Question:
Wouldn't the College of Enchanters suffer from the same problem as many think of the Templars, namely no oversight? Technically, the Chantry and the Seekers WERE the oversight for the Tmplars (but didn't enforce that enough apparently)...but the college of enchanters doesn't have to answer to anything....
Why wouldn't it be more corrupt than the Templars? People point to Knight Enchanters and the belief that as mages, they would be fair and reasonable towards mages but here's the thing...they would ALSO be more biased for mages and thus be more willing to "look the other way" when mages DO bad things.
I mean, what was Orsino's excuse for being a douche and helping that blood mage?
Some people who disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles point to the degree of power that templars had over mages as the issue - "dominion over mages by divine right", as Cullen said.
ITHAT MAKES NO SENSE (sorry for shouting but argh....this is a contradiction)
In Origins, the whole point of Aeonar is because you couldn't tranquil harrowed mages and the reason why Jowan didn't take the harrowing was because he was thought to be too weak to take the harrowing. If Irving didn'tt hink there was any chance of him being made tranquil then he should have taken the harrowing.
re: World of thedas vol 2
From the various quotes posted from that book, I get the distinct impression it has some contradictions with established lore AND has a pro-mage bias.
Greagoir told Irving that Jowan would be made tranquil; as he can admit to the mage protagonist, it's a matter of survival. He even concedes in his dialogue that he isn't privy to the actual evidence against Jowan.
Irving's a moderate (Aequitarian), but he isn't fond of the system, which is why he may come across that way to you. As he says, "And Chantry and templars are models of magnanimity? They would make us all Tranquil if they could, and call it a kindness. They fancy themselves our guardians, sitting smugly on their righteousness."