126 Votes in Poll
I haven't seen evidence they are inherently evil beyond perhaps later leader being member of the cult. Going by dawn of the seeker what is pretty much the most of insight we get into the seekers in terms how they function they essentially are something like police operating in jurisdiction strictly related to chantry, templars or mages. So I would say no, that said I'm not fond of whole conceal the truth about how seekers are produced.
They definitely do more harm than good, mostly by being inactive and letting the Templars do as they like, but they are not inherently evil. The idea of the watchers needing a watcher, or having a more hands-off approach to magic is a good thing.
Creepy state police/black ops/thought police claiming divine entitlement, intended to protect the Chantry from any "threats". Given andrastian attitude just about everything, that does not sound very good. The role of overseeing the templars seems to go down the drain as senior templars are joining the Seekers (Lambert), blurring the lines between the two groups.
Honestly, first time I played DAI and seeing Cassandra, I though "Ugh, the book-stabbing Chantry Gestapo again..." *lol*
Inaction doesn't cause harm because to cause harm you would need act in way that harmed you (ie lack of positive doesn't equal negative). So any such hypothetical act of harm would be committed by Templars not Seekers. As such I'm not harming you if I'm a bystander to you getting beaten up by thug and don't do anything, thug is harming you by hitting you and inflicting physical injures.
"thought police claiming divine entitlement"
Likely incorrect terminology, as far I'm aware there is no evidence of seekers functioning as enforces in pertain to thoughts or even publicly expressed opinions. In fact existence of circle fraternities is evidence to contrary. To already counter probably incoming Asunder Lambert crushing conclave argument as an example it was primarily in context of mages refusing to give up suspected murderer and attempting to take unsanctioned political action in conclave that was supposed to be held for completely different reasons.
<<Inaction doesn't cause harm because to cause harm you would need act in way that harmed you>>
Eh, that depends. While it might not fit your definition, where I live there are laws obliging citizens to administer help; "Failure to render assistance" is a thing here.
Since we lack a comprehensive view on the Chantry laws in general, it is hard to judge. On the other hand, we do have a prominent example of a decision maker not doing their job when required, causing everything to go to shit.
Regarding the thought police thing, WoT 2 (p. 125) contains what is at least a tongue-in-cheek reference, if not an outright admission, given that WoT quotes codex entries verbatim at times and is otherwise set up like an-universe source. Also, one does not be a genius to notice that the generic "protecting the Chantry from internal and external threats" could very well mean hunting down "heretics" and other threats on the ideological level, given we got an organisation here which barely tolerates disagreement. And before you start, faith isn't logical, so these people do not need to be rational. As far as the circle fraternities are considered, why do you think are the Liberatarians are allowed to exist at all? I presume to flush out any possible dissent.
What do you think?