146 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiacre]

MisterJB wrote...

If you side with her during her argument with Orsino in the beginning of Act 3, it is Meredith who gives you the Main Quests and Hawke has the opportunity to ask her about her past. Her younger sister was born a mage and their parents hid her from the Templars. One day, she was possessed and killed her entire family besides Meredith. The Templars slew her eventually but not before she killed other 70 people.

This is a believable backstory that explains her extreme views towards mages. Magic is truly dangerous, that's a fact.

Ah, I see. I've always sided with Orsino, so I was never able to get that.

And that story is exactly why I support a Circle teaching mages how to use and control their powers, so things like that or the whole Connor mess won't happen (or are at least made as unlikely as possible). But the current one just doesn't work, further evidenced by how people choose to keep their children's magic a secret out of fear of having them taken away.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

The centuries of peace possible only thanks to the Circle have caused the mages to forget how dangerous magic is. Now, they can see nothing beyond these perceived "injustices" and their own sense of entitlement.
This project of vanity, this "rebellion", will bring nothing but chaos to Thedas.

And yes, that was my not so subtle way of showing to Mr. Gaider that some fans are Pro-Templar and hope to see the side they support well represented in DA3. DA2 failed in this regard most of the time.

And I hope that you do not. A story split in half to account for completely opposite outcomes is inferior to a single story with all time being spent on that. I do not consider your desire to side with evil to be enough to allow it in-game, any more than we'd be allowed to side with the Archdemon in DAO.

Now, to clarify: I'm sure you'd be able to advocate for mages being "peaceably" confined, and allow yourselves to indulge in lesser evil, by siding with the Chantry. But the templars have gone far beyond this, and I believe everyone will need to put them down.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 04 septembre 2012 - 03:10 .

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...
Now, to clarify: I'm sure you'd be able to advocate for mages being "peaceably" confined, and allow yourselves to indulge in lesser evil, by siding with the Chantry. But the templars have gone far beyond this, and I believe everyone will need to put them down.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the whole peaceful route tried in Asunder?  Wasn't it brutally sabotaged by people on both sides?  Didn't it end with the mages flipping the Templars the bird resulting in them declaring genocide on all mages?  Exactly how do you propose to "peacably confine" mages after that?  They've shown quite clearly they're no more willing to talk this out than the Templars, they've no lack of evil bastards who just want a war, and to top it all off they've shown, time and again, that they will always turn to demons and blood magic in the end.

How do you propose to peacefully confine a population that has not once hesitated to rip the life from another human being when it served them?

[dragonflight288]

DPSSOC wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Now, to clarify: I'm sure you'd be able to advocate for mages being "peaceably" confined, and allow yourselves to indulge in lesser evil, by siding with the Chantry. But the templars have gone far beyond this, and I believe everyone will need to put them down.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the whole peaceful route tried in Asunder?  Wasn't it brutally sabotaged by people on both sides?  Didn't it end with the mages flipping the Templars the bird resulting in them declaring genocide on all mages?  Exactly how do you propose to "peacably confine" mages after that?  They've shown quite clearly they're no more willing to talk this out than the Templars, they've no lack of evil bastards who just want a war, and to top it all off they've shown, time and again, that they will always turn to demons and blood magic in the end.

How do you propose to peacefully confine a population that has not once hesitated to rip the life from another human being when it served them?

What happened was that the mages decided to investigate Rhys themselves, the Divine gave them permission to assemble. Lambert showed up with a bunch of templars, told them to surrender Rhys to him, and ordered them to return to their individual Circles. The mages said no, they were attending a lawful assembly, they were allowed to be there (even though Fiona was pushing for separation from the Chantry, the mages hadn't actually voted on anything.)

Lambert says he's not listening to the Divine anymore and orders his templars to attack. One of the First Enchanters tried to surrender and was killed, causing the other mages to attack in equally deadly force.

After the mages escaped, they voted on separation from the Chantry, and all the Circles are now separate from the Chantry. Lambert and the templars declared the Nevarran Accord to now be void, and they also left the Chantry so they can go on a mage-hunt. The Divine was pushing for reformations to the Circle system. Lambert wanted nothing to do with them, and now he (as Lord High Seeker) and the templars are out to commit genocide on the mages.

While peace was being thwarted by some mages and templars alike, it was the templar order, led by the Lord High Seeker, that were the original aggressors.

[DPSSOC]

Ah I see.  Haven't read the book, can't find it in any of my book stores but they say they have them, so I'm just kinda going off what I've heard.  Still not seeing much chance of peaceful confinement for mages.  Can't really see the mages suddenly agreeing that it's in everybody's best interests for them not to be around people after all that.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

This is a believable backstory that explains her extreme views towards mages. Magic is truly dangerous, that's a fact.

Believable yes. The truth? Given how she had the lyrium idol for 3 years and it's proven to be the reason why her insanity has been made more apparent by volumes in Act 3's beginning, it's hard to know if it was a true story or just something she concocted in her idol-lunacy.

Because remember, this is the person who thinks Orsino has his hooks in Hawke when Hawke proclaims that Orsino had no involvement in the justified rebellion against her. This is the person that thinks Hawke orchestrated several events in Kirkwall's recent history just to make himself/herself a really important person.

This is the person that would almost assuredly believe Elthina was being controlled by blood mages if the Grand Cleric didn't outright side with the Templars more and more, and would more then likely kill her and call it a "mercy killing for a friend".

So it may be a believable story, but whether or not it's a true story is questionable at best.

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

There was no Circle to submit. If you're picturing mages as having any kind of organization with which the Chantry would have negotiated, then you're picturing it incorrectly.

In the time during which the Circle of Magi was created by the Chantry and the Inquisition, any mages outside of the Tevinter Imperium existed primarily as fugitives and loners. At best they formed small cabals. These would have been slowly and systematically dealt with by the newly-formed Circle as it expanded across Thedas, one tower built at a time... it did not spring up overnight over the entire continent. And the mages so subsumed had little choice in the matter. Considering that it was a time of chaos where anyone with magical talent was viewed with terror, I imagine there's no small number who were relieved to be offered protection-- no matter the price.

Very interesting insight into the nature of that time period.

Which further goes to illustrate how the Inquisition of Old and the New Inquisition of today -- as I refer to the Templars that have now gone against the Divine, the embodiment of the Chantry -- are not dissimilar. Mages were viewed with terror and were forced to live as fugitives or loners, if they weren't among those using their magic as a means to make them glorified servants to the Chantry. And the Inquisition of that time period resorted to horrific means to achieve their ends. Noble intentions, but they sowed just as much fear and terror in the hearts of the citizens as any Abominations or malicious maleficarum might have.

Still, that these fugitive Mages and loner Mages were free for a couple hundred years prior to the inception of the Circle of Magi -- and by your own words, continued to be such until the Circle system spread further across Thedas -- shows us that, yes, Mages can be free and the world will not fall into Tevinter 2.0 or Abominations galore.

That isn't to say they never happened then. It's certainly something that happened. But that they were free for so long and the world was not a heaping pile of corpses ruled by Demons or even demons says something.

Free sans restrictions? Well, tread that path and the world will inevitably suffer. The idea behind the Templar Order -- that of guardian to non-Mage and Mage, firm but fair, and willing to bend the rules with an ultimately just heart -- is indeed a necessary one.

One that has, without a doubt, become perverted and twisted to the point of being an empty shell of what it's supposed to be. Recruiting immoral fanatical zealots first and foremost and focusing on whether or not people have a good moral compass second was definitely a bad step. One the Chantry no doubt only realized once it backfired in their faces.

And it'd probably be a good idea in my mind for the Chantry to recognize that while Magister and Mage are related, they aren't one and the same. A foolish belief that Elthina herself seemed to view, thinking that siding with the Mages in the disputes with Meredith meant she was supporting Mages being free, without restrictions, and having a possible reprise of the Imperium. I hold very little respect for someone who does very little to address a situation like that but also does so little out of a narrow-minded viewpoint.

Sorry. Anytime I see a post of yours talking about DA lore, I do a tiny happy dance of happiness. Then I ramble.

God, how I ramble...

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Believable yes. The truth? Given how she had the lyrium idol for 3 years and it's proven to be the reason why her insanity has been made more apparent by volumes in Act 3's beginning, it's hard to know if it was a true story or just something she concocted in her idol-lunacy.
So it may be a believable story, but whether or not it's a true story is questionable at best.

Meredith descended into paranoia due in great part to the Idol but that would not lead to her inventing a backstory for herself. She just sees blood magic everywhere.

What is really questionable is just how paranoid she actually is. Orsino was actually protecting at least one blood mage thus, endangering the city.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 septembre 2012 - 12:13 .

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
And I hope that you do not. A story split in half to account for completely opposite outcomes is inferior to a single story with all time being spent on that. I do not consider your desire to side with evil to be enough to allow it in-game, any more than we'd be allowed to side with the Archdemon in DAO.

Now, to clarify: I'm sure you'd be able to advocate for mages being "peaceably" confined, and allow yourselves to indulge in lesser evil, by siding with the Chantry. But the templars have gone far beyond this, and I believe everyone will need to put them down.

We all know that you support simplistic, two dimensional writing, Xilizhra. Certain games, like The Witcher 2, have been perfectly capable of writing two different stories that respond to the players actions.
That is the standart Bioware should be held to. Not DA2 or the complete nonsense Cerberus was in ME3.

[Xilizhra]

We all know that you support simplistic, two dimensional writing, Xilizhra. Certain games, like The Witcher 2, have been perfectly capable of writing two different stories that respond to the players actions.
That is the standart Bioware should be held to. Not DA2 or the complete nonsense Cerberus was in ME3.

And we know that you show a strong preference for insults over comprehension. And Witcher is hindered in many other ways, not least of which is your inability to create your own character. As for Cerberus, the only thing wrong with them in ME3 was the awkwardness of trying to use both them and the Reapers as enemies at the same time, which led to some nonsensical situations; Horizon, however, was an absolutely spot-on mission and in my opinion the best Cerberus content in the series. I very much hope we get to see a templar facility similar to Sanctuary in DA3.

Ultimately, I believe your idea would result in too significant of a loss in content for me and the majority of players, who seem to have sided with the mages still. Not only that, but ME3 clearly shows that choices that are too divergent in the end badly hinder one's ability to make a continuing story, so either it stops there or your choice is rendered irrelevant. Having one story to follow and then making choices within that is a lot easier on imports.

[MisterJB]

Your wish for the Templars to become the new Archdemon does a disservice to the entire DA franchise where the writing is, usually, not so simplistic and one can't objectivelly determine whose side is good or evil because the very terms are subjective.

More content does not equal quality which is something Bioware seems to fail to understand which, ultimately, leads to games like ME3 being ridiculously biased towards a certain viewpoint which leads to, you guessed it, two dimensional writing that belongs in any game but an RPG.
Bioware should focus less on imports and more on making the current game good. Branching storylines that support different but equally valid points of view are exactly what DA3 needs.

Cerberus in ME3 was a complete disconnect from what they were in ME2 that sacrificed good writing in favor of having minions for Shepard to shoot at. Anything further and we will have to take this discussion elsewhere.

[Xilizhra]

Your wish for the Templars to become the new Archdemon does a disservice to the entire DA franchise where the writing is, usually, not so simplistic and one can't objectivelly determine whose side is good or evil because the very terms are subjective.

Then if you wish to side with the templars, I request an option to side with the Tevinter Old God cults. I also would have been interested in an option to side with Tarohne, but didn't get that and won't complain overmuch.

More content does not equal quality which is something Bioware seems to fail to understand which, ultimately, leads to games like ME3 being ridiculously biased towards a certain viewpoint which leads to, you guessed it, two dimensional writing that belongs in any game but an RPG.

ME3 wasn't particularly biased, I felt. Not in that sense, at any rate.

Bioware should focus less on imports and more on making the current game good. Branching storylines that support different but equally valid points of view are exactly what DA3 needs.

DA3 hopefully won't be the last game in the series, and assuming that other games will still take place in the Dragon Age, completely different endings depending on storyline will be unfeasible. Even far-future endings would result in the impact of any choice being diminished into near nothingness.

Cerberus in ME3 was a complete disconnect from what they were in ME2 that sacrificed good writing in favor of having minions for Shepard to shoot at. Anything further and we will have to take this discussion elsewhere.

There were two differences for Cerberus between ME2 and ME3: They're no longer faking nice for Shepard, and they're recruiting more aggressively. Aside from that, it's exactly the same.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Then if you wish to side with the templars, I request an option to side with the Tevinter Old God cults. I also would have been interested in an option to side with Tarohne, but didn't get that and won't complain overmuch.

The world is not Black and White. The templars are not The evil and the mages are not The good. Magic in the world of Thedas is a complex socio-political problem with no clear solution and it should be treated as such.
Alrik and Tarohne are over the top caricatures and siding with either side should not imply agreeing with any of those two.

DA3 hopefully won't be the last game in the series, and assuming that other games will still take place in the Dragon Age, completely different endings depending on storyline will be unfeasible. Even far-future endings would result in the impact of any choice being diminished into near nothingness.

Forget about import. It's hard for Bioware to make an excellent DA3 if they have to plan how its choices will affect DA4 at the same time.
Regardless, importing does not need to affect how certain subjects are approached in the game. Making the game biased in favor of the mages because they are the popular choice can't be justified with "DA4".

There were two differences for Cerberus between ME2 and ME3: They're no longer faking nice for Shepard, and they're recruiting more aggressively. Aside from that, it's exactly the same.

No, not even close. "Faking nice" is merely the excuse Bioware used to justify this 180 turn from ME2.
But, again, DA2 forum.

[Xilizhra]

The world is not Black and White. The templars are not The evil and the mages are not The good. Magic in the world of Thedas is a complex socio-political problem with no clear solution and it should be treated as such.
Alrik and Tarohne are over the top caricatures and siding with either side should not imply agreeing with any of those two.

Certainly there's not a clear solution. However, we can see a clear non-solution, that being the templars.

Forget about import. It's hard for Bioware to make an excellent DA3 if they have to plan how its choices will affect DA4 at the same time.
Regardless, importing does not need to affect how certain subjects are approached in the game. Making the game biased in favor of the mages because they are the popular choice can't be justified with "DA4".

Regardless, it's something they have to think about. Look at how awkward so many things went from DAO to DA2. And that's not my only reason for having the templars be the enemy, just one.

No, not even close. "Faking nice" is merely the excuse Bioware used to justify this 180 turn from ME2.
But, again, DA2 forum.

Hah. I called this, repeatedly, long before ME3 came out. It's nice to be proven right.

[MisterJB]

And, as I said, you support simplistic, two dimensional writing that was clearly present in ME3's Cerberus.
I am against it and hope Bioware gets back on the right track.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

And, as I said, you support simplistic, two dimensional writing that was clearly present in ME3's Cerberus.
I am against it and hope Bioware gets back on the right track.

Forgive me, but I don't consider not being able to side with everyone in the game necessarily constitutes being simplistic. The vast majority of potentially or actually hoslite groups in both games, you're unable to do anything for. Is that overly simplistic, then? And the templars/Cerberus are worse than most of those.

[MisterJB]

Until the "plot device" hit, Meredith did a good job representing the Templar faction. We knew that there were cases of her abusing her power but she also had very good points regarding the dangers of magic and the necessity of the Circle.
She was someone Pro-Templars could support and Pro-Mages could oppose. Because what is right and is wrong is entirely subjective.
I can consider a group of mercenaries such as the Blue Suns to be worse than Cerberus because one does what is commonly considered to be "evil" for money while the other does "evil" to ensure humanity's survival in a very hostile galaxy. You might disagree.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be certain restrictions to the stances a player should be able to take. Hawke can't decide to return to Ferelden because the story has to be focused around the Circle of Kirkwall. But, within the parameters of the story, complexity must be kept at all costs.
If the game is biased towards one side, whether it be templars or mages, the complexity is reduced and the same happens to the quality of the writing.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 septembre 2012 - 04:34 .

[Xilizhra]

Until the "plot device" hit, Meredith did a good job representing the Templar faction. We knew that there were cases of her abusing her power but she also had very good points regarding the dangers of magic and the necessity of the Circle.
She was someone Pro-Templars could support and Pro-Mages could oppose. Because what is right and is wrong is entirely subjective.

We agree that Meredith was quite a good representative of the templars, at least. Although I don't agree that she had any good points, at least none that implied that the Chantry specficially should control mages.

I can consider a group of mercenaries such as the Blue Suns to be worse than Cerberus because one does what is commonly considered to be "evil" for money while the other does "evil" to ensure humanity's survival in a very hostile galaxy. You might disagree.

Idealism frequently leads to far worse atrocities than simple greed, as seen in, well, Cerberus.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be certain restrictions to the stances a player should be able to take. Hawke can't decide to return to Ferelden because the story has to be focused around the Circle of Kirkwall. But, within the parameters of the story, complexity must be kept at all costs.
If the game is biased towards one side, whether it be templars or mages, the complexity is reduced and the same happens to the quality of the writing.

Golden mean fallacy. Just because one side is fighting another doesn't mean that both sides have to be partially right and that the ideal solution is in the middle. One side being more right doesn't necessarily harm the story, and them being equal doesn't necessarily help it. I daresay that skewing the equality would even be a good thing, but then again I liked DA2's presentation of the conflict.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
We agree that Meredith was quite a good representative of the templars, at least. Although I don't agree that she had any good points, at least none that implied that the Chantry specficially should control mages.

Meredith had very good points. Cold corpses speak louder than abstract freedoms.

Idealism frequently leads to far worse atrocities than simple greed, as seen in, well, Cerberus.

But idealism also saves lives. Maybe locking all mages is unjust and yet, how many lives, both mage and mundane, have been saved exactly because of the Circle system.
And the reasons for a crime must also be taken into account when passing judgement.

Golden mean fallacy. Just because one side is fighting another doesn't mean that both sides have to be partially right and that the ideal solution is in the middle. One side being more right doesn't necessarily harm the story, and them being equal doesn't necessarily help it. I daresay that skewing the equality would even be a good thing, but then again I liked DA2's presentation of the conflict.

For the golden mean fallacy to apply, one of the sides would have to be completely  wrong or the compromise undesirable. Like it or not, both mundanes and mages have good arguments.

You can argue that the Templars are 100% wrong as much as you want but this doesn't change the fact that what separates a good story from a child's tale is the complexity of the characters and plot. It's why Loghain is a far more interesting character than Howe. 
The frequency with which Bioware creates arguments where both sides are right and both sides are wrong is what makes their games so great. Without this equality of opinions, there is barely any point in playing their RPGs since the choice is oh so obvious.
I can be a Big Damn Hero is any other game.

[Xilizhra]

Meredith had very good points. Cold corpses speak louder than abstract freedoms.

And see how many she and hers have contributed personally. Well, cold corpses, anyway.

But idealism also saves lives. Maybe locking all mages is unjust and yet, how many lives, both mage and mundane, have been saved exactly because of the Circle system.
And the reasons for a crime must also be taken into account when passing judgement.

None. At least, none have been saved by it being the Chantry. And many lives have been lost by this as well.
As for crime reasons... taken into account, but I believe that TIM and all of his decision-makers, as well as those who carried out the orders for atrocities, deserve no lenience whatsoever simply because of "idealism." I feel more or less the same way about the templars.

For the golden mean fallacy to apply, one of the sides would have to be completely wrong or the compromise undesirable.

And I fully believe in both of those.

Like it or not, both mundanes and mages have good arguments.

It's not "mages vs. mundanes," it's "mages and mundane sympathizers vs. templars and templar sympathizers."

You can argue that the Templars are 100% wrong as much as you want but this doesn't change the fact that what separates a good story from a child's tale is the complexity of the characters and plot. It's why Loghain is a far more interesting character than Howe.

Loghain and Howe both serve a role. Personally, I believe that Howe was badly underdeveloped; he could have done everything just as badly as he did in the main game, and we still could have gotten a better look at him. This is what I advocate for the templars: to both understand and to fight them.

The frequency with which Bioware creates arguments where both sides are right and both sides are wrong is what makes their games so great. Without this equality of opinions, there is barely any point in playing their RPGs since the choice is oh so obvious.

You seem to be under the impression that the templars being in the wrong will mean that there can be no more balanced arguments in the game at all. I am not.

[Rinji the Bearded]

MisterJB wrote...
We all know that you support simplistic, two dimensional writing, Xilizhra. Certain games, like The Witcher 2, have been perfectly capable of writing two different stories that respond to the players actions.
That is the standart Bioware should be held to. Not DA2 or the complete nonsense Cerberus was in ME3.

Any time someone says Dragon Age needs to be more like Witcher 2, God kills a puppy.

Stop.  For the sake of puppies.

Also stop inflating Witcher 2's features and story.   Geralt is perhaps the worst protagonist I've encountered in a long, long time, and the "story" might be appealing to 15 year old boys at best.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 04 septembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[CroGamer002]

Because Chantry has an army that outnumbers and out-supplies them?

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
And see how many she and hers have contributed personally. Well, cold corpses, anyway.

Less than the mages.

None. At least, none have been saved by it being the Chantry. And many lives have been lost by this as well.
As for crime reasons... taken into account, but I believe that TIM and all of his decision-makers, as well as those who carried out the orders for atrocities, deserve no lenience whatsoever simply because of "idealism." I feel more or less the same way about the templars.

More than many. The Chantry helps keep the idealism in the Circle System. Place it in the hands of kings or nobles or magisters and watch greed take over.
Templars perform a necessary duty that saves lives, both mundane and mage alike. This is what earns them "lenience".

And I fully believe in both of those.

And I disagree.

It's not "mages vs. mundanes," it's "mages and mundane sympathizers vs. templars and templar sympathizers."

The issue is one of power and fear but it can be ultimately resumed into "Mages vs Mundanes".

Loghain and Howe both serve a role. Personally, I believe that Howe was badly underdeveloped; he could have done everything just as badly as he did in the main game, and we still could have gotten a better look at him. This is what I advocate for the templars: to both understand and to fight them.

And unless this better look had introduced grey morality into Howe, he would still be incredibly boring and simple.
What you advocate is to reduce a complex issue into simplicity because it fits your point of view.
We already understand Templars and my understanding of them as well as that of the dangers of magic leads me to the conclusion they have a very good point.

You seem to be under the impression that the templars being in the wrong will mean that there can be no more balanced arguments in the game at all. I am not.

You seem to be under the impression the templars are in the wrong and can't be part of these "more balanced arguments". I am not.

[Xilizhra]

Less than the mages.

Only if you conflate mages and demons, and even then I disagree.

More than many. The Chantry helps keep the idealism in the Circle System. Place it in the hands of kings or nobles or magisters and watch greed take over.
Templars perform a necessary duty that saves lives, both mundane and mage alike. This is what earns them "lenience".

And now they've decided to kill every mage. Clearly these ideals are rather flexible. And I don't want anyone having authority over the Circle system; rather, the mages should share authority with a different group.

And I disagree.

You do that.

The issue is one of power and fear but it can be ultimately resumed into "Mages vs Mundanes".

For someone who supposedly enjoys complexity, you enjoy rejecting it a lot. It's far more complex than this, having to do with variant belief systems, individual opinions, and more.

And unless this better look had introduced grey morality into Howe, he would still be incredibly boring and simple.
What you advocate is to reduce a complex issue into simplicity because it fits your point of view.
We already understand Templars and my understanding of them as well as that of the dangers of magic leads me to the conclusion they have a very good point.

It's not a reduction, it's just following what was introduced in DA2, and more to the point, Asunder. Adrian may have been individually problematic, but the entire Order left the Chantry to begin its pogrom.

You seem to be under the impression the templars are in the wrong and can't be part of these "more balanced arguments". I am not.

Correct. I am. And I believe that you'll be wrong again, as you were wrong about Cerberus.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Only if you conflate mages and demons, and even then I disagree.

Demons summoned by mages, certainly.

And now they've decided to kill every mage. Clearly these ideals are rather flexible.

You're assuming a lot. Crushing a dangerous rebellion doesn't equal genocide.
And you're also assuming the number of templars who left the Chantry are in the majority when we don't even know if Lambert is alive.

For someone who supposedly enjoys complexity, you enjoy rejecting it a lot. It's far more complex than this, having to do with variant belief systems, individual opinions, and more.

You'll notice it was a simplification.

It's not a reduction, it's just following what was introduced in DA2, and more to the point, Asunder. Adrian may have been individually problematic, but the entire Order left the Chantry to begin its pogrom.

Then maybe we should be unable to side with mages since so many of them were hostile or downright "evil" in DA2. DA2, where the Templar Order of Kirkwall rose against its own Knight Commander when her insanity was clear due to an idiotic plot device...I mean, a Lyrium Idol and she abused her power.

Asunder: Where the mages started a rebellion incited by the terrorist and murderous acts of two mages and where the Templars leave the Chantry incited by one Seeker.

If there are certain moments where the plot is biased in favor of mages, these are faults within the story and should be denounced as such, not glorified.

Correct. I am. And I believe that you'll be wrong again, as you were wrong about Cerberus.

I wasn't wrong about Cerberus. Bioware just threw plot and character coherence out of the window to provide minions for Shepard to shoot at which greatly affected the quality of ME3.
There is a reason the Genophage arc is considered to be vastly superior by many.