176 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

From a pragmatic point of view, the mages are a vital military asset for the coming war against the Qunari, as well as any future blights. We can't afford to be rid of them, even if we want to.

[RyuStrife]

I saved the mages. Of course fighting Meredith added to another reason for it being a GOOD idea. It has been proven through her- No one is safe and everyone is able to be possessed by something. Do I really have to point out how she went God mode on us at the end due to a pure Lyrium object in her possession?

In short- She was only trying to keep control for her mad power. It has been proven if she would of kept things civil most of the Mages and her own Templar's wouldn't of went off to attempt to rebel. Yes... Some mages will be evil/bad just like some non-mages would. Its a nature.

[RyuStrife]

Badpie wrote...

Having done both, I felt like the honorable thing to do was side with the mages. Both sides have their faults (namely their leaders), but with the mages, you're defending rather than assaulting. Plus I just couldn't deal with the idea of "some people are bad so we should kill all of them."

^I completely agree. If thats the case we mind as well kill the nobles, am i right?

[fraquar]

Meredith by that time is doing it because she had absolute power anyway, was unchecked and was under the influence of the idol as well. Basically she was a dictator by that point, and anyone questioning that was gonna get rubbed out.

Previous to that the Merideth we knew tolerated Keran upon his return, whereas the end game Merideth would have run him through in a NY minute.

[Bayz]

I think Orsino is a pretty cool guy, eh kills your mom and doesn't afraid of anything

Modifié par Bayz, 01 avril 2011 - 04:03 .

[The Baconer]

Don't blame the mages, blame Act 3's poor writing for giving us such a lop-sided representation of them.

[frylock23]

IMO by the end of the game, you can put Meredith right up there alongside such historical greats as Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin. She has absolute power and she has her vision of what should be. There is nothing to stop her from achieving that vision over a mound of bodies if need be, and she's perfectly willing to go there. I wish they hadn't given her the idol because I think it would have been far more effective had she just gone over the deep end in dictatorial style all by her crazy little self. In a way, giving her the idol only lets you justify or excuse her willingness to resort to the extremes that an honest person knew were always just bubbling there beneath the surface. She may have rejected Alrik's Tranquil Solution, but I'll bet she only did so because she knew the Divine had (or would) rejected the idea and that was a check on her power at the time.

And for the mages, while I can understand where the plague of blood magic and demon summoning came from, I cannot excuse it. They knew when they stepped down that path that it was the wrong one, and it wasn't like any of the templars were standing there actively forcing them to do it. A drug addict may be at the mercy of the drug, but that very first time he takes a hit, he does so by his choice. All the circumstances surrounding the act can't change right to wrong or vice versa. My sympathies therefore lie with the mages who choose to stand by Orsino and wound up slaughtered. They made the right choices in the face of unspeakable pressures right up until the end, and that's the truest test of character. They died clean, and the ones who ran also presumably lived or died clean.

And I think that the Chantry really needs to re-examine that little verse from the Maker about magic. It says was meant to serve man, not rule him. You can apply that on a couple different levels, but neither of them should lead to the conclusion that magic must condemn man which is the position of every mage in Kirkwall. If you are a mage there, you are guilty until proven innocent, and that kind of position often creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[LobselVith8]

AxelBat wrote...

Okay, so I've played this game through three times now, twice siding with the mages and once against... and I found I felt most satisfied when siding against the mages!

This game FEELS like a game in which I'm supposed to side with the mages, I mean I either side with the mages and help them rebel or I side against them and the mages rebel anyway, plus they hate Hawke afterwards, so the game definitely pushes me in the mage's directions, or at least tries to.

I don't agree that the storyline pushes Hawke towards the mages. There seemed to be quite a few instances in the conclusion of Act II and throughout Act III where the writers forced Hawke to go against mages, regardless of whether it made any sense or not. You had mages attacking you as a lackey of Meredith even when Hawke was an apostate who publicly denounced her before the crowd and sided with First Enchanted Orsino. Then you had Orsino being "recycled" into a Harvester at the end because, apparently, Quentin discovered the secrets of the lost thaig of Amgarrak (I'm assuming a wizard did it).

AxelBat wrote...

Here is my question though, WHY?!? Maybe in Fereldon I would feel sorry for the mages, in fact I did, but I find myself hating the mages in Kirkwall. All they do is whine about how they are oppressed because some mages are bad, and they insist that most mages aren't that way, and then immediately after insisting this they use blood magic and become abominations!

You mean they didn't want to be forced into servitude? Or how you had a mage like Alain reveal that he was being raped by a templar? Or how you had Karl beg to be killed instead of being forced to live the rest of his life as a "templar puppet"? And how many mages use blood magic specifically, out of the hundreds or thousands of mages who we never encounter because they're imprisoned in the Gallows?

AxelBat wrote...

Even Anders, who claims that fighting with force only concretes the hate, blows up the damn chantry! WHAT THE HELL? Then Orsino seems decent enough, and you're like "Cool, this dude is fighting it the right way, he knows what's up." Then BAM! Giant fat abomination thing. FFFFFFFFfff

The Orsino scene is another example of DA2 "recycling," much like the identical caves and caverns that we repeatedly encounter. We're basically forced to fight the antagonist of GoA again. As for Anders, he made it clear that he wanted to put an end to the slavery of the mages.

AxelBat wrote...

I don't understand the motivation. I WANT to feel compelled to help the mages... but I just can't. They prove that they are betrayers and maleficar at every corner you turn.

And the templars who rape, torture, force tranquility, and murder prove trustworthy?

AxelBat wrote...

The templars are actually pretty cool. Besides general enemies, the only 'bad' templars in the game are Meredith and the one that you have to do the side quest for Anders to meet. Other then that the templars seem to be general soldiers doing their jobs, and at least two major templar characters sympathize with the mages. Plus Cullin, Cullin saves the whole thing.

I couldn't side with the templars who were going to follow orders to commit genocide against every man, woman, and child of magical ability.

AxelBat wrote...

What do you guys think? Why save them? Why help them? Do you think it's worth it to risk another Tevinter Imperium? If there are redeeming qualities... what are they? Because I just don't see them.

Sorry if this has been discussed, I did go a few pages back and didn't see anything.

The nation of Rivain, the Chasind tribes, and the Daish clans have free mages, and none of them are a repeat of the Tevinter Imperium. Personally, I side with the mages of Kirkwall. People shouldn't be blamed for the actions of a few.

[Camenae]

Sigh not this again. Neither side is *completely* right or *completely* wrong, and that was the whole point of the writing, good or not.

If people can understand that Orsino wasn't thinking rationally because his family was murdered in front of him, why can't people understand that Hawke might not be completely neutral and 100% rational either, having seen that note of enthusiastic support signed "O" in the killer's den? Especially since that's not the only reason that a Hawke might turn against the mages, but I really don't want to get into that right now.

If A knew B was going to kill my mother, but A protected B due to another agenda...noble or not, I'm going to want to kill A. When things get personal, people aren't neutral. Not saying a Hawke who sided with the Templars just because of his mother's murder is justified or right, but I'd understand how he got there. For the same reason I understand why Orsino flipped out.

I can totally see why people would side with Mages because the sister is in the Circle and side with the Templars because the brother is a Templar. You can talk big ideas to people all you want, but at the end of the day most of them are concerned first and foremost with saving them and theirs, and I can't fault them for that.

[RyuStrife]

Camenae wrote...

Sigh not this again. Neither side is *completely* right or *completely* wrong, and that was the whole point of the writing, good or not.

If people can understand that Orsino wasn't thinking rationally because his family was murdered in front of him, why can't people understand that Hawke might not be completely neutral and 100% rational either, having seen that note of enthusiastic support signed "O" in the killer's den? Especially since that's not the only reason that a Hawke might turn against the mages, but I really don't want to get into that right now.

If A knew B was going to kill my mother, but A protected B due to another agenda...noble or not, I'm going to want to kill A. When things get personal, people aren't neutral. Not saying a Hawke who sided with the Templars just because of his mother's murder is justified or right, but I'd understand how he got there. For the same reason I understand why Orsino flipped out.

I can totally see why people would side with Mages because the sister is in the Circle and side with the Templars because the brother is a Templar. You can talk big ideas to people all you want, but at the end of the day most of them are concerned first and foremost with saving them and theirs, and I can't fault them for that.

Well said. I agree with that; After I heard him mention Quentin I was like '...You know what? Forget saving mages in this damned town I am merking you ALL!'. It's all about nessceity of the characters needs and survival.

I agree, Templars DO have a good point and reason for some of their actions. As far monitoring mages as do Mages for the **** they put up against. While one is more so being ****ted on as far as their situation their both equally at fault.

I mean the fact they KNEW they could call on a demon for protection lowers their credibility for me a bit... Especially since 'Demon made me do it!' isn't a nice excuse...

[Raanz]

 I've played through the game twice, once as a warrior and once as a mage.  I picked siding with the mages both times.  The first time with the warrior, I just felt that not all mages were bad, and Meredith was abusing her position and her power, especially in the absence of a Viscount.   The second time with my mage, just because I played him as a total dick, but I was still appalled at Anders actions and snuffed him out (surprisingly satisfied at doing so).

I'm going to start another play through either with a rogue or another warrior and purposely go with the templars.  My dilema with this though, is the chance I will lose Bethany and Merrill's loyalty.  I'm going to shoot for Isabela for any romance so I'm not worried about that.

In keeping with this topic though, I was wondering why you would choose the Templars?  Meredith seems like a biatch from the start, lording over her minions and the Circle with an iron fist...she just seems like a tyrant that I wouldn't want to associate with in real life.

[RyuStrife]

Raanz wrote...
In keeping with this topic though, I was wondering why you would choose the Templars?  Meredith seems like a biatch from the start, lording over her minions and the Circle with an iron fist...she just seems like a tyrant that I wouldn't want to associate with in real life.

Mm. I agree. Though have you ever seen Jumpers?

If so remember how they were being hunted and Samuel L. Jackson stated 'No one deserves the power of a god?' maybe some Templars believe that? Being powerless their mind and imagination spreads farther than Mages realize. This might cause Templars to see Meredith is right that these bastards need to be chain, whipped, and constricted like Qunari mages!! ...

Of course I feel for the mages... They already are 'In reality' slaves.

[Lord Gremlin]

I always play a total monster, as evil as possible. The only disappointment - and a huge one - for me was the simple fact that mages all were way too DUMB to see that Hawke is a blood mage, hating Chantry and templars.
And don't get me started on Orsino thing. I mean, how could he be that stupid?

[sphinxess]

Raanz wrote...

 I've played through the game twice, once as a warrior and once as a mage.  I picked siding with the mages both times.  The first time with the warrior, I just felt that not all mages were bad, and Meredith was abusing her position and her power, especially in the absence of a Viscount.   The second time with my mage, just because I played him as a total dick, but I was still appalled at Anders actions and snuffed him out (surprisingly satisfied at doing so).

I'm going to start another play through either with a rogue or another warrior and purposely go with the templars.  My dilema with this though, is the chance I will lose Bethany and Merrill's loyalty.  I'm going to shoot for Isabela for any romance so I'm not worried about that.

In keeping with this topic though, I was wondering why you would choose the Templars?  Meredith seems like a biatch from the start, lording over her minions and the Circle with an iron fist...she just seems like a tyrant that I wouldn't want to associate with in real life.

I've tried to side with the templars during the game to see what happens - I just can't do it - and its weak writing to spare us the actual horror of a anullment by allowing you the option to save any innocent mages as you go along  - thats not what a annulment does...

Cullen is said by some to be a hero to actually stand up to Meredith a few times but where was he when the harrowed mages were being made tranquil - thats against chantry law and in western society at least following a illegal order doesn't excuse you

Modifié par sphinxess, 01 avril 2011 - 05:44 .

[Camenae]

I don't agree with the Right of Annullment either (it should not be a right! The game calling it a "right" bothers me), but I don't get why people keep saying it's ALWAYS illegal to make a harrowed mage tranquil. If that's the Chantry's own law, well I guess I don't understand that law then.

The reason I say that is pretty much every position requires someone to be periodically re-evaluated for fitness. So I understand if passing the Harrowing would create a permanent PRESUMPTION against one being made tranquil, but why should it create a permanent IMMUNITY?

I can easily see how someone might not be susceptible to demonic possession at the time of their harrowing, but then circumstances change and they do become dangerous, even though they weren't a danger before. At this point, I think I'd rather make them tranquil than kill them? : /

[hoorayforicecream]

Camenae wrote...

I don't agree with the Right of Annullment either (it should not be a right! The game calling it a "right" bothers me), but I don't get why people keep saying it's ALWAYS illegal to make a harrowed mage tranquil. If that's the Chantry's own law, well I guess I don't understand that law then.

It's called the "Rite of Annulment" in the codex, not "Right". Meredith's invoking of the rite was illegal anyhow. Chantry law requires the approval of one of the Grand Clerics to proceed with the Rite of Annulment. Obviously, Elthina wasn't about to give her approval for it. They hadn't even invoked it on the Ferelden circle; Knight-Commander Gregoire sent away to the Grand Cleric asking for permission to do so and was waiting for a response.

I always kind of wished there was some option to just kill/oust Meredith and not necessarily side with one side or the other... but then that wouldn't have made for a good legend.

[Lord Gremlin]

Kartikeya wrote...

How did I put this before? Okay, imagine that you've grown up in an enclosed place with a group of people (Orsino came to the Circle very young). Those people are the only family you have ever known. Mages are discouraged from any kind of romantic entanglements, and certainly from marriage, and any children they have are taken away immediately after birth. So those people are the only family you will EVER have.

Imagine that the place you live in is little more than a prison, and, as the years go by, starts to make prison look a little flowery by comparison. The people who are supposed to be protecting and watching out for you treat you like you're less than human, abuse your family right and left (and probably you too), kill or lobotomize your family for the slightest infractions, and can get away with literally just about anything and no one outside your family cares about it, and your family is powerless to make it stop. You're taught that, simply by an accident of birth, you're an offense to the Maker. You're treated like a freak.

You live in a place where the Veil is incredibly thin. This means that the temptations that are normally hard to resist for your kind are much much much worse for you and your family. You can't escape it. You can't go somewhere somewhat less tormenting, because the Powers That Be have decreed you have to live in this place. By the way, this place is where they used to execute and torture slaves by the hour, and is still lovingly decorated by statues depicting it. If you try to escape, you'll be hunted down and killed.

Somehow, you survive, you grow up, you become the leader of your family. Now everything is worse. You're the 'leader', but you still have no voice. You're responsible for their safety, but the most you can do is occasionally try a desperate appeal to the Grand Cleric, but you only dare do this when things have become unbearable, because a mage that makes too much trouble ends up dead or worse. Meanwhile, that person in charge of the people who are supposed to protect you, your jailors and abusers, keeps making things worse and worse. It gets bad enough that some of your jailors start helping some of your family escape. It gets bad enough that people who normally turn a blind eye to the mage and templar problem are actively harboring apostates and helping them get away. It gets bad enough that a man sent to Kirkwall specifically because he was too abusive and extreme for the Ferelden Circle stops and goes 'uh, hey, this is getting a little out of hand...'

Then the worst happens. Meredith wants to Yet Again push the limits of what she's allowed to do to you and your family. And yet again, despite now being under house arrest, you risk yourself to go to the Chantry to beg the Grand Cleric to make Meredith stop. But some crazy apostate blows up the Chantry. He destroys your one hope of stopping this insanity, because now Meredith is the only one in Kirkwall calling the shots on what happens to you and your family.

...And then Meredith, who is standing right there and knows full well that none of you are responsible for what just happened, declares that she's now going to kill you and every single person in your family. Everyone you have ever known or cared about, children included. Everyone you are responsible for protecting. You beg her not to. You say you'll do anything. You even offer to help her carry out what she wanted to do before, if only she won't murder all of you. She won't listen. She tells you to go prepare your family for the slaughter. Everyone is going to die for something they didn't do, and no one is going to care.

Ah, but one small group of people cares. They're willing to stand with you. It's not nearly enough to fight off the massive numbers of Templars you know Meredith is bringing. Which means that this one small group of people, decent people you barely know, one of whom you know you've wronged because you kept silent on a matter that might have saved their parent, are all going to die too. For trying to help you.

So you send off your family, as many as you can. You tell them to run for their lives and try to survive, because that's all they can hope for now. You have no idea if any of them will. Probably not. Either way, you know you won't ever see them again. Those that stay with you? Get slaughtered in the very first wave. The Templars cut them down without hesitation or remorse, right in front of your eyes. Your new friends hold the line, but you know it can't last. More are coming, and you and everyone are going to die for no reason at all. No one will know what happened. No one will care what happened. You'll be instantly forgotten, because anyone who would have cared to remember will be dead along with you.

What was the point of it all? you wonder. Why would they ever let you live long enough to realize what a hopeless, hopeless, senseless life you were going to have? Why would they let you dream up false hopes that it would ever get better? Was this just a means to make it crueler? And why should you go quietly? What's the point of resisting temptations of power when you're going to be murdered regardless? Why not take a few of them with you when you go? They've made you live in terror your entire life, why not spend your last, pointless moments giving those bastards a reason to fear you? There is literally no reason to keep resisting.

Hm. Explained much better than in game. Which, you know, is ahameful for said game.

[Eollodwyn]

sphinxess wrote...


I've tried to side with the templars during the game to see what happens - I just can't do it - and its weak writing to spare us the actual horror of a anullment by allowing you the option to save any innocent mages as you go along  - thats not what a annulment does...

Cullen is said by some to be a hero to actually stand up to Meredith a few times but where was he when the harrowed mages were being made tranquil - thats against chantry law and in western society at least following a illegal order doesn't excuse you

Letting a pro-Templar player spare some mages did feel like a cop-out.  I imagine it was there to mitigate the guilt some people were going to feel for siding with Templars and knowing some of the people they were killing were innocent, and that's just lame.  If you're going to go through with small-scale genocide (which is what the Rite of Annulment is), then don't half*** it.  It felt cheap. 

I don't know what happened to Cullen.  I guess they wanted to make him a sympathetic character, hoping people would forget that Knight-Commander Greagoir sent him away because he felt he was too radical.  On top of that, he's Meredith's second-in-command, and they want me to believe that he doesn't know about and isn't perhaps participating in the abuses of the mages?  Come on!  He may come off as reasonable at the end, but he's no better than any of the others.

[hoorayforicecream]

Eollodwyn wrote...
 Letting a pro-Templar player spare some mages did feel like a cop-out.  I imagine it was there to mitigate the guilt some people were going to feel for siding with Templars and knowing some of the people they were killing were innocent, and that's just lame.  If you're going to go through with small-scale genocide (which is what the Rite of Annulment is), then don't half*** it.  It felt cheap.  

That's not necessarily true. Hawke does say that they're siding with the templars trying to keep casualties to a minimum. Varric mentions that at least they're trying to stop the mages from running amok, though he doesn't like either side. You might have felt it was cheap, but I felt the middle ground (save as many lives as possible by ending the conflict quickly) is pretty much wrapped up in supporting the templars. 

I don't know what happened to Cullen.  I guess they wanted to make him a sympathetic character, hoping people would forget that Knight-Commander Greagoir sent him away because he felt he was too radical.  On top of that, he's Meredith's second-in-command, and they want me to believe that he doesn't know about and isn't perhaps participating in the abuses of the mages?  Come on!  He may come off as reasonable at the end, but he's no better than any of the others.

That's not necessarily true. Cullen believes that mages need to be strictly regulated, because of what might happen if they are left alone. There's a pretty big jump from "they need to be heavily regulated" to "hey, let's abuse them for the fun of it".

[AshenEndymion]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It's called the "Rite of Annulment" in the codex, not "Right". Meredith's invoking of the rite was illegal anyhow. Chantry law requires the approval of one of the Grand Clerics to proceed with the Rite of Annulment. Obviously, Elthina wasn't about to give her approval for it. They hadn't even invoked it on the Ferelden circle; Knight-Commander Gregoire sent away to the Grand Cleric asking for permission to do so and was waiting for a response.

Meredith's invoking of the rite was not illegal. If it were, Cullen's (and Orsino's) statements would have been to that effect.  They were not.  They were saying such an action was overboard.  Not that they were illegal.

The Chantry likely has a rule of succession that allows the Knight-Commanders to act if there is no Chantry official of the area capable of making the decision.  Since the Chantry of Kirkwall was destroyed, there is no reason to think that any mother or sister survived the explosion. The Knight Commander is likely allowed the leeway, in such instances, to make such decisions until the Divine can appoint a new Grand Cleric.

[sphinxess]

Camenae wrote...

The reason I say that is pretty much every position requires someone to be periodically re-evaluated for fitness. So I understand if passing the Harrowing would create a permanent PRESUMPTION against one being made tranquil, but why should it create a permanent IMMUNITY?

I can easily see how someone might not be susceptible to demonic possession at the time of their harrowing, but then circumstances change and they do become dangerous, even though they weren't a danger before. At this point, I think I'd rather make them tranquil than kill them? : /

I'm grasping here  - but maybe in the past they found threatening a circle mage with tranquility is not a good idea - kinda gets them more upset that the usual things they do as punishment - one of those laws no one remembers the reason for it but its still on the books.

[LobselVith8]

Eollodwyn wrote...

Letting a pro-Templar player spare some mages did feel like a cop-out.  I imagine it was there to mitigate the guilt some people were going to feel for siding with Templars and knowing some of the people they were killing were innocent, and that's just lame.  If you're going to go through with small-scale genocide (which is what the Rite of Annulment is), then don't half*** it.  It felt cheap. 

They ended up sparing three, though... three mages out of hundreds or thousands of mages and apprentices of all ages. I don't think sparing three adults makes up for the slaughter of all the Circle mages for something they are completely innocent of.

[sphinxess]

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...

[quote]Eollodwyn wrote...
 Letting a pro-Templar player spare some mages did feel like a cop-out.  I imagine it was there to mitigate the guilt some people were going to feel for siding with Templars and knowing some of the people they were killing were innocent, and that's just lame.  If you're going to go through with small-scale genocide (which is what the Rite of Annulment is), then don't half*** it.  It felt cheap.  [/quote]

That's not necessarily true. Hawke does say that they're siding with the templars trying to keep casualties to a minimum. Varric mentions that at least they're trying to stop the mages from running amok, though he doesn't like either side. You might have felt it was cheap, but I felt the middle ground (save as many lives as possible by ending the conflict quickly) is pretty much wrapped up in supporting the templars. 

Orsino gives in on all points at the end just begs to not have annulment invoked and is refused <I dont have the exact quote sorry> I guess Hawke can feel happy keeping the few innocent mages alive they run across while Meradiths forces move into the rest of the circle areas.....oh well maybe we can agree its the writing....

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Eollodwyn wrote...

Letting a pro-Templar player spare some mages did feel like a cop-out.  I imagine it was there to mitigate the guilt some people were going to feel for siding with Templars and knowing some of the people they were killing were innocent, and that's just lame.  If you're going to go through with small-scale genocide (which is what the Rite of Annulment is), then don't half*** it.  It felt cheap. 

They ended up sparing three, though... three mages out of hundreds or thousands of mages and apprentices of all ages. I don't think sparing three adults makes up for the slaughter of all the Circle mages for something they are completely innocent of.

They spared 3 on camera. You can choose to interpret this as literally the only mages spared or not, but I remember there being only five or so mages left in DA:O during the Uldred fight. Does that mean that you believe there were only 5 mages left in all of the tower?

I tend to think of those as more of a representative group of unnamed number than a literal number seen. 

[Eollodwyn]

hoorayforicecream wrote...


That's not necessarily true. Hawke does say that they're siding with the templars trying to keep casualties to a minimum. Varric mentions that at least they're trying to stop the mages from running amok, though he doesn't like either side. You might have felt it was cheap, but I felt the middle ground (save as many lives as possible by ending the conflict quickly) is pretty much wrapped up in supporting the templars.

Fair point.  However, even if Hawke were for letting them go, Meredith shouldn't have been. I would have been fine with Hawke arguing with Meredith to let them go, and Meredith killing them anyway.  I felt like much of the game was about extremes, on both sides.  Even the fact that there was no "F*** you both" middle option at the end was about pushing you to extremes; forcing you to wholly support one side or the other, knowing that they were both kind of wrong.  Giving you the chance to spare some of the mages felt like they were suddenly backing away from that idea, and it struck me as cheap.

That's not necessarily true. Cullen believes that mages need to be strictly regulated, because of what might happen if they are left alone. There's a pretty big jump from "they need to be heavily regulated" to "hey, let's abuse them for the fun of it".

  Well, I never figured Cullen for the Ser Alrik type, though I see I probably sounded like I did.  But he had to know about the increased number of Tranquil mages, which is both abusive and illegal.  And I doubt he knew absolutely nothing of how badly the mages were treated.  And wasn't he the one that argued at the end of Broken Circle that any of the mages could be blood mages and they should all be treated accordingly, even though the First Enchanter and Greagoir were both telling him that was too much?  He's no Meredith, I know that, but his behavior in Origins and the DA 2 codex both say that he's not nearly that reasonable when it comes to mages. 

To be fair, he does say he questions Meredith's judgments, so perhaps it's my anti-Templar bias talking.