Happily, I'm in this for all the mages, not just the easily satisfied ones. And I win in the end.
You are in it for all the mages ... except the ones that do not agree with you, so, you are not really in it for all the mages.
It's okay, though. The man who founded the "revolution"-nonsense was the same way. He said he was for all mages, but showed his true colors when faced with those who did not share exactly the same opinions (Merrill, Bethany, rival mage!Hawke).
gameplay/story segregation people
In which case the metric is "whatever we happen to imagine?"
You are in it for all the mages ... except the ones that do not agree with you, so, you are not really in it for all the mages.
It's okay, though. The man who founded the "revolution"-nonsense was the same way. He said he was for all mages, but showed his true colors when faced with those who did not share exactly the same opinions (Merrill, Bethany, rival mage!Hawke).
Please, let all those who would oppose the College of Enchanters step forward and let them say why.
Having magic negated in the lore is a process that tends to leave room for follow up.
That's how Titus fell.
His magic just-cut out and poof.
So even going by the rules of the lore all you would really need do is stick them with a sword while they wait for their magic to come back and or ****** themselves.
It's relatively simple to kill a person.
You just need the skillset and the tools.
Source that removing sustained abilities and removing the ability to cast spells are the same power? In any case, yes, anyone can be killed by a single blow, but while a mage might need to wait a few seconds for the magic to return, a templar doesn't seem to be able to rapid-fire the ability, so once you survive the first fizzle, you'll probably win.
Against a Templar it would be down to the bare martial skill of the prospective combatants. On paper, a fair fight.
But nations don't field army of Templars. The average soldier, knight, even a Chevalier has little hope against Dirth'ena enasalin.
Source that removing sustained abilities and removing the ability to cast spells are the same power?
That there very comic.
Alistair shatters his barrier.
I would say that that particular instance isn't enough proof.
I'd also point out that the templars got their asses handed to them by the Inquisition even after being doped up on red lyrium.
I would say that that particular instance isn't enough proof.
Good for you.
It's a citable instance of the very thing you requested.
I'm saying that Spell Purge and Silence could have been used in rapid succession. Assuming that Titus couldn't cast instead of just being too shocked to.
Good thing their extinct then eh?
A few dozen here or there across the entire world doesn't make for a legitimate military threat.
Inversely.
They are and were impossibly outnumbered by Templars.
In the sense of the ancient group, sure. Thankfully, the Chantry has endeavored to preserve their techniques while also putting them to use.
In the sense of the ancient group, sure. Thankfully, the Chantry has endeavored to preserve their techniques while also putting them to use.
Assuming the Knight Enchanter or the Arcane Warrior didn't get blocked by the Templar, I think the Templar would lose. I just don't see an ordinary knight being a match for a magically enhanced one, because magic is simply too good an unfair advantage. Of course, in most cases that's a stupid assumption to make, so there's that. Edit: Of course, this is barring Dragonflight's point of their relative skill, which given what sufficiently skilled warriors in Thedas can do might be enough to turn this around.
At least with how magic works in DAI I think you'd very much see templars match a melee mage. Dispel breaks any mine-like mage ability and removes any barrier. That makes mages very vulnerable to "sword through the throat".
What about an Arcane Warrior wearing heavy plate? 
Hold up. Voting not to rebel against the Chantry is very different from being happy with the Circles being disbanded by the Chantry.Nice try, but the mages' vote to break away barely made the cut. It was pretty much a 51/49 vote.
Also, that the rebels are generally content to be conscripted into the Inquisition says it all.
Face it, your radical position is not that well-supported within mage circles (<-- OOOHHHHH!!!).
What about an Arcane Warrior wearing heavy plate?
Please, let all those who would oppose the College of Enchanters step forward and let them say why.
What happened to "I am not Clairvoyant" - ?
At the time Anders et el. forced mages into rebellion there was no telling what was going to come next, College or whatever. At one point, it looked like all the rebel mages were going to get slaughtered (and it is possible, since the Inquisitor can ignore Redcliffe in favor of Therinfal Redoubt). So after Anders went full-retard in Kirkwall, public opinion of mages plummeted and the Templars cracked down. Mages like Finn and Connor (and the general majority) got thrown under the bus by having to suffer that BS first, and then many of them likely perished in the ensuing war.
As to the College, there are mages who would make an argument for Templars -- like, Minaeve. You do not plan on bringing them back, so your College does not truly serve all mages, just the ones that support its leadership's political faction (also known as partisanism).
What about an Arcane Warrior wearing heavy plate?
I would say that that particular instance isn't enough proof.
I'd also point out that the templars got their asses handed to them by the Inquisition even after being doped up on red lyrium.
Who wouldn't want to be free? Isn't this a bit like asking a slave whether or not they'd like to be emancipated?
Well, there are actual slaves in the lore who express confusion at the idea of freedom.
And there are plenty of Mages who say that freedom is wholly unattractive without Templar protection, from demons or from frightened mobs.
I personally think this question is almost impossible to answer. There are people whose nature tends towards a prioritization of personal freedom, but even their opinions are going to be affected by their experiences. To Wynne, the Templars were rescuers and guardians, and the Circle was the first place she felt understood. She built a relatively positive relationship with Templars. To Anders, the Templars were the kidnappers who took him away from a loving home. He treated them to animosity, and they responded in kind. His entire perception of the circle was colored by that animosity.
Knowing my own nature, I'm pretty confident that I would try to make the most of the situation, but it would also depend on the specifics of that situation. If I was in a circle like the one we saw in Kirkwall, where Templars could get away with the kind of games Alrik played, I would definitely dream of freedom.
You bring up good points, Lady Artifice.
I feel it would be a decision individual Mages should make for themselves. If they would rather live under the thumb of Templars, or face the hardships of freedom.
uhhhhhh no
uhhhhhh no
You bring up good points, Lady Artifice.
I feel it would be a decision individual Mages should make for themselves. If they would rather live under the thumb of Templars, or face the hardships of freedom.
Alas, such a system would be impossible to implement. People are just too obstinate a bunch. 
For my part, I'm okay with there being no perfect solution to this problem. A perfect Thedas would make for a narrative I'd find, generally, rather dull.
Retour en haut