62 réponses à ce sujet

[Eliastion]

(...)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.

Templars are trained to fight mages (including special abilities) and more numerous - and that's why they were winning this war. Though Templars' combat experiece - while obviously they do have advantage here - shouldn't be overestimated, seeing what their usual role is. They too don't seem to be a force well suited to fighting an actual war.

Mages given time to prepare and position do defend are extremely effective (though they really could use some mundane support) and while Templars were fighting to exterminate the enemy, for their opponents it was a war of survival (and one where they don't really need to hold any particular ground). Those are some major advantages.

And, either way - you kip picking examples and saying "Templars won there so they are so strong that they should crush mages instantly". The fact is - they didn't. So they are not that strong. But it's a contradiction to your perception, not to the fact that they won those battles - I simply tell you why those battles could've been won despite Templars not being as strong as you think. In Rivain they brought disproportionately big forces to a small Circle (and still sustained heavy losses), In Kirkwall they had a very strong presence to begin with - they won the battle (though they didn't manage to stop all escapees... although I admittedly don't know how many there were, it could've been insignificant fraction of all mages) but their starting position was better than the average. You have your assumptions and fight against any interpretation that doesn't support them... but the current lore doesn't support them either.

I take what we know and fill the blanks so that what we know makes sense. You do the opposite - you fill the blanks however you wish they would be filled (making Templars to be vastly supeerior in every aspect) and when the result is inconsistent you cry lore inconsistency.

But it's not lore, it's your headcanon.

[Eliastion]

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:

 

The Templar lookes templarish, but his opponent... yeah. I've seen mages doing strange things, but charging a Templar with wrist blades would be a first  

[TheKomandorShepard]

Templars are trained to fight mages (including special abilities) and more numerous - and that's why they were winning this war. Though Templars' combat experiece - while obviously they do have advantage here - shouldn't be overestimated, seeing what their usual role is. They too don't seem to be a force well suited to fighting an actual war.

Mages given time to prepare and position do defend are extremely effective (though they really could use some mundane support) and while Templars were fighting to exterminate the enemy, for their opponents it was a war of survival (and one where they don't really need to hold any particular ground). Those are some major advantages.

And, either way - you kip picking examples and saying "Templars won there so they are so strong that they should crush mages instantly". The fact is - they didn't. So they are not that strong. But it's a contradiction to your perception, not to the fact that they won those battles - I simply tell you why those battles could've been won despite Templars not being as strong as you think. In Rivain they brought disproportionately big forces to a small Circle (and still sustained heavy losses), In Kirkwall they had a very strong presence to begin with - they won the battle (though they didn't manage to stop all escapees... although I admittedly don't know how many there were, it could've been insignificant fraction of all mages) but their starting position was better than the average. You have your assumptions and fight against any interpretation that doesn't support them... but the current lore doesn't support them either.

I take what we know and fill the blanks so that what we know makes sense. You do the opposite - you fill the blanks however you wish they would be filled (making Templars to be vastly supeerior in every aspect) and when the result is inconsistent you cry lore inconsistency.

But it's not lore, it's your headcanon.

 

You pointed what i have said and why mages had no chance at this war.Where because i didn't saw them doing that nor being effective and where you see here advantage for mages all you pointed that mages were hunted prey that fought for survival.   

 

The fact is they did many times and i have examples as support.And not rly you dismiss kirkwall because templars had an advantage (lol my whole point) while in fact it was battle between templars and mages from one circle and there is nowhere stated that templars had better start than average not to mention they were fighting also with abomnations and blood mages. 

 

Also from where you have information that they brought "disproportionately big forces"?

 

I already pointed kirkwall then i have pointed asunder then we have as i said rivain in all cases templars have won in kirkwall they were fighting well not as equal as mages have lost but it was fight of templars and mages from 1 circle.  

 

I don't think you know what headcanon means considering that i have pointed examples from games ,books and dragon age lore not from my head that you dismiss it because you don't like it as you dismissed WoG on circle because you didn't like it so as far headcanon comes from you.

[DreamSever]

against regular  mages a Templar would win but even it out vs a knight enchanter or arcane warrior and they wont last long

[TheKomandorShepard]

against regular  mages a Templar would win but even it out vs a knight enchanter or arcane warrior and they wont last long

KE and AW are worst kind of mage that you can send on templar as they fight in close combat using magic templar turn off their magic and they are done.

[Boost32]

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:

 

is she insane? Why she would go to close quartes against a templar? And why she want to stab someone with plate armor ?

[DreamSever]

regular mages have to rely on distance and they are easier for the Templars to kill because they have no backup plan(unless they are blood mages), who knows what a knight enchanter would do on the battlefield, even more so for an arcane warrior since they are so few and rare

[Teshayel]

is she insane? Why she would go to close quartes against a templar? And why she want to stab someone with plate armor ?

 

If he had his back turned, then it would work. Or, if they'd Photoshopped a fireball in there, or something Still, cool cosplay

[Eliastion]

(...)

Now you twist my words too? Ok, let me phrase it the simplest way I can:

1. You interpret Mages and Templars clashes in a way that could be viable with no context. Before DA:I your interpretation was as good as anyone else's. Some people would make excuses as to why Templars won in these particular cases - you wouldn't, you would say that the examples are representative and show clear dominance of Templars that should end the war quickly. It's not the only possible interpretation, but it's perfectly understandable.

2. Then DA:I comes in and we are told that the war - while Templars generally were winning - lasted years with no clear conclusion yet. This is not inconsistence, it's proof that people willing to explain each Templar victory as special circumstances were right. And - in two case I've known anything about - I presented such an explanation: in Kirkwall Templars were stronger relative to mages than in the rest of the world and in Rivain outside Templar forces, disproportionate to size of the Circle, were needed.

 

3. Templar tremendous advantage Thedas-wide did come from your head and has been disproven by the later installment of the game. My disagreement as to WoG was not about discussing facts - I accepted the facts, just not the label. It's an important distinction and I have a couple more when this comes from - Ferelden is stated by WoG to be a feudal monarchy but it's not one, for example. But these are labels and the question of whether some real-world label applies to some fictional element of fictional setting. Whether mages are to be called slaves, prisoners or "under quarantine" or whatever, this doesn't change their situation, it's only an attempt at describing their situation with a label. We're shown/told by codexes how Ferelden politics work and whether we agree that this system can be considered a proper feudal system doesn't change that - it's just the issue of label and whether it's appropriate for the situation. The same with other disputes: is Qun a religion?

The problem of Templar relative strength to mages is of different kind. It is much closer to our disagreements considering Rivain - I do believe we both met in such a discussion already. There we have fragmentary information: how seers are perceived by populace, some very vague references as to the way their magic involves spirits (we know that it does, our knowledge as to how is quite sketchy). Our interpretation, where you expect abominations running crazy and killing people on day-to-day basis while I expect such incidents to be exceedingly rare and of limited impact compared to advantages of widespread magic access (healing and the like) is to some extent us filling up the blanks. When we learn more about Rivain, one of our positions may end up disproven.

[Mirrman70]

Now you twist my words too? Ok, let me phrase it the simplest way I can:

1. You interpret Mages and Templars clashes in a way that could be viable with no context. Before DA:I your interpretation was as good as anyone else's. Some people would make excuses as to why Templars won in these particular cases - you wouldn't, you would say that the examples are representative and show clear dominance of Templars that should end the war quickly. It's not the only possible interpretation, but it's perfectly understandable.

2. Then DA:I comes in and we are told that the war - while Templars generally were winning - lasted years with no clear conclusion yet. This is not inconsistence, it's proof that people willing to explain each Templar victory as special circumstances were right. And - in two case I've known anything about - I presented such an explanation: in Kirkwall Templars were stronger relative to mages than in the rest of the world and in Rivain outside Templar forces, disproportionate to size of the Circle, were needed.

 

3. Templar tremendous advantage Thedas-wide did come from your head and has been disproven by the later installment of the game. My disagreement as to WoG was not about discussing facts - I accepted the facts, just not the label. It's an important distinction and I have a couple more when this comes from - Ferelden is stated by WoG to be a feudal monarchy but it's not one, for example. But these are labels and the question of whether some real-world label applies to some fictional element of fictional setting. Whether mages are to be called slaves, prisoners or "under quarantine" or whatever, this doesn't change their situation, it's only an attempt at describing their situation with a label. We're shown/told by codexes how Ferelden politics work and whether we agree that this system can be considered a proper feudal system doesn't change that - it's just the issue of label and whether it's appropriate for the situation. The same with other disputes: is Qun a religion?

The problem of Templar relative strength to mages is of different kind. It is much closer to our disagreements considering Rivain - I do believe we both met in such a discussion already. There we have fragmentary information: how seers are perceived by populace, some very vague references as to the way their magic influences spirits (we know that it does, our knowledge as to why is quite sketchy). Our interpretation, where you expect abominations running crazy and killing people on day-to-day basis while I expect such incidents to be exceedingly rare and of limited impact compared to advantages of widespread magic access (healing and the like) is to some extent us filling up the blanks. When we learn more about Rivain, one of our positions may end up disproven.

 

The Mages were in a downward spiral as far as the war goes. That's why Fiona initially sells out the Mages to Tevinter, a last ditch attempt to gain some kind of freedom. The majority of their members were not trained soldiers in fact without support from Fereldan they probably wouldn't have lasted that long. They also didn't even have solid long term goals (like most rebels), their only focus was freedom from the Chantry and the Templars. What next? The majority of Southern Thedas still feared them so they would have had to ally themselves with either the Orlesian Throne or the Fereldan Throne for long term protection if they wanted to stay in Southern Thedas primarily unharassed but that would become a corrupt system eventually too (as all such systems tend to become).

[Eliastion]

against regular  mages a Templar would win but even it out vs a knight enchanter or arcane warrior and they wont last long

 

KE and AW are worst kind of mage that you can send on templar as they fight in close combat using magic templar turn off their magic and they are done.

 

That's an interesting question, really. To what extent is KE or AW magic different? To what extent would Templar be able to influence them? Gameplay is a poor arbiter of such issues and we have so little other than gameplay to go by. Templar powers seem to not interfere with magical items nor other templars' abilities, or abilities of a Seeker and they don't seem to instantly banish demons already walking the earth, even ash wraiths that are pretty much holding their "bodies" together with magic. Would a Templar really be able to block out AW's magic, or just his spellcasting, leaving his augmented fighting capability intact?

[Eliastion]

The Mages were in a downward spiral as far as the war goes. That's why Fiona initially sells out the Mages to Tevinter, a last ditch attempt to gain some kind of freedom. The majority of their members were not trained soldiers in fact without support from Fereldan they probably wouldn't have lasted that long. They also didn't even have solid long term goals (like most rebels), their only focus was freedom from the Chantry and the Templars. What next? The majority of Southern Thedas still feared them so they would have had to ally themselves with either the Orlesian Throne or the Fereldan Throne for long term protection if they wanted to stay in Southern Thedas primarily unharassed but that would become a corrupt system eventually too (as all such systems tend to become).

The discussion here isn't whether mages were losing the war or not. It's about TheKomandorShepard insisting that Templar's should've won decisively right at the beginning and the war lasting for three years is an inconsistency.

Templars were winning, yes, and unless the mages managed to secure some ally (be it Inquisition or Ferelden finally throwing its military behind them rather than just letting them stay in Redcliffe) Templars would ultimately be victorious.

[TheKomandorShepard]

regular mages have to rely on distance and they are easier for the Templars to kill because they have no backup plan(unless they are blood mages), who knows what a knight enchanter would do on the battlefield, even more so for an arcane warrior since they are so few and rare

KC wouldn't do anything as i said templar would turned off their magic and their skills would be useless while facing templar in close combat only chance for mage i see in fact would be long-range combat.

 

 

 

 

Now you twist my words too? Ok, let me phrase it the simplest way I can:

1. You interpret Mages and Templars clashes in a way that could be viable with no context. Before DA:I your interpretation was as good as anyone else's. Some people would make excuses as to why Templars won in these particular cases - you wouldn't, you would say that the examples are representative and show clear dominance of Templars that should end the war quickly. It's not the only possible interpretation, but it's perfectly understandable.

2. Then DA:I comes in and we are told that the war - while Templars generally were winning - lasted years with no clear conclusion yet. This is not inconsistence, it's proof that people willing to explain each Templar victory as special circumstances were right. And - in two case I've known anything about - I presented such an explanation: in Kirkwall Templars were stronger relative to mages than in the rest of the world and in Rivain outside Templar forces, disproportionate to size of the Circle, were needed.

 

3. Templar tremendous advantage Thedas-wide did come from your head and has been disproven by the later installment of the game. My disagreement as to WoG was not about discussing facts - I accepted the facts, just not the label. It's an important distinction and I have a couple more when this comes from - Ferelden is stated by WoG to be a feudal monarchy but it's not one, for example. But these are labels and the question of whether some real-world label applies to some fictional element of fictional setting. Whether mages are to be called slaves, prisoners or "under quarantine" or whatever, this doesn't change their situation, it's only an attempt at describing their situation with a label. We're shown/told by codexes how Ferelden politics work and whether we agree that this system can be considered a proper feudal system doesn't change that - it's just the issue of label and whether it's appropriate for the situation. The same with other disputes: is Qun a religion?

The problem of Templar relative strength to mages is of different kind. It is much closer to our disagreements considering Rivain - I do believe we both met in such a discussion already. There we have fragmentary information: how seers are perceived by populace, some very vague references as to the way their magic involves spirits (we know that it does, our knowledge as to how is quite sketchy). Our interpretation, where you expect abominations running crazy and killing people on day-to-day basis while I expect such incidents to be exceedingly rare and of limited impact compared to advantages of widespread magic access (healing and the like) is to some extent us filling up the blanks. When we learn more about Rivain, one of our positions may end up disproven.

 

Context doesn't matter because all battles is series between templars and mages finished with quick defeat of mages now your only excuse is advantage templars had over mages and they had a lot of them in that war in fact many of them were pretty much same kind you try excuse mages failures with like mages being outnumbered by templars.

Also dai is hardly faithful representative of the series because as i said topic of blood magic and abomnations were completely (save for blood mages in warden quest) ignored in game that pretty much should have as far most of them.

 

Circles aren't slavery you can label them as you want but it will make you only wrong if you claim they are slavery.

 

In first place you should listen what i have said condemned dai for being inconsistent to rest of series what is in fact true because templars demolished mages in every instance with quick response and all you did is making up couple excuses like you have said that mages were outnumbered by templars and they were in fact in that war as well. 

 

 

That's an interesting question, really. To what extent is KE or AW magic different? To what extent would Templar be able to influence them? Gameplay is a poor arbiter of such issues and we have so little other than gameplay to go by. Templar powers seem to not interfere with magical items nor other templars' abilities, or abilities of a Seeker and they don't seem to instantly banish demons already walking the earth, even ash wraiths that are pretty much holding their "bodies" together with magic. Would a Templar really be able to block out AW's magic, or just his spellcasting, leaving his augmented fighting capability intact?

Of course templars can do that Meredith in story did that also evangeline was able drain guy mana to the point he was forced use blood magic and by that facing templar mage melee would be suicide as pretty much KC use magic for his skills.

 

 

The discussion here isn't whether mages were losing the war or not. It's about TheKomandorShepard insisting that Templar's should've won decisively right at the beginning and the war lasting for three years is an inconsistency.

Templars were winning, yes, and unless the mages managed to secure some ally (be it Inquisition or Ferelden finally throwing its military behind them rather than just letting them stay in Redcliffe) Templars would ultimately be victorious.

That is not what i have said so don't try twist thing i have i said i said that this war should be much shorter than it was not it should end right at the beginning and i have said that because templars had pretty much advantage in almost everything in this war.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Both suck.

 

Rogues are the master race class. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

Both suck.

 

Rogues are the master race class. 

Well templars have Rouges as well.

[Lumix19]

KC wouldn't do anything as i said templar would turned off their magic and their skills would be useless while facing templar in close combat only chance for mage i see in fact would be long-range combat.

 

Of course templars can do that Meredith in story did that also evangeline was able drain guy mana to the point he was forced use blood magic and by that facing templar mage melee would be suicide as pretty much KC use magic for his skills.

First we've never seen a KC or AW fight a Templar so you're statement is pure speculation. We don't know enough about how the magic system in the DA Universe works to outright state that a Templar would be able to beat a KC or AW. You're also assuming that every Templar can shut off magic to the same degree as Evangeline. This is utterly untrue. Some Templars are more powerful than others with some Templars unable to do much other than dampen the magic in the area and only when doing so collectively. 

 

 

Context doesn't matter because all battles is series between templars and mages finished with quick defeat of mages now your only excuse is advantage templars had over mages and they had a lot of them in that war in fact many of them were pretty much same kind you try excuse mages failures with like mages being outnumbered by templars.

Also dai is hardly faithful representative of the series because as i said topic of blood magic and abomnations were completely (save for blood mages in warden quest) ignored in game that pretty much should have as far most of them.

 

In first place you should listen what i have said condemned dai for being inconsistent to rest of series what is in fact true because templars demolished mages in every instance with quick response and all you did is making up couple excuses like you have said that mages were outnumbered by templars and they were in fact in that war as well. 

 

That is not what i have said so don't try twist thing i have i said i said that this war should be much shorter than it was not it should end right at the beginning and i have said that because templars had pretty much advantage in almost everything in this war.

 

I'm sorry but these statements are utter bull. You don't get to dictate what or what is not "consistent" just like you don't get to dictate what is canon. Hence you don't get to pass off Inquisition as irrelevant because it doesn't fit into your idea of just how amazing Templars are and how every mage is a blood mage waiting to happen. The writers decided that the war against mages would take three years so that is what happened and they decided that blood magic and abominations were not that prevalent. Perhaps these war "should" have been shorter in your mind and blood magic "should" have been more prevalent but that isn't for you to decide. You are not the ultimate authority of the dragon age universe

[TheKomandorShepard]

First we've never seen a KC or AW fight a Templar so you're statement is pure speculation. We don't know enough about how the magic system in the DA Universe works to outright state that a Templar would be able to beat a KC or AW. You're also assuming that every Templar can shut off magic to the same degree as Evangeline. This is utterly untrue. Some Templars are more powerful than others with some Templars unable to do much other than dampen the magic in the area and only when doing so collectively. 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but these statements are utter bull. You don't get to dictate what or what is not "consistent" just like you don't get to dictate what is canon. Hence you don't get to pass off Inquisition as irrelevant because it doesn't fit into your idea of just how amazing Templars are and how every mage is a blood mage waiting to happen. The writers decided that the war against mages would take three years so that is what happened and they decided that blood magic and abominations were not that prevalent. Perhaps these war "should" have been shorter in your mind and blood magic "should" have been more prevalent but that isn't for you to decide. You are not the ultimate authority of the dragon age universe

 

Did i said they fought? My statement is speculation based on logic so it fits templars are able drain magic or prevent mage from casting spell as examples i can point Evangeline , Meredith or Cairn.Any information source on that not all templars can do that?

 

Of course i get to dictate what is or what isn't consistent in dragon age 1 bob is nice guy in dragon age 2 bob is insane maniac and i can say character is inconsistent to what it was before.I never claimed that i can dictate canon in fact i know i can't...  

 

Ah and we get to the point where you try paint me in bad light because i claimed that every mage is blood mage what is utterly false and only purpose of that is to me look as i said something stupid and ridiculous.I suggest to read what im saying and think about it instead jump with "oh you said that all mages are evil cannibals and blood mages" 

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

Is TKS always this black and white?

[Sifr]

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.

 

Just to weigh in, technically the war has only been going on for one year, since Asunder mentions that the Nevarran Accord was broken in 9:40. The three years was merely the escalation of hostilities between the Kirkwall Uprising and the events of Asunder, that lead to the outbreak of full-scale war.

 

If we're being generous, we can say that Cassandra's statement about Lambert's death being "two years ago" is because she mispoke and meant only one, or assume that Asunder took place in the early part of 9:40 and that it's been nearly two years. The latter would be understandable and not much of a stretch to reconcile, since we know for certain that DAI takes place near the end of 9:41, as shown by the onset of winter and that "In Hushed Whispers" takes place in Harvestmere (the 11th month).

 

While you are right that the Templars have been very effective in this war, I'd say it's far from the curb-stomp-battle that you imagine it to be.

 

We're told that the war has taken a toll on both sides, so it seems to me that rather than enaging in full-scale battles, the war has probably consisted of small-scale skirmishes where victory is more reliant on attritition than anything else.

 

Consider that while the Templars can nullify magic, they are reliant on their supplies of lyrium to both function and continue to use their powers, while the mages can replenish their mana naturally. If the Mages and Templars are both well entrenched in a location, but the Templars supply lines are blocked and prevent them from getting any fresh lyrium, withdrawal and the weakening of their abilities is rapidly going to do them in.

 

As for the lack of abominations, I don't see why the numbers should have peaked? If anything, their numbers should have dwindled, since the Breach and the creation of numerous tears, makes it far easier for any demon to enter Thedas at will, rather than be forced to seek out a mage and attempt to possess them?

[Eliastion]

Did i said they fought? My statement is speculation based on logic so it fits templars are able drain magic or prevent mage from casting spell as examples i can point Evangeline , Meredith or Cairn.Any information source on that not all templars can do that?
 
Of course i get to dictate what is or what isn't consistent in dragon age 1 bob is nice guy in dragon age 2 bob is insane maniac and i can say character is inconsistent to what it was before.I never claimed that i can dictate canon in fact i know i can't...  
 
Ah and we get to the point where you try paint me in bad light because i claimed that every mage is blood mage what is utterly false and only purpose of that is to me look as i said something stupid and ridiculous.I suggest to read what im saying and think about it instead jump with "oh you said that all mages are evil cannibals and blood mages"

He says "blood mage waiting to happen", which is an exaggeration of your apparent opinion on the subject. Yo're the one putting words in his mouth to make his statement look ridiculous, not the other way 'round...
 
As for the consistency part, you're right in principle (you don't need to be an absolute authority to determine some part of lore to be inconsistent - anyone willing to argue is welcome to look into timeline of Fiona and Alistair being mother and son... I dare anyone who would like to say that this part is consistent). The problem is, however, that you are looking for inconsistencies that are not there. The thing is that when you encounter something that doesn't feel right, the proper way of approaching it is: how can I fill in blanks so that it IS consistent? Obvious solution here is to look at the battles we've seen and heard about and find out why they might not be representative. In both cases we've discussed here we can easily find reasons why Templars (both in Kirkwall and in Rivain) could outnumber mages by bigger margin than they generally do. Also, as for Rivain - what we know doesn't really imply mages "getting demolished by quick response" - if anything, it seems that the battle was prolonged escalating from attempt to subdue the Circle to full-blown Annulment that didn't happen instantly either. In fact all that we know about the conclusion of the battle is that First Enchanter has been slain. It could well be an extremely costly victory after prolonged siege for all we know.
And that's the problem, you see, not that your interpretation of those Templar victories doesn't make sense - the problem is that you hold to this interpretation when consistency requires you to accept that they were either special cases or (in Rivain case) perhaps not as one-sided as you originally assumed. It's your stubbornness that creates the inconsistency here.

[Lumix19]

Did i said they fought? My statement is speculation based on logic so it fits templars are able drain magic or prevent mage from casting spell as examples i can point Evangeline , Meredith or Cairn.Any information source on that not all templars can do that?
 
Of course i get to dictate what is or what isn't consistent in dragon age 1 bob is nice guy in dragon age 2 bob is insane maniac and i can say character is inconsistent to what it was before.I never claimed that i can dictate canon in fact i know i can't...  
 
Ah and we get to the point where you try paint me in bad light because i claimed that every mage is blood mage what is utterly false and only purpose of that is to me look as i said something stupid and ridiculous.I suggest to read what im saying and think about it instead jump with "oh you said that all mages are evil cannibals and blood mages"

Evangeline and Meredith were extremely powerful Templars in case you hadn't noticed. Meredith was the Templar leader in Kirkwall (not to mention she was possibly augmented with Red Lyrium) and Evangeline was chosen to be the Divine's personal guard, they weren't going to pick a novice for that job. Also there is a codex entry called A Page from a Journal, Edges Scorched written by some of the apostates in the Hinterlands. This entry notes that "there were enough of them [templars] to damp our magic" the clear implication being that the Templars were only able to nullify their magic as a collective. Even after the Templars had dampened their magic the Apostates were still able to kill a Templar who tried to break into the home they were hiding in.

Of course you're not saying every mage is a blood mage but what I took from your point is that you believe that Inquisition is "not a fair representation" because the mage-Templar war should have been shorter than it was and blood magic and abominations should have been more prevalent. There is no inconsistency except in your mind. There was no considerable change in the way Templars or Mages were portrayed. Templars were always seen as the counter to Mages and that is how they are still portrayed, they can weaken the magic of the Breach and they were winning against the mages in the war. Mages have always been portrayed as powerful but weaker to Templars, hence they can pour magic into the Mark and they were losing the war.

The actual power of a mage vs a Templar has never been stated so it is utterly within the writers' rights to say that the Mages are fairly capable of standing up to Templars but would ultimately lose (which is what happened in Inquisition). Similarly the previous games have never stated that abominations and blood mages are always going to happen when mages are not watched by the Templars. In fact previous games have gone to show us that abominations and blood magic occurs under the watch of the Templars and possibly because of them. Hence the writers are free to exclude abominations and blood magic because they are the creators of the DA universe. Inconsistency can only be claimed when a premise has been set and the writers defy this premise in the way the audience rejects. There is no premise for any of your statements so there's nothing to reject and the writers are free to do as they wish.

[Eliastion]

KC wouldn't do anything as i said templar would turned off their magic and their skills would be useless while facing templar in close combat only chance for mage i see in fact would be long-range combat.

(...)

The problem is that we don't know that. Item enchantments seem to be unaffected by Templar abilities, as do many seemingly magical abilities of non-mages. Ash wraiths don't seem to be affected in their existence. And at least in game Templar abilities (other than passive protection) are all bursty - boom, magic canceled/dispelled. While Templars are able to sap away mage's mana, AW abilities don't seem to rely all that much on large quantities of mana to begin with. And they don't really cast spells too. We don't know how really one or the other works and how it would influence one another. It could be that an average Templar is just able to block magic, making AW defenseless. But just as well it could be that his abilities would just briefly disrupt the AW, making the latter miss a blow but with little lasting effect, really.

Depending on how those abilities really work and how they would really interact, AW can be either in really bad situation (with no advantage whatsoever coming from his training) or pretty advantageous one (clad in armor and able to face the Templar even if forced into melee).

Either way, however, I agree that - even for AW and even if he most Templar abilities don't affect him all that much - the best approach is to keep your distance. The Mage (any mage) can effectively strike at range while most Templar abilities are quite limited when it comes to range. Why would the AW want to let the enemy use those powers at all? If you have choice between melee and ranged attack while your opponent is almost exclusively a melee fighter, keeping your distance when possible seems only natural. Stay away, rely on your armor combined with Barrier if you have it (in case Templar had some distance weapon) and rain fire on him. Fighting in melee should be last-resort even if you are not as defenseless as other mages in this situation.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Just to weigh in, technically the war has only been going on for one year, since Asunder mentions that the Nevarran Accord was broken in 9:40. The three years was merely the escalation of hostilities between the Kirkwall Uprising and the events of Asunder, that lead to the outbreak of full-scale war.

 

If we're being generous, we can say that Cassandra's statement about Lambert's death being "two years ago" is because she mispoke and meant only one, or assume that Asunder took place in the early part of 9:40 and that it's been nearly two years. The latter would be understandable and not much of a stretch to reconcile, since we know for certain that DAI takes place near the end of 9:41, as shown by the onset of winter and that "In Hushed Whispers" takes place in Harvestmere (the 11th month).

 

While you are right that the Templars have been very effective in this war, I'd say it's far from the curb-stomp-battle that you imagine it to be.

 

We're told that the war has taken a toll on both sides, so it seems to me that rather than enaging in full-scale battles, the war has probably consisted of small-scale skirmishes where victory is more reliant on attritition than anything else.

 

Consider that while the Templars can nullify magic, they are reliant on their supplies of lyrium to both function and continue to use their powers, while the mages can replenish their mana naturally. If the Mages and Templars are both well entrenched in a location, but the Templars supply lines are blocked and prevent them from getting any fresh lyrium, withdrawal and the weakening of their abilities is rapidly going to do them in.

 

As for the lack of abominations, I don't see why the numbers should have peaked. If anything, their numbers should have dwindled, since the Breach and the creation of numerous tears, makes it far easier for any demon to enter Thedas at will, rather than be forced to seek out a mage and attempt to possess them?

You are right i forgot about that accord was broken in 9:40 what leaves time of this war somewhat more reliable but still that templars didn't put down majority of rebelion in during those years considering position templars were and mages were.  

 

It weren't curb-stomp-battle that is why i pointed against it it pretty much should be series of curb-stomp-battles as i said considering conditions of that war.

 

To be honest lack of lyrium isn't big problem on short therm as templars still maintain their abilities for resonable amount of time without lyrium and i don't see mages blocking templars from lyrium on longer period of time.

 

Simple by fact that mages face war and as i said now they don't have to fear punishment for using blood magic.So not only mages are in rather traumatic situation and we know in fact this is great way to end as an abomnation but also are free to use blood magic then we can combine war factor and lack of oversight over mages. 

 

 

He says "blood mage waiting to happen", which is an exaggeration of your apparent opinion on the subject. Yo're the one putting words in his mouth to make his statement look ridiculous, not the other way 'round...
 
As for the consistency part, you're right in principle (you don't need to be an absolute authority to determine some part of lore to be inconsistent - anyone willing to argue is welcome to look into timeline of Fiona and Alistair being mother and son... I dare anyone who would like to say that this part is consistent). The problem is, however, that you are looking for inconsistencies that are not there. The thing is that when you encounter something that doesn't feel right, the proper way of approaching it is: how can I fill in blanks so that it IS consistent? Obvious solution here is to look at the battles we've seen and heard about and find out why they might not be representative. In both cases we've discussed here we can easily find reasons why Templars (both in Kirkwall and in Rivain) could outnumber mages by bigger margin than they generally do. Also, as for Rivain - what we know doesn't really imply mages "getting demolished by quick response" - if anything, it seems that the battle was prolonged escalating from attempt to subdue the Circle to full-blown Annulment that didn't happen instantly either. In fact all that we know about the conclusion of the battle is that First Enchanter has been slain. It could well be an extremely costly victory after prolonged siege for all we know.
And that's the problem, you see, not that your interpretation of those Templar victories doesn't make sense - the problem is that you hold to this interpretation when consistency requires you to accept that they were either special cases or (in Rivain case) perhaps not as one-sided as you originally assumed. It's your stubbornness that creates the inconsistency here.

Haha it is like saying that there are humans that are rapists and then somone comes up "you are saying that all humans are rapists" so no he is one who completly twisted what i have said into something completely ridiculous.

 

Omg it starts being ridiculous (again) how many damn times i need to point that templars have vast advantage when it comes for numbers in this war and you keep pointing that they won in krikwall because they had advantage in numbers plus in kirkwall they were facing blood mages and an abomnations.

 

 

Evangeline and Meredith were extremely powerful Templars in case you hadn't noticed. Meredith was the Templar leader in Kirkwall (not to mention she was possibly augmented with Red Lyrium) and Evangeline was chosen to be the Divine's personal guard, they weren't going to pick a novice for that job. Also there is a codex entry called A Page from a Journal, Edges Scorched written by some of the apostates in the Hinterlands. This entry notes that "there were enough of them [templars] to damp our magic" the clear implication being that the Templars were only able to nullify their magic as a collective. Even after the Templars had dampened their magic the Apostates were still able to kill a Templar who tried to break into the home they were hiding in.

Of course you're not saying every mage is a blood mage but what I took from your point is that you believe that Inquisition is "not a fair representation" because the mage-Templar war should have been shorter than it was and blood magic and abominations should have been more prevalent. There is no inconsistency except in your mind. There was no considerable change in the way Templars or Mages were portrayed. Templars were always seen as the counter to Mages and that is how they are still portrayed, they can weaken the magic of the Breach and they were winning against the mages in the war. Mages have always been portrayed as powerful but weaker to Templars, hence they can pour magic into the Mark and they were losing the war.

The actual power of a mage vs a Templar has never been stated so it is utterly within the writers' rights to say that the Mages are fairly capable of standing up to Templars but would ultimately lose (which is what happened in Inquisition). Similarly the previous games have never stated that abominations and blood mages are always going to happen when mages are not watched by the Templars. In fact previous games have gone to show us that abominations and blood magic occurs under the watch of the Templars and possibly because of them. Hence the writers are free to exclude abominations and blood magic because they are the creators of the DA universe. Inconsistency can only be claimed when a premise has been set and the writers defy this premise in the way the audience rejects. There is no premise for any of your statements so there's nothing to reject and the writers are free to do as they wish.

And what does that have to anything Meredith could be powerful in fact she was while Evangeline was strong but far from best and on other hand cairn didn't look like master of templars.I have asked you to provide source that not all templars can drain mana or prevent mages from casting and only strong one can do pointing that those templars were strong does noting to me and that codex entry points nothing beyond fact that templars dispeled their magic as far i tried look on that and i found nothing.

 

What you are talking about it almost had nothing to do with i have said and what you have said in previous commentary and you pointed argument about templar being portrayed as counter to mages what wasn't even thing i argued about. As far i provided examples how all battles between templars and mages went with templars as winners with some losses but always crushed mages so in fact it isn't war that should last long because well templars being templars i hope i don't have to explain that again and conditions of that war were templars had an advantage in almost every field.

 

Wut it was shown in universe that templars overpower mages and that were my examples for and statement don't have any sense templars are watched to specifically over mages for that reason it happens and pretty much their goal is to reduce numbers of an abomnations thus in fact not only abomnations will happen but also number of abomnations will raise as mages will be unwatched as crime rates would raise if laws and law-enforcers don't watch over people.

 

What does that have to anything crimes happen even in most safe cities remove law-enforcers that in first place caused city to be safe and crime ratings will drastically raise as there won't be fear of consequences from doing something. Same here templars are pretty much law-enforcers for mages. And i didn't reject writers they did that themselves with rejecting their previous works.

 

 

The problem is that we don't know that. Item enchantments seem to be unaffected by Templar abilities, as do many seemingly magical abilities of non-mages. Ash wraiths don't seem to be affected in their existence. And at least in game Templar abilities (other than passive protection) are all bursty - boom, magic canceled/dispelled. While Templars are able to sap away mage's mana, AW abilities don't seem to rely all that much on large quantities of mana to begin with. And they don't really cast spells too. We don't know how really one or the other works and how it would influence one another. It could be that an average Templar is just able to block magic, making AW defenseless. But just as well it could be that his abilities would just briefly disrupt the AW, making the latter miss a blow but with little lasting effect, really.

Depending on how those abilities really work and how they would really interact, AW can be either in really bad situation (with no advantage whatsoever coming from his training) or pretty advantageous one (clad in armor and able to face the Templar even if forced into melee).

Either way, however, I agree that - even for AW and even if he most Templar abilities don't affect him all that much - the best approach is to keep your distance. The Mage (any mage) can effectively strike at range while most Templar abilities are quite limited when it comes to range. Why would the AW want to let the enemy use those powers at all? If you have choice between melee and ranged attack while your opponent is almost exclusively a melee fighter, keeping your distance when possible seems only natural. Stay away, rely on your armor combined with Barrier if you have it (in case Templar had some distance weapon) and rain fire on him. Fighting in melee should be last-resort even if you are not as defenseless as other mages in this situation.

AW always was about using magic to enhance your melee combat drain that mana or dispel their abilities and no mana means no more using magic same about turning off your spell in close combat it is doom for mage.And that was before dai where AW is pretty much KC that use magical blade that use mana you won't do much if templar will prevent you from casting or just drains your mana. 

 

[Eliastion]

(...)

Haha it is like saying that there are humans that are rapists and then somone comes up "you are saying that all humans are rapists" so no he is one who completly twisted what i have said into something completely ridiculous.

 

Omg it starts being ridiculous (again) how many damn times i need to point that templars have vast advantage when it comes for numbers in this war and you keep pointing that they won in krikwall because they had advantage in numbers plus in kirkwall they were facing blood mages and an abomnations.

(...)

What's ridiculous is that you can't grasp the simple concept that if Templars outnumbered mages in Kirkwall more than they do normally, that changes thing. Let me give you an example:

We have ants and beetles (not very large beetles) that go to war. There are twice as many ants as there are beetles. And we see that three ants managed to defeat a beetle. Does that mean that beetles will quickly lose? Answer for the mathematically impaired: no, our best extrapolation would be "if there were three times as many ants as beetles, the ants should easily win". But there is only twice as many ants, so the example we had is inconclusive. NOW do you understand? I don't think I can explain it any simpler.

 

And as for rapists, that's not it. By your own example - you say that there would be loads of rapists everywhere if not for omnipresent police. Your fellacy is ignoring the fact that vast majority of people are not rapists for reasons other than constant oversight AND any possibility of peer oversight without dedicated institution. Basically, the one place that would indeed seem more realistic with some blood magic mixed in would be the extremist mages camp in Hinterlands - but that's the only place. Maybe also Venatori, for different reasons.

[Uccio]

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.

 

Element of suprise my dear Watson (and plot). Then again a Tevinter battle mage whom has honed his/hers skills against the qunari for years is a different thing to face than one of the southern circle rats whom barely have been thought to control their own power.