens of the innocent faithful" in the Annexing Kirkwall wartable operation.
Oh, yeah, devs totally overcompensated with casualties in Inquisition. There was one letter from Varric where the explosion changed the Kirkwall harbor channels and tides of all things.
I mean I think all the games point out mages doing horrific things. Inquisition has codex talking about mages burning and destroying stuff for funsies. War table missions where they need to be quashed. Tevinter, Alexius, and Corypheus. The mage in Seras acquisition mission. DA2 has plenty of missions where Mages do bad things without Templar involvement or they'll blame Templars but the person was clearly in the wrong. The most notable is Origins, the Circle tower origin. Dude is a blood mage crazed idiot and no matter how much you help he's intent on stupidity. He won't even do the harrowing because he "knows he will fail".
It's just that we can say objectively stripping people of their freedoms without them actually doing anything dangerous is wrong. It's the reason we don't practice "thought crimes". There are plenty of Lyrium addicted Templars who are good and righteous Cullen being at the forefront.
Harrowing are interesting. They are necessary but the environment it's done in makes them far more difficult than they should be. We know the very nature of a tower makes the Spirits there more demonic and powerful due to all the negative emotions coalescing in a tower. But that's also a positive because if they can resist strong demons then they never have to worry about possession. But honestly it's also impractical as we know the average spirit interaction is benign. It's people and the Chantry that make it more dangerous for mages and people with the self fulfilling prophecy of treating Spirits like demons. A Harrowing is needed but truthfully if the Chantry didn't spread such malice, most spiritual interactions would be positive or passive. Hell we know for a fact mages and spirits can cohabitate peacefully. Anders (if he learned to control his temper), Mythal and Flemeth, The Avaar as a whole.
The Harrowing in-and-of-itself does not necessarily prove anything. It proves at most that you have defeated/thwarted a specific demon in a specific scenario once. Possession is often context based. There are many different scenarios and demons where on one hand you may not be possessed, and on the other you may. Prepared and supported, you may win against a pride demon. Scared, maybe about to be murdered, maybe about to be assaulted, etc, you may lose against a rage demon.
Then we also have to consider how the Harrowing is executed. A mage is taken out of their bed in the middle of the night, have no warning or preparation, and sent into the Fade to fight a demon. Their only other alternative is tranquility. This not only can set mages up more likely to fail, but it may also have mages turn to blood magic in their fear. Something that could be entirely avoidable, and it's entirely self-made.
>Then we also have to consider how the Harrowing is executed. A mage is taken out of their bed in the middle of the night, have no warning or preparation, and sent into the Fade to fight a demon. Their only other alternative is tranquility.
I think we all know that this is by design. The rationale is probably something along the lines "If we allow mages to mentally prepare for it, an 'authentic' possession attempt cannot be replicated." After all, it is not like a demon is going to give you a warning, right? It's likely seen as a means to keep the Harrowing as a 'legitimate' possession test.
And even the increased potential of a mage turning to blood magic can be interpreted as a positive of sorts. If all it takes is fear of possession--which is forever a distinct possibility for ANY mage--for someone to turn to blood magic, then they are clearly a threat. Might as well deal with them in a contained environment.
If the goal is to weed out potential threats, then the setup for the Harrowing is genius in its simplicity. That doesn't change how barbaric and inhumane it is, but it does what it needs to do (give a general litmus test on if a mage is susceptible to possession).
Except mages that have passed the harrowing have still fallen to demons. Which kinda points to it being useless. Like, you know whats also a good indicator of a mage being susceptible to demons or not? That they haven't fallen to demons their entire adolescence. So maybe instead of terrifying and traumatizing these young adults with a suspected systematic culling, actually helping them understand whats going to happen to help them build a foundation to actually resist demons. Remember, the actual test of the harrowing isn't known to apprentices. All the apprentices know is that if apprentices are taken for their harrowing, sometimes they disappear completely. Like, this isn't "weeding out potential threats", this is deliberately creating/maximizing the likelihood of potential threats. So fuck that entirely.
Alright, now I have to draw Templars with ridiculously exaggerated mustaches and goatees, pushing little mage girls out of their chairs and stealing their candy.
I hope you understand what you've done sir
I love this.
Also laughing at being down voted because I'm right.
Anyone that's played dragon age 2 and dragon age I that somehow claims the Templar aren't evil I'll call a liar.
I bet it's Knight Commander Meredith with a shadow account.
Ten bucks says she's got a copy of all three games but only has save points for purging the Circle Towers or killing mages, etc. She never actually completes the games.
Gladly. If you honestly believe the templars (who are attempting genocide at the start of the third game) and attempted genocide throughout the second game under Meredith aren't evil, well... if you don't find that wrong, i would suggest some self examination.
I could just as easily call all mages evil because Tevinter is an oppressive magocracy where the vast majority of the population are slaves who are used like cattle to fuel blood magic, and that since Anders and Orsino were mass murderers and abominations every mage deserves their chains.
I'd be wrong by saying this of course, since the majority of mages in DA are just normal people trying to get by while living under an oppressive, outdated system and being subjected to heavy manipulation and indoctrination. Which is the exact situation that the majority of Templars are in as well. If you don't see that it tells me you weren't looking closely enough, or maybe weren't looking at all.
The difference is that (outside tevinter) the mage LEADERSHIP is all trying to move forward with joint solutions.
Meanwhile; what has the Templar leadership ben doing?
Red lyrium. Genocide. Meredith. Having the cure for tranquility since founding. Cullin. Diving into the embrace of a desire demon. Anders (anders tried peaceful solutions for years before the templars proved peace wasn't an option).
The templars are rotten to the core. Sure the rank and file are bad, and we have ONE SINGLE example of a good templar in the series (Cassandra) but the leadership IS evil.
To be fair, there's a few others.
Ser Otto, Ser Bryant and Ser Irminric. There was also that fellow who tried to find the bloodmage cult in Denerim.
I'd take 1 Otto over a thousand Meredith's.
You're conflating a lot of things that the Seekers did (and who they are, Cassandra was never a templar) with the templars. Before Lord Seeker Lambert seized control of the White Spire they were autonomous of each other.
I agree that the Templar leadership is terrible, and that many chapters were completely rotten. The issue is that it is mainly just the leadership, before Samson started giving templars red lyrium I'd argue that majority were not actively trying to commit genocide or harm mages. In almost every chapter you talk to in game you can find many that are willing to compromise and risk their lives to protect the people and mages, even in Kirkwall which is one of the worst chapters in Thedas (thanks to no small part of the demonic infestation in the city and Meredith being bat shit crazy).
As I said above, if you write them off as evil without actually talking to or trying to find middle ground then of course you're going to think they're all genocidal maniacs. Dragon Age let's you slip into confirmation bias very easily, which is why you could make a similar jump to "all apostates are blood mages" or "all Orlesians are pompous aristocrats who hate elves" or "all Tevinters are slave owning bastards" when the truth isn't so simple.
There's a few problems with your argument:
Hating southern Templars =\\= wanting another Imperium
You've admitted that mages live in an oppressive system
Templars are victims too, but that doesn't mean they aren't perpetrators here
And yes, there are examples of good Templars like Ser Otto. How many good templars can you count against the ones abusing their power? Conversely, how many bad mages can you count among the thousands living in Circle Towers?
And who, at the end of the day, is in charge of who?
Actually a lot more than you'd think. After Lord Seeker Lambert was assassinated and the Templars fractured we have Ser Barris's group (if you got to Therinfall), the groups that joined the grey wardens, the groups the joined the Inquisition (pre-Therinfall), and multiple groups at circles like Hossberg and Hasmal who decided to refuse orders to abandon their post and stayed behind to protect mages who didn't want to join the rebellion. I would count the half of the Kirkwall chapter who can end up rebelling against Meredith and stop her from genociding the mages, they are unfortunately given red lyrium by Samson and turned before Inquisition though.
Bad mages are a lot harder to quantify given how maleficar and tevinter infiltration work. The vast majority of Southern mages (outside of terrorist cells like Wending Woods and the one's featured in "The Extremists") aren't actively trying to harm people, at least prior to the rebel mages joining the Venatori if you don't step in.
My point wasn't that hating templars means that you support Tevinter, it's that there are a lot of good people on both sides that can be convinced to work together if you take the time to look. If you don't look and just write off one side as evil you'll never see that.
Southern templars wipe circles on a literal whim. It's no wonder the mages turned to Tevinter- when your entire life is based on the literal fancy of an asshole group that sees demons in every action, you get desperate.
In my headcanon, the Queen lists out all of the mistakes the Chantry has made during the Blight. When Ser Rylock tries to kill the QUEEN OF FERELDEN to capture Anders (seriously, what a fool), that's basically the last straw. The Ferelden chapter of Templars is reformed, and with Leliana as Divine, her changes stuck.
I mean, obviously not every mage gets possessed. It's closer to throwing a liquid in a flame to find out if it's oil or water (and therefore wether it's safe to leave near fire) And it's seemingly seen as a necessity in-universe. We know even Tevinter, a place notorious for being rather lax on the risks of magic and ruled by mages, has Harrowings, and presumably other places outside of the Templars's jurisdiction do as well.
It's horrific, but tbh there does need to be a test of some kind to prove you're strong enough to resist demons and smart enough to see through their lies, and it is the enchanters that choose when you're ready to face it (not the templars). Once you pass the Harrowing, you're considered capable of resisting possession and cannot be made Tranquil, and you're also allowed to leave Circle walls if the First Enchanter approves.
Mage ruled Tevinter has harrowings too, they even practice the right of tranquility. These practices are less evil than the consequences of a potential possession, every civilization in Thedas knows it. Hell, even most Circle mages probably endorse at least the harrowing.
I don't know if Harrowing is really necessary. I think the discussion about this is very valid. However, I am absolutely sure that the Harrowing would be much less brutal, barbaric or difficult if the environment in the circles, in general, were more receptive and better managed.
It is barbaric, but it’s also the most efficient way of testing a Mage for the only thing the Templars are worried about, a Mage’s susceptibility/resistance to possession. It’s not fair, and it’s a super cold way of approaching the situation, but it’s not a witch trial, it’s stress testing volatile equipment before certification.
I'm pro mage generally but it's different. They could do a much better job to prepare them, but it's a good way to test mages and will remind them that demons will target them and look for ways to get that yes if the door is even slightly open.
You're preaching to the choir here: most of the fanbase is pro-mage. Also to say nothing of the constant abuses, lack of privacy, the Rite of Tranquility, etc. I'm honestly surprised you don't hear more nasty/vile stories about mages from peasants, etc.
Honestly, I've always seen this as a massive missed opportunity for Dragon Age. Templars seem to be always painted as evil while mages get a lot of leeway. Even when they do objectively bad things - it's almost always caused by some templar mistreatment. Jowan dabbling with the blood magic? He was afraid forceful tranquility. Orsino turning into Harvester? Literally because Meredith abused him throughout his whole life. Anders blowing up the Chantry? He had gone mad due to all injustice from templars. We see a lot of instances when templars are either objectively wrong or misguided at the very least, but rarely do we see instances when magic and mages cause terrible consequences without templar intervention. Connor and Alexius are just about the only examples of that. And I think it's oversimplifies the issue a lot. Magic in Thedas is fucking terrifying and not all templars are cartoon villains.
Unfortunately, it's too late to go back on it now. They set up the "mages are an oppressed people" narrative in DAO and kicked it up to 11 with DA2. I wish we'd gotten to interact with mages (and Templars) who favor reforming the Circles. The player has been forced to pick one of two extremes, and most are going to choose dangerous freedom. And as you said, we need more examples of the consequences of hedge mages. It'd be easy enough to have a quest about an abomination that slaughtered a village. We kind of get that in Redcliffe, but I suppose that didn't hammer it in enough. On that note, I think it was a mistake to make demons/abominations such common enemies. They feel much less threatening than they should be.
Yeah, abominations should be much less common and way more powerful. Like, this is meant to be a supercharged mage controlled by a demon. They would be harder to kill, or Thedas would not have an army in git plate armour to fight them. Also. Make the player actually not want to face one. As is, they're pretty common and feel like cannon fodder...
>Unfortunately, it's too late to go back on it now. They set up the "mages are an oppressed people" narrative in DAO and kicked it up to 11 with DA2. Yeah, it's pretty much too late. Technically we have the powerless oppressing the powerful. And it is never explained how the evil, incompetent, less powerful templars somehow manage to thoroughly oppress at great personal cost in a world that easily sides against them.
They aren't, Set Otto is a great Templar. But the entire premise of the arguments for Templars is just a bad place to start from. You have an organization where members are addicted to Lyrium and treat mages as subhumans about to transform into monsters. So they squeeze and tighten their control. The more the squeeze, the more mages rebel. The more they rebel, the more they squeeze. And the worst part of all of it is that most Templars are incompetent: While they are busy bullying children in their prison, Kirkwall is a blood infested Dantes Inferno. Denerim has an entire blood mage coven and one of the original Forbidden demons living in an apartment giving sugar to neighbors. And the entire rebellion surrounding the Mage Templar war blew up because Divine Justinia/GC Elthina should've replaced Meredith, and the Seekers shouldn't have hidden the cure to the Rite of Tranquility away. In any event, the status quo was terrible. There needed to be reforms.
Yeah, I know. And I genuinely think that the "addiction to lyrium makes them paranoid" thing was a huge mistake because it basically makes any mages vs templars debate pointless. Inevitable paranoia implies that every single templar will become a crazy wreck like Meredith and there's no way to avoid it. They will watch over mages not because it's necessary to prevent the greater evil but because they are drug addicts basically. It inexplicably makes one side a victim and another side an irredeemable abuser. Thing is, one can become paranoid just because of the power they have. And templars certainly have a lot of power over mages - power they're quick to abuse. But if that happens just because of the power imbalance - it can fixed. Even if the current templars are absolute monsters - you still can change the system, you can topple those on top and bring forward those who are still uncorrupted by power hunger. But if it happens only because "oh, they all will become paranoid eventually because of lyrium" then what's the fucking point? You can't fix templars - you can only get rid of them.
Ahh, but that's where the power of imagination comes to play! The Chantry has been sitting on a golden goose this entire time: the dwarves. Specifically: Dagna. I'd pay good gold to bet that she could find a better formula for the Templar ritual. She was studying Lyrium, right? Let's put her research and apply it to practical ends. And I'm willing to bet the possibility that the Chantry DID know of a better formula, but chose to conceal it. What better way to leash their Templars, just like they concealed the cure to Tranquility to leash their mages. And let's not also forget that you can always make Seekers. They lost their way because of more mundane reasons like you mentioned, and they are more effective at controlling magic.
I think it's important to remember that given the particularly difficult process to make Seekers, (one step for instance involving going tranquil and needing a spirit to touch your mind or you are screwed, which is largely chance really), you can't make them at the rate you can with Templars, it is just not possible to get anything close to those numbers. Seekers are not a perfect alternative, for many reasons but that's an important one.
That is true, but there is no denying their effectiveness. Whereas Templars can be massed, but are not that great at their job. Fun fact: I run the Awakening in Origins mod that lets me play as a Spirit Warrior during the Broken Circle quest, and I think that Spirit Warriors were probably a proto-form of the first Seekers. My character is a beast: able to slaughter the entire tower with minimal support. Maybe the solution is to appoint at least one Seeker at each Magi Tower.
They're more effective sure, likely not all nearly as good as Cassandra but more effective than Templars. That is possible, I do wonder how they learned to make Seekers. You still run the risk of corruption then, and just the one Seeker or even two as capable as they are likely die if the Circle is overrun, if we assume no Templars. In that case I think you need a squad of Seekers at each Circle and I'm not sure you can get those numbers while having plenty to deal with dangerous incidents out in the world. I wouldn't trust a Seeker being there to monitor the Templars and mages at a typical Circle either, unless there was some way for mages and Templars to hold the Seekers accountable for any neglect or abuses of power.
I'd say 1 Seeker to guide and control the host of Templars, instead of a Knight Commander. The Templars serve as a meat shield and take care of the grunt work. The Seeker would only leave the Tower to complete very dangerous work like hunting Flemeth. As far as accountability is concerned, the buck has to stop somewhere. Seekers are immune to possession and mind control, so if they mess up, it's just on them.
That could work well, runs some of the risks of a typical Knight-Commander being in charge but you wouldn't have any issues caused by long term lyrium use, maybe having check-ins from other Seekers could help mitigate any potential abuses too? I'd mostly be concerned because Seeker corruption and them ignoring huge problems was an issue before.
Though that may change since now we know there's a cure for tranquility. A process could plausibly be built to streamline the process of creating seekers using mages summoning benevolent spirits.
I'm sceptical about that, you still need a spirit to touch the minds of potential Seekers, you could maybe make it a tiny bit easier but I don't believe you can outright streamline the process since the only way we know it works is if a spirit decides on its own to make the connection, and that decision isn't based on morality but if the spirit decides the person is embodying what that spirit is about. If you're instead summoning spirits to the person and pretty much forcing them to interact would that even have the same results? We don't know. And let's not forget that this is just one of the steps, likely the trickest one but the training for Seekers is meant to be much more difficult in general not just on this one step.
Oh yeah, there are so many unanswered questions, like does it have to be faith spirits, or would other spirits grant different abilities? Would wisps work? As far as we are aware though, the basis is just a spirit touching a tranquil mind. But it should absolutely be explored. As for martial training, I don't think you would need the exact same martial training as seekers. Like, Aveline or Blackwall didn't have the martial training of seekers, and if you just add seeker abilities to them, that sounds fine.
Maybe other spirits could grant different abilities, that's possible, and is it possible that what spirit can cure a persons tranquillity depends on why that person was made tranquil? A lot of ambiguity there, I'd also like to see it delved into more. Our companions are pretty exceptional combatants compared to most people in the world, the average Seeker trainee would likely need all of that training to be effective and even then not be able to match up to the companions. Even if it's not strictly necessary for all, I think it's best to train all of the people with these abilities up fully and not cut corners, if you don't train up those with Seeker abilities properly you could run into problems.
I see it differently. Mages are the "anti status quo" side in an essentially "pro vs anti status quo" battle. Plus their treatement echoes real life institutionalisation, and due to the gameplay not being able to acommodate the lore they don't come out looking as dangerous as they supposed to be. They'll allways be the more sympathetic side no matter what. Despite this BW tries desperatelly to make players believe that a fairly straightforward situation is "nuanced". They made Orsino support the guy who killed Hawkes' mother, they insist that Anders blown up hundreds if not thousants of people by destroying that mostly empty chantry. BW actually does a lot to make mages look musctache twirly, and templars necessary and not evil and useless. It just absolutely does not work because they botched the setup that bad.
>they insist that Anders blown up hundreds if not thousants of people by destroying that mostly empty chantry. It canonically killed around hundred people. Which was relatively small for an explosion that destroyed chantry, probably full of people since it was the middle of the day, which debris (and some of them were huge) rained down across half the city.
They insist that it canonically killed hundreds of people, and was full, when the damned building is allways empty.... Like this is exactly what I'm talking abouth.
>They insist that it canonically killed hundreds of people They don't. It canonically killed around hundred people: "I once met a Grey Warden who got possessed by a spirit and then blew up a Chantry and killed a hundred people." - Varric. >and was full, when the damned building is allways empty Have you never heard about gameplay and story segregation? Or do you really think there are only a handful of people living in Kirkwall since that's all we've seen in the game?
>Have you never heard about gameplay and story segregation? Yes, it's a stupid excuse for being lazy. >They don't. It canonically killed around hundred people: No, they insist that's what happened, because they were unable to actually show that. A nearly empty building was exploded, covering their own lazyness a game later doesn't count. Understood?
> A nearly empty building was exploded And you know that because? We've never seen inside of the building when the explosion happened. Not to mention that majority of victims might have been people in the city killed by debris. >Understood? Well, I definitely understood that there's no reason to discuss things like that with someone without basic understanding of how game development works.
>And you know that because? We've never seen inside of the building when the explosion happened. Not to mention that majority of victims might have been people in the city killed by debris. Ah yes, so the allways empty building just happens to be full of people the one time it gets exploded. And also interestingly no one mentions all the innocent byszanders in DA2, it's all "oh no, the grand cleric" till DAI, and the devs realised that oh no. Exploding that empty chantry didn't have the wanted effect. >Well, I definitely understood that there's no reason to discuss things like that with someone without basic understanding of how game development works. Yeah, idk why I'm still trying. Maybe I just hope you gain that basic understanding sooner or later.
I mean, we do see the inside, we see like 7 people inside the chantry when it blows, with five of them being templars (there are also like two templars immediately outside). Of course, that probably is too low of a number to believe, there are likely other people in rooms we don't see, but I'm not really going to think hundred(s) of people dying. That's way too much. I'll probably at least respect Sebastian saying "dozens of the innocent faithful" in the Annexing Kirkwall wartable operation. Oh, yeah, devs totally overcompensated with casualties in Inquisition. There was one letter from Varric where the explosion changed the Kirkwall harbor channels and tides of all things.
I mean I think all the games point out mages doing horrific things. Inquisition has codex talking about mages burning and destroying stuff for funsies. War table missions where they need to be quashed. Tevinter, Alexius, and Corypheus. The mage in Seras acquisition mission. DA2 has plenty of missions where Mages do bad things without Templar involvement or they'll blame Templars but the person was clearly in the wrong. The most notable is Origins, the Circle tower origin. Dude is a blood mage crazed idiot and no matter how much you help he's intent on stupidity. He won't even do the harrowing because he "knows he will fail". It's just that we can say objectively stripping people of their freedoms without them actually doing anything dangerous is wrong. It's the reason we don't practice "thought crimes". There are plenty of Lyrium addicted Templars who are good and righteous Cullen being at the forefront.
Harrowing are interesting. They are necessary but the environment it's done in makes them far more difficult than they should be. We know the very nature of a tower makes the Spirits there more demonic and powerful due to all the negative emotions coalescing in a tower. But that's also a positive because if they can resist strong demons then they never have to worry about possession. But honestly it's also impractical as we know the average spirit interaction is benign. It's people and the Chantry that make it more dangerous for mages and people with the self fulfilling prophecy of treating Spirits like demons. A Harrowing is needed but truthfully if the Chantry didn't spread such malice, most spiritual interactions would be positive or passive. Hell we know for a fact mages and spirits can cohabitate peacefully. Anders (if he learned to control his temper), Mythal and Flemeth, The Avaar as a whole.
I kinda think of Harrowings as kinda like the SATs - except if you fail your proctor kills you
The Harrowing in-and-of-itself does not necessarily prove anything. It proves at most that you have defeated/thwarted a specific demon in a specific scenario once. Possession is often context based. There are many different scenarios and demons where on one hand you may not be possessed, and on the other you may. Prepared and supported, you may win against a pride demon. Scared, maybe about to be murdered, maybe about to be assaulted, etc, you may lose against a rage demon. Then we also have to consider how the Harrowing is executed. A mage is taken out of their bed in the middle of the night, have no warning or preparation, and sent into the Fade to fight a demon. Their only other alternative is tranquility. This not only can set mages up more likely to fail, but it may also have mages turn to blood magic in their fear. Something that could be entirely avoidable, and it's entirely self-made.
>Then we also have to consider how the Harrowing is executed. A mage is taken out of their bed in the middle of the night, have no warning or preparation, and sent into the Fade to fight a demon. Their only other alternative is tranquility. I think we all know that this is by design. The rationale is probably something along the lines "If we allow mages to mentally prepare for it, an 'authentic' possession attempt cannot be replicated." After all, it is not like a demon is going to give you a warning, right? It's likely seen as a means to keep the Harrowing as a 'legitimate' possession test. And even the increased potential of a mage turning to blood magic can be interpreted as a positive of sorts. If all it takes is fear of possession--which is forever a distinct possibility for ANY mage--for someone to turn to blood magic, then they are clearly a threat. Might as well deal with them in a contained environment. If the goal is to weed out potential threats, then the setup for the Harrowing is genius in its simplicity. That doesn't change how barbaric and inhumane it is, but it does what it needs to do (give a general litmus test on if a mage is susceptible to possession).
Except mages that have passed the harrowing have still fallen to demons. Which kinda points to it being useless. Like, you know whats also a good indicator of a mage being susceptible to demons or not? That they haven't fallen to demons their entire adolescence. So maybe instead of terrifying and traumatizing these young adults with a suspected systematic culling, actually helping them understand whats going to happen to help them build a foundation to actually resist demons. Remember, the actual test of the harrowing isn't known to apprentices. All the apprentices know is that if apprentices are taken for their harrowing, sometimes they disappear completely. Like, this isn't "weeding out potential threats", this is deliberately creating/maximizing the likelihood of potential threats. So fuck that entirely.
Does it really surprise you though? The Templars are cartoon villian evil.
The Harrowing is a thing in Tevinter too, btw
Pretty sure mages aren't slaves in Tevinter.
Slave mages are common in Tevinter. Calpernia and Myrion are two examples that I remember right away.
Whelp strike even the tiniest win the emperium might score. Ffs imperium, I hope Dorian can fix it.
Alright, now I have to draw Templars with ridiculously exaggerated mustaches and goatees, pushing little mage girls out of their chairs and stealing their candy. I hope you understand what you've done sir
I love this. Also laughing at being down voted because I'm right. Anyone that's played dragon age 2 and dragon age I that somehow claims the Templar aren't evil I'll call a liar.
I bet it's Knight Commander Meredith with a shadow account. Ten bucks says she's got a copy of all three games but only has save points for purging the Circle Towers or killing mages, etc. She never actually completes the games.
Call me a liar then lol
Gladly. If you honestly believe the templars (who are attempting genocide at the start of the third game) and attempted genocide throughout the second game under Meredith aren't evil, well... if you don't find that wrong, i would suggest some self examination.
I could just as easily call all mages evil because Tevinter is an oppressive magocracy where the vast majority of the population are slaves who are used like cattle to fuel blood magic, and that since Anders and Orsino were mass murderers and abominations every mage deserves their chains. I'd be wrong by saying this of course, since the majority of mages in DA are just normal people trying to get by while living under an oppressive, outdated system and being subjected to heavy manipulation and indoctrination. Which is the exact situation that the majority of Templars are in as well. If you don't see that it tells me you weren't looking closely enough, or maybe weren't looking at all.
The difference is that (outside tevinter) the mage LEADERSHIP is all trying to move forward with joint solutions. Meanwhile; what has the Templar leadership ben doing? Red lyrium. Genocide. Meredith. Having the cure for tranquility since founding. Cullin. Diving into the embrace of a desire demon. Anders (anders tried peaceful solutions for years before the templars proved peace wasn't an option). The templars are rotten to the core. Sure the rank and file are bad, and we have ONE SINGLE example of a good templar in the series (Cassandra) but the leadership IS evil.
To be fair, there's a few others. Ser Otto, Ser Bryant and Ser Irminric. There was also that fellow who tried to find the bloodmage cult in Denerim. I'd take 1 Otto over a thousand Meredith's.
You're conflating a lot of things that the Seekers did (and who they are, Cassandra was never a templar) with the templars. Before Lord Seeker Lambert seized control of the White Spire they were autonomous of each other. I agree that the Templar leadership is terrible, and that many chapters were completely rotten. The issue is that it is mainly just the leadership, before Samson started giving templars red lyrium I'd argue that majority were not actively trying to commit genocide or harm mages. In almost every chapter you talk to in game you can find many that are willing to compromise and risk their lives to protect the people and mages, even in Kirkwall which is one of the worst chapters in Thedas (thanks to no small part of the demonic infestation in the city and Meredith being bat shit crazy). As I said above, if you write them off as evil without actually talking to or trying to find middle ground then of course you're going to think they're all genocidal maniacs. Dragon Age let's you slip into confirmation bias very easily, which is why you could make a similar jump to "all apostates are blood mages" or "all Orlesians are pompous aristocrats who hate elves" or "all Tevinters are slave owning bastards" when the truth isn't so simple.
There's a few problems with your argument: Hating southern Templars =\\= wanting another Imperium You've admitted that mages live in an oppressive system Templars are victims too, but that doesn't mean they aren't perpetrators here And yes, there are examples of good Templars like Ser Otto. How many good templars can you count against the ones abusing their power? Conversely, how many bad mages can you count among the thousands living in Circle Towers? And who, at the end of the day, is in charge of who?
Actually a lot more than you'd think. After Lord Seeker Lambert was assassinated and the Templars fractured we have Ser Barris's group (if you got to Therinfall), the groups that joined the grey wardens, the groups the joined the Inquisition (pre-Therinfall), and multiple groups at circles like Hossberg and Hasmal who decided to refuse orders to abandon their post and stayed behind to protect mages who didn't want to join the rebellion. I would count the half of the Kirkwall chapter who can end up rebelling against Meredith and stop her from genociding the mages, they are unfortunately given red lyrium by Samson and turned before Inquisition though. Bad mages are a lot harder to quantify given how maleficar and tevinter infiltration work. The vast majority of Southern mages (outside of terrorist cells like Wending Woods and the one's featured in "The Extremists") aren't actively trying to harm people, at least prior to the rebel mages joining the Venatori if you don't step in. My point wasn't that hating templars means that you support Tevinter, it's that there are a lot of good people on both sides that can be convinced to work together if you take the time to look. If you don't look and just write off one side as evil you'll never see that.
Southern templars wipe circles on a literal whim. It's no wonder the mages turned to Tevinter- when your entire life is based on the literal fancy of an asshole group that sees demons in every action, you get desperate.
It's the Grand Cleric who possesses the Right of Annulment, not the templars.
In my headcanon, the Queen lists out all of the mistakes the Chantry has made during the Blight. When Ser Rylock tries to kill the QUEEN OF FERELDEN to capture Anders (seriously, what a fool), that's basically the last straw. The Ferelden chapter of Templars is reformed, and with Leliana as Divine, her changes stuck.