I get that this is a matter of personal preference, but losing temporarily is one of those things that often make a plot more interesting. I can't help but note the irony in all of this, though. The game is sometimes criticized around here because it's felt that the Inquisitor doesn't really lose often enough.
Never wrote otherwise. 
Well, Barris is out there, protecting villages from demons and Venatori. Saving mages from mobs.
Fiona is sitting on her bony ass.
Only if you ally with the templars. If you conscript them, Barris doesn't do jack crap and the templars are pretty much irrelevant
Also, Fiona is the pretty much the leader of the rebel mages so she's likely doing things like organizing them.
Only if you ally with the templars. If you conscript them, Barris doesn't do jack crap and the templars are pretty much irrelevant
Also, Fiona is the pretty much the leader of the rebel mages so she's likely doing things like organizing them.
Organizing what?
In my games the Templars seal their fate in Val Royeaux.
Organizing what?
I may just be guessing here, but I would say...
Getting the mages situated in their new home
Presumably organizing the education of apprentice mages that have not passed their harrowing
Dealing with Mage-non Mage relations, which is tumultuous at best.
The establishment of secure areas for mages to practice magic
The organizing/reorganizing of what's left of the higher tier of what was once the mage rebellion.
Unlike the Templars who have been trained with military efficiency with clear lessons on how to be a self-running machine and have the benefit of being respected and trusted by most of modern Thedas, Mages are all but new to the prospect to being out of their Circles. Many are so used to being provided for that they do not know how to provide for themselves. Add on top of that the need for mages to be educated in both academia and magic and Fiona may just have her hands full.
Organizing what?
Well, she is part of the creation of the College of Enchanters. The game obviously doesn't get into the minutiae of whatever it is she's doing with the other mages, but her being a static NPC in Skyhold isn't necessarily reflective of her day to day activities.
Well, Barris is out there, protecting villages from demons and Venatori. Saving mages from mobs.
Fiona is sitting on her bony ass.
And if you ally with templars you can send Barris on missions and promote him.
That's true, but if I can talk to people like Harding, who is always conveniently back at Skyhold between scouting ops whenever you are, Barris could do the same. Heck, they could even make it so he doesn't appear while his War Table missions are active. But I would have liked to talk to him and hear his input.
Trying to choose between mages and templars on moral grounds is complete stupidity given that Bioware made their whole conflict morally gray with the flashpoint being ax crazy revolutionary Anders blowing up a church and killing hundreds of innocents while ax crazy Commander Meredith ordered the mass murder of hundreds of innocents completely uninvolved in response.
Rather than waste time trying to find any moral or subjective point for which side to pick while completely forgetting that Bioware markets this franchise as your own personal canon, we should focus on what plot points or plot holes made each side more or less favored by the devs.
Objectively speaking, the devs favored the mages a lot more. Hushed Whispers has a far more developed plot preceding it, doing it nets more approval points from companions who may actually quit if you get their approval too low, the villain has a direct connection to the companion recruited and to put the icing on the cake Trespasser adds an exclusive achievement which forces you to play it for 100% completion.
Champions of the Just doesn't explain squat, you simply go after an army whose leader publicly insulted you, reaches said army in time to discover it's under attack by a corrupted spliter faction, finds out the leader of a group specialized in fighting demons is actually a demon in disguise (epic fail) and faces it off in a battle inside your own mind with the help of a spirit who happened to be nearby because he was stalking the templars for personal reasons. The only plus side is that you get Barris as an agent to speed up Cullen's missions.
Endgame wise, Trespasser cuts the knot by establishing on every ending that mages will still play a major role in a new conflict between the Circles and the College while the Templars only get mention if they where recruited and Vivienne was made Divine, especial mention goes for them plotting to overthrow an openly pro-templar and conservative divine just because she is a mage.
All in all Bioware is clearly biased towards mages with the lore itself moving increasingly from political human bickering towards ancient magics that can reshape the entire world.
Last of all, the argument that Templars are the logical choice to fight an enemy lead by mages only works for non-mage players who feel threatened by having subordinates with power outside their control.
Mages can fight mages just as fine as templars, there is no mention inside the game that either faction is inherently superior to the other with the choice being made according to the Inquisitor's (or rather the player's) perception of either faction.
Interesting thoughts. I have a different take however. We assume that the Mage/Templar debate and conflict in-game is meant to be morally gray but what if that is not the case? Some people see it that way and we can certainly make points for the support of either side, which I'm sure was intentional, but was the overall concept really meant to be fair to both sides? Many scream bias but maybe it was intended to sway one way as opposed to the other.
My thoughts are that the Magic management debate is much more nuanced and not limited to Mage vs Templar, and as we know both extremes do not dominate all of Thedas as we will experience in DA4 when we travel to Tevinter. Perhaps the Chantry and by extension the Templars where intended to emulate real-world oppressive authoritarian regimes.
I think that when we get caught up in the Mage/Templar debate we forget that the suppression of Mages and Magic is not the only purpose of the Templars and Chantry. Historically The Chantry did not only suppress Mages but Elves and their own people by spreading their doctrine with force, violence and fear, not unlike real world regimes and religious extremists and not unlike the Qun. Perhaps the bias some see against the Templars by the devs was intended to be a dissent and social commentary not on their point of view vs Magic but as their structure as an oppressive force.
It's all subjective. Some feel the Templars are better, some feel the mages are better, but it's pure arrogance to think yours alone is "objectively" better or more story relevant.
I disagree. I cannot see how going out of your way to make the Templars help you after they made it clear they had no interest in joining you only to find out they are destroying themselves from within is in anyway "objectivly better or neutral" than going to talks with the Mages who invited you and taking on a hostile foreign presence. And STORY wise the Templar quest adds NOTHING new.
What, we go into a trippy dream-scape, basically the Fade and fight a powerful Demon. We have done that several times in former games. During the Mages quest we get to go to the friggin future, there is a villain we can empathize with, the sacrifice, the cameos. And the information we learn on our enemies next move is fact not supposition. There is no objective comparison.
On the other hand, I think one could use this as the reason as to why their character would seek out the Templars knowing this since the Templars are trained to counter magic.
Interesting. I see so many using the anti-Magic point without the weight of in-game history. Templars do not completely negate Magic. They have the ability to weaken and suppress and history shows that this is not always enough to defeat Magical opponents. It is not rock-paper-scissors, Templar beats Mage, you only have to look as far as DAI itself to see this. Take the War itself, pre Redcliff.
The Mages were fighting toe to toe with the Templars for a full year before being aided by Ferelden. Sure, you could argue that the Mages would have lost but the anti-Magic factor would not have been why. See the Hinterlands, an arena of battle in which the Mages where winning. Also take into account that for many months the Templars where taking their orders from a Demon, disguised right in front of them. As for history, just look at the conflict between the Chantry and Tevinter. Several times the Chantry set it's anti-Magic army at Magic-roided Tevinter and several times they utterly failed.
If they have time-bending magic, then it doesn't matter how long it takes. They did whatever they were going to do already.
They can't control time to that extent. That much we know just from going to Redcliffe and speaking with Dorian... and still being alive after going there.
Not the Inquisition's problem. Let the Ferelden crown deal with it.
It should also be Ferelden's responsibility to secure its own territories, but there we are, securing it for them because they can't. If they laid siege to Redcliffe, they would probably lose. They do lose in the dark timeline.
Address the immediate problem by walking into the trap and hoping it goes well for you? No way. Assembling the Orlesian nobles shouldn't take long at all. It was only 10 Orlesian houses, and they may have already been at Haven. Some Orlesians have relatives in Ferelden already.
"Shouldn't take long at all" meaning what, exactly? The families would have to receive correspondence, a date would need to be set, and then after however long that takes you still need to travel to Therinfal. A trip from the Frostbacks (Orzammar specifically) to the Circle Tower takes weeks. From Haven to Therinfal is over five times that distance.
Templars are objectively better and more story relevant.
If you go to Redcliffe, you essentially lose the entire game. Period.
I disagree. I cannot see how going out of your way to make the Templars help you after they made it clear they had no interest in joining you only to find out they are destroying themselves from within is in anyway "objectivly better or neutral" than going to talks with the Mages who invited you and taking on a hostile foreign presence. And STORY wise the Templar quest adds NOTHING new.
And the information we learn on our enemies next move is fact not supposition. There is no objective comparison.
Interesting. I see so many using the anti-Magic point without the weight of in-game history. Templars do not completely negate Magic. They have the ability to weaken and suppress and history shows that this is not always enough to defeat Magical opponents. It is not rock-paper-scissors, Templar beats Mage, you only have to look as far as DAI itself to see this. Take the War itself, pre Redcliff.
The Mages were fighting toe to toe with the Templars for a full year before being aided by Ferelden. Sure, you could argue that the Mages would have lost but the anti-Magic factor would not have been why. See the Hinterlands, an arena of battle in which the Mages where winning.
Also take into account that for many months the Templars where taking their orders from a Demon, disguised right in front of them.
As for history, just look at the conflict between the Chantry and Tevinter. Several times the Chantry set it's anti-Magic army at Magic-roided Tevinter and several times they utterly failed.
They can't control time to that extent. That much we know just from going to Redcliffe and speaking with Dorian... and still being alive after going there.
It should also be Ferelden's responsibility to secure its own territories, but there we are, securing it for them because they can't. If they laid siege to Redcliffe, they would probably lose. They do lose in the dark timeline.
"Shouldn't take long at all" meaning what, exactly? The families would have to receive correspondence, a date would need to be set, and then after however long that takes you still need to travel to Therinfal. A trip from the Frostbacks (Orzammar specifically) to the Circle Tower takes weeks. From Haven to Therinfal is over five times that distance.
Therinfal Redoubt is a Seeker stronghold. So you are authorized to be there, unlike Redcliffe Castle.
The Inquisitor is invited to Redcliffe Castle. The war room scene has everyone complaining about it being an obvious trap. So you're "authorized" to be there.
Unless he can, and simply chose not to because Redcliffe Castle is where he was strongest.
Not so. They secured Redcliffe just fine, provided we do not interfere. If we do interfere, THEN Ferelden fails to defend its lands because no one is around to close the Breach. What likely happens after Alexius' time spell hits Dorian and the Herald, is Ferelden's soldiers arrive, Alexius flees in the confusion, and then later once the main Venatori force arrives, they retake Redcliffe Castle. The reason they don't in the templar path is because they attack Haven instead of Redcliffe.
You're comparing rocky terrain to smooth terrain though. Haven to Therinfal might be a longer distance, but if there is a road then you can move faster than you could on uneven terrain. Besides, it works out in the game. So its a moot argument. You can contact the nobles in enough time to get to Therinfal and recruit the templars before Ferelden's crown arrives to expel the mages.
I thought the Mages were pathetic, I sided with the Templars in both DA2 and DA:I (and my PC was a mage) they are the law and are supposed to protect people, mages are just rogues.
The only time I sided with them was in Origins, totally different situation though, and the Knight Commander agrees, and first enchanter Irving.
I think siding with mages is pretty naive here, Vivienne and other characters clearly state how selfish fiona is for having the rebellion occur at that time and that she could have done it in another matter.
Not to mention that Templars are corrupted without even knowing and by their commanders fault, while mages go willingly( yes they whine but they do so willingly) about "oh no, now we totally have to side with Tevinter.."
Also
Ser Barris > Fiona
Cole > Dorian
Calpernia > Samson
And afterwards the Templars actually do more Good if you ally with them, well better than the mages at least who just want the freedom, the Templars continue their duty like some joining the seekers and some following Cullen, the mages? basically every ending has them doing their own thing.
Templars have a duty, my inquisitor just reminded them of it.
The only time I would go with the mages is when i'm playing a ruthless necromancer who conscripts them, never ally.
The Inquisitor is invited to Redcliffe Castle. The war room scene has everyone complaining about it being an obvious trap. So you're "authorized" to be there.
That doesn't make sense. If your first statement were true, it wouldn't matter whether he's in Redcliffe castle or not. Otherwise, you are indeed conceding that the time magic is not as extensive as the first statement implied.
The Ferelden army didn't secure anything, as the Venatori abandons the castle entirely. There's no conflict for them to lose or win, but the Inquisitor won't know that beforehand.
Of course there's a road to Orzammar. It would even be more maintained than the road to Haven would have until recent history. If it's a moot point because it "works out" in the game, the same could be very well applied to In Hushed Whispers. It "works out". The base timeline is preserved. If the lore doesn't account for separate timelines, the dark future is undone entirely.
Not at all. Theoretically, Alexius could use time magic to return to the point you met him in the Gull and the Lantern, traveling back from a point in time where he knows you declined his invitation and avoided the trap entirely. However, would Alexius be able to beat you at this point? I would say no, since he would have done it the first time if he could have. He knew you would be there because he time traveled already. So the logic is, Alexius could go back in time, but he can't defeat you without the field advantage of Redcliffe Castle. That is the only area in which he can possibly win. That's why he wants you to go there.
Now, theoretically, he could attack you on the road to Therinfal, yes? However, the same logic applies. He may be able to go back in time and set up an ambush on the road, but would it be successful? As long as the Inquisition stays on high alert, Alexius can't beat you in the open. It's all about choosing where you fight and with what forces. Better to avoid the trap and prepare for anything.
For someone to have the power of real-life save scumming, the idea that the interior of Redcliffe Castle is literally the only location in which he could possibly defeat the Inquisitor is absurd. It is more reasonable to just conclude that his time powers are extremely limited, which they are.
The Herald doesn't need to know that beforehand. It isn't his problem if Ferelden's army loses to Alexius. Also, the reason why there was no conflict is because (fanwank)
Of course it would be our problem, because then the Venatori would have free reign to undo all of our work in the Hinterlands, and worse.
No, I'm talking about the timeframe of events working out. That has nothing to do with the actual storyline. Your Orlesian allies are good to go before you commit to Therinfal (you can cancel after unlocking). You can then choose to go to Redcliffe. Meaning, waiting for the nobles does not cost you any time. Alexius is still there, waiting for your reply.
Which still leaves the months it takes to travel to Therinfal.
For someone to have the power of real-life save scumming, the idea that the interior of Redcliffe Castle is literally the only location in which he could possibly defeat the Inquisitor is absurd.
It is more reasonable to just conclude that his time powers are extremely limited, which they are.
Of course it would be our problem, because then the Venatori would have free reign to undo all of our work in the Hinterlands, and worse.
Which still leaves the months it takes to travel to Therinfal.
Authorized by unauthorized foreigners. The argument is that Ferelden does not authorize you being in Redcliffe Castle.
No, you were trying to make the point that the Inquisitor would have to fight their way into the castle thus making it a less attractive option. You failed.
And not authorized by Ferelden? Since when? It's obviously being held by a foreign power. Ferelden is more than happy that you take the castle away from the enemy and give it back to Ferelden.
It isn't that the castle is the only location where Alexius can possibly win. He could possibly win in any location. But his odds are far less in places that he does not have a foothold. He effectively owns the castle. He doesn't own the road to Therinfal. He doesn't own Haven. He could go back in time and move his forces to some other area the Herald will travel through, but he will be much more likely to lose.
Alexius still had to maintain the timeline in which he "saves" the mages and expels Teagan. So he won't go back to before that. And he can't leave Redcliffe between that time and when the Herald returns to Haven because that would leave the mages without his direction. He also can't just appear in Haven, since it's too well guarded. His only options are to attack the Herald as he leaves for Therinfal, or else flee. So Alexius could either risk a fight in the open, or else cut his losses and focus on building up the Venatori.
There's (literally) an infinite number of approaches he could try, and an infinite amount of time to find the most optimal ones. That is assuming he has the powers the Inquisitor is supposed to assume he has, which he doesn't.
And why is assuming his power has limits reasonable?
Because as of speaking with Dorian in the Chantry, we know it is very experimental, crude, and constrained by location.
The Venatori were a small force at that time. They did not become a formidable army until after Calpernia came with the massive Venatori force as well as Corypheus. If they had fought Ferelden and somehow won, their forces would have been devastated at least. Making them easy to eliminate upon return from Therinfal.
They have the advantages of a fortified location (famous for being the most defensible castle in Ferelden, no less), having a large amount of mages being able to cast spells from said location, and they also have the ability to open rifts and let demons do their work for them. Even in the event that they suffer significant losses (which I doubt), it would be a crippling blow to Ferelden and a death sentence for the surrounding Hinterlands.
It wouldn't take months. It would take days.
No, it would take months.
Wasn't Dagna's calculation from Orzammar to the Circle based on travel by foot?
No.
I thought the Mages were pathetic, I sided with the Templars in both DA2 and DA:I (and my PC was a mage) they are the law and are supposed to protect people, mages are just rogues.
The only time I sided with them was in Origins, totally different situation though, and the Knight Commander agrees, and first enchanter Irving.
I think siding with mages is pretty naive here, Vivienne and other characters clearly state how selfish fiona is for having the rebellion occur at that time and that she could have done it in another matter.
Not to mention that Templars are corrupted without even knowing and by their commanders fault, while mages go willingly( yes they whine but they do so willingly) about "oh no, now we totally have to side with Tevinter.."
Also
Ser Barris > FionaCole > Dorian
Calpernia > Samson
And afterwards the Templars actually do more Good if you ally with them, well better than the mages at least who just want the freedom, the Templars continue their duty like some joining the seekers and some following Cullen, the mages? basically every ending has them doing their own thing.
Templars have a duty, my inquisitor just reminded them of it.
The only time I would go with the mages is when i'm playing a ruthless necromancer who conscripts them, never ally.
Interesting. Tell me, however, how she's supposed to do that? We are after the events in Kirkwall, where Meredith either did annul the Circle, or attempted to, after a known Warden apostate blew up the Chantry. How long until other Knight Commanders decide that that's the right thing to do? So they should just sit in their towers and hope that everything comes out ok? That worked out really well for the mages in Kirkwall that weren't involved with events there. The vote, as I understand it, was far from unanimous, so a lot of the mages apparently wanted to do just that, but as we can see from the War Table, even those that did barricade themselves into their towers were beset by townspeople determined to end them.
So no, being a good little mage, waiting for annulment wasn't really a viable option.
Authorized by unauthorized foreigners. The argument is that Ferelden does not authorize you being in Redcliffe Castle.
Lol, who the frak cares about authorization? Evil wizards that back an even evil-er wizard with super cooties that want to become god kings upon Thedas kicked Redcliffe's rightful ruler out of his own home. Teagan might be pissing and moaning 2 years after the fact, but he'd welcome any friendly forces that can oust them at the time.
Therinfal Redoubt is a Seeker stronghold. So you are authorized to be there, unlike Redcliffe Castle. There is also suspicion that Lucius was involved in the Conclave explosion. And some templars want to join you, but orders prevent them. So gathering nobles to help you stop Lucius makes more sense than going after a time-bending mage in a fortified castle you have no business going to. It is also stated that Ferelden's crown is going to Redcliffe to resolve things. This leaves you to settle things with the templars.
You learn the next move at Therinfal as well. The problem with IHW is you go to a crap future that you helped cause by your failure against Alexius. Then your companions inform you of future events, but not anything else, like who the Elder One is or that he has a dragon.
Fiona admits the mages are losing. The only survived that long because Ferelden's monarch(s) granted them asylum. Templars > mages. That's a fact. You can argue that their victory over a mage is not assured, but it is highly likely, especially in large numbers.
How were the mages winning? They had protection through Arl Teagan. And the rebel mages were hiring sell-swords. Without those the templars would have crushed the mages.
Not necessarily. We don't know when Lucius transitioned everything over to Envy. Lucius may have been the one who got the ball rolling, while Envy just maintained the momentum now and then afterward. Denam was also crucial in carrying out the deception, and he was human.
Because Tevinter has hundreds of thousands of soporotti warriors and assassins, as well as home field advantage. Also, notice how the mages in Tevinter react to true templars if you have Cullen send them to protect Maevaris.
How were we "unauthorized" to be a Redcliffe? We were invited. The purpose of going to Therinfal was not to recruit "some" Templars, the Inquisition already had some, the purpose was to recruit the Order Which made it clear that they were not interested in joining and the plan was to make them via noble pressure.
You do not learn FACTS from Champions of the Just. Only that the enemy WANTS to kill Celene and summon a Demon army. In Hushed Whispers you LEARN that they actually succeed in doing so and see the aftermath firsthand.
Fiona and everyone in Redcliffe were being fed false information and being manipulated with Time Magic. Before the Mages moved to Redcliffe they had been fighting the Templars for over a year on their own and had not in any way been "crushed". Templar > Mage IS NOT A FACT. Even in the best case scenario for Templars, the annulment of a Circle Tower, Templars take heavy casualties. It is not the fact that they are Templars that they win but that they are trained to fight and Mages are not. It is that they have greater resources and numbers as the martial arm of the Chantry. There are dozens of examples in-game and in lore that depict Templars falling to Mages and other Magical forces. It is also in the very premise of the game that BOTH sides agreed to the Conclave because NEITHER saw an end. People on both side throughout the game stated this. There was no "crushing" going on anywhere.
In the Hinterlands, within the ruined Fort Connor, a besieged Templar base, is this codex entry painting the victory for the Mages in that arena.
"It proved its fortitude against darkspawn during the Fifth Blight, suffering damage only when the darkspawn deployed emissaries. Eamon said proudly at the time that Fort Connor was "unbreakable by anything short of magic, and for that, thank the Maker we have templars." - Codex Entry Fort Connor
It is also stated by one of the quest people there helping the refugees that the Mages were pushing the Templars back. It was also easy to note the many Templar corpses lying around.
It is strongly suggested that Envy had taken Lucius's shape by at least the time he encountered the Inquisitor at Val Royeaux. Between then and it's death, Envy had spent weeks if not months in full view of the bulk of Templar forces.
Tevinter does have armies of non Magical fighters but their main strength has always been in their Magic. Various convos and codex entries point to Tevinter Mages fighting on the front lines and those who have been trained in combat during the four Exalted Marches have undoubtedly encountered Templars and as I pointed out the Templars have yet to strike a victory.
Interesting. Tell me, however, how she's supposed to do that? We are after the events in Kirkwall, where Meredith either did annul the Circle, or attempted to, after a known Warden apostate blew up the Chantry. How long until other Knight Commanders decide that that's the right thing to do? So they should just sit in their towers and hope that everything comes out ok? That worked out really well for the mages in Kirkwall that weren't involved with events there. The vote, as I understand it, was far from unanimous, so a lot of the mages apparently wanted to do just that, but as we can see from the War Table, even those that did barricade themselves into their towers were beset by townspeople determined to end them.
So no, being a good little mage, waiting for annulment wasn't really a viable option.
This. In the books, being the good little Mage most certainly did not work out. Mages in multiple Towers across Thedas had more restrictions placed on them than ever and when they tried to have a simple vote they were beaten and throne in prison. Even some Mages who tried to surrender were killed. Saying that Fiona and the Mages should have just sat back and accepted being mistreated and murdered is ridiculous. Even pro-chantry Mages like Wynn had had enough and took up arms to defend themselves. Also, Vivienne should not be used as a crutch on this issue. Had she been at the wrong place at the wrong time she could have ended up in a cell with the others, just like Pro Chantry Wynn was. Do you think she would have not defended herself had Templars attacked her for wanting to vote?
I am one of those that finds it sort of a dilemma. I actually enjoy the whole 'envy' demon scenario. Love the idea that you are fighting off its possession in your mind. I also like Calpernia better as Cory's henchmen(henchwoman?).
However, for most of my characters, they just sort of feel dirty helping the Templars. Its hard for me to justify roleplaying a character who claims to be 'good' and helping an organization full of oppressive thugs. For this reason alone, I mostly aid the mages.
While to me it was hard to justify a good character from a andrestian background and side with the murderous, the ends justifies the means, mages who betrayed their hosts at the first sign they might did attacked, at best abandoned the trainquil assuming at least some of them weren't actively helping the ventari and before the conclave had no issue killed their fellow mages even if they wren't a threat to 'free them in death' for being chantry loyalists or wanting to stay neutral. Of course my knowledge of how in premodern societies violations of the host guest relationship is one of the worse possible crimes one could commit likely factors into it, its what made what Howe did even worse than simply killing the couslands because he was a guest in their home.
Its a matter of perspective and neither side is better than the other.
Retour en haut
