I mostly look at it from the viewpoint, the templars are trained to resist the magic while the mages not so much. The game claims if the templars can prepare then they're practically impossible to harm by a mage which unfortunately never actually happens in the game with the cap on the mental resistances and such. Still, if this ability is taken into account and treated as real, then they just make a potentially better anti-magic force (be it against mages or abomination) than the mages do.
Jowan was a suspected blood mage. There were several Templars sent to apprehend him. He takes them out with a single spell.
The game exaggerates the abilities of many different classes playing up the lore aspect of it all. You shouldn't take everything you 'learn' at face value. I imagine if they had simply attacked Jowan before he had a chance to they would have been able to defeat him but that's true of almost everyone.
(then there's also this potential issue with plain numbers. Considering an abomination is clearly out of league of single mage/templar, then putting mages prone to failure under wings of more experienced mage/other individual isn't going to help much shall they actually fail, and there's no guarantee they won't fail, after all. Given this, a system where you have say, dozen mages and dozen experienced people to watch them over --and hoping you won't have to deal with more than single abomination at once which is rather reasonable since demons don't seem to invade in large numbers on their own-- makes sense from practical standpoint. More than rather implausible system where each individual student is assigned dozen supervisors just so they can deal with the potential trouble. But then it is very much the way the Circles are set up. Hmm)
No. A single abomination is out of the league of a single templar. Mages seemed capable of holding their own against them and even able to form small bands throughout the tower to fight them back. We're even introduced to Wynne and her apprentices defeating an attacking rage demon and we witness several blood mages battling an abomination. It seems magic was the best weapon against them afterall.
Why do you keep demanding a 100% success rate from mages when your precious Templar's don't have anywhere near that?
I really didn't get such impression from how it was discussed in the game. Certainly, no mage pointed out such possibility. The way it was talked about it seemed more like, the demons are attracted to the mages both when in Fade and if they manage to get out of it, and they try to take them over very much like they try to take over other living being. Whether they succeed is pretty much down to individual strength of will of the mage vs strength of the demon, and very little else.
In every instance the mage must invite the demon in. Uldred has to torture them in order to get them to accept the possession. In other words he has to compromise their decision making process through high stress situations. Some demons go the trickery route but that doesn't seem effective on anyone over 12 or who isn't already in a weakened emotional/mental state (like the templar in that desire demon's thrall)
I don't really agree with it because it is also not unusual for a person to develop self-depreciating attitude on their own rather than have it beaten into their heads by someone else.
Not it isn't. There is always some external force reminding said individual they are weak/worthless/immoral/what have you. Especially when it reaches the level of where that mage is at.
So as long as we aren't actually shown cases where such external indoctrination does take place, and also given how things were worded, i'd consider it basic case of applying Occam's razor -- that is, not introducing theoretical factors beyond what's necessary to provide a working explanation.
Why do people who don't know how to apply Occam's razor always end up being the first people to try and apply it to arguments?