62 réponses à ce sujet

[The Ascendant]

Anyone have any ideas? Many argue mages considering their range of abilities, but those abilities can be counteracted by Templars and Seekers(pending on Seeker). In the game it took an equal amount of mages or templars to help seal the Breach. Is this an indication that they are fairly even in terms of power and ability? 

[Boost32]

Anyone have any ideas? Many argue mages considering their range of abilities, but those abilities can be counteracted by Templars and Seekers(pending on Seeker). In the game it took an equal amount of mages or templars to help seal the Breach. Is this an indication that they are fairly even in terms of power and ability?

The templars have more numbers, are winning the war and not all mages are a fighter, because of this the Order is more powerful than the rebels.
But a mage can become much more powerful than a Templar, especially if he is using blood magic.

[Mirrman70]

Its not a matter of one Templar vs one Mage. As organizations Templars are more efficient and more capable of acting on their own. There is a reason they were winning.

[TheJediSaint]

Pfft, that's easy.  Champions.

[Ashagar]

Anyone have any ideas? Many argue mages considering their range of abilities, but those abilities can be counteracted by Templars and Seekers(pending on Seeker). In the game it took an equal amount of mages or templars to help seal the Breach. Is this an indication that they are fairly even in terms of power and ability? 

 

The Templars have numbers and organization on their side while nearly half the mages are in the loyalist camp leaving only a slight majority in the rebel camp and are disorganized.

 

The seekers meanwhile while having a variety of abilities, have elite training compared to Templars and are immune blood magic and possession and are also lyrium users(mages and Templars) worse nightmare. Their biggest limitation is their small numbers, there are only small numbers of them scattered and operating out of isolated fortresses usually in pairs.

[Teshayel]

As a group, I'd agree with everyone else: the Templars are more powerful. On an individual level, a mage can have more power. I wouldn't take the numbers you see in game for how many mages vs Templars participate in sealing the breach seriously. The cut scene seems to be there to help move the game along, not to show which group has more power. At least, that's how I took it

[Incantrix]

Templars are trained for battle. 

 

Only a small sector of mages are trained and capable of war. 

 

 

Now if we say...battle mages vs Templars in an equal numbers fight, then battle mages win. A single mage can employ forces that a single Templar cannot withstand. 

 

The issue is just having a mage be powerful enough to summon such force.I'd imagine only a few battle mages, tevinter magi and our past array of extraordinarily mage companions can do it. 

[Eliastion]

On individual level an average mage would be stronger than average templar. As a group (even accounting for numbers difference) I'd say mages are still more powerful, but with a catch - they need regular troops to defend them. It's not a great analogy, but they are a bit like artillery - they can change the flow of battle (and even war) considerably, but as supporting unit. Take away the soldiers and mages' effectiveness plummets.
Either way, in question Mages vs Templars question (related to the war, I presume) we're generally talking about organization vs organization - and as organization Templars are both more numerous and better organized from the get-go. They have working military hierarchy while mages, though schooled for battle (the general focus of the Circle is combat-related magic) aren't well suited to waging a war for themselves. Basically, in organization vs organization Templars have an advantage. They can still be outmaneuvered and them breaking away from Chantry definitely was a blow to their loyalty (after all they're recruited in no small part based on their faith and it's the Chantry that represents said faith) - this has led to emergence of breakaway groups within the order, like the extremists in Hinterlands and deserters that joined Inquisition even before Mages/Templars (I know with Cullen I had some war table missions explicitly involving using a dispatch of our own Templars despite choosing the Redcliffe path). Despite those setbacks, Templars had advantage and were the war to continue, mages would need to find allies and pretty much start working for someone in exchange for protection; I imagine their presence in Redcliffe in the first place could've been a step in this direction (but then all that Summit, Inquisition and Cory stuff started to happen ).

On the last note - I think it's quite dangerous to try and draw conclusions from cutscenes. The reasoning behind number of mages and Templars was most certainly: ok, it would look best if we put them here, here, here and here. Basically if you needed only as many of them as was shown in the breach-closing cutscene, you could most certainly do it without really recruiting either mages or templars en masse I suppose the numbers you really needed to support the ritual were more like a hundred people (if not a couple hundred) than a dozen or two - that's why you really needed the help of the organization in question, not just some rag-tag bunch of mages/templars gathered on the road with your shinyhanded heraldofadrasiness.

[Incantrix]

On individual level an average mage would be stronger than average templar. As a group (even accounting for numbers difference) I'd say mages are still more powerful, but with a catch - they need regular troops to defend them. It's not a great analogy, but they are a bit like artillery - they can change the flow of battle (and even war) considerably, but as supporting unit. Take away the soldiers and mages' effectiveness plummets.
Either way, in question Mages vs Templars question (related to the war, I presume) we're generally talking about organization vs organization - and as organization Templars are both more numerous and better organized from the get-go. They have working military hierarchy while mages, though schooled for battle (the general focus of the Circle is combat-related magic) aren't well suited to waging a war for themselves. Basically, in organization vs organization Templars have an advantage. They can still be outmaneuvered and them breaking away from Chantry definitely was a blow to their loyalty (after all they're recruited in no small part based on their faith and it's the Chantry that represents said faith) - this has led to emergence of breakaway groups within the order, like the extremists in Hinterlands and deserters that joined Inquisition even before Mages/Templars (I know with Cullen I had some war table missions explicitly involving using a dispatch of our own Templars despite choosing the Redcliffe path). Despite those setbacks, Templars had advantage and were the war to continue, mages would need to find allies and pretty much start working for someone in exchange for protection; I imagine their presence in Redcliffe in the first place could've been a step in this direction (but then all that Summit, Inquisition and Cory stuff started to happen ).

On the last note - I think it's quite dangerous to try and draw conclusions from cutscenes. The reasoning behind number of mages and Templars was most certainly: ok, it would look best if we put them here, here, here and here. Basically if you needed only as many of them as was shown in the breach-closing cutscene, you could most certainly do it without really recruiting either mages or templars en masse I suppose the numbers you really needed to support the ritual were more like a hundred people (if not a couple hundred) than a dozen or two - that's why you really needed the help of the organization in question, not just some rag-tag bunch of mages/templars gathered on the road with your shinyhanded heraldofadrasiness.

 

That is not true. Most of the magic taught in the circle is defensive/theory/utilty. 

 

Don't mistake our PC circle mages as being the rule. Battle magic is only taught to the best and trusted mages in the circle. In times of war, they might teach more combat magic for protection but for the most part, it's mostly utility/theory. 

[Ashagar]

Also different towers and regions had different specializations apparently they were known for, Orlais's towers for instance seems to produce a lot of battle mages apparently given the numbers on both sides of the civil war and with the freemen while Navarra is necromancer central, Kirkwall was known for force mages and of Ferelden's two circles I think the lake Calahad was known for spirit mages.

[Eliastion]

That is not true. Most of the magic taught in the circle is defensive/theory/utilty. 
 
Don't mistake our PC circle mages as being the rule. Battle magic is only taught to the best and trusted mages in the circle. In times of war, they might teach more combat magic for protection but for the most part, it's mostly utility/theory.

Defensive magic is also battle magic and frankly? I don't really see utility magic. I don't only refer to PC here (it's expected that in battle-centered game most magic used by characters will be battle-oriented) but while walking the world it's quite hard to find applications of magic outside those useful in battle - and the more powerful magic, it seems, the less chance that it's about utility...
But, admittedly, I never studied the topic extensively, I didn't read the books, for example... so if you have some examples of powerful Circle magic that has nothing to do with war, I'd be glad to see them. One possibly exception that comes to mind are Mortalitasi. And they're... kinda strange as Circle Mages go

[TheKomandorShepard]

Templars to be honest 3 years war with mages is just bad and inconsistent writing on devs part like lack of abomnations in dai where by logic their numbers should reach peak in dai.

[Eliastion]

Templars to be honest 3 years war with mages is just bad and inconsistent writing on devs part like lack of abomnations in dai where by logic their numbers should reach peak in dai.

That or - what a surprise - mages don't spontaneously turn into abominations the moment Templars look away for a moment. And as for the length of the war - perhaps Templars just aren't as powerful in a fight against mages as they would like to believe.
Also, demons flung into the living world via rifts are likely too disoriented to really look for hosts (it's pitiful to see Pride demons as mindless beasts) AND they are sustained in the material world by rifts themselves, so they don't really need hosts as much as pre-breach Demons. Therefore while rifts do bring in demons, they don't necessarily have to lead to creation of abominations.

[TheKomandorShepard]

That or - what a surprise - mages don't spontaneously turn into abominations the moment Templars look away for a moment. And as for the length of the war - perhaps Templars just aren't as powerful in a fight against mages as they would like to believe.
Also, demons flung into the living world via rifts are likely too disoriented to really look for hosts (it's pitiful to see Pride demons as mindless beasts) AND they are sustained in the material world by rifts themselves, so they don't really need hosts as much as pre-breach Demons. Therefore while rifts do bring in demons, they don't necessarily have to lead to creation of abominations.

Not rly as we see in dao and da 2 and well other products they do well maybe not in moment they look away but it don't take mage much for mage to turn into one especially in bad life conditions and now mages are in war.

 

They are or at least should be as far pretty much in any case mages vs templars battle was pretty much templars destroying mages like da 2 battle or asunder.

 

So pretty much templars had not only their abilities and trening against mages but they also outnumber them and are far better organized and that without fact that mages were extremely divided and most of them had no battle experience this war lasted way longer than it should..  

 

Demon seek mage not only to enter real world but also for power and to experience human life in fact this is reason why the want to enter real world.Also there are still plenty demons in the fade not only those around rift. Also i didn't say that rifts were reason why abomnations in dai should be far more common than in any game in series reason 

1)Mages are free and unchecked what leaves great room for blood mages

2)Mages face war thus they are facing worst conditions in series as far

 

 Combine two and you should have nice legion of blood mages and abomnations. 

 

 

[ComedicSociopathy]

[Master Warder Z_]

Eh one on one I credit Templar victory over a mage 9 out of 10 times.

[Eliastion]

Not rly as we see in dao and da 2 and well other products they do well maybe not in moment they look away but it don't take mage much for mage to turn into one especially in bad life conditions and now mages are in war.
 
They are or at least should be as far pretty much in any case mages vs templars battle was pretty much templars destroying mages like da 2 battle or asunder.
 
So pretty much templars had not only their abilities and trening against mages but they also outnumber them and are far better organized and that without fact that mages were extremely divided and most of them had no battle experience this war lasted way longer than it should..  
 
Demon seek mage not only to enter real world but also for power and to experience human life in fact this is reason why the want to enter real world.Also there are still plenty demons in the fade not only those around rift. Also i didn't say that rifts were reason why abomnations in dai should be far more common than in any game in series reason 
1)Mages are free and unchecked what leaves great room for blood mages
2)Mages face war thus they are facing worst conditions in series as far
 
 Combine two and you should have nice legion of blood mages and abomnations.

Or, perhaps, those mages that actually turned to blood magic and demon summoning had a problem to begin with - and that's why they did it, not lack of oversight. Also, Templars in DA:O did a fairly poor job at fighting mages and demons in Circel of Magi, they pretty much got their armor-clad butts handed to them by a minority of Circle's mages. The conditions were far from optimal: they were not prepared and they weren't authorized to kill innocent mages... but they still lost there, badly. I don't doubt Templars can win against mages. But they don't always win. And mages have so much more potential for improvisation to even out unfavorable odds.

Oh, and as for being in war that doesn't go too well - while I agree that desperation is a good incentive to turn to dangerous and forbidden magic, this works mostly on personal level and mainly concerns people who were so desperate to begin with that they actually run away from the Circle (and are likely to question everything they were ever taught about magic). But the rebels are a different case. They're fighting for their lives and freedom, but they're not runaways. They still practice the magic they learned (and taught others) and they still value all those lessons they've taken and given as circle mages.
Also, what you might forget is that blood magic isn't only forbidden - it's considered disgusting and evil. There is so much more than fear of punishment that keeps mages away from "dark arts".

Not that I expect you to acknowledge any of it. As far as I am concerned, feel free to be disappointed (and consider it a bad writing) that mages happened to not go down overnight when faced by Templar threat. Or that they didn't suddenly throw all their convictions out of the window the moment they realized they're at war.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Or, perhaps, those mages that actually turned to blood magic and demon summoning had a problem to begin with - and that's why they did it, not lack of oversight. Also, Templars in DA:O did a fairly poor job at fighting mages and demons in Circel of Magi, they pretty much got their armor-clad butts handed to them by a minority of Circle's mages. The conditions were far from optimal: they were not prepared and they weren't authorized to kill innocent mages... but they still lost there, badly. I don't doubt Templars can win against mages. But they don't always win. And mages have so much more potential for improvisation to even out unfavorable odds.

Oh, and as for being in war that doesn't go too well - while I agree that desperation is a good incentive to turn to dangerous and forbidden magic, this works mostly on personal level and mainly concerns people who were so desperate to begin with that they actually run away from the Circle (and are likely to question everything they were ever taught about magic). But the rebels are a different case. They're fighting for their lives and freedom, but they're not runaways. They still practice the magic they learned (and taught others) and they still value all those lessons they've taken and given as circle mages.
Also, what you might forget is that blood magic isn't only forbidden - it's considered disgusting and evil. There is so much more than fear of punishment that keeps mages away from "dark arts".

Not that I expect you to acknowledge any of it. As far as I am concerned, feel free to be disappointed (and consider it a bad writing) that mages happened to not go down overnight when faced by Templar threat. Or that they didn't suddenly throw all their convictions out of the window the moment they realized they're at war.

 

They turned into blood mages because oversight if there was proper control of mages they wouldn't turn into blood mages because they would be dead or rather they would be dead blood mages. Mages turn into blood mages for various they don't matter what matter they turn into them and that without control numbers of such mages rise because they don't face fear of punishment for doing that.

 

Templars in dao weren't facing mages they were facing tower full of abomnations and yet even then templars can handle it and they did many times after all that is whole point of RoA. 

 

Many times we saw mages vs templars end mages destroyed by templars in dragon age 2 mages were defeated , in asunder the same and pretty much rivain circle was another templar victory.

 

And that is not even close you try paint rebeles as saint what isn't even close to truth (so what they fight for freedom lol) then we have people like grace or uldred and their people (mages) that were blood mages and rebeles.So yes desperation , fear or anger they should face in war was more than enough to throw good number of those rebels into blood magic or demons.  

Apparently not enough to prevent great portion of mages from using it in series.

 

So yes if those factors caused mages to turn into blood mages or abomnations in fact numbers of those should be larger then ever if those factors were far stronger in dai. 

[Uccio]

Mages obviously. Tevinter Imperium just called to say hello.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Mages obviously. Tevinter Imperium just called to say hello.

From what i know there is war table mission where you can send templars to protect somone as other magisters want to get her and they have their ass kicked by templars.

[Eliastion]

There, there, don't get too frustrated.
Also, I never said rebel mages were saints. I just laugh at you perceiving them as similar to runaway apostates. Or at the idea of them suddenly condoning use of blood magic.

And as for Templar victories, I don't know much about what happened in the book, but in Rivain a small circle got annuled by an army of Templars, seems that forces were hardly representative to relative strengths of mages and Templars elsewhere and in Kirkwall we have a situation where Templars are excessively powerful faction, pretty much controlling the city at that point. Basically, neither or those two situations can be taken as a good gauge of the overall strength. Perhaps events in Asunder are different and somehow more representative, I don't know, but those two other examples you gave tell us nothing. Apparently though - seeing later developments - difference in strength wasn't really as great as a couple early victories before the rebellion started could have templar sympathizer believe.

[TheKomandorShepard]

There, there, don't get too frustrated.
Also, I never said rebel mages were saints. I just laugh at you perceiving them as similar to runaway apostates. Or at the idea of them suddenly condoning use of blood magic.

And as for Templar victories, I don't know much about what happened in the book, but in Rivain a small circle got annuled by an army of Templars, seems that forces were hardly representative to relative strengths of mages and Templars elsewhere and in Kirkwall we have a situation where Templars are excessively powerful faction, pretty much controlling the city at that point. Basically, neither or those two situations can be taken as a good gauge of the overall strength. Perhaps events in Asunder are different and somehow more representative, I don't know, but those two other examples you gave tell us nothing. Apparently though - seeing later developments - difference in strength wasn't really as great as a couple early victories before the rebellion started could have templar sympathizer believe.

I don't i explain simple facts.

You did in fact by fact you have claimed they are immune to using blood magic by fact they are rebeles and they fight for freedom.I do there is no much difference in fact they are apostates.And from where is suddenly part we know there are plenty of blood mages not mention as if "blood magic is bleh" would stop many people best example is prob alexius and dorian father.Also we are not talking here about loyalists that value chantry teachings but good portion of those rebeles were libertarians . 

 

It tell us a lot Kirkwall was example templars from kirkwall circle vs mages from kirkwall circle and it was pure mages vs templars from one circle city forces weren't taking part in it unless you took templars side then templars had city guards on their side while in fact good portion of mages that templars fought were blood mages or an abomnations.Whether it was small circle or not don't know but i know that they have lost.

[Eliastion]

I don't i explain simple facts.

You did in fact by fact you have claimed they are immune to using blood magic by fact they are rebeles and they fight for freedom.I do there is no much difference in fact they are apostates.And from where is suddenly part we know there is plenty of blood mages not mention as if "blood magic is bleh" would stop many people best example is prob alexius and dorian father.Also we are not talking here about loyalists that value chantry teachings but good portion of those rebeles were libertarians . 

 

It tell us a lot Kirkwall was example templars from kirkwall circle vs mages from kirkwall circle mages and it was pure mages vs templars from one circle city forces weren't taking part in it unless you took templars side then templars had city guards on their side while in fact good portion of mages that templars fought were blood mages or an abomnations.Whether it was small circle or not don't know but i know that they have lost.

Ok, now you stopped making any sense and started having problems forming coherent phrases... not to mention understanding my posts. What I managed to dig out of this messy post, though, I'll try to respond to:

1. Not wanting to be a prisoner under Templar martial law doesn't mean discarding your ethical code.

2. Do you seriously think that Templars had no more presence (relative to mages' forces) in Kirkwall than in average Circle?

3. As for Rivain - we know it was a small circle, standing there to make Chantry ****** off rather than actually manage Rivaini mages. But if Templar victory makes you feel better, good for you. But it doesn't prove Templar strength and therefore doesn't contradict established fact that Templars waged their war on mages for 3 years and while winning, still were far enough from decisive victory to consider any kind of peace talks.

 

Your problem is that you take the facts you like, interpret them however you like and any further fact contradicting your interpretation you take as inconsistent. But they're not. They're new facts that make your interpretation detached from reality of the setting. Dragon Age has its fair share of inconsistencies and some places where consistent interpretation, while possible, is somewhat strained. But the fact that Templars didn't manage to pull off a fast victory doesn't belong to either category.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Ok, now you stopped making any sense and started having problems forming coherent phrases... not to mention understanding my posts. What I managed to dig out of this messy post, though, I'll try to respond to:

1. Not wanting to be a prisoner under Templar martial law doesn't mean discarding your ethical code.

2. Do you seriously think that Templars had no more presence (relative to mages' forces) in Kirkwall than in average Circle?

3. As for Rivain - we know it was a small circle, standing there to make Chantry ****** off rather than actually manage Rivaini mages. But if Templar victory makes you feel better, good for you. But it doesn't prove Templar strength and therefore doesn't contradict established fact that Templars waged their war on mages for 3 years and while winning, still were far enough from decisive victory to consider any kind of peace talks.

 

Your problem is that you take the facts you like, interpret them however you like and any further fact contradicting your interpretation you take as inconsistent. But they're not. They're new facts that make your interpretation detached from reality of the setting. Dragon Age has its fair share of inconsistencies and some places where consistent interpretation, while possible, is somewhat strained. But the fact that Templars didn't manage to pull off a fast victory doesn't belong to either category.

It have sense if only you have not decide to ignore it.

 

1.Yes it doesn't but also doesn't mean that they won't do that as shown in series this is in case often in fact people often throw their morlas to the dumpster when face difficult situations (and mages already did that in series ) not everyone but many do.Also you assume that rebel mages are paragon of goodness and that they have some kind of code that prevents them from using blood magic and even if some of them have they won't use it when convenient like dorian father or pretty much many blood mages that were from circles...

 

2.Not rly i barely saw them outside circle and pretty much almost always when outside circle things were related to mages save for third act where meredith was in position as temporary leader of the city then we can see templars in Viscount keep.And yes they had more presence in kirkwall than other circles we saw because well fact it was in kirkwall.

 

3.As i said they have won as they did in kirkwall and as they did during CoE in asunder and in fact those were fair examples.

 

Not rly i take facts and i point and fact is that templars were superior as in fact they should be as they are trained specifically to fight mages and have special abilities to do so not mention pretty much that i already pointed that templars forces were far in better position by virute outnumbering mages ,being far better organized and unlike most mages they had combat experience when mages were extremely divided.

[Teshayel]

So, I found this little gem on DevArt as an apropos of Templars vs Mages. Only it looks like an Assassin rather than a mage... but, still pretty cool cosplay

 

By chantryBOOM: