I chalk that to Gameplay mechanics or to show that he had training more than canon. In fact, I do not think I put all that many points into it in the first place.
Except Gaider said Alistair used lyrium, and in the comics he begins taking it again to regain powers he already knows how to use.
Except Gaider said Alistair used lyrium, and in the comics he begins taking it again to regain powers he already knows how to use.
Then to me, that means he completed training and became a full templar, not a templar in training. It does not say he was doped up on lyrium without his knowledge. I say origins was Mechanics or to show he had training.
Then to me, that means he completed training and became a full templar,
Except he didn't take vows. He never became a Templar.
Except he didn't take vows. He never became a Templar.
HE lied, because he did not want the Hero of Ferelden to know he was a lyrium addict.
HE lied, because he did not want the Hero of Ferelden to know he was a lyrium addict.
Or, and this is much more likely, Origins added a piece of lore that they decided to remove. Nobody would care if Alistair was a lyrium addict or not. Considering he is also able to teach the HoF who is acknowledged outside of Alistair as having Templar powers without the HoF actually using lyrium, it's just a simple retcon. It's nowhere near that serious. He also stopped taking lyrium when he left the Chantry, per Gaider, and that was months before DA:O even began. So either A ), Alistair has an unparalleled silvertongue where even the Chantry believes he wasn't a Templar and he can magically drug up the HoF without them noticing in a fit of unique genius, or B ) that particular piece of lore was erased. Which sounds more likely? .
Or, and this is much more likely, Origins added a piece of lore that they decided to remove. Nobody would care if Alistair was a lyrium addict or not. Considering he is also able to teach the HoF who is acknowledged outside of Alistair as having Templar powers without the HoF actually using lyrium, it's just a simple retcon. It's nowhere near that serious. He also stopped taking lyrium when he left the Chantry, per Gaider, and that was months before DA:O even began. So either A ), Alistair has an unparalleled silvertongue where even the Chantry believes he wasn't a Templar and he can magically drug up the HoF without them noticing in a fit of unique genius, or B ) that particular piece of lore was erased. Which sounds more likely? .
OR, as much more likely than that, It is simply a game mechanic, and Templar HoF are lyrium addicts just like Alistair.
OR, as much more likely than that, It is simply a game mechanic, and Templar HoF are lyrium addicts just like Alistair.
I don't think you know what game mechanics means. They don't even have access to lyrium much less the ability to refine it, and put it into philters.
I don't think you know what game mechanics means. They don't even have access to lyrium much less the ability to refine it, and put it into philters.
I do not trust Alistair. He lied about the Templars not needing Lyrium. He hid the fact that he was royalty, why would he not lie about not being a full Templar?
I don't think you know what game mechanics means. They don't even have access to lyrium much less the ability to refine it, and put it into philters.
Meaning that what is shown in gameplay isn't necessarily accurate to stated lore.
Though in the case lyrium and templars, the separation isn't that greatly reinforced or consistent.
Origins: Alistair, a trustworthy, good-hearted and honest companion who was a templar trainee recruited to the wardens before taking his vows tells you that templars may not need lyrium for their abilities. Something that's reinforced by how the Warden can learn the specialization and not have to take lyrium for it.
Dragon Age II: Templar Hawke is also not shown to use lyrium for his abilities. Some have said that he probably smuggled the lyrium in and that's how he got the abilities. But the lack of on-screen proof could lead to the possibility of Alistair being right and that the lyrium thing is just a system of control by the Chantry.
Yet, the comic and Inquisition add in contradicting evidence that suggests that templars do in fact need to take lyrium. However, the comic is a supplementary optional story for a series whose main entries are video games. Attempting to use the comic as a basis and proof for a retcon comes off as awkward and ineffective because not everyone will read the comic or even consider it "more canon" than the games. Especially if the background of the canon doesn't match with the canon of their playthroughs. (Bioware's canon has the Warden die while plenty of players kept theirs alive.)
Then you have Cullen's reference that templars don't take lyrium until after they take their vows and considering that he's been in the order for over ten years, Cullen's word should not be dismissed lightly. Which means that Alistair's theory has more credibility or how else do you explain how Alistair and the Warden can use templar abilities without the shown use of lyrium.
Another reason why the retcon makes no sense is because this blatant "backtracking" also adds an out-of-character moment for Alistair. The WOG retcon dictates that Alistair basically lied to the Warden, took lyrium behind his back and now the Warden is unknowingly tricked into becoming a drug addict.
Long story short Gameplay-Story Segregation is another way of saying that the writers' made an oversight in the classic rule of "Show and Tell".
But considering all of the contradicting stuff that the retcon created, you're free to ignore it. It's somewhat of a minor issue anyway, so feel free to fill in the blanks with headcanon and your theories or whatever will be just as valid as the canon retcon.
It would have been less of a headache if BW had kept the issue ambiguous.
Dragon Age II: Templar Hawke is also not shown to use lyrium for his abilities. Some have said that he probably smuggled the lyrium in and that's how he got the abilities. But the lack of on-screen proof could lead to the possibility of Alistair being right and that the lyrium thing is just a system of control by the Chantry.
If the specialization descriptions on the wiki are taken from canonical ones, then Hawke got his powers by smuggling lyrium.
Yet, the comic and Inquisition add in contradicting evidence that suggests that templars do in fact need to take lyrium. However, the comic is a supplementary optional story for a series whose main entries are video games. Attempting to use the comic as a basis and proof for a retcon comes off as awkward and ineffective because not everyone will read the comic or even consider it "more canon" than the games. Especially if the background of the canon doesn't match with the canon of their playthroughs. (Bioware's canon has the Warden die while plenty of players kept theirs alive.)
Everything in the comics that your decisions cannot change is canon (such as the underlying rules the setting follows, for instance.) If you don't consider that to be canon, that's fine, but it still is.
Then you have Cullen's reference that templars don't take lyrium until after they take their vows and considering that he's been in the order for over ten years, Cullen's word should not be dismissed lightly. Which means that Alistair's theory has more credibility or how else do you explain how Alistair and the Warden can use templar abilities without the shown use of lyrium.
Another reason why the retcon makes no sense is because this blatant "backtracking" also adds an out-of-character moment for Alistair. The WOG retcon dictates that Alistair basically lied to the Warden, took lyrium behind his back and now the Warden is unknowingly tricked into becoming a drug addict.
Source?
It would have been less of a headache if BW had kept the issue ambiguous.
Or if once they'd established how Templar powers worked, they hadn't changed it. Though I agree that Bioware dropped the ball here.
If the specialization descriptions on the wiki are taken from canonical ones, then Hawke got his powers by smuggling lyrium.
Everything in the comics that your decisions cannot change is canon (such as the underlying rules the setting follows, for instance.) If you don't consider that to be canon, then more power to you, but it still is.
Source?
Or if once they'd established how Templar powers worked, they hadn't changed it. Though I agree that Bioware dropped the ball here.
1. We still don't actually see Hawke using lyrium which means that the descriptions are another example of "Tell rather than show." Then again, this could be because DAII basically acted like none of the specializations existed at all. (among other problems)
2. Considering that the comic is a side-story, I doubt that it should be held on the same level of canon as the games. The comics and the novels are supplements to the video games which are again, the primary installments of the dragon age series. Hence, anything shown in the comic that doesn't match in the games can be safely ignored.
3. I'll get back to you on that one when I find it in Inquisition. Though the wiki also states that templars don't take lyrium till they complete their vows. Alistair was recruited before he took his and hence the contradictions.
4. Fair enough.
1. We still don't actually see Hawke using lyrium which means that the descriptions are another example of "Tell rather than show." Then again, this could be because DAII basically acted like none of the specializations existed at all. (among other problems)
Handwaving the game.
2. Considering that the comic is a side-story, I doubt that it should be held on the same level of canon as the games. The comics and the novels are supplements to the video games which are again, the primary installments of the dragon age series. Hence, anything shown in the comic that doesn't match in the games can be safely ignored.
Handwaving the comic.
3. I'll get back to you on that one when I find it in Inquisition. Though the wiki also states that templars don't take lyrium till they complete their vows. Alistair was recruited before he took his and hence the contradictions.
It doesn't say that. It's said they are given their first philters, a full dosage, or lyrium.
I mean if you don't want to accept Bioware realised people having magic for no reason made no sense, fine by me, but seriously. Also, books aren't a lower source of canon, especially when they're written by the lead writers of the series. Unless said otherwise, and Gaider makes a point to when they make a mistake, the books are canon. Also, Gaider himself said Templars need lyrium. Word of god>random idiot who has noble heritage.
I'm going to go with
"Templars need Lyrium for their powers to have the full effect"
"A person with Templar Training but without Lyrium is not effective enough to fight mages."
"Once a templar takes Lyrium, they get addicted."
"Alistair trained as a Templar, but since he never took Lyrium, he's not very good at it."
question: should we require lyirum to use templar powers and should mages/templars have to worry about lyrium addiction?
Yes, and yes. Also mages don't suffer lyrium addiction from what we know.
Yes, and yes. Also mages don't suffer lyrium addiction from what we know.
why not? if they take lyrium to enchance their magic wouldn't they logically have to worry about addiction?
of course considering how useful the lyrium potions are for the mages, and how neccessary lyrium is for mages maybe they are all addicted and do not know it 
HC acceptedI'm going to go with
"Templars need Lyrium for their powers to have the full effect"
"A person with Templar Training but without Lyrium is not effective enough to fight mages."
"Once a templar takes Lyrium, they get addicted."
"Alistair trained as a Templar, but since he never took Lyrium, he's not very good at it."
a fan theory ive heard was that magi have lyrium in the blood and somehow gained a "tolerance". Dont put much stock in itwhy not? if they take lyrium to enchance their magic wouldn't they logically have to worry about addiction?
of course considering how useful the lyrium potions are for the mages, and how neccessary lyrium is for mages maybe they are all addicted and do not know it
why not? if they take lyrium to enchance their magic wouldn't they logically have to worry about addiction?
of course considering how useful the lyrium potions are for the mages, and how neccessary lyrium is for mages maybe they are all addicted and do not know it
Because mages already have lyrium in their body.
Also, lyrium potions aren't necessary and mages don't need lyrium. They can however pull power from large quantities of it in a similar fashion to blood magic.
Or, and this is much more likely, Origins added a piece of lore that they decided to remove. Nobody would care if Alistair was a lyrium addict or not. Considering he is also able to teach the HoF who is acknowledged outside of Alistair as having Templar powers without the HoF actually using lyrium, it's just a simple retcon. It's nowhere near that serious. He also stopped taking lyrium when he left the Chantry, per Gaider, and that was months before DA:O even began. So either A ), Alistair has an unparalleled silvertongue where even the Chantry believes he wasn't a Templar and he can magically drug up the HoF without them noticing in a fit of unique genius, or B ) that particular piece of lore was erased. Which sounds more likely? .
Alistair surely doesn't have all those things going on with Cullen's breaking off lyrium after 10+ years. Maybe (if ever) when he took it, it's like only a very short moment before Duncan recruit him?
Handwaving the game.
Handwaving the comic.
It doesn't say that. It's said they are given their first philters, a full dosage, or lyrium.
I mean if you don't want to accept Bioware realised people having magic for no reason made no sense, fine by me, but seriously. Also, books aren't a lower source of canon, especially when they're written by the lead writers of the series. Unless said otherwise, and Gaider makes a point to when they make a mistake, the books are canon. Also, Gaider himself said Templars need lyrium. Word of god>random idiot who has noble heritage.
1. Pointing out a real lack of "show and tell" rather than "tell and no show".
2. Supplemental material that is not necessary, so yeah and this is not a bad thing. Also, this is Bioware's canon, the events of the comics don't necessarily line up with what happened in the game. (What if Alistair is dead, became a drunk or stayed on as a warden? What if "The Warden" is still alive? What if Isabella was given over to the Qunari? Sten being left in Lothering?)
3. Still doesn't clear up the contradiction.
In the end, this retcon also comes up as wasted potential. You know how seekers are unknowingly made tranquil and then given their powers through a spirit of faith? Leaving whether lyrium is necessary for templar powers or not could have led to a similar revelation with lyrium being a very real system of control set in by the Chantry. (Which it is either way) and then this would lead to either a true revolution of the order's methods and training or simply integrating them into a New seeker order (They're basically the same order anyway as seekers are often drawn from senior templars).
Instead...we either have Alistair as a blatant liar and secret lyrium addict which makes no sense to his character or the writers need more than a WOG supported by a side-story to clear this up.
I am going with the "anyone who takes lyrium and gains powers from it to hunt mages is a Templar" theory. No in-training, no initiate, no nothing.
1. Pointing out a real lack of "show and tell" rather than "tell and no show".
2. Supplemental material that is not necessary, so yeah and this is not a bad thing. Also, this is Bioware's canon, the events of the comics don't necessarily line up with what happened in the game. (What if Alistair is dead, became a drunk or stayed on as a warden? What if "The Warden" is still alive? What if Isabella was given over to the Qunari? Sten being left in Lothering?)
1. Fair, but if the description is canon it's canon.
2. Again: the rule of thumb as far as the events of any comic or book is that if your own decisions cannot logically be said to effect it, it's canon. The Warden being dead is not canon, despite being the state of things in the comics, because the Warden can survive. Alistair being alive during the time period of the comics is not canon, because he can die. Maric being alive at the start of the comics is canon, because none of your decisions can effect that. Flemeth appearing in Sundermount is canon, because while killing her should stop that from happening, it doesn't. And there is no decision you can make that changes the fundamental rules of the setting. Therefore, the rules as set forth in the comics are probably meant to reflect the way magic works in this setting.
Yes, and yes. Also mages don't suffer lyrium addiction from what we know.
The devs apparently meant for both mages and templars to be able to suffer the effects of addiction as a gameplay mechanic, but they couldn't figure out how to make it simultaneously noticeable and not punishing. As for something in-game, the Codex in Origins notes that Templars become paranoid and mages can mutate, and that the use of lyrium is addictive without specifying one class of user in particular.
I am going with the "anyone who takes lyrium and gains powers from it to hunt mages is a Templar" theory. No in-training, no initiate, no nothing.
Retour en haut