396 réponses à ce sujet

[Lulupab]

It's quite possible that we know more about Justinia because she has been the only Divine that's been present during our actual playing of the game. She's been in a book and a game.

We can't name any other Divines because we haven't heard barely anything about any of the others.

 

Maybe, but its also possible they didn't achieve much. I mean what are the past achievements we can link to any divine, even if unnamed. There are almost fail exalted marches on Tevinter, harsher restrictions on mages etc... There is simply no event in history we can link to a divine that was different or achieved something good.

 

Justinia was simply different, according to various sources all divines were grown up in the chantry since childhood and in opposed to Justinia being part of actual Thedas life before becoming a cleric.

[Dai Grepher]

Remind me how Vivienne helps nonhumans again?

Why? What relevance does that have?

You think she should be helping... what? The dwarves of Orzammar? The Dalish? The Qunari? The city elves? Does she run an alienage? Is she in charge of any states, cities, or lands? No? Then how is she supposed to help non-humans specifically?

And anyway, she helped the elven mages of her Circle just the same as she did the human mages. She also helps any Inquisitor regardless of their race.

I'd imagine that if the Circles were willing to rebel and ally themselves with Fiona's faction seeking autonomy from Chantry control, there may have been good cause to do so.

Then why did 50% -1 vote to keep the Circles and not rebel? Certainly they must have suffered the same "oppression" as those who voted to rebel.

Asunder clearly states that the vote to rebel came down to one vote, and it belonged to Rhys. Likewise, the factions created by the rebellion were split down the middle between loyalists and rebels.

So the more likely case is that half of the mage population felt they were oppressed while half either believed they weren't, or at least that rebellion wasn't the answer.

Now, I'm sure there was actual oppression in various Circles, but I also believe most of the rebellion was comprised of malcontents who simply didn't like being told to live in the Circle.

I don't see how Celene giving favor to Vivienne translates to her respecting mages in general, and we also know that Celene accepted Morrigan into her court as the new arcane advisor (which seemed to be rather immediate).

It was immediate because Vivienne already blazed that trail. Morrigan simply took advantage of all Vivienne's hard work, which is another reason why Vivienne disliked Morrigan. But it shows that Celene welcomed mages into her court. This kind of recognition would have its benefits. It means more attention would be given to mage causes.

Vivienne certainly saw opportunity with the Inquisition, considering her attempt to become Divine. We don't really see her run her Circle to gauge her competency; we do see her pulling childish stunts like moving furniture, however, which causes me to wonder what kind of competent leader she's supposed to be if those are the antics that she gets involved with regarding people who don't agree with her.

You speculate that she attempted to become Divine. The fact is that she outright tells you that Cassandra should be Divine, and if you take her up on her advice and recommend Cassandra, it likely dooms any chance Vivienne might have had IF she even cared. So if she did want to be Divine, recommending Cassandra was an odd way of showing it.

Her moving furniture was more of BioWare's lame attempt to come up with a disapproval track event. Even if we take her action at face value and leave BioWare out of it, her intent was to needle at the Inquisitor and prove some kind of point. So should we compare her crisis moment to Cassandra's? She gets drunk and belligerent. You going to hold Cassandra to this one moment in time? How about Leliana, who can kill a Chantry sister against your order under certain circumstances?

I suppose it's a matter of whether or not you think Vivienne's reforms are sensible or simply a continuation of the problem that existed before the crisis with the Breach. I'm partial to allying with the mages and supporting their autonomy as allies myself.

I think it comes down to looking at the situation logically. Vivienne is for maintaining the necessary functions of the Circle while also reforming it to eliminate its problems and gradually allowing more freedoms for the mages over time. A gradual implementation of changes is safer because it allows the Chantry to observe the effects of the changes, and allows it to implement new changes if the first set has negative results or simply fails. It also allows the public time to adapt and accept the changes.

Leliana on the other hand forces radical change and either persuades against dissent or responds to it with deadly force, or does nothing and the situation gets worse. In any case, Leliana's policies are antithetical to the Chantry in many ways. She can even have the Hero as an open lover even if the Hero is married to a Ferelden monarch. Leliana is basically deconstructing the Chantry and rebuilding it as something unrecognizable.

Cassandra's approach is more along the lines of Vivienne's, even if Cassandra would disagree with Vivienne's style. But Cassandra also enacts a few radical reforms, just not as damaging as Leliana's.

Considering that Fiona viewed the Circle as worse than her life as an Orlesian sex slave and Anders talked about all the mage suicides, I suppose we could debate the merits of a few creature comforts while keeping the mages under Chantry control.

Well Fiona's opinion is self-evidently absurd, as was her choice of giving the mages over to a slave master. Ander's claim is likely hogwash, made up to justify his beliefs and radical actions. Anders was a typical terrorist, but there was a time when even he knew that rebellion against the Chantry was insane. His act of mass murder wasn't even meant to do anything except change the current situation to something else. But all it did was made the situation worse, and he didn't care. But he was an abomination by that time.

I think if Vivienne had been in charge, Anders never would have made it to that point. Either she would have talked sense into him, or she would have had the templars kill him rather than return him time after time.

Ostwick eventually stayed neutral, under the leadership of Senior Enchanter Lydia (a friend of Vivienne's)  but you can find out at Redcliffe and through talking with Vivienne as a human mage that fighting broke out among the mages there and Lydia was murdered by one of her own students.

What? I remember her mentioning Lydia, but I thought she was killed somewhere else, not in Ostwick. According to the human mage origin Ostwick stayed neutral the whole time. Did Ostwick change after the human mage left for the Conclave or something?

I could be wrong because it has been a while, but I thought Vivienne said Lydia was at a different Circle leading loyal mages and protecting books and such. She and her fellow loyalists would not join the rebellion, so the rebel mages brutally murdered her and the others. And I think Vivienne said that she discovered the crime scene herself.

I would have to dig through my old saves (I have more than 250 in separate folders) in order to verify. Either that or I'd have to look on YouTube, which I can't do at the moment.

Edit:  And it looks like Hasmal is the opposite:  That was a Circle where the Templars largely remained loyal, and stayed to protect the remaining loyalist mages there.

Well, I count that as a Circle remaining loyal. Templars and mages stayed and coexisted. That's a success in my book. It's fine if they let the malcontents leave.

[Dai Grepher]

People loved Justinia and her true legacy is Leliana who as she says will try to to accomplish everything Justinia wanted and she won't hesitate like Justinia did.

The people loved Justinia's personality, not her policies, most of which she didn't attempt to implement because she knew the people would not accept them. She had Leliana's vision, but Vivienne's level of prudence.

Both Cassandra and Leliana see Vivienne as a disgrace to Justinia's legacy. I'm betting many others feel the same.

And this shouldn't be about what Justinia or her Hands wanted or what they think the people are ready for. This should be about holding true to the original Chant as intended and implementing reforms that will actually work to secure peace, safety, and prosperity.

You cannot use flaws of people of Thedas whenever it suits you (such as their uneducated tendency to not trust magic) and disregard them whenever it supports your argument. The people will want a divine that would replace Justinia who is by now the most famous Divine is history of Thedas.

How's that? She's just the most recent Divine. She was well loved among those in the Chantry because of her personality and desire for unity and peace during an age of violent upheaval. The clerics choose the next Divine, and they do it based on the current state of the world. They want a Divine who will address the problems they face in the immediate future, the status of the mages/templars, the state of Orlais, and the condition of the Grey Warden Order. The goals of the Inquisition also play a part in their decision.

Justinia failed. Her Hands are likely to fail if they follow her example. Thedas needs someone who will right the ship, not take it in a different direction while it continues to take on water.

I think a mage is the best possible Divine during a time like the Dragon Age. Vivienne is perfect for the role because she is going to be a difficult target for anyone to assassinate, and she can respond with diplomacy or unrelenting force. She's the most versatile and dynamic of the three.

Vivienne and Cassandra are pretty equal on most points, but Vivienne is far better at handling politicians. Cassandra might be too trusting, and she is prone to being deceived.

The people will not care at all about Vivienne's achievements because in truth they do not see her as good replacement for Justinia as all the people care about is faith and the Chantry itself, much like Cassandra. You know how masses are.

Faith is a personal matter. The "masses" don't need the Divine to tell them how to worship or what to believe. That's all spelled out in the Chant and in the traditions that have been handed down. What the people need is more important than what they want, and they need a Divine who will protect them from magical and philosophical threats, both of which are implied to be on the horizon both from Solas and possibly the Qunari. Besides, Vivienne is capable of inspiring others. She is educated and eloquent. She also understands that the Divine is a position of service, to the Maker and to his children.

Leliana and Cassandra are chosen candidates by majority while Vivienne can only be forced by Inquisition to become a candidate, this alone says a lot.

You're wrong. It's possible to support Cassandra and yet still end up with Vivienne. The clerics elect the next Divine based on their own rationale. Vivienne is just as legitimate of a candidate as the Hands. More so compared to the Left.

Hardened Leliana is more capable than Vivienne politically or at least on same level, she is pretty much a master at grand game while still being legacy of Justinia. They are more alike than anyone cares to admit, with their main difference being treatment of mages.

Leliana can either be persuasive or brutal. Vivienne can be both. Leliana wants to remake the Chantry to reflect her misguided ideals. Vivienne wants to preserve tradition and improve upon it.

See Vivienne as divine with no Inquisition support. There is no inquisition after Trespasser, the remnant you can keep doesn't even come close.

In the end Vivienne is a mage, people will never truly accept a mage overlord.

Good thing the Divine isn't an overlord, despite what a steeled Leliana believes. They will applaud a mage Divine who believes in logical regulation of mages. It takes away legitimacy of any future rebellions. How can mages rebel against one of their own? Also, who's going to complain if that mage puts down her own if they act up? A mage Divine will be seen as perfectly justified. Her actions with the templars will be more scrutinized, but Vivienne takes a balanced approach with them, and they are much more rational and easier to work with.

[Iakus]

People loved Justinia and her true legacy is Leliana who as she says will try to to accomplish everything Justinia wanted and she won't hesitate like Justinia did.

 

Oh, really?

 

https://youtu.be/zcpha9vZTe0?t=158

[LobselVith8]

Then why did 50% -1 vote to keep the Circles and not rebel? Certainly they must have suffered the same "oppression" as those who voted to rebel.

Asunder clearly states that the vote to rebel came down to one vote, and it belonged to Rhys. Likewise, the factions created by the rebellion were split down the middle between loyalists and rebels.

So the more likely case is that half of the mage population felt they were oppressed while half either believed they weren't, or at least that rebellion wasn't the answer.

 

I recall Wynne saying (in the City of Amaranthine) that she was voting against breaking away from the Chantry because she felt that the Chantry would rather kill all the mages than see them free.

 

It was immediate because Vivienne already blazed that trail. Morrigan simply took advantage of all Vivienne's hard work, which is another reason why Vivienne disliked Morrigan. But it shows that Celene welcomed mages into her court. This kind of recognition would have its benefits. It means more attention would be given to mage causes.

 

That's certainly one interpretation to Celene tossing Vivienne aside for Morrigan almost immediately. It's not one I share, however.

 

You speculate that she attempted to become Divine. The fact is that she outright tells you that Cassandra should be Divine, and if you take her up on her advice and recommend Cassandra, it likely dooms any chance Vivienne might have had IF she even cared. So if she did want to be Divine, recommending Cassandra was an odd way of showing it.

 

No one has to speculate that Vivienne tries to become Vivienne; it's in the game. It's why she's a potential candidate even if you don't support her.

 

Her moving furniture was more of BioWare's lame attempt to come up with a disapproval track event. Even if we take her action at face value and leave BioWare out of it, her intent was to needle at the Inquisitor and prove some kind of point. So should we compare her crisis moment to Cassandra's? She gets drunk and belligerent. You going to hold Cassandra to this one moment in time? How about Leliana, who can kill a Chantry sister against your order under certain circumstances?

 

Moving furniture around and throwing a tantrum doesn't really prove any point except that Vivienne can't handle opposing ideologies, which doesn't really reflect a personality that's supposed to be a 'master of the Game'. I'm not going to have the impression that she's a competent leader if she can't properly deal with people who don't share her views (which is the impression I get from the furniture scene).

 

Well Fiona's opinion is self-evidently absurd, as was her choice of giving the mages over to a slave master. Ander's claim is likely hogwash, made up to justify his beliefs and radical actions. Anders was a typical terrorist, but there was a time when even he knew that rebellion against the Chantry was insane. His act of mass murder wasn't even meant to do anything except change the current situation to something else. But all it did was made the situation worse, and he didn't care. But he was an abomination by that time.

 

I don't think Fiona is absurd for having a view of the Chantry controlled Circles that you don't share. I also don't see how Anders was lying when there's no information that contradicts his statement. Whether or not one agrees with Anders' actions, he was partly spurned on by what was going on around him when he was a Circle mage, and what happened to Karl pushed him onto the mage rebellion path; talking about mages committing suicide is one of the issues he expresses with the Chantry controlled Circle.

[Dean_the_Young]

You cannot use flaws of people of Thedas whenever it suits you (such as their uneducated tendency to not trust magic) and disregard them whenever it supports your argument.

 

Keep your hypocrisy to yourself. You're the one who literally started your post with-
 

 

People loved Justinia

 

 

-and continue it with claims of validation by public support.

 

 

If you can appeal to the merits of the people of Thedas's views, I can point out what their views actually were and how Justinia fails to reflect them. The approval and support of the people of Thedas doesn't only count when they identify with your favored position. Democratic legitimacy doesn't only apply when it supports a progressive liberal position. If the popular opinion of the flawed, ignorant people of Thedas can be disregarded when it disagrees with you, the appeal to it is meaningless.

 

Here's the difference between us: I'm not appealing to popularity to validate something or someone as 'good' or 'correct.' When I bring up demographic support, it is tied to what those views translate to- in Divine Justinia's case, a whole bunch of people disagree with her so much, not only does nearly the entire Templar Order leave but an entire support network ignores and resists Justinia's authority as well to enable them to conduct military operations for over a year. This is very bad, and a huge demonstrated weakness for someone who started from a position of having a lyrium monopoly. The leader of a major institution should manage those differences, so they don't lead to schism. How they do it can also be judged. Hence, by my argument, Justinia's failure to keep the Chantry together is a weakness, and a counter-argument to her being a good leader.

 

 

 

The people will want a divine that would replace Justinia who is by now the most famous Divine is history of Thedas.

 

 

Appeal to popularity to justify Justinia, rather than raising or replying to points of her actual record.

 

Also, 'most famous' doesn't mean 'good' or 'best.' In the context of the Dragon Age, it means 'best well known' because, for obvious reasons, of the high profile nature of her death, recent events, and, you know, just happened.

 

 

The people will not care at all about Vivienne's achievements because in truth they do not see her as good replacement for Justinia as all the people care about is faith and the Chantry itself, much like Cassandra. You know how masses are.

 

 

Another appeal to the wants of the people of Thedas. Also, irrelevant to what I said and my position.

 

I openly question Cassandra's objectivity in this matter, as she deems Vivienne a tyrant for never specified reasons while having no issue with bloody-murder Leliana, who actually does conduct acts of a tyrant (murder, blackmail, intimidation, fabricated propoganda, rewrite laws to her own personal convenience, a private intelligence network that conducts torture) and gets away without notice.

 

 

 

Leliana and Cassandra are chosen candidates by majority while Vivienne can only be forced by Inquisition to become a candidate, this alone says a lot.

 

 

 

The Inquisition does not 'force' Vivienne onto the Sunburst Throne. Vivienne succeeds by the same rules, and the same means, that Leliana and Casandra do- by convincing the Mothers to vote for her, rather than her rivals. The Inquisition can support her, or not, just like any of the rest.

 

Either Vivenne is a majority candidate as well- by winning the electors votes in a free and fair or election- or none of them are, because the Divine isn't a 'popular' vote and the people of Thedas hardly know the likes of Leliana.

 

 

 

Hardened Leliana is more capable than Vivienne politically or at least on same level, she is pretty much a master at grand game while still being legacy of Justinia.

 

 

*Citation needed.

 

Hardened Leliana, even from the position Sunburst Throne and a propensity to bloody knives, can't stop a single woman without formal authority from convincing the nobility and even a significant number of mages to avoid resurrecting a system Leliana viewed as flawed and tried to disband. Instead, they become a political rival to her favored institution, without Chantry support. Meanwhile, the legacy of Justinia begins of reign of terror against dissidents and political opponents to her preferences, but still can't convince them to, you know, not support an emerging institution that has an established legitimacy now in opposition to the Divine.

 

Bravo, Leliana. The grand master of the game right there.

 

 

They are more alike than anyone cares to admit, with their main difference being treatment of mages.

 

 

Leliana treating them without special regard or the public interest in mind, and Vivienne believing with great power must come greater responsibility?

 

Leliana assassinating her political rivals, while Vivienne waits and crushes those who openly rebel?

 

Leliana not really caring what the mage or mundane concerns of the matter are, while Vivienne actively seeks mage and mundane power bases?

 

 

Ah, but they do both wear funny hats...

[Dean_the_Young]

Maybe, but its also possible they didn't achieve much. I mean what are the past achievements we can link to any divine, even if unnamed. There are almost fail exalted marches on Tevinter, harsher restrictions on mages etc... There is simply no event in history we can link to a divine that was different or achieved something good.

 

Justinia was simply different, according to various sources all divines were grown up in the chantry since childhood and in opposed to Justinia being part of actual Thedas life before becoming a cleric.

 

What achievements did Justinia have?

 

She didn't regain Chantry control over the Templars. Instead she ended up having less control over them than any Divine since the Neverra Accords.

 

She didn't solidify the Chantry's lyrium monopoly as a practical means of control or influence. Instead, a significant part of her own logistics base and support network supported the Templars over her.

 

She didn't reform the Circles. Instead the Circle leadership had no respect for her and spurned her attempts.

 

She didn't prevent a Mage Rebellion that brought significant human suffering to mages and mundanes alike, unlike the previous millenia of Divines.

 

She didn't change the Chantry policy on elves or non-humans.

 

She didn't convince Orzammar to allow a Chantry despite public interest.

 

She didn't manage effective oversight of her own institutions in Kirkwall.

 

She didn't make the Chantry an effective institution that could react to global crisis without her as Divine personally leading it.

 

 

It's nice that you like that Justinia grew up outside of a Chantry and all, but what great achievements do you think she actually did?

 

'Getting the establishment of the Chantry wiped out in a surprise bombing at the end of the world so that your own exploited tool can take over' is not much of a sellign point.

[congokong]

Almost every Inquisitor I've made sided with the templars, and almost all of them happened to be mages. It's not that they were pro-templar, but getting the templars was the logical choice.

 

They were the more reliable allies, used to duty and following orders, rather than rebel mages who rebelled precisely because they were tired of such.

 

And most importantly, the plan to recruit the mages was way too risky. It required trusting some mage you just met (Dorian) to help ward off some apparent time magic while you used the sole hope to seal the breach (yourself) as bait. The alternative was what seemed to be a mere negotiation with the Lord Seeker. The latter is a no-brainer to me.

 

Personal biases regarding the mage-templar dispute are irrelevant. The Herald's job is to close the breach, keep themselves alive to do it, and gain the best allies for the job.

 

And mission-wise, Champions of the Just is my favorite in the game while In Hushed Whispers is a cliche. The templar path also gives Cole a far better introduction while Dorian's remains the same so long as you visit Redcliffe beforehand.

[Barquiel]

I disagree, the setup for the Mage quest made more sense with the threat of a Tevinter Magister and cult moving into Ferelden imo. Redcliffe is closer to the Inquisition's base of operations than Therinfal is, and having Redcliffe fall under enemy control wouldn't be very good (as Leliana points out) - not to mention the whole time magic thing. It just felt like an issue that demanded more attention than some religious fanatics who are simply acting like jerks (nothing unusual).

Templars also actively hunt Keepers and their apprentices (Merrill mentions that the templars are part of the reason why the clans are nomadic) , so my dalish mage would be happy to see them gone. I mean, I wouldn't exactly feel safe going to a templar fortress as a Lavellan. What guarantee would there be that these templars wouldn't treat me like every other mage (kill them on sight)? To her, the Templars have pretty much asked for their fate. In addition, there are no elves in the Chantry ranks, but a reasonable number of elves among the mages.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I recall Wynne saying (in the City of Amaranthine) that she was voting against breaking away from the Chantry because she felt that the Chantry would rather kill all the mages than see them free.

If you have Anders in the party at the time, he also echos that belief. I played a mage for my canon and push in that conversation for independence, and they're actually both of the same mind on it. Both of them talk about the inherent dangers in pushing the issue, neither of them defend the Circles as being a positive, or even really suggest they're not a negative. The focus is all on fear of the Chantry, not appreciation or respect. It doesn't seem like most mages "don't think they're being oppressed", it just seems like the Chantry has a good portion of them effectively intimidated into submitting to their fate. 

[Hazegurl]

My HN Mage Inquisitor's reasons for choosing the Templars is because they are soldiers better equipped to fight demons and counter magic and the people of Thedas trusts them more than a group of failing rebels.

 

There were also just way too many signs telling him that bringing the mages into the Inquisition would be a terrible mistake that could backfire on him big time.

 

1. The shack of Tranquil skulls.  This was a very disturbing find and opened up the possibility that the mages could have been involved in some strange and unknown magic.  Especially with the whole time magic thing we encounter when we first show up.  Do I really want these rebel mages inside of my HQ without knowing who was involved in the murder of the Tranquils and what they planned to achieve by this new magic? Nope. 

 

2. Fiona doesn't remember me.  Either she's lying or someone had tampered with her mind with blood magic.  Why would I want her inside of my HQ?? She could have very well been mind controlled to destroy the Inquisition from the inside. We also have no proof this hasn't been done to the whole lot of them.

 

3. The owner of Redcliffe was kicked from his home and the place is now occupied by a foreign invading force that the mages have sided with. They've committed an act of treason against their country.  At this point in time the Inquisition has not gained a massive amount of supporters, why would I risk that to recruit a bunch of traitors to their country who allowed a foreign force to occupy their land.  And this is after Fereldan lends them aid. The mages have shown that they will stab an ally in the back. So why would I still ally with known traitors?

 

4. The mages are prone to make stupid decisions with no back up plan.  Why would I trust them on a battlefield.

 

5. The mage force is made up of scared noncombatants. Do we have the space and facilities to train them? Would they be prepared for a battle in time?

 

6. If we take the mages in, how do we know we're not also taking in Tevinter mages pretending to be rebel mages?

 

It just makes no sense to risk the long term stability of the Inquisition, and entrust my life to two mages, one being Alexius' own son, and  walk into a trap filled with multiple unknown magic just to rescue a bunch of treasonous possibly mind altered mages known for backstabbing allies and can't even fight.  No thanks. I would rather get the Templars and use them to storm Redcliffe.

 

And also, from a player perspective, The Templar path gives the best story that makes the most sense.  No stupid badly written time magic crap, Envy trying to possess a mage made sense, The Venatori make more sense for following a crazy old Tevinter Magister who has seen the Golden City, you find out more about Cory and get more lore, Calpurina is far more interesting than some has been Templar junkie guy, you get to make a hard choice on the Templar path, plus you get to see a true redemption story with the Templars that you just don't have with the Mage path.  Also, the introduction to Cole and Dorian makes far better sense.  I have no reason to trust Dorian until he's running for his life to warn us of the Venatori attack.  Because I met him in Redcliffe I have a least an incentive to hear him out. Why would I trust Cole? Cole's introduction fits better as the one who aided me in fighting Envy, and his appearance in the war room was awesome. 

[congokong]

I disagree, the setup for the Mage quest made more sense with the threat of a Tevinter Magister and cult moving into Ferelden imo. Redcliffe is closer to the Inquisition's base of operations than Therinfal is, and having Redcliffe fall under enemy control wouldn't be very good (as Leliana points out) - not to mention the whole time magic thing. It just felt like an issue that demanded more attention than some religious fanatics who are simply acting like jerks (nothing unusual).
 

I've heard this argument before, and while it holds validity, it does not supersede the primary objective: close the breach, stay alive to do it, and get the best allies for the job. Choosing the mages jeopardizes two of those three; especially regarding the prerequisite to use the sole hope to seal the breach as bait coupled with unknowns like Dorian and time magic. One flanked crossbow bolt into the Herald's head and, poof, end of the world. No thank you. I go with the templars.

[Dai Grepher]

I've heard this argument before, and while it holds validity, it does not supersede the primary objective: close the breach, stay alive to do it, and get the best allies for the job. Choosing the mages jeopardizes two of those three; especially regarding the prerequisite to use the sole hope to seal the breach as bait coupled with unknowns like Dorian and time magic. One flanked crossbow bolt into the Herald's head and, poof, end of the world. No thank you. I go with the templars.

The mage plan for the anchor is also risky because it involves charging it with even more magic to seal the Breach, whereas templars would simply hold back the magical forces of the Breach so the anchor can be used normally.

[congokong]

The mage plan for the anchor is also risky because it involves charging it with even more magic to seal the Breach, whereas templars would simply hold back the magical forces of the Breach so the anchor can be used normally.

Perhaps, but that feels more like a fan speculation since the game does not actually state using the mages is more dangerous. I try to avoid using such in debates because magic is fictional, its limits are not clearly defined, etc. and such subjectivity can likely be twisted to fit anyone's argument.

[Dai Grepher]

Cassandra mentions it in a scene with her and the Herald waling into the Chantry, I believe. I think it was after Val Royeaux. There is a dialogue option to comment on the danger of charging the mark up even more. Cassandra says something like, "Hold on to that sense of humor", or something like that.

Cullen also states how the templars would help fight the Breach.

[Vilio1]

Story-wise, I think both missions make the same amount of sense.

But I did play the templar quest only once, and probably won't do it again. I think "In Hushed Wispers" is more exciting and emotional - altough I must admit I'm a bit biased because the templars pretty much epitomize everything I despise.

[congokong]

Cassandra mentions it in a scene with her and the Herald waling into the Chantry, I believe. I think it was after Val Royeaux. There is a dialogue option to comment on the danger of charging the mark up even more. Cassandra says something like, "Hold on to that sense of humor", or something like that.

Cullen also states how the templars would help fight the Breach.

It's also said to be "pure speculation" by Leliana that the templars could weaken the breach. I'm sure pro-mage questline people are more than happy to point that out. None of this is real, so it's very easy for people to twist details to fit their argument. The templar path is well supported, IMO, by common sense; something many people seem to lack.

[sniper_arrow]

The mage plan for the anchor is also risky because it involves charging it with even more magic to seal the Breach, whereas templars would simply hold back the magical forces of the Breach so the anchor can be used normally.

 

In an alternative scenario, do you think mages and templars closing the Breach together would be more helpful? I mean the balance factor would be strong in this case.

[SgtSteel91]

For my main Inquisitor, a Warrior Trevelyan: I headcanon that while the Trevelyan family has strong ties to the Chantry, their beliefs in Andrasteism are not the same as those in, say, Orlais. They're close to the Chantry for philanthropy and don't see Magic as an inherently corrupting influence on the world. In fact, they have family join the Templar Order so that they could make sure Mages, especially Trevelyan Mages, were treated right. So when the Templars and Seekers break the Nevarran Accord, they condemn these 'Rebel' Templars and make it a point to disown any Trevelyan Templar who joins them. So my Trevelyan already sees the Rebel Templars as in the wrong.

 

At Val Royeaux, her opinion of the Rebel Templars gets even lower when Lucius and the Rebels basically came out to laugh at the Chantry and the Inquisition. When returning to Haven, she and the War council agree to hear Fiona out and discuss the terms of the Free Mages aiding in closing the Breach. If the Inquisition deems the terms unacceptable and no compromise can be made, then they'll go forward with the plan to march Orlesian nobles across Fereldan to strong arm the Templars into closing the Breach.

 

But when they get to Redcliff to meet Fiona, Trevelyan learns that Fiona has no idea she went to Val Royeaux, the Free Mages and Redcliff Castle are under the control of a Magister who apparently used volatile Time Magic to accomplish it, and did this all to get to Trevelyan. So alarm bells are already going off in her head that these Venatori may have had something to do with the Conclave explosion and the Breach. They have to be stopped, right now.

 

The plan to use herself as bait to sneak soldiers into Redcliff Castle and take out Alexius and the Venatori out in one strike is extremely risky, but she's the kind of person who won't abandon people in need. And she feels this is the only opportunity to take out the Venatori and save the Free Mages and the people of Redcliff with as little bloodshed as possible; going to the Templars now will no doubt tip off Alexius and everyone in Redcliff are likely doomed.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Inquisitor #1, Elven Mage:

 

- He was a strong supporter of mage freedom and wanted to help the rebellion however he could. I conceptualized him as being horrified by the Circles and wanting to help end them, if he could, so there was never any real consideration of the Templars. I didn't approach this as an impartial decision. He was a mage who believed in freedom for mages and he was always going to go to the mages and offer them his support. Anything else was just icing. 

 

- He wanted to weaken the Chantry however he could and saw helping the Templars as contradictory to that goal. He wasn't Andrastrian and took any opportunity to express it. He hoped the Inquisition could find evidence that would cripple the Chantry. The Templars had always given them power, bringing them back under the yoke was good for the Chantry, not good for him. He just wanted the order to end.

 

- He understood magic and felt more comfortable using magic to power the mark than he did with the Templar abilities, which he didn't really understand and only had Cullen's word to go on that it would work. Even then, he wasn't overly clear on how and nobody else backed him up. As a Dalish mage, the Templar powers weren't something familiar to him and there was no real reason for him to take them on faith as equally effective.

 

- He thought the mages would be a more solid alliance for him and didn't really trust the Templars to respect him as far as the mages would. Templars following an elven mage seemed absurd to him. He'd never seen an elven Templar. Can elves even be Templars in Andrastrian society? The Templars are a solid choice for loyalty if you're a human non-mage, but as a non-human mage, they're more likely to have bias against your PC than the mages. My Inquisitor #1 expected the Templars to start out disrespectful and they delivered in spades. The mages had a perfectly civil elven mage as their face and other elves, like Lysas, among their number. They were generally polite and appreciative of any offers of help. Dorian and Felix were even substantially more respectful than the Templars had been. It was easy for him to relate more to the mages, even more than he expected, and the Templars just kept burning bridges.

 

 

Inquisitor #2, Elven Archer:

 

- He wasn't overly fond of the Circle system, since it jarred so much with his own culture. He believed in mage freedom, though he didn't make it the priority that Inquisitor #1 did. He just generally wanted to help people with the power he'd been given, whether it was mages, elves, humans, etc. There was definitely some inherent bias towards the rebels and against the Templars, though. He wasn't Andrastrian and didn't have any special interest in maintaining their customs. He didn't see the circles as "good" or "necessary" the way most Andrastrian humans did, so he classified undermining them as "helping people".

 

- He liked Dorian and Felix. He was aware it could be a trap and didn't toss his complete trust in immediately, but the Templars didn't seem any more trustworthy. The Templars seemed batshit crazy when we met with them in Orlais. He knew going to them would be a mess, too. At least Dorian and Felix were personable. Lucius was a loutish brute. I played this Inquisitor as a sarcastic/not overly serious individual that gravitated towards those with good senses of humor, so personality went a long way.

 

- Fiona and several mages in Redcliffe asked me for help. Even though Fiona said she wasn't in Orlais, it was clear she was unhappy with the situation and needed help. She made a mistake in desperation and a lot of innocent people were going to pay for it. I played this character as being empathetic towards people clearly in need, even if he joked it off. He couldn't just leave them knowing the situation was very not right, and the Templars didn't seem at all interested in my help. Lysas and the older white haired mage that didn't want to leave the Circle to begin with tugged at the heartstrings. He couldn't let them be taken off to Tevinter as slaves against their will, or maybe even worse. There was also the issue of the townspeople of Redcliffe, who needed me to do something about the Magister and his people, who were clearly up to something sinister. Basically, innocent mages and innocent townspeople caught up in a situation negotiated above their heads, vs a bunch of Templars that were clear about not wanting my help and all willingly there as part of an armed force. It was easy to stay and help Redcliffe.

 

- He had kind of a Sera-esque aversion to nobility. Of all my Inquisitors, he was the most down on the nobles and their political bullshit. The whole set up left a bad taste in his mouth. You had to go get a bunch of nobles to throw their weight around just to talk to this grandstanding ******* that thought he was too good to help with the devastation and suffering outside the walls he holed up in. No thanks. The lot of them deserved each other, this Inquisitor figured. There were many people in Redcliffe that needed help immediately, and many more elsewhere. Why play games with the Templars when others want my help and need it now? One of this Inquisitors biggest peeves was seeing people that had the power to help others, but refused or only used that power for selfish purposes. That's how he saw the Templars based on the meeting with Lucius. 

 

 

Inquisitor #3, Qunari Dual Dagger Rogue:

 

- He was a little scared of magic, but also felt some camaraderie with mages. His parents taught him how important freedom was, and how they fled the Qun in order to have freedom. He was willing to fight for anyone else's freedom, including the freedom of mages. People say the Qunari need the Qun to not turn into mindless, ravaging beasts. People say mages need to be locked in Circles in order to not become abominations. He knows it's not exactly the same, but he believes everyone deserves a chance at freedom and everyone should be treated based on their individual actions, not lumped together with their autonomy erased, like the Qun does. Magic is scary, but he remembers most people in the south think he is also scary.

 

- How does the Templar power even work? The mages are straight forward, power up the mark. It's magic, add more magic, simple. It's definitely dangerous, but he got the idea. Cullen doesn't explain the Templar power well. Leliana seems convinced it won't work. Cassandra seems like she should have bias towards the Templars and I was still getting the vibe she thought the mages were the safer option for this purpose. Meta knowledge tells me the Templar approach obviously works, but they didn't sell it well in context of the games for someone working with only the in-game knowledge their PC would have at that point. 

 

- The threat in Redcliffe was obvious once he got there. The Templars didn't want to speak with the Inquisition. It seemed to him like they were just your run of the mill, power hungry ex-soldiers. They reminded him of negative stereotypes of the Tal-Vashoth. He saw them as men who's whole lives had been leashed attack dogs, and now they didn't know how to moderate the violence with the leash off. The townspeople of Redcliffe and the mages that didn't have a choice in their servitude wanted help, the Templars didn't and, what's more, he didn't know if they could be helped based on what he'd seen.

 

- From the outside, this situation seemed more likely to bear fruit on what Corypheus was planning. The connections weren't as clear with the Templars. They may have had something deeper going on, or they might just be following a run of the mill despot. The Tevinter cult in Redcliffe seemed to be the most promising lead we had to figure out what the bigger picture was. He didn't believe the Templars could or would have caused the Breach, but a Tevinter cult seemed like a possibility. As my most pragmatic Inquisitor, I saw him as leaning towards thinking this was something that needed to be unraveled. As a rogue, the "sneak through the tunnels" plan sounded right in his realm of specialty. This worked out well for his skills and seemed to be the best hope they had at the moment to figure out what was going on. 

[NaclynE]

Boy oh boy.

 

Usually I make my faction choice based on my character's personality. Amolla Vollsa took the templars because she felt like it was "the best choice" as presented by the 2 out of 3 people (-Josephine). Draven Vollsa picked mages for compassion reasons. Ullia picked templars because of concensus and advice from Vivianne. Chasimess picked mages because she's not the type to go with "the better choice" presented by 2 out of 3 people. 

 

These are just examples of where I try to go with my characters personality as opposed to just out of a whim or political decision or because X character did it so I'm going to have X person do it now.

[Dai Grepher]

In an alternative scenario, do you think mages and templars closing the Breach together would be more helpful? I mean the balance factor would be strong in this case.

More helpful than what, closing the Breach? That was the goal, and it can be achieved with just the templars, so I don't think it would have been more helpful. One could argue that using both options would have a greater chance of success, but even in that case the counterargument would be that pouring any amount of magic into the mark could cause harm, or that the flow of magic from mages and the flow of anti-magic from templars would conflict with each other.