Talk:Templar Order

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Templar Order article.
General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~) Do not edit another editor's comment.

Precedent set by this page

Starting up a page to discuss the lore elements of templars, mages, and blood mages has come up before, but at time it came up it was decided to keep all the information on page so it would be easier to find. I don't mind if we change that style, but we will need to be consistent. So, would people rather have separate pages discussing the lore elements of classes or continue with the current style. Loleil ^Talk 19:56, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I think this is going to depend on a few things. As you know, there's been discussions for splitting pages, but there was the problem with keeping the lore somewhere along with the split (which has not been resolved yet).

My opinion changes depending on whether templar is a specialization in Dragon Age II (I don't know if it was confirmed). If "templar" becomes a specialization in DAII, I'm in favor of merging this page with Templar, and specialization pages then become (Origins) and (Dragon Age II). If it is not a specialization for DAII, I'm in favor of the statu quo.

For other pages, since blood mage is a confirmed specialization, I'll echo my reply on the forum post: "Blood mage" has the lore information, while the specializations are (Origins) and (Dragon Age II). This is the same for "Mage". Unlike templars, there are no known unified group.

I think this is case-by-case, so I think it's okay if it isn't like the other pages. --D. (talk · contr) 22:57, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is, whether Templar is a specialization in DA2 or not this page should remain separately. Because this page is about the Templar order not the Templar specialization. It is clear that The Templar Order will play a major role in DA2. So we will have a lot of content to add to the Templar Order. If we merge these two pages together, that will end with a page that has all the lore info, story info and spec info in a single page and I think that will be a mess. We don't need to mix Templar specialization with Templar Order; they are clearly two different thing. -- Snfonseka (talk) 02:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I am going to add the above discussion to here to track the issue easily. So please add your comments regarding the issue in that forum. -- Snfonseka (talk) 02:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Knight-Divine and Knight-Vigilant

Given the last interview.. do Knight-Vigilants exist at all? It seems to me that Knight-Divine=Knight-Vigilant? Asherinka (talk) 06:35, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Probably. Or it is maybe another rank above Knight Vigilant. We just need to wait and see. DA3 will probably informs us more about the Order.

Since DG gives us lots of information about the past of the Order, maybe we should add them to the page too. Viktoria Landers (talk) 10:16, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well.. we already did, actually :) At least, some of it. Asherinka (talk) 11:38, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded what was changed in a previous edit since this is confusing. It needs to be clarified by David Gaider himself since we can't decide what is or not the differences (if there are any) between the two. --D. (talk · contr) 12:41, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

The article has been edited recently. Is there any source to back the assumption that the Knight-Vigilant has the authority over Knight-Divine(s)? Henio0 (talk) 18:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Only the Trivia found in the Armor of the Divine Will page. Which however is unsourced so we're back in square one, I think. 19:26, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't heard of anyone mentioning the Knight-Vigilant at the same time as the Knights-Divine to give us any sense of hierarchy. Moreover, the footnote was not modified and therefore suggests that Gaider's Thedas UK interview said this fact, which it does not (it only talks about Knights-Divine and says that they head the Order). At the very least, that needs to be fixed. My recommendation would be to roll back the change unless we know for sure. --R2sMuse (talk) 19:54, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Templar Hierarchy?

So I've been wondering how the hierarchy works for Templars lately. I assumed it followed something like this: Knight-Vigilant Knight(s)-Divine Knight-Commander Knight-Captain(s) Knight-Lieutenant(s) Knight(s) Recruit(s)

Does that sound right? EzzyD (talk) 15:40, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

We don't know for sure. We know that knight-commanders lead templars guarding each of the Circles. All the rest is dubious. It is unclear whether knight-vigilants and knight-divines are separate entities or one and the same, and we have never seen any of them, even in books or comics. Knight-divines are mentioned in an interview, but I have no idea where the information about the knight-vigilant comes from, to be honest. I guess we have to wait for DA3 to come out to learn more. Asherinka (talk) 11:26, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

The Knight-Divine is briefly mentioned in the description for armor chestpiece "Armor of the Divine Will" obtainable from Ruck in the Ortan Thaig during A Paragon of Her Kind. Whether this is the 'head-guy' in charge of the entire Templar Order is unclear, true, which is why I'm making my guess at a possible hierarchy from what names we've been given so far. I look forward to seeing how these possible ranks (and individuals who hold them) may play a part in the upcoming story for DA3. EzzyD (talk) 19:31, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, a nice find) I didn't know that. I think your guess is plausible enough, but we'll have to wait to find out for sure. Asherinka (talk) 19:31, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough :D Seems like a long time to wait for details though.... EzzyD (talk) 19:34, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in late, but seems to me that perhaps the confusion should just be reflected in the wiki? I think the current way it's described is more confusing. The text about the Knight-Vigilant at the beginning is taken directly from the Bioware blog (without citation...) that came out just before DA2 (dated Jan 2011), but the only source I know of for these Knights-Divine, plural, is that David Gaider interview. Perhaps there should be a section on Templar Hierarchy, that includes those various titles and just include a citation for each. To be honest, my feeling is that the Knight-Vigilant info is probably deprecated now. --R2sMuse (talk) 10:41, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

It definitely should be clarified on the page (with citation and all), but we need someone to write this up. I think Knight Divine is actually incorrect, simply because I'll take the more official information against a non-formal interview. Until then, both should be included. ··· d·day! 14:26, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, good point on official vs. unofficial, even if the unofficial is David Gaider himself. My guess is he changed it all when he wrote Asunder. LOL I can take a stab at writing something on this. --R2sMuse (talk) 18:58, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since it is David Gaider, it's taken as official information. It's just that it's informal, so I'm wondering how much it is that he remembers exactly the correct term (e.g., he wasn't sure about the number of origins or something in the same interview, which isn't published like GameInformer or whatever). However, it's conflicting information with more established canonical information. For example, in the past, there was a post on the legacy Dragon Age forums about Dalish having a settlement in Llomerryn (during the development of Dragon Age: Origins), but a dialogue between Isabela and Merrill states that the Dalish have not yet reached the city yet. The information got relocated in the trivia section, as we're unsure if it's still valid information (i.e., it got revised). ··· d·day! 19:08, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Right. That interview is tricky since he also kept switching the name of the Lord Seeker as well, and acknowledged that he was forgetting things! :) Unfortunately, the only Knight-Vigilant ref I can find is that one blog entry; nothing in-game. So it may also be an outlier. I'll just try to include both for now and say something about how "other sources say..." --R2sMuse (talk) 19:39, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Knight-Vigilant is mentioned on Armor of the Divine Will. ··· d·day! 19:47, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's right! From above discussion I was thinking it was a Knight-Divine reference. --R2sMuse (talk) 20:20, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just that awesome :D EzzyD (talk) 20:27, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

LOL :) --R2sMuse (talk) 20:46, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

OK, take a gander at the new edit. Added "templar hierarchy" section, that just basically pulled out what was there already and put it all together, Knight-Vigilant and Knight-Divine included. What was left under "Templars in Thedas" was pretty much about recruitment, so I just renamed that section. The intro section I think I would be inclined to shorten and put some of the rest of that in its own section, perhaps on Duties of Templars, something like that. Most of it was originally drawn verbatim from that Bioware blog, but I think now it could be smoothed out more to flow with the rest. --R2sMuse (talk) 21:04, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. :] The lead should indeed be rewritten if possible; I personally prefer that we have our own version rather than a copy/paste. It will definitely improve the flow of the article. ··· d·day! 21:14, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Just trying to finally do my part for such a well used resource! :) --R2sMuse (talk) 21:22, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Also smoothed out the intro, adding "Duty of a templar" section. --R2sMuse (talk) 11:06, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Templar Recruits

We all know that DA2 featured several Templar Recruits. And Alistair used to be one too. However since he didn't take his vows, he wasn't officially part of the Order -implying- that when someone becomes a full Templar takes the vows. Thus the Templar Recruit rank should not be part of the ranks but mentioned separately. 16:34, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. In DA2 the recruits and Cullen all talk about the ritual taking of vows as well. Not sure where it should go though if it's not really a rank. Maybe in discussion of Templar Hierarchy...? It could mention something about the need to take vows. Interestingly, according to the Chantry Hierarchy codex, only those initiates who want to become templars get martial training, suggesting that some of the Chantry vow-takers become templars. However, templar vows clearly aren't the same as initiate vows, since templars are not bound to be chaste. --R2sMuse (talk) 20:20, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline confusion between Nullification of the Nevarran Accord and final events in DA2

I noticed one portion (namely, The Mage-Templar War) of this page states that the separation, by order of the Lord Seeker, of the Templar Order and Seekers of Truth happened around the same time as the ending scenes of Dragon Age II. I do not believe this is the case. Here is my proof to back up this claim. If I remember correctly, it states in page 412, as the tyrant in question is dictating to his servant/scribe/whatever: "Signed this day of the fortieth year of the Dragon Age, Lord Seeker Lambert van Reeves". Unless I am mistaken with my source citing, I believe that the actual time at which the Kirkwall Chantry explodes (marking Anders as Dragon Age's most popular terrorist XD) takes place a year before the events of Asunder as mentioned elsewhere in the novel. I am still searching for the page to prove this but i am certain that it was either mentioned in passing or dialogue by a supporting character or other in the story. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though. Fallen Angel (talk) 18:14, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the Nevarran Accord was broken in 9:40, but the "end" of the game, i.e. the framing narrative with Varric and Cassandra, is also taking place in 9:40, 3 years after the Kirkwall explosion. Anders blew up the Chantry in 9:37 according to the fact that it was "Year Seven" of the game starting in 9:30. However, the scenes where Cassandra is interrogating Varric are supposed to be taking place a decade after the game started (the whole "rise to power" over a decade thing). Plus Varric also references the separation of the Templars, therefore suggesting that the framing story with Cassandra takes place in 9:40.

Regarding Asunder, the date of the separation is clear, since Lambert's letter in the Epilogue is dated 9:40. However, the timing of the rest of the book's plot has a number of inconsistencies. If you're interested, I discussed some of the evidence once upon a time "here." In short, whenever they reference Kirkwall, they do say "a year ago," but when they talk about the Blight (9:30) and how long it has been since Rhys has seen Wynne, they talk about nine to ten years ago. Also, Pharamond's experiments have been going on five years, ordered by Divine Justinia who was only elected in 9:34. So all of this suggests (to me, anyway) that the main events of the book take place closer to 9:39. --R2sMuse (talk) 20:06, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand now. Though I must admit that I got confused after having finished off Meredith and then reading about Lambert nullifies the Accord and all. Thanks for clearing it up :) Fallen Angel (talk) 18:29, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! I agree that the timing of everything isn't always obvious. You also make me realize that we should probably look at that ref in the page, tho, and make sure "end" of the game is perhaps more clear. --R2sMuse (talk) 19:08, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Fallen Angel (talk) 06:20, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Imperial templars

On Imperial Chantry page the imperial templars are shortly described:

Mages in the Tevinter Circle are controlled by high-ranking magisters instead of templars.

"According to Fenris, templars are controlled by magisters and exist only to enforce the law. It does seem that the Imperial templars must act if a mage crosses the line and uses forbidden magics; they can even use the Right of Annulment. However, where that line is, is unclear since the use of blood magic seems to be common among the upper class, despite being officially forbidden.

Since the restoration of the mageocracy, the templars are under the authority of the magisters and thereby the Circle of Magi. Lambert used to be an Imperial templar and claimed that, in fact, the Templar Order has no power there.

The majority of Imperial templars lack the ability to counter magic. They are primarily soldiers."

On the local page they are mentioned:

"Fenris says the Imperial Chantries in the Tevinter Imperium have their own templars who step in when mages go too far. However, he also mentions that the Magisters wield considerable political influence over the Tevinter templars, although he does not give specifics of how powerful the Magisters' influence is."

Caladrius' bodygaurds may be the imperial templars, but we can't confirm this. Do you think we have enough informations to create a separate page for Imperial Templar Order? FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 19:06, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think we have enough info. A separate paragraph would suffice for now. 22:27, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--R2sMuse (talk) 06:19, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe there will be more info later with DA:I. --Kendira (talk) 10:51, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Then all what remains is waiting for meeting the Imperial templars in Tevinter.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 17:12, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Red Templar Icon

If it turns out the Red Templars have their own heraldry, we must remember to change the icon on the link under the see also section. - 15:55, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Knight-Vigilant vs. Knights-Divine Revisited

This has been discussed above several times in the past with old information, so I wanted to call attention to some more recent information that has arisen about the Templar Order hierarchy. The Knight-Vigilant Trentwatch has resurfaced in DA:I, adding more credence to this person being the head of the Order. However, I just ran across some information on the Templar hierarchy from the Tabletop RPG that says:

THIRD TIER: (KNIGHT-VIGILANT) Commanding a whole nation’s templars, the Knight-Vigilant is at the top of their order’s hierarchy. The Knight-Vigilant has immense power over others in their order, able to field large forces of templars for various operations. The Knight-Vigilant answers to the Chantry’s Grand Cleric in the nation where they have their command.

This suggests that the Knight-Vigilant is head only of a given country's templars, not of the entire Order. By the same token, this person reports to the Grand Cleric, not the Divine. In this way, it sounds like the Knight-Vigilant is in fact below the Knights-Divine who serve the Divine directly. Making all the evidence finally self consistent for once. I can add this to the article, but I wanted a reality check first, since I'm still not 100% on how Tabletop RPG lore fits in the source hierarchy. Thoughts? --R2sMuse (talk) 02:23, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

The Knight-Vigilant is the leader of the entire order (http://blog.bioware.com/2011/01/27/on-templars-raiders-city-guards-and-the-coterie/). The Knights-Divines is more a division of the order with the duty to serve come a Divine's bodyguards, I think. --Virrac (talk) 06:20, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but David Gaider himself also said that the "Knights-Divine" are the heads of the Templar Order. So the issue is murky at best.--R2sMuse (talk) 12:07, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Unless we get a clear confirmation in the game or from one of the developers, it should remain as it is as any conclusion we might come up with is speculation at best. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 08:57, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I suppose we should just ask once and for all.--R2sMuse (talk) 12:07, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Dev Comments on the Inquisition post trespasser

" -HD3 ^(Talk) 23:57, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Is the following information via this edit correct? --Zj24 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

From memory it looks accurate though maybe a little bit editorialized. I'll adjust the wording to be more neutral. Evamitchelle (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's a paraphrase of the end of Asunder, where Cole kills Lambert. It's pretty editorialized, however, and might be best with a change to 'Cole kills Lambert at the end of Asunder' and linking to the novel article? ToshiNama (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Lyrium addiction

The lyrium addiction section needs a bit of an overhaul, given a chunk of it assumes that Alistair used lyrium before becoming a Grey Warden. He specifically states that he didn't in Origins dialogue:

PC: "So you were addicted to this lyrium?"

Alistair: "Thankfully, no. You only start receiving lyrium once you've taken your vows. You don't need lyrium in order to lear the templar talents. Lyrium just makes templar talents more effective."

A bunch of the article probably needs to be reconsidered with this in mind. I'm not sure what the lore implications are for the use of templar talents without lyrium, but it's canonically the way that templar training works. Danlikesblocks (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Since Origins, Gaider has gone on to say that: "Even if Templar magic was recognized as spellcasting, it's not innate to the Templars, if they just stopped taking lyrium eventually they would lose the ability. Although as Alistair proves, they can use the ability for a long time afterwards," which indicates that Alistair did take lyrium but was no longer taking it during Origins. What Alistair says in Origins has also been contradicted in the following games (you do in fact need lyrium to have templar abilities, as Gaider also stated in the quote above), so Alistair's statement seems to be a continuity error. However, I agree that some aspects of the section could be changed. For example "All templars are addicted to lyrium" doesn't seem to be true with regards to Alistair. I think it'd be more accurate to say that all templars take lyrium, and most are addicted to it. Evamitchelle (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Eva. 'All Templars take lyrium to access their abilities. Lyrium is an addictive substance' or something along those lines. It seems to be an issue for Templars who take it over an extended period of time more than one dose, though we also see evidence from Samson that some Templars are just...more addicted and seek ways to get extra lyrium, beyond what they need to do their duties. ToshiNama (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this something that could potentially be re-opened for discussion? Because while Gaider's interview does indirectly imply Alistair was taking lyrium, in the very next passage he also says:

I think part of that was just the requirements of gameplay, for us to have a specialization as well, so some of that story doesn't quite match up with the gameplay, and I think eventually we'd like to work the lyrium requirement back into the gameplay as well.

Given that Alistair directly states he's never taken lyrium in game, I think taking Gaider's comment as a hard confirmation that Alistair did in fact take lyrium is a bit misleading, especially given how he immediately follows up the satement with admitting that the gameplay didn't match lore. This may also just be me, but I find it strange how he words the statment— it seems to imply that we were supposed to know that Alistair had taken lyrium? He doesn't say "while Alistair said he didn't take lyrium, he must have at some point", or anything acknowledging it was a retcon to his story. It reads more like Gaider just straight up thought that was Alistair's backstory in-game (I imagine they went through several revisions of his origin to try to fix the lore-gameplay mismatch) and then immediately acknowledges that it isn't a perfect fix and they'll do better in the future.

No matter what, Alistair's templar abilities have been retconned in ways that makes him a weird exception to the rules— either he's a templar who didn't need lyrium to use his abilities, or he's a templar who took lyrium once, never got addicted to it, never suffered the painful withdrawal, and yet can somehow years later still use his lyrium-granted abilities with zero issue, as is shown in Dragon Age: Those Who Speak.

I believe the most impartial conclusion wouldn't be to suggest that Alistair is confirmed to have taken lyrium (something never said or even implied in-universe), but that he is the only known templar who does not need to be actively taking lyrium in order to use their abilities. Whether that means he never took it, or that he is simply no longer taking it, is left up for interpretation since the evidence is inconclusive, and lore is contradicted either way.

I'd propose moving all these facts down to either the trivia about Alistair, or perhaps a new notes section:

• Alistair states in DAO that he never took lyrium, and that templars don't need lyrium to use their abilities
• Gaider later implied in an interview that Alistair may have previously taken lyrium, and that templars can still use their abilities for a long time after stopping lyrium
• Gaider admits the DAO implementation of templars and lyrium use was largely because of gameplay restrictions for the specialization, and doesn't match up with the story.

I also think it's appropriate to just outright remove the conjecture about the Blight "drowning out" the lyrium song, since that's never been implied in-game, to my knowledge? I'd need sources on that theory, or else I think it's too editorial to include, especially in the main body paragraph. Thoughts? NotYourParadigm (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on removing part about Blight drowning out lyrium addiction without a source. I'm a bit unclear as to what changes you want to make to this page though. Do you want the new notes/trivia about Alistair to go on this page or his own? Also not to quibble but going by the snippet of dialogue above, Alistair only implies that he never took lyrium. What he directly denies is being addicted to lyrium. But I'm fine with changing the wording to: "he is the only known templar who does not need to be actively taking lyrium in order to use their abilities" or similar so that people can draw their own conclusions. Evamitchelle (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In the Lyrium Addiction section, right now there is a large editorial paragraph with very few references, devoted almost entirely to trying to prove that daily use of lyrium isn't needed at all, using Alistair as the key evidence.

• "Ritual imbibing of the lyrium is meant to stave off the hunger pangs" — this is just entirely incorrect; the daily lyrium is confirmed as what's needed to deny magic by other sources, it's not just to satisfy cravings.
• "but since the first infusion of lyrium used in the initial ritual is so concentrated, it is assumed that trained templars are able to utilize their powers for at least a year with diminishing effectiveness over time." — this section cites the Way of the Templar codex, but codex itself never says that the first infusion of lyrium will let them use their abilities for a year. This is only "shown" in Alistair's case of having his abilities, with the assumption that Alistair did at some point take lyrium.
• "The most successful templars learn to ration their lyrium dosages to delay it from consuming their minds and endure the pain of lyrium withdrawal. Those that can't quit lyrium eventually become lyrium addled simpletons." — this is also just obvious editorialization with no sources provided. I don't believe we've ever heard or read anywhere that there are templars who consciously ration their lyrium to balance hunger pangs and the sickness from over-exposure, because the daily lyrium they take isn't just to quell the hunger pangs.

Most of this content can be scrapped, in my opinion. As per Gaider's comment, Alistair is essentially confirmed as the exception to the rules because of gameplay, and the tangent about his strange case isn't quite appropriate to be included in the "Templar Order/Lyrium Addiction" section, since Alistair does not undergo lyrium addiction, and his even taking lyrium is inconclusive. I think it's fine to include as trivia at the bottom, and keep the main body to confirmed lore. NotYourParadigm (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Those changes sound good to me. Evamitchelle (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried my best to explain it as comprehensively as possible but it might be a little too wordy now, feel free to take a look and edit if needed. NotYourParadigm (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Known Members --> Notable Members?

Right now it seems as if the page is acting both as an introduction to the Templar Order, as well as serving as an exhaustive list of every known / mentioned templar in lore, which is taking up a huge portion of the page. Would it be appropriate to trim this down only to the most notable members, as we do with most other factions? If we want to still include an exhaustive list, it might be helpful to do something similar to Orlesian royalty and nobility, where we make a new page and move both the Templar Heirarchy section and list all known members by their rank (if known). NotYourParadigm (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I also think it'd be better to keep only major characters on this page with a separate page for the complete list, as we do with Grey Wardens#Notable Grey Wardens and Grey Warden membership. I'd keep the hierarchy section on this page though. We should also think about doing the same with the Inquisition page. Evamitchelle (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'll get started on both. Feel free to add / remove to whatever list of "notable" members I start with, since I'll probably just do a quick and dirty first pass instead of trying to have the best list the first try. NotYourParadigm (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)