To all of those that popped in here strictly to tell us we're wasting our time, and shouldn't bother.
Kindly ****** the hell off. I enjoy speculation and theorycrafting. The arguments on both sides have merit, and discussing them helps point out weaknesses in our views on Thedas' background.
There's no scene. It was just fangirls asking a question of Cullen's writer, and the writer giving them a rather unexpected answer.
He's not exactly better in DA2 either. People think his display at the end with Meredith was something special, but I think it's very possible he was just protecting his own skin. He went along with the annulment as long as he only had to fight mages that he could kill easily. When Meredith asked him to throw away his life fighting Hawke, that's when he suddenly develops a conscience. Yeah, nice try templar. I'm onto your cowardice.
But anyway, you can take Alrik's paperwork to him and discuss Alrik's "Tranquil Solution". If you bring it to Elthina, she makes it clear she vehemently opposed the idea. Cullen... he skirts around saying whether he supported it, but the conversation heavily implies that he did indeed support the idea. Or at the very least, he didn't see a big problem with it. He actually whined that mages who oppose tranquility "want no safeguards on them at all". I wanted to stab him right then and there.
The Cullen in Inquisition is a completely different person than the monster that we met in Origins and 2.
He defies Meredith during the assault on the Gallows, and offers to watch over mages that surrender themselves (there were at least two), swearing they weren't blood mages. Because that's the duty of a Templar. I'm not suggesting that he wasn't heavily biased. I'll never forget him saying "mages are not people." But it wasn't as much of a stretch to the person we meet in DAI as you suggest.
Its because of the lyrium. I'm not kidding, here. If you have him take lyrium again his personality swap is pretty damn telling, I'd say. That **** rots your brain.
Anyway, back to Qun. A lot of people assume third person omnipotence in the case of NPCs. That is, "since this NPCs was written by Bioware, Bioware must be using this NPC to tell us about Situation/Person/Religion 'X,' and therefore everything they say must actually be objectively true."
Bioware does a fairly good job of not using third person omnipotence. Sten has his perspective on the Qun. Its the perspective of a soldier, and one that has never been outside his comfort zone at that. Then we have Bull. The perspective of a...hm...intelligence agent, I suppose? The Ben-Hassrath perform a more varied set of roles than the members of the Antaam we've encountered so far, so its harder to peg them down. He needs a broader education than someone that is going to be a sten.
A sidenote: If we ever encounter the current Arishock, I'll bet real money he doesn't behave quite like the sten we knew. He's learned, grown, and been exalted for it. He might be a completed jerkwad, or be more lenient to the bas, who knows, but he'll have changed.
Sorry, I digress. Third person omnipotence, right. What I'm getting to here, is that saying that Bull or Sten must be wrong, or that Bioware must have retconned something (which is literally inaccurate, btw. Retcons are what happens when something that is objectively true before is changed, and was now never true to begin with. Blizzard did this in spades. Bioware hasn't, yet.) is assuming that one or the other of them is must be correct. They can both be correct, because they have different perspectives on their people, on the Qun, and on the bas. I'd like to say "and on Tal-Vashoth" but I don't recall being able to ask Sten about them. Can you?