Forums: Index > Game DiscussionTemplars, give me a reason
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2141 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

If you prefer mages over templars then don't read it and don't reply.

In game Dragon Age: Inquisition player has option of choosing to ally with templars but existence of such option is a joke. Why would player even have a chance to recruit them if from the start they make no good impression on players? In Val Royeaux they behave like jerks when Fiona was well mannered and nice to the Inquisitor. Their knight-vigilant was murdered and even their leaders seeked their doom. Lucius slaughtered Seekers and Samson admitted he just wants to give them a chance to die in battle. If players experienced previous games then they have even less reasons to recruit templars since they are constantly shown in bad light. Such things steer players on mages. My problem is that templars give me no reason to recruit them, so please show me where are they? Andrzej.lewinski.351 (talk) 22:35, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

I don't really like either side, but I do feel a bit sympathy for the Templars. Not all the Templars are bad like Lucius or Samsom: if you do side with them, you see at Therinfal that in fact half or more of the order do not support the Red Templars and have to be forced to take Red Lyrium. The leaders might be evil, but a lot of the rank and file Templars are good people. DRAEVAN13 22:44, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

Barris gave a little credit to divinity of the Herald but didn't have balls to defy Lucius in Val Royeaux or charisma to make his brothers in arms to trust the Inquisitor especially after Cullen and Cassandra's defections. All good templars died in games they appeared, I mean Otto or Emric. Samson seemed OK in Dragon Age II but in Inquisition he was a completelly different man. Many players enjoyed commical Carrol but we all know how he ended. Barris would give me more reasons to go to templars if he had been more active like writting a secret letter. The only reason I have to go to them is after doing this, it is saving them from becoming zombies stripped of humanity and free will. Corrupt officers give nobody any reason to support them. How many corrupt mages did you see among the rebels? I didn't see any. Mages allied with venatori when templars allied with directly with their master and his demon servant. Answer for question "Who was worse?" is obvious.Andrzej.lewinski.351 (talk) 23:03, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

Much preference is usually the mages as we've seen a lot of bad from type Templars over the years however there purpose wasn't bad, aside from all the corruption we've seen in previous games the Templars still supported somethings they believed in the Chantry and the Maker and it wasn't all the Templars in Val Royeux who acted like jerks (that one what was his name Barius or something) and also the Fiona met in Val Royeux may not have actuakky been her ,while many are corrupt the same can be said for the mages examples of good Templars Cullen Alistair (he still counts) the blind Templar in DA:Os alienage ser Thrask you meet quite a few good Templars who just want to protect the mages from non mages and themselves and to serve the Maker. Even though Cassandra isn't a Templars she shares similar ideals with them and shows that those sort of people could still be good. I suppose form a role-playing point of view someone who was rping as a Templars or fear of magic might also want to recruit TemplarsBlitzbear93 (talk) 23:09, March 5, 2015 (UTC)Blitzbear93

The templars certainly give a worse first impression in Val Royeoux where (false) Lucius give a rant about how the templars are the chosen ones and everyone else is beneth them while (fake) Fiona is more like "Oh, Herald, I like you, please come to Redcliff", however knowing the plot of both sides I am more of a pro-templar. For one thing the templars never actually allied with Corypheous and his servants (unlike the mages although in their defense they did not know what master the venatori served) but were rather force-fed red lyrium by this great conspiracy corrupting them from top to bottom. People like Carrol are actually the reason you should go for the Templars because if you do he may never become a red templar. That a lowly litenuant like Barris could not actively disobey his superior officer (even though the superior officer is a demon in disguise) does not tell us much either, especially seeing the great peer pressure from his fellow templars, many of which had been secretly corrupted. Overall the templars give a far less "you brought this on yourselves" feeling than the mages, who did after all knowingly ally themselves whith a tevinter extremist group. Caspoi (talk) 23:48, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

(Er...whoever's post I just edited over sorry I coukdbt copy paste mine and kinda messed it up id poseted mine at same time as yours)

Just FYI, the "A Puppet Master" mission is available no matter what you do, so Carrol's fate is sealed. :'( Silver Warden (talk) 05:51, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
A pity, I admit that I have not done Emerald graves with my Templar character yet. Caspoi (talk) 07:19, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

The mages are whiny and unable to sustain themselves. I've been annoyed by them ever since DA:O. All they talk about is how they want freedom, but then what do they do? Turn around and start summoning demons. Because that's totally a great idea. Their stupidity is what caused all of their problems. They're always portrayed as the wounded party, when in reality they're the ones that have been digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole. While the templars can be assholes, at least they protect people from mages (Since you know, the mages aren't responsible enough to keep their powers from hurting people). Also, in Val Royeaux it isn't the real Lucius OR Fiona. When you meet Fiona in Redcliffe she's like, "wtf I didn't ask you to come here." Oh, and everything Caspoi said. --Will3784 (talk) 01:11, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

I always find it difficult to side with the Templars, their actions in previous games aside. I don't like the idea of, if you side with the Templars, leaving all the villagers of Redcliffe to the whims of the Venatori, the fact that Alexius is practicing with time magic and is left to it and the fact that The Elder One would have access to a much more powerful stronghold of Redcliffe Castle. I mean sure, if you choose the mages, most of the Templars get transformed into Red Templars, but at least that's done in relative seclusion in Therinfal. I admit, during my first playthrough of DA: II, I sided with the Templars, mainly because all the mages were so whiny and Anders flat out annoyed me (such a pity too because he was my favourite character in Awakening), but I felt there wasn't the same "woe is me" with the mages as there was in DA: II and I could sympathise with them, that there was a proper injustice done to them. (ValerianCousland (talk) 01:22, March 6, 2015 (UTC))

Even in Inquisition, I feel the mages are whiny. In the Gull and Lantern (before the Redcliffe Castle portion of In Hushed Whispers), there's a mage that outright scorns the Inquisition's help, and even if the mages join the Inquisition, some of them continue to act contemptuous of the Inquisition; (I remember there being War Table operations where you have to quell protests or prevent terrorist acts). With the Templars, once they've joined the Inquisition, they're on the your side; they don't do anything to undermine the Inquisition's authority. On a side note, I always play as a mage; in DA2 and DAI, my characters avoid doing anything just because "they're mages too". They have a thought pattern similar to Wynne and Vivienne. In DA2, my mage Hawke sided with the Templars due to the fact that a mage was responsible for the deaths at the Chantry and because the city had a history of trouble with Blood Mages. (talk) 03:19, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that Wynne and Vivienne are anything but similar? While Wynne actually cares about mages and their plight (and cares more about the mages than their plight), Vivienne is just a greedy, power hungry pitch. All her talk about how mages had it good before is bull. She just wants the Sunburst Throne and she knows that a mage can only achieve that by being ultra conservative. The only thing that matters to her is her lust for power. Ugh, I hate that character.
As to the OP, while the ethical reasons for choosing one faction or another can be debated, going with the Templars is probably the superior tactical choice. For starts, while the mages are a loose association of talented individuals of varying disciple and experience, the Templars are already a military force. Cullen is an ex Knight-Commander and Cassandra is an ex Seeker, so even without the Herald's religious authority the Templars have two reasons to follow the Inquisition. The Inquisition has many ex-Templars in its ranks, so adding more Templars is less likely to create dissent among the ranks than adding mages. The people of Thedas trust the Templars and if they join the Inquisition (even if conscripted) Leliana says the public is more trusting of the Inquisition as a result. Finally, the events at Redcliffe are revealed to be a trap by Alexius and the Venatori. Why would the Inquisitor willingly walk into a trap when there's another option? Yes, I know there are reasons to take the bait and help the mages, I've done it myself (twice). But a more practical minded, less empathic Inquisitor might think "screw the mages then, let's see what the Templars have". Silver Warden (talk) 05:51, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Vivienne was very power hungry. In dialogue, it's the Inquisitor who brings up the idea of her being Divine, not her. The impression I got from her is that her chief interest is being comfortable and respected. Whether or not she's wholly selfish, the fact is that she helps the Inquisition restore order/peace. (talk) 19:30, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
Vivienne is the embodiment of a power hungry politician. She can become Divine whether or not the Inquisitor mentions it as a possibility. In my first playthrough I was shocked to see Vivienne become Divine in the epilogue. At the time I wasn't aware that was possible. There are hints throughout the game that she has been playing "the Game" and manipulating her way toward positions of power long before she joined the Inquisition. She even became duke Bastien de Ghislain mistress in order to gain political influence. Yes, she probably had legitimate feelings for the guy but those were likely at result of her being his mistress, rather than the cause. Anyway, when Vivienne meets Bastien's family after he dies, she drops some very subtle hints that this was exactly the outcome she desired. I don't think she killed Bastien, but she likely attached herself to him so that when he died she would gain even more political influence through his relatives. Silver Warden (talk) 21:06, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
for the first time ever I'll have to agree with you bro, the only reason I like her as divine is because she'd be great... she can play the game like no other (or so it has been said) and has a kind heart (beneath tons of layers of crap), while Cassie has great heart and is passionate she cannot play the game even if her life depended on it and Leliana can play the game but her faith is long gone... so it is ponly Viviene.--DaveManiac3.png 21:19, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a little weird that the game makes it difficult to elect Leliana (compared to the other two) since there's no Support Leliana war table operation. (talk) 05:31, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
As for Vivienne becoming Divine in your first playthrough, most likely, some actions were done that supported her poltical views, (talk) 05:31, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I sided with them in my latest playthrough, and I got to say their questline was somewhat more interesting than the mages. Also the Venitori are a lot less of a pain to kill than the Red Templars. I haven't gotten to Calpernia yet, but I heard she's pretty cool... as a rival that is. Also on the issue of Vivienne, I feel that she does care for the mages (her reaction to the treatment of the tranquil for example) but her own survival comes first. Think about it her getting more political power and influence is pretty much the same plan as Hawke's was (exceptional if their a mage). I don't believe becoming Bastien's mistress was part of her official plan, but it did help and it's clearly the real thing. If anyone tries to say other wise they're blind! Vivienne is ambitious, yes but I don't get why the hate for her? She's highly intelligent women who's has put a lot of hard work into getting where she is. Sure she could use her influence in a more direct manner to help mages, but in a sense her just being in that position should inspire some confidence. Plus she has some of the best party banter! -- (talk) 21:03, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

To be clear I don't hate Viviene as a character, I think she's well written. Which is why I hate the character. As in, if I met someone like that in real life I could not spend more than five minutes in the same room with them.
Viviene is a politician motivated purely by a lust for power. End of story. Yes, her feelings for Bastien were genuine but they were the result of her schemes, not vice versa. The fact that she is capable of feeling empathy toward the tranquil doesn't change the fact that she is motivated solely by a desire to become Divine. If she becomes Divine, she basically just restores the old order. Only an idiot would think that was a good idea. And since we know Viviene isn't an idiot, we can only conclude that her actions the result of her selfish desire for power. She knows a mage can only be Divine if she stays true to the old ways.
Viviene portrays the circle like a paradise, assumes the absolute worst of both her fellow mages and the public, and fails completely to recognize the extent of the Templars' abuse of the mages. Again, we know she is not stupid so we must conclude that she is lying in order to justify her conservative stance. If a Templar or Revered Mother said the things she does about mages, we could assume that they were ignorant of the mages' plight and possibly brainwashed to fear mages. Viviene has experienced life as a mage, both within a circle and without. She'd have to be completely deluded to truly hold the beliefs she professes given her intelligence and experience. And we know that she isn't. She is a lying, scheming, selfish, soulless politician whose backwards policies will only cause more trouble with the mages and the rest of southern Thedas.
I hate her so much. Silver Warden (talk) 07:40, March 8, 2015 (UTC)
It's heavily hinted that Vivienne came from a rather poor background. So somewhere that has four walls and regular meals would be heaven, but when questioned about the Circle life she'll state that every mage has their own experience, and to her the Circle was undoubtedly a pleasant experience. She is right about her fellow mages looking bad for leaving the Circles after a massive terrorist attack that killed thousands. Oh, not to mention Fiona sold herself and her fellow mages into slavery and got plenty of non-mage citizens, including the Arl kicked out of their homes. The break away group that attacks anyone and everyone on sight also doesn't inspire confidence.
Not to mention given the chance there are plenty of people in the common public who'll attack a mage for no reason other than superstition. Going back to the Templars, there is a War Table mission about a bunch of mages looked up in their tower, and the common people are hostile towards them out of fear that they are plotting against them. The mages just wanted safety the Circle gave. There is also a conversation between Sera and Dorian in which Sera mentions that she's seen people (most likely mages) been beaten or starved to death. So her view on that is justified.
You can hate her politics all you want, but you shouldn't disregard all the work she had to do to get her position just because who she is in a relationship with! She came from nothing, and built a life for herself despite all the restrictions, and superstitions placed in front of her. That is something everyone could inspire to, mage or not. I agree she maybe not the best Divine (I support Cass), and that she's a hypocrite and a liar but she isn't cold-hearted and if you consider they are extreme opposites in view points, she is a better example for mages than Janders. Probably not by much but still better. Wynne undoubtedly trumps them both. -- (talk) 10:27, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I was pro mage until they signed up with Tevinter and I met a particular bitchy pro-blood magic and mage supremacy woman in redcliffe tavern, turned on my heel and marched straight to Therinfal right then and there, it's far too risky to support the mages when they have attitudes like that, plus they kicked the arl out of his castle, why risk war with fereldan by allying with them? (I know it all works out in the end, but without cheating/spoiling for yourself the mages make a worse case than the templars to be recruited).-- (talk) 23:42, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

One word: Barris. Also you get to recruit Cole earlier. -- (talk) 01:56, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

To address your original question, sometimes the bad light is what is wanted. Some people enjoy playing the bad guy in games since (hopefully!) they don't in real life. There have been discussions (,O ) of how to do this in DAO and it would be pretty easy run a Champion in DAII that has pissed everyone off (say pro-mage things to the templars and vice-versa) by the end of the game. So perhaps the templar option in DAI is there to recognize that option. DaBarkspawn (talk) 22:38, March 8, 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the mage/templar conflict has always been "meant" to be something of a grey question (not so much in Origins but quite a lot in Dragon Age 2) and showing one of the parties in a more unfavorable light is quite biased. Caspoi (talk) 17:30, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
I thought Wardens were meant to be the Grey question. ;) More seriously, I think the game, all the way back to DAO has been biased against Templars. Greagoir, like Meredith later, was perfectly willing to invoke the Rite of Annulment and slay everyone in the tower whether they were guilty or not. Greagoir plays the hardass and Irving does the "poor us victims" thing very well. It is still more natural to sympathize with the mages in DAO than the Templars - the former are the victims, the latter their oppressors (as seen by the player). It has just solidified a bit as new games come out. DaBarkspawn (talk) 18:34, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
I thought Origins did a good job of balancing Templars and Mages. DA2 was the one that shifted the bias. Greagoir was no where near as bad as Meredith. The tower was "lost" a bunch of blood mages suddenly became abominations, summoned demons, and it was all lead by a senior enchanter. THAT is the exact situation the rite was designed for. You cannot afford to let all those creatures out into the world. Greagoir is also pretty reasonable, whereas Meredith was not, at all. Greagoir accepts the First enchater's word that the crisis is over, and the rite is revoked, Even when cullen plays the paranoid Templar, Greagoir pulls rank to correct him. There was a REALLY nice balance that was lost from DA2 on when they decided to push the issue of enslavement. /Sarcasm: Oh it's totally oppressive living in this tower where they cook and clean for me, all i do is read and practice magic! it's so boring and the Templars are always watching me! /endsarcasm. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 19:40, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you about Greagoir, Meredith was a raving lunatic. What I was trying to point out was the trend, starting with a slight bias against Greagoir, through Meredith and on to the Red Templars. I bet that it wasn't designed this way in advance, but the progression seems logical to me. // I get the humor of your sarcasm, but I also understand the value of free will and a cage is still a cage even if it is a gilded one. This is why house arrest is a form of punishment, not a benefit. To quote Wikipedia, While house arrest can be applied to criminal cases when prison does not seem an appropriate measure, the term is often applied to the use of house confinement as a measure of repression by authoritarian governments against political dissidents. In that case, typically, the person under house arrest does not have access to any means of communication. Which is exactly the use case the Chantry via the Templars are doing, right down to the mages having to smuggle love letters (another play on the heart strings for the mages...) out of the tower. DaBarkspawn (talk) 20:01, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
True, very true House arrest is still arrest and I'm not saying it's totally ok for them to be locked away, but really... their lives are supremely better then say...the lives of any peasant.. or hell even most of the upper class. I think the take-away from both our points is they definitely jumped the shark on the whole mage v templars thing. there was no build. Look at the mages in Origins... It's the game designed to introduce us to the world of Thedas, and we see a ton of examples of mages living out of the circle. It really seemed like you went to the circle for a while and then "proved" you werent going to go crazy and kill everyone and they let you leave. Never with a templar escort or anything. nobody watches you or checks in.... it was really hard to see a mages plight other then the whole "being taken away from your parents at a young age" thing. Then we get to DA2 and suddenly "The circles don't work! there can be no compromise! it's all wrong!!!" then they open the flood gates of despicable Templar examples... it's like a shock to the system. Given we only had 2 games and 2 circles to base the information given to us, the arguement could be made "Yeah thats just how that shitty circle was run, and Ferelden is doing it right..." By the time we get to inquisition there are no circles... so a casual player might even question what the circles are even for.. I loved the Templar/Mage dynamic... i loved how one needed the other... each justified the other... then suddenly Bioware decided to make it a HUGE plot point spanning 2 games... I wished they'd have saved it and built to it.... /sigh Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 05:22, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
Well, as I said they have been biased against the Templars all along but Gregoir is not that bad, he is in fact quite reasonable and it is Cullen who provides the "alternative" route. Meredith might be mad but Dragon Age 2 provides more nuanced choices than the "kill the mages or spare the mages" one (although it is still present in the end). Caspoi (talk) 19:48, March 9, 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Just to avoid misunderstanding what I am talking about is the player's choice, they can either save the mages from possession or kill them afterwards, it is pretty obvious which is the right choice and that is practically the only "mage or templar" choice in the game, whereas apart from the final choice in Dragon Age 2 there are also choices like bringing in the apostates or letting them go, something that provides some fair points for both sides.

First and foremost for people saying the mages are not a good choice because they "sided with Tevinter" and question why the inquisitor would walk so willingly into a trap. The Mages didnt do it by choice, They were tricked when Alexius used ~time magic~ to somehow "save" them at the last second, forcing them to join him (much like your own character does)

You can't condemn them all just because one mage in the tavern is pro-blood magic, there's plenty of other mages who tell you they don't want to side with the magister, and beg you to save them. Not to mention all the tranquil who are left behind. On that note, flip that same logic to the templars, EVERY single high ranking senior templar took red lyrium. which EVERYONE knows is bad.

Sure everyone will mention it's a trap when attempting to side with the mages, BUT you only come to that conclusion AFTER they tell you everything Alexius has done, I.E: the use of time magic, kicking out the Arl, working for a radical faction, and find out they're obsessed with you. Can you really WILLINGLY walk away, clean conscience, knowing you left a MAGISTER, who believes old Tevinter is TRUE Tevinter, currently owns ALL the Rebel Mages of Redcliffe, and can bend Time? Trap or not, that is an injustice that NEEDs to be delt with. (This only applies to those who went to see the mages first and then left)

Now that that is all out of the Way, lets get to choosing Templars. Altho I am more pro mage (for more than just "because mages") There are plenty of good reasons to choose Templars. First lets discuss a few role play options. (Silver Warden already made EXCELLENT points, So some of this is reiderating them)

  • Templars are established "Defenders". To most of the common-folk, Mages are dangerous monsters, so siding with the Templars would reflect the Inquisition's stance of "order" to Thedas.
  • If you want to reinforce your Herald status, reigning in the Templars when that Chantry couldn't, kinda helps with that.
  • Tactically, you don't bring a Mage to a Templar fight. They're already devout soldiers (the best kind of soldiers) and are well equip to handle anything magical.
  • When you're thinking "long-term" for the Inquisition.. honestly.. Mages are BORN, but Templars are MADE. It'd be easier to reign in Templars for future use once the rift is sealed, to handle and reconstruct the circles.
  • The OLD inquisition became the Seekers and Templars as we know them today. It would make sense to pull in the Templars to be apart of the current inquisiton.

AS for Gameplay/Story.

  • Siding with the mages, you have a "vision" of the Old One's Plans, where as with the Templars you kinda discover it as you go. What's more believable, "I went to the future and saw all this" or "Hey, I found these documents..."
  • Calpernia makes for a great Rival, and you planting the seeds of doubt in her mind was amazing. Samson merely obeys while he's waiting to die.

Theres compelling reasons for both sides, and not just the reasons that end with "well you then find out later..." such as the Lord Seeker having been a demon. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 17:37, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

You do make good points for both sides but I will add a few comments:
  • Most of the Templars were forced to take red lyrium.
  • There are a few indications on the dodgy behavior of both Lucius and Fiona, for instance Cassandra's comments and the evasive answer Fiona gives when you ask if she is proposing an alliance were she only say that she want you to go to Redcliff.
  • That Alexius used time-magic is not a really viable excuse as this only meant that he got there first to propose an "alliance", not that he by any way forced the mages to accept it.
  • And it is "The Elder One", just to be nitpicking... Caspoi (talk) 19:48, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
The rank-and-file Templars were tricked or forced into taking Red Lyrium. Their leaders chose to take it. However, I doubt they knew the long-term consequences of taking Red Lyrium at first. It's also unclear exactly how the Elder One convinced the Templars commanders into taking Red Lyrium. Samson obviously knew everything from the start, but he wasn't a Knight-Commander or anything (and he possibly wasn't even part of the order at the time). Lucius made a deal with the Envy Demon, which then had the Knight-Vigilant killed, but how did it convenience the rest of the order to take Red Lyrium? Seekers don't use Lyrium, and they aren't even technically in charge of the Templars. Did he just go "lookit this new super lyrium, try it, its way better, just don't tell nobody, m'kay?"
Fiona is probably evasive because she's the rebel mage leader in Val Royeaux. That is the real Fiona, it is just not the same real Fiona they meet at Recliffe. Because time travel. Silver Warden (talk) 21:20, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
I believe that even among the commanders there were some who were forced to take it, and some who ook it willingly, either unaware of the consequences or as co-conspirators. The Fiona in Val Royeaux is no the real Fiona (or if she is then the developers failed massively by making this great plot-hole) because if it had been time-travel then no one, not you, not your companions, no one would remember the meeting and not just Fiona because it had effectively not taken place. Caspoi (talk) 21:29, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
Fiona is the (well, a) real Fiona in Val Royeaux. Technically you are right and the developers fell for time traveler's plot hole paradox. But that's a common time travel trope. The same could be said of the Inquisitor's and Dorian's memories of the Days of a Dragon Age Future Past. They undid Alexius's trap so the the Elder One never took over, so they never wound up in a future Redcliffe. All that "really" happened is that Alexius's spell failed.
But that's not how the story portrays it because time travel. You could make the argument that the Fiona in Val Royeaux is from a parallel universe that got sent the Inquisitor's universe for some reason (because magic). I prefer to think of it as because time travel. If you think about the consequences of time travel too hard the whole plot fall apart. Fort starters, why wouldn't the Elder One simply send assassins to kill the Inquisitor the instant he/she stepped out of the Fade? There's a codex entry you can find which explains that the Breach prevents time travel to any time prior to its creation, but even then time travel is such a powerful tool that the Elder One really should use it for everything. Failed to kill the Inquisitor at Haven? Time travel. Lost the ::SPOILER:: to the Inquisition at Adamant? Time travel. The Inquisitor thwarted ::SPOILER::'s plot at the Winter Palace? Time Travel. Didn't reach the ::SPOILER:: in the ::SPOILER:: in the Arbor Wilds before the Inquisitor? Time travel. And the Elder One may as well use time travel to kill Cullen, Leliana, Josephine, and all of the Inquisitor's companions. Time travel is such a crazily OP'd ability if used to it's fullest extent. I don't blame the developers for not following up on its every causal ramification. Time travel by its very definition defies causality. Silver Warden (talk) 22:54, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Ideally templars would like to see themselves as Cassandra puts it, "the templars stand not as the jailors of mages, but as protectors of the innocent." But that's not what the templars are. How can they stand as justice for all when their mandate is to oppress and slaughter indiscriminately a sect of people the moment the templars feel they lost control of the mages? And I'm not talking about abominations and all that, I'm talking about insubordination and defiance. Sure one can make the argument that some among the order are good people who follow their conscience. But not every templar is good. Perhaps a majority of them are just junkie thugs. And as Cole says " Not all, but enough. The good templars were too afraid to stop the others." How many templars lose themselves to their addiction and kill anyone their lyrium supplier tells them to? The chantry or templars so corrupt that all they care about is consolidating power and everyone accepts it because that is what "stability" means. And I hate that some of them gloat at the general populace's hatred for and fear of mages because it glorifies their duties as mage hunters. For better or worse, at least the Seekers aren't leashed in the same manner and the templar order can become seekers depending on the Inquisition. And seekers could possibly become something more promising and good. But if all you want are addicted thugs and mage hunters, leashed to you through their addiction, templars are also the way to go. (Sports72Xtrm (talk) 22:45, March 9, 2015 (UTC))

I don't think that you read the OP's first sentence... Caspoi (talk) 12:02, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
So the templars are above criticism? Obviously if the OP can't find a reason to recruit the templars as is, there is something about them as is that is bothering them but does not scorn them enough to wash his or her hands of them. So one can only conclude that they want to reform the order to something better, and that requires considering criticism. So sick of people fronting impartiality to slander other people and detract from the truth.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 22:34, March 10, 2015 (UTC))
I think all Caspoi meant was you're preaching yo the choir (from the OP's standpoint). Silver Warden (talk) 03:42, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

There's a couple reasons to pick templars over mages (and this is coming from someone who is generally pro-mage). First, every culture in Thedas outside of the dwarves has a cultural aversion to magic. It's strongly true of both the Andrastian and Qunari cultures, and the human anti-mage prejudice has filtered out into the alienage elven culture (which is somewhere between purely Andrastian and syncretic of both Andrastianism and what's remembered about the elven religion). Even the Dalish, who are about as pro-mage a culture in this setting, have hard limits about how many mages a clan can have at any one time. If they have more than that, they're supposed to abandon them. That's how they get around the "too many mages in one place" problem that necessitates (or explains, at any rate) the Rite of Tranquility. Second, and related to the first, is that the templars are a much, much easier sell to the political structures of Southern Thedas. Orlais is the beating heart of the Chantry, and quite a few of the clerics and nobles think that the templars were justified in rebelling against the soft-hearted Divine Justinia. Some of that it politics, but some of that is genuine religious/ideological disagreement. And that says nothing of the generally pretty pious common people. Either way, people were used to having the templars be part of the existing power structures, whereas siding with the mages really upsets the apple cart. Better the devil you know. Luper567 (talk) 14:08, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

I finally have my own reason. I find becoming a brainwashed mutated zombie slave is more terryfying fate than becoming only a brainwashed slave. I don't wish my worst enemy becoming an inhuman monster.Andrzej.lewinski.351 (talk) 16:55, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.