Your willing to risk it because you believe your preconception (i.e., templars going bad is less risky or dangerous than the College going bad) is valid. But what if it isn't? What if the templars prove to be more dangerous than the college? We just learned they drink the blood of some ancient being that we know nothing about and can be corrupted, like the Shal-brytol or the red templars. May I be so bold as to assert that what you are willing to risk could be the folly of your biases?
You may. That's not the same as doing so correctly. What everyone who opposes the Circle seems to miss is that the Templars going bad is mainly a threat to the mages, and the mages going bad is a threat to everyone; even if these corrupted Templars did go after the rest of the world, they'd be soundly crushed due to their main unique ability being anti-magic. If the mages go after the rest of the world, they'll probably still be crushed, because rest of the world, but they'll be much harder to take down.
And Orsino being locked up in the Gallows didn't stop him from becoming a Harvester. Locking mages up does not guarantee the overall safety of the populace. You can say that the Rite of Annulment and the abuse of the Rite of Tranquility will always suppress the mages, but the mages learned how to reverse the Rite, and more mages with exceptional skills like Dreamers such as Feynriel or Avexis who could control dragons can fight off an annulment. Judging by the choices of Hawke, even the Kirkwall Circle could survive an Annulment. It has served the nonmages for a long time because many mages thought themselves powerless against templars but Kirkwall could show they could be defied. Some mages will even risk possession, consorting with demons/spirits, and blood magic to fight off the Rite of Annulment. And we are still certain that the Annulment could be an effective measure as magic becomes more of a powerful force of nature? If a Circle creates more problems than it can contain, if the Rite doesn't always succeed, than the safeguards are ineffective. If it's goal is a slaughter on every side, then yes it works but if it's to contain the dangers of magic, perhaps it's time to refine the methods and find a better way.
Hawke was able to thwart an Annulment due to being a PC. My understanding is that Hawke was the only thing they had going for them that could do any such thing. If the mages aren't powerless against the Templars, they're still no match for the Chantry throwing as many of them as are around at it. Feynriel could maybe fight off an Annulment, if he knew one was coming and the Templars didn't bring in catapults to simply knock down the walls on him. (Though given his level of power he's likely either powerful enough to render the need for one moot, or powerful enough to be the reason one was necessary.) As for Avexis... is he the one with the dragons? If so, not good enough. A large enough force of Templars could probably handle a high dragon and its spawn.
The Grey Warden mages who were given freedom, such as Anders and Fiona, ended up revolting against the Circles. It's as samson says, magic is valuable to people who can exploit it. The Circles and Chantry believe in retaining the skills of mages without having to treat them as a person. How is that treating mages with dignity? Do you think the mages will truly be content to forever play the role of prized pet to the nonmages? It's similar to Leliana's relationship with Marjorlaine, you love them only when you can control them. Naturally, when they see their persecution, they'll lash out as she did.
Anders and Fiona then proceeded to give an example of why those rules existed that Templars can use to reinforce mage support for their rule. If the Circles are bad, so is the rebellion. As for mages being content... apparently more of them were than you think. We meet a mage in Redcliffe who did not support the rebellion, and in Vivienne's banter with Solas she states that most of the mages agreed with him. And while I agree that Vivienne might or might not be showing her bias there, I don't remember anyone ever attempting to contradict her, in person or in conversation with another.
In fact my understanding is that less than half of the voting representatives voted in favor of rebellion during Asunder; the ones who did won because they represented larger Fraternities, but the deciding vote (Rhys) had only become a member of his fraternity in order to cast this vote. My understanding is that there's either no reason to believe he tried to gauge what they wanted, or reason not to. Feel free to correct me on any of this: I haven't read the book and am trying to piece things together from forum posts, and for some reason I don't remember ever hearing a pro-mage account that went into any detail.
Well at least you are open about blood magic. Spirits used to kill is no more risky than spirits used to heal. If a demon intends harm, he'll do it unless the mage is vigilant enough. The Inquisition already uses Cole to kill. So long as those spirits operate in an ethical manner, I see no problem with it. Their abilities to read mind could help in fighting off maleficarum, criminals, and abominations.
Using spirits for anything is risky. The quote "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain" is from a far less dark franchise than this one. And I'm not just talking about meeting a spirit for the first time, since we're not really sure what the rules are about spirits becoming corrupted. If there even are any hard-and-fast rules, and a spirit can't just become corrupted whenever it does anything contrary to its nature at all. At any rate, being forced to kill already corrupted one spirit. Asking that same spirit to heal probably would have had an altogether different effect. (And while I'm aware that being forced was probably part of the problem, any spirit that doesn't need to be forced to kill is already potentially a problem.)
Now I agree that if mages find a spirit who can be persuaded that the circles are a good idea, and then put that spirit to work, that might help. And if the College doesn't already intend evil, they could do worse than use another spirit of Justice to keep themselves on the straight and narrow. But they need to be careful the whole time.
It seems like a more effective criminal justice system than Rites of Annulments anyways.
If anything else can work, you're not supposed to use the Right of Annulment. If it's even being considered, it's already way too late for this to work. That's rather the point. (Assuming the RoA's not being misused by some idiot with a grudge who should never have been made a Templar, which we didn't need to see the Magehunter Shield to know happens.) This can be useful as a way of defusing a situation that would otherwise require one, however, if the mages are careful using it.
So much freedom that they have to turn to the Mage Collective to do their research? Even the Divine had to be covert to research the Rite of Tranquility. I disagree. I believe biased ignorant nonmages who don't know a thing about magic suppressed academic study out of ignorance. Such fear of pragmatism is the problem.
Okay, you're right on that score. My mistake. Still, Justinia did get the research done. And Cassandra is one of her strongest loyalists. I can see her allowing research into new methods. Vivienne you might be right about.
Maybe. Or maybe they will solve the Qunari problem. It'd be nice to see Tevinter regain it's glory a little in an expansion. Who's to say it won't happen. Or maybe it will be taken over by the Qunari. But Tevinter could be something Calpernia wanted it to be if Bioware made it so. And if it does, I can definitely see it challenging the Sunburst Throne or at least becoming so much of a threat to the White Chantry that it may be mentioned in an epilogue of a future DA game.
Tevinter never had glory. What it had before the First Blight was a Gilded Age. To hear you describe Tevinter's Gilded Age as glory is a bit worrying.
If Tevinter has glory in a later installment it'll be because it's completely cast off all that remains of that except maybe for the rule of Magisters. And that sounds more like something that would happen after a game it appears in (and specifically because the player caused it to) than something that happens before it starts.
Demonolgy is no different the spiritology. What if that research can benefit spirit healers? It's perfectly safe so long as the study is controlled for danger.
While I agree demonology is a branch of spiritology, to describe them as the same is a bit worrying. And to hear anything related to demons described as "perfectly safe" is even more so. Use "relatively safe." Or just "less dangerous."