945 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Urazz]

Torax wrote...

Think about it Lob. As I'm sure you're quick to support Ian on it. It's idiotic to think that so many Circles would still revolt. Especially if word gets out that a new Stable Circle arose from the chaos. One where a Knight Commander and the Champion who cut down Meredith themselves as the new First Enchanter working with Cullen. This is the opposite of what they need. Most wouldn't know who the hell Anders was cause he died. All they'd know is that a chantry exploded cause of magic and a crazy lady who died was trying annul the circle. Not all were killed and a new Circle arose within in a week or so. That is idiotic to think as a possible end result. It is silly at best and works against the whole Mage/Templar chaos that they need coming out of it. Why you can be Viscount but a Circle there has to be either rebelled or pretty much destroyed. It cannot be stable...

Problem is that regardless of which side you take.  Some mages escape the Circle of Kirkwall duirng this slaughter and spread the tale to other circles.  Even though you have a more humane Right of Annulment happen and spare mages that surrender and don't use Blood Magic or summon demons, that Right of Annulment was called for all the wrong reasons.  The Circle wasn't responsible for the destruction of the Chantry, an apostate was.

With that story being circulated to the other Circles, can you blame them for rebelling against the Chantry and Templars?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Urazz wrote...

Torax wrote...

Think about it Lob. As I'm sure you're quick to support Ian on it. It's idiotic to think that so many Circles would still revolt. Especially if word gets out that a new Stable Circle arose from the chaos. One where a Knight Commander and the Champion who cut down Meredith themselves as the new First Enchanter working with Cullen. This is the opposite of what they need. Most wouldn't know who the hell Anders was cause he died. All they'd know is that a chantry exploded cause of magic and a crazy lady who died was trying annul the circle. Not all were killed and a new Circle arose within in a week or so. That is idiotic to think as a possible end result. It is silly at best and works against the whole Mage/Templar chaos that they need coming out of it. Why you can be Viscount but a Circle there has to be either rebelled or pretty much destroyed. It cannot be stable...

Problem is that regardless of which side you take.  Some mages escape the Circle of Kirkwall duirng this slaughter and spread the tale to other circles.  Even though you have a more humane Right of Annulment happen and spare mages that surrender and don't use Blood Magic or summon demons, that Right of Annulment was called for all the wrong reasons.  The Circle wasn't responsible for the destruction of the Chantry, an apostate was.

With that story being circulated to the other Circles, can you blame them for rebelling against the Chantry and Templars?

I can. Especially if the other Circle took the word of a mage, who escaped said annulment, at face value. You don't think that mage would be a tiny bit biased in his recollection of the annulment?

[Benchmark]

Joy Divison wrote...

What I do not understand is why the option exists to show mercy to the mages which surrendered. If the Right of Annulment has been invoked, don't they have to die? How is this up for debate?

I am not really sure, but I am really glad that it does exist. I supported the Mages on my first play through. I had been seeing blood mages in every closet through Act 3, so I didn't think they were all innocent. I didn't want to support them, but I had been shoehorned into so many events leading up to it, that I was afraid if I didn't support the mages I was going to have to play through killing my sister in the courtyard and downing apprentices like unwanted kittens.

When I read on the forums that you actually can force the RoA to be less extreme and save your sister in the end, I went ahead and tried it and was very pleased. That path actually seems like a win for the moderates, with Cullen taking a stand for mages right to live and not be judged without evidence.

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

Think about it Lob. As I'm sure you're quick to support Ian on it. It's idiotic to think that so many Circles would still revolt. Especially if word gets out that a new Stable Circle arose from the chaos. One where a Knight Commander and the Champion who cut down Meredith themselves as the new First Enchanter working with Cullen. This is the opposite of what they need. Most wouldn't know who the hell Anders was cause he died. All they'd know is that a chantry exploded cause of magic and a crazy lady who died was trying annul the circle. Not all were killed and a new Circle arose within in a week or so. That is idiotic to think as a possible end result. It is silly at best and works against the whole Mage/Templar chaos that they need coming out of it. Why you can be Viscount but a Circle there has to be either rebelled or pretty much destroyed. It cannot be stable...

Who said the new circle would be stable?  Your don't last three years as Viscount.  I see no reason why a new circle (and Cullen would try to establish a new circle...that's SOP as Gregoire explains) would be stable, but it makes sense that Cullen would reach for the one mage he could trust to lead it, and given a pro-templar Mage-Hawke, that would be the Champion.  I can easily say after a year, the champion saying, "This sucks" (esp if there is a full revolt) and leaving.  I don't think the Templars could do much to stop it, phylactery or no.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I can. Especially if the other Circle took the word of a mage, who escaped said annulment, at face value. You don't think that mage would be a tiny bit biased in his recollection of the annulment?

You are just biased against mages.  There is no reason why the other circles wouldn't take the refugee's word on it especially considering Meredith's preexisting reputation.  Also, there is no capturing of mages in a RoA.  All mages that you think you capture are actually made tranquil.

Also remember that the circles (yes all of them) were on the knife edge of openly revolting less than six years prior, and the only reason they didn't was because they were afraid the chantry would kill them all rather than let them go.  Now they realize that the Chantry either wants to kill them all anyway, or doesn't care if they live or die (not even enough to discipline and regulate their own clearly out of control Knight Commander).  That being so, there is nothing left to lose.  There is nothing more dangerous than a group of people with intrinsic power that sincerely believe they have nothing left to lose....

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

What I do not understand is why the option exists to show mercy to the mages which surrendered. If the Right of Annulment has been invoked, don't they have to die? How is this up for debate?

I am not really sure, but I am really glad that it does exist. I supported the Mages on my first play through. I had been seeing blood mages in every closet through Act 3, so I didn't think they were all innocent. I didn't want to support them, but I had been shoehorned into so many events leading up to it, that I was afraid if I didn't support the mages I was going to have to play through killing my sister in the courtyard and downing apprentices like unwanted kittens.

When I read on the forums that you actually can force the RoA to be less extreme and save your sister in the end, I went ahead and tried it and was very pleased. That path actually seems like a win for the moderates, with Cullen taking a stand for mages right to live and not be judged without evidence.

You can't though.  All mages that surrender to the templars during a RoA are made tranquil.  This is per DG.  The ability to allow mages to surrender was put in to make you feel better, but the circle mage's fate is sealed...presumably even your sister's.

-Polaris

[Benchmark]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Torax wrote...

Think about it Lob. As I'm sure you're quick to support Ian on it. It's idiotic to think that so many Circles would still revolt. Especially if word gets out that a new Stable Circle arose from the chaos. One where a Knight Commander and the Champion who cut down Meredith themselves as the new First Enchanter working with Cullen. This is the opposite of what they need. Most wouldn't know who the hell Anders was cause he died. All they'd know is that a chantry exploded cause of magic and a crazy lady who died was trying annul the circle. Not all were killed and a new Circle arose within in a week or so. That is idiotic to think as a possible end result. It is silly at best and works against the whole Mage/Templar chaos that they need coming out of it. Why you can be Viscount but a Circle there has to be either rebelled or pretty much destroyed. It cannot be stable...

Problem is that regardless of which side you take.  Some mages escape the Circle of Kirkwall duirng this slaughter and spread the tale to other circles.  Even though you have a more humane Right of Annulment happen and spare mages that surrender and don't use Blood Magic or summon demons, that Right of Annulment was called for all the wrong reasons.  The Circle wasn't responsible for the destruction of the Chantry, an apostate was.

With that story being circulated to the other Circles, can you blame them for rebelling against the Chantry and Templars?

I can. Especially if the other Circle took the word of a mage, who escaped said annulment, at face value. You don't think that mage would be a tiny bit biased in his recollection of the annulment?

 Actually, I don't think any mages survive if you support the mages. Only the Champion and his group get out. The rest either died in the battle, were sacrificed by Orsino, or are left surrounded by an army of Templars.

And the idea that any of the Circles could successfully rebel is just really bad writing or dramatic license. Unless the writers want to invent circumstances that make every Circle understaffed with Templars, the Templars have full armies camped at each circle. Ready and capable of completely subduing any resistance. That is their purpose, suddenly they are just horrible at it all over Thedas at the same time. Was it Thedan Templar appreciation Day? They all stayed home?

Even the Fereldan Circle, which was caught completely by surprise, was completely locked down and contained. Gregoir was only waiting for permission to wipe it out.

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

What I do not understand is why the option exists to show mercy to the mages which surrendered. If the Right of Annulment has been invoked, don't they have to die? How is this up for debate?

I am not really sure, but I am really glad that it does exist. I supported the Mages on my first play through. I had been seeing blood mages in every closet through Act 3, so I didn't think they were all innocent. I didn't want to support them, but I had been shoehorned into so many events leading up to it, that I was afraid if I didn't support the mages I was going to have to play through killing my sister in the courtyard and downing apprentices like unwanted kittens.

When I read on the forums that you actually can force the RoA to be less extreme and save your sister in the end, I went ahead and tried it and was very pleased. That path actually seems like a win for the moderates, with Cullen taking a stand for mages right to live and not be judged without evidence.

You can't though.  All mages that surrender to the templars during a RoA are made tranquil.  This is per DG.  The ability to allow mages to surrender was put in to make you feel better, but the circle mage's fate is sealed...presumably even your sister's.

-Polaris

While it was DG stated. It seems that Cullen was not exactly seeing eye to eye with Meredith's use of the Annulment. That he prefers to spare them than even making them all Tranquil. You are as bias as the ones you claim are being bias against mages. You want to see it as it's worst just like they may like to see mages as their worst. This doesn't have to be polarized unless you let it be that way.

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

While it was DG stated. It seems that Cullen was not exactly seeing eye to eye with Meredith's use of the Annulment. That he prefers to spare them than even making them all Tranquil. You are as bias as the ones you claim are being bias against mages. You want to see it as it's worst just like they may like to see mages as their worst. This doesn't have to be polarized unless you let it be that way.

It was in one of the conversations DG had with Lob.  DG made if very plain that all circle mages had to die after a RoA is declared (and Cullen never rescinds it btw)  because the Templars can not permit an abomination/bloodmage to slip though by using surrender as a ruse.  He goes on to say that to prevent that, Templars might make such prisoners tranquil as opposed to killing them outright.

-Polaris

Edit:  For all of his doubts, Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment, not even after he relieves Meredith of her command at which point it would be his right to do so (lacking a Grand Cleric).

Bearbeitet von IanPolaris, 19 April 2011 - 10:01 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

He was also waiting for reinforcements. It is only in Kirkwall that there is an entire Templar army, because of the "issues" Kirkwall's last Viscount caused. Other Circles probably have a Templar contingent, big enough to keep control. If a Knight-Commander was to send for an annulment, he would send for reinforcements aswell.

And you can spare mages during an annulment. You can even call it off, if it has already been called. So not all mages are turned tranquil afterwards, neccesarily.

Bearbeitet von EmperorSahlertz, 19 April 2011 - 10:03 .

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark wrote...
 Actually, I don't think any mages survive if you support the mages. Only the Champion and his group get out. The rest either died in the battle, were sacrificed by Orsino, or are left surrounded by an army of Templars.

Not true.  The epilog clearly states that many mages survived the attempted annulment and made it to other circles (if you sided with the mages) and it was this news that caused the circle to revolt.

If you side with the Templars, then yes, no mages survive.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I hate to agree with Emperor on anything but he's right.  It's very plausible for the circles to rebell and evict/kill the Templars (at least for a while).  Kirkwall was an exception because the Gallows were both a Circle AND Main Templar HQ for all of Eastern Thedas.  That meant that Kirkwall was one of the very few circles where Templars likely outnumbered mages and by a considerable margin.  From what I gather, the normal case is that mages rather significantly outnumber Templars in most circles, but Templars have military training, tactics, and anti-magic techniques, and the mages (except for a few powerful ones) are little more than civilians in robes.

Bearbeitet von IanPolaris, 19 April 2011 - 10:06 .

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

While it was DG stated. It seems that Cullen was not exactly seeing eye to eye with Meredith's use of the Annulment. That he prefers to spare them than even making them all Tranquil. You are as bias as the ones you claim are being bias against mages. You want to see it as it's worst just like they may like to see mages as their worst. This doesn't have to be polarized unless you let it be that way.

It was in one of the conversations DG had with Lob.  DG made if very plain that all circle mages had to die after a RoA is declared (and Cullen never rescinds it btw)  because the Templars can not permit an abomination/bloodmage to slip though by using surrender as a ruse.  He goes on to say that to prevent that, Templars might make such prisoners tranquil as opposed to killing them outright.

-Polaris

Edit:  For all of his doubts, Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment, not even after he relieves Meredith of her command at which point it would be his right to do so (lacking a Grand Cleric).

Your own Bias is as quck to assume Cullen would make them all Tranquil. You do not see this happening and I did not as well. Don't wash away other players as bias when you are the very same on your opinions and statements. D.G. was stating rules that may follow a Right of Annulment. We have no way of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Cullen would follow it to the letter after everything he saw. Including mages helping to end Meredith. You assume so much yourself. Just like you assumed the death of children in Origins that you never see...

[Benchmark]

IanPolaris wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

What I do not understand is why the option exists to show mercy to the mages which surrendered. If the Right of Annulment has been invoked, don't they have to die? How is this up for debate?

I am not really sure, but I am really glad that it does exist. I supported the Mages on my first play through. I had been seeing blood mages in every closet through Act 3, so I didn't think they were all innocent. I didn't want to support them, but I had been shoehorned into so many events leading up to it, that I was afraid if I didn't support the mages I was going to have to play through killing my sister in the courtyard and downing apprentices like unwanted kittens.

When I read on the forums that you actually can force the RoA to be less extreme and save your sister in the end, I went ahead and tried it and was very pleased. That path actually seems like a win for the moderates, with Cullen taking a stand for mages right to live and not be judged without evidence.

You can't though.  All mages that surrender to the templars during a RoA are made tranquil.  This is per DG.  The ability to allow mages to surrender was put in to make you feel better, but the circle mage's fate is sealed...presumably even your sister's.

-Polaris

Did DG state specifically that the mages surrendering to Cullen during the Templar Path are made Tranquil? Or did he say that the procedure of an actual RoA is to tranquilize any mages that surrender? I think you are putting words in his mouth.

I have seen you argue that the RoA was illegally called by Meredith. Regardless if it was illegal, Cullen's statements make it clear that he didn't feel it should have been called. He specifically says that he will watch mages that surrender for evidence of blood magic for the rest of his life if that is what he must do to avoid killing them out of hand.

He isn't against using tranquilization if it is shown to be necessary, but it is obvious he has decided he wants some proof before doing it. And stating that he will watch them would be a pointless comment if he was going to go tranquilize them anyway. The implications are pretty clear.

Unless you can get DG to say that those mages that surrender during the Templar path are tranquilized by Cullen after he helps you kill Meredith and makes you Viscount, I am going to say that the game events show they would be spared. Guy who said spare them = Viscount, guy who denied his commanders authority to spare them = Knight Commander.

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

Your own Bias is as quck to assume Cullen would make them all Tranquil. You do not see this happening and I did not as well. Don't wash away other players as bias when you are the very same on your opinions and statements. D.G. was stating rules that may follow a Right of Annulment. We have no way of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Cullen would follow it to the letter after everything he saw. Including mages helping to end Meredith. You assume so much yourself. Just like you assumed the death of children in Origins that you never see...

It's not my bias.  It's reality (at least game reality).  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt apparently.  The RULES ARE CLEAR and if there is one thing about Knght-Captain Cullen, he's a stickler for the rules.  At no time does Knight Captain Cullen EVER rescind the Right of Annulment even while he questions this application.  He doesn't do so EVEN AFTER he relieves Meredith of her command which gives him the legal right to do so.  That means unless you can specifically show in game evidence to the contrary, that Cullen followed the rules and all captured mages were either killed or tranquiled.

It's ugly but that's what Right of Annulment means.  If you can't swallow that, then you shouldn't side with the Templars to start with!

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark,

I remember the conversation and DG was very frank about the rules regarding captured mages and the Right of Annulment. Surrender can not be used to circumvent the cleansing of the circle. That means death or tranquility for all mage prisoners. It is what it is.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Torax wrote...

Fereldons took out the trouble makers and brought it back to a moderate way that Circle should be? The Libs wouldn't have been happy either way so don't try to use that as an excuse.

By taking "out the trouble makers," you mean killing every mage and apprentice in the Gallows because of the actions of a Grey Warden mage in the Right of Annulment?

Because this happens when you play an amazingly evil Hawke that never has mercy and lets everyone die when it doesn't fulfill his goals?

You are aware that David Gaider explained that the templars take a "no prisoners" policy on mages when it comes to the Right of Annulment because they can't be certain who might or might not be possessed, right?

Benchmark wrote...

In my playthrough, Hawke definitely "took out the trouble makers". He didn't kill every mage and apprentice in the Gallows, in fact he showed mercy on any mages willing to surrender.

Maybe you should have read the part where the templars kill all the mages during the Right of Annulment, and any mage who isn't killed for some rare reason is made tranquil instead.
 

Benchmark wrote...

A trend that Cullen continued by defying Meredith and using The Champions authority and prestige to do it. I have already had discussions about this game being representative in scale, so that would represent that other mages willing to surrender would be spared also.

And Gaider explained that any mage not killed during the Right of Annulment will be made tranquil.

Benchmark wrote...

Since The Champion was the spearhead of the assault and this event happens at the very begining, the obvious implication is that Cullen is going to take prisoners of any mage that doesn't resort to blood magic and surrenders. Cullen showed that is a decision he is going to make despite Mere.

Three mages are spared, and they will be made tranquil according to what WoG has said about mages who aren't killed during the Right of Annulment.

Benchmark wrote...

My Hawke cleaned the circle out of dozens of demons and the mages that were summoning them. Mages not in a panic either, but in extremely organized kill zones. Once that was broken through, Hawke merely had to kill demon after demon that had been let loose through the circle. Finally he finds a terrified and indignant Bethany in the company of Orsino, who had just commited blood sacrifice of his fellow mages. Hawke kills "O" with Bethany's help and then shields her from Mere.

Mages who were fighting because they were being sentenced to death for the actions of an apostate. And killing Orsino doesn't address the fact that Circle mages who aren't killed during the Right of Annulment are forced to undergo the Rite of Tranquility.

[Addai]

Benchmark wrote...
Even the Fereldan Circle, which was caught completely by surprise, was completely locked down and contained. Gregoir was only waiting for permission to wipe it out.

Actually he was waiting for reinforcements.

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

Your own Bias is as quck to assume Cullen would make them all Tranquil. You do not see this happening and I did not as well. Don't wash away other players as bias when you are the very same on your opinions and statements. D.G. was stating rules that may follow a Right of Annulment. We have no way of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Cullen would follow it to the letter after everything he saw. Including mages helping to end Meredith. You assume so much yourself. Just like you assumed the death of children in Origins that you never see...

It's not my bias.  It's reality (at least game reality).  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt apparently.  The RULES ARE CLEAR and if there is one thing about Knght-Captain Cullen, he's a stickler for the rules.  At no time does Knight Captain Cullen EVER rescind the Right of Annulment even while he questions this application.  He doesn't do so EVEN AFTER he relieves Meredith of her command which gives him the legal right to do so.  That means unless you can specifically show in game evidence to the contrary, that Cullen followed the rules and all captured mages were either killed or tranquiled.

It's ugly but that's what Right of Annulment means.  If you can't swallow that, then you shouldn't side with the Templars to start with!

-Polaris

And never once do we see confirmed the rest being turned in Tranquil. You are assuming things you do not see as well. Which makes the conversation moot. You will see things as it's worst even if you do not admitt it. It's a track record with not really saying anything new in months.

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

Think about it Lob. As I'm sure you're quick to support Ian on it.

If it's as accurate as your reading of my posts and we have another incident of you repeatedly misreading what I said, like you did at the Merrill thread, it'll likely be several posts of me explaining why you keep mis-reading what I said.

Torax wrote...

It's idiotic to think that so many Circles would still revolt. Especially if word gets out that a new Stable Circle arose from the chaos.

Killing all the mages and apprentices in the Circle of Kirkwall because of the actions of an apostate? I respectfully disagree.

Torax wrote...

One where a Knight Commander and the Champion who cut down Meredith themselves as the new First Enchanter working with Cullen. This is the opposite of what they need. Most wouldn't know who the hell Anders was cause he died. All they'd know is that a chantry exploded cause of magic and a crazy lady who died was trying annul the circle.

I don't think it will be a secret that an apostate killed the Grand Cleric and Meredith decides to ignore them while condemning the entire Circle of Kirkwall to death.

Torax wrote...

Not all were killed and a new Circle arose within in a week or so.

Not all were killed, the survivors were made tranquil.

Torax wrote...

That is idiotic to think as a possible end result.

I respectfully disagree. Killing the entire Circle of Magi and making any few survivors tranquil because of the actions of one apostate eliminates the argument Wynne and Ines made to prevent the Circles of Magi from breaking free of the Chantry of Andraste in Cumberland.

Torax wrote...

It is silly at best and works against the whole Mage/Templar chaos that they need coming out of it. Why you can be Viscount but a Circle there has to be either rebelled or pretty much destroyed. It cannot be stable...

It's not silly that an act of genocide would spur the mages to see that the Chantry controlled Circles allowed the men, women, and children of Kirkwall to be killed because an ex-Grey Warden blew up the Chantry, while the Knight-Commander proceeded to ignore the apostate's existance and kill people who were innocent of what Anders did.

[LobselVith8]

Joy Divison wrote...

What I do not understand is why the option exists to show mercy to the mages which surrendered. If the Right of Annulment has been invoked, don't they have to die? How is this up for debate?

David Gaider explained this:

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

[Torax]

Lob if all the mages were made Tranquil they'd have no reason to need a First Enchanter...

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

And never once do we see confirmed the rest being turned in Tranquil. You are assuming things you do not see as well. Which makes the conversation moot. You will see things as it's worst even if you do not admitt it. It's a track record with not really saying anything new in months.

See above.  WoG confirms that all captured mages are either killed or tranquiled.  End. Of. Argument.

-Polaris

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

And never once do we see confirmed the rest being turned in Tranquil. You are assuming things you do not see as well. Which makes the conversation moot. You will see things as it's worst even if you do not admitt it. It's a track record with not really saying anything new in months.

See above.  WoG confirms that all captured mages are either killed or tranquiled.  End. Of. Argument.

-Polaris

Then why do we even need a First Enchanter if all including your sibling are made Tranquil? what a Circle of 2 or 3? I don't think so.

Bearbeitet von Torax, 19 April 2011 - 10:28 .

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

Lob if all the mages were made Tranquil they'd have no reason to need a First Enchanter...

Yes they would, and Gregore explains why if you Annul the Fereldan circle.  They need to 'start again' and will import fresh (and presumably non-corrupt) mages from other circles to begin again, but they would need a strong and trusted first enchanter to build a new circle around.

Given that Cullen was trained by this same Gregoire, I don't see that Cullen would feel any differently immediately after the Annulment, and the mage he'd trust the most to be strong and incorruptible in his eyes would be a pro-templar Mage-Hawke which is why I suggested the alternate achievement.  Of course neither has any idea that the revolt by the rest of the circles will render this quickly moot....

-Polaris

[Benchmark]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He was also waiting for reinforcements. It is only in Kirkwall that there is an entire Templar army, because of the "issues" Kirkwall's last Viscount caused. Other Circles probably have a Templar contingent, big enough to keep control. If a Knight-Commander was to send for an annulment, he would send for reinforcements aswell.

And you can spare mages during an annulment. You can even call it off, if it has already been called. So not all mages are turned tranquil afterwards, neccesarily.

I can't believe that is true. If it is a "factual" (maybe canonical is better) existence in Thedas, then the Templars deserve the rebellions for being completely incompetent. Circles are not like a modern prison, where the prisoners are kept controlled and risks are reduced by the structure itself, meaning you can use a minimum of manpower to watch it. Circles are places where even the meekest robed figure can suddenly burst into a raging ball of hate if they aren't trained well. A raging ball of hate that can kill a dozen Templar's. Everything in game and in lore points to the idea that Templars expect heavy casualties when fighting blood mages and abominations.

Understaffing the circles would just be criminally negligent and extremely irresponsible.