Dragon Age VI: Siege Harder

[Lord Raziere]

But instead of having a debate along those lines, we just get example after example of mages being incompetent evil buffoons and Templar being oppressive totalitarian monsters. By the end I don't care about either of them. I side with the mages because, as presented in the game to side with the templar means killing off the innocent. But I just end up hating this city and everyone in it. Which sadly included most of our companions.

See, this is a weird complaint I see about many games. what would be a good debate then? the characters sitting down and not fighting at all? how can you possibly have a fighting conflict with both sides being reasonable? because these are combat games, you can't do this without a fight being involved, and in my experience if people are too reasonable,a fight never occurs at all. what would you consider a factor that makes both sides fight without being unreasonable? what would it possibly take for you to consider this kind of thing seriously instead of hating everyone and not caring?

or are we pretending that medieval people have standards in a civil war and that they both shouldn't crossed certain lines? because frankly thats nonsense. actual medieval people have done far worse than anything in Dragon Age 2, and fighting a war before things like the Geneva Conventions was basically anything goes. you can't expect to hold them to standards that don't exist in their setting.

elaborate, because I don't get the "these sides aren't reasonable, I hate everyone" complaint when the entire conflict is about these people fighting and killing each other. and do we really want every war story to be one solved by peacebringer messiah person who doesn't want to hurt a fly?

[Keltest]

See, this is a weird complaint I see about many games. what would be a good debate then? the characters sitting down and not fighting at all? how can you possibly have a fighting conflict with both sides being reasonable? because these are combat games, you can't do this without a fight being involved, and in my experience if people are too reasonable,a fight never occurs at all. what would you consider a factor that makes both sides fight without being unreasonable? what would it possibly take for you to consider this kind of thing seriously instead of hating everyone and not caring?

or are we pretending that medieval people have standards in a civil war and that they both shouldn't crossed certain lines? because frankly thats nonsense. actual medieval people have done far worse than anything in Dragon Age 2, and fighting a war before things like the Geneva Conventions was basically anything goes. you can't expect to hold them to standards that don't exist in their setting.

elaborate, because I don't get the "these sides aren't reasonable, I hate everyone" complaint when the entire conflict is about these people fighting and killing each other. and do we really want every war story to be one solved by peacebringer messiah person who doesn't want to hurt a fly?

You could see the sympathetic mages and the non-extremist templars who are getting hurt by the extremists on the other side. The closest we come is seeing Anders blow up the chantry, but the clerics there aren't really affiliated with the Templars at all, and the only non-hawke-family mages we see are blood mages, abominations or both.

[Lord Raziere]

You could see the sympathetic mages and the non-extremist templars who are getting hurt by the extremists on the other side. The closest we come is seeing Anders blow up the chantry, but the clerics there aren't really affiliated with the Templars at all, and the only non-hawke-family mages we see are blood mages, abominations or both.

I guess that fair, everyone becoming one side or the other doesn't really seem to be completely accurate. but wasn't there some templar who was like, helping mages escape and got punished for it?

[Keltest]

I guess that fair, everyone becoming one side or the other doesn't really seem to be completely accurate. but wasn't there some templar who was like, helping mages escape and got punished for it?

Sort of? I don't believe he gets caught unless you turn him in, but his charges become blood mages I think. Its been a while.

[Giggling Ghast]

I guess that fair, everyone becoming one side or the other doesn't really seem to be completely accurate. but wasn't there some templar who was like, helping mages escape and got punished for it?

I believe you're referring to Ser Thrask. With your help, he assists the Starkhaven mages in trying to escape the Circle in Act 1, but he is then murdered by one of those mages in Act 3. He had tried to build an alliance between templars and mages to oust Knight-Commander Meredith, but he is manipulated into attacking Hawke by his ally Grace, who wants revenge for the death of her lover Decimus.

[Kish]

or are we pretending that medieval people have standards in a civil war and that they both shouldn't crossed certain lines?

Rather, you are pretending that the fantasy Dragon Age world maps to the real-world medieval period in any way that has real moral relevance.

Gaider outspokenly and loudly wanted moral ambiguity, with mages vs. templars and with Alistair vs. Loghain. In neither case did his writing earn it. Nor, your weird loaded phrasing aside, would the absence of that conceit have made a worse game; find me someone who thinks the darkspawn perspective was underrepresented in DA1, and I'll shrug and say, "Okay, that's a point of view."

[Giggling Ghast]

As someone who sided with the mages in DAO and DA2 and then sided with the Templars in DAI, I wouldn't say they completely failed to achieve moral ambiguity with the mage/templar conflict.

DAI was the best for this, making an argument for the Templars being a force for good in Thedas while making the rebel mages look like a bunch of whiny bitches.

[Keltest]

As someone who sided with the mages in DAO and DA2 and then sided with the Templars in DAI, I wouldn't say they completely failed to achieve moral ambiguity with the mage/templar conflict.

DAI was the best for this, making an argument for the Templars being a force for good in Thedas while making the rebel mages look like a bunch of whiny bitches.

Agreed. Mages are legitimately dangerous, both in a "they have amazing destructive powers at their fingertips" sense and a "they could suddenly lose control whenever they go to bed" moment. The status quo is not ideal, but there needs to be some amount of restraint. Origins emphasizes this nicely with the Tower plot where a bunch of mages become abominations and start slaughtering people. DA2 at least tries for this, with the aforementioned "all non-hawke mages are bad" bit, but they utterly flubbed the Templars and the sympathetic aspects of the mages. In hindsight, its extremely hard to take Orsino seriously when he turns himself into a giant corpse monster which promptly loses control and attacks allies and enemies alike. Making him an actual blood mage was a horrible mistake.

[Dienekes]

See, this is a weird complaint I see about many games. what would be a good debate then? the characters sitting down and not fighting at all? how can you possibly have a fighting conflict with both sides being reasonable? because these are combat games, you can't do this without a fight being involved, and in my experience if people are too reasonable,a fight never occurs at all. what would you consider a factor that makes both sides fight without being unreasonable? what would it possibly take for you to consider this kind of thing seriously instead of hating everyone and not caring?

or are we pretending that medieval people have standards in a civil war and that they both shouldn't crossed certain lines? because frankly thats nonsense. actual medieval people have done far worse than anything in Dragon Age 2, and fighting a war before things like the Geneva Conventions was basically anything goes. you can't expect to hold them to standards that don't exist in their setting.

elaborate, because I don't get the "these sides aren't reasonable, I hate everyone" complaint when the entire conflict is about these people fighting and killing each other. and do we really want every war story to be one solved by peacebringer messiah person who doesn't want to hurt a fly?

Mostly, I had no one to root for because I ended up hating everyone on either side who wasn't name Bethany. Having violent confrontation and even unreasonably standards is not strictly speaking a knock against the problem, so long as it's handled in an interesting way. To take one of my favorite of these two side decisions in the Dragon Age franchise, you can go to Bhelen and Harrowmont. Both of these men are in many ways unreasonable but you could follow the logic behind their points and they both had prose and cons to them. It is made very clear that the dwarves are in a constant state of turmoil being attacked by the Blight. A strong military figure like Harrowmont could be good for the city. But the progressive stances of Bhelen are good for the people. Then there's the stance of both men on honor and the player's personal view on whether or not Bhelen is the type of person that's worth supporting. Mind you, that's in the framing of the question. The final notecards at the end of the game makes it clear Bhelen was the "correct" choice. But I've always found that kind of flawed. Would have been better if there were more pros and cons to either. Killing off your best general when your in constant warfare seems like it would have some negative consequences.

In any case, this leads us to the Mage/Templar debate in the game. In DA2 the question is framed whether one should support the mages or the templar. In the game, there is one good templar. The actual figurehead that is the mouthpiece as to why the templar may be necessary is Meredith. Meredith is insane. I mean literally, at the end when the moment of the big decision happens she has the culprit right in front of her, admitting guilt. His plan requires that she attacks the Mages and kills them all to make them all martyrs. He tells her this. She decides to kill them all anyway, presumably including your nice sister. So they haven't given me a reason to want to side with the templar.

Then how about the mages. On the surface of it, oppression bad. So you'd think that siding with the mages would be easy. And it kind of is. I've sided with the mages each time without fail. But I never feel good about it, because, again, the only mage I don't think is a freaking lunatic/moron/both is my dear sweet sister Bethany. Literally every single other mage we meet is engaged in some evil crap or being so stupid I wanted to grab them and scream at them. Hell the one non-Bethany mage we meet that isn't dealing with demons, blood magic, or murder. Is an escaped mage, who, I kid you not, after running away from the Circle goes to a bar and hits on women by claiming to be a blood mage. And while that did get me to theoretically contemplate the value of wiping these people out, it wasn't because the writing actually make me contemplate the pros and cons of the stances taken by all these characters. It was because I hated them all.

I guess that fair, everyone becoming one side or the other doesn't really seem to be completely accurate. but wasn't there some templar who was like, helping mages escape and got punished for it?

There is Thrask, the good templar. He gets killed. By the mages he was trying to protect. One of the major points as to why I hated the mages in the game.

[Morty]

As someone who sided with the mages in DAO and DA2 and then sided with the Templars in DAI, I wouldn't say they completely failed to achieve moral ambiguity with the mage/templar conflict.

DAI was the best for this, making an argument for the Templars being a force for good in Thedas while making the rebel mages look like a bunch of whiny bitches.

Inquisition's choice to side with Templars didn't involve siding with a madwoman but instead deciding that if you're dealing with a big, magical hole in the sky, you're going to need people who can deny magic. Then you take out the corrupt Templar leadership and try to steer the order back to what it should be instead of what it had become. So, you know, progress.

Honestly, this whole thing is a big pile of wasted potential. There's many interesting stories to be had with conflict between people who have powers, people who devote themselves to keeping them in check and the general populace. Dragon Age closes many of them off by having the mages be unequivocally under the Templars' boot and abused in many and varied ways, then repeatedly pushing for confrontation between the two and forcing us to take a side. It just feels like taking the easy way out. And it's a bit dull by now how the conversation about the series returns there time and again.

[Lord Raziere]

Sounds like its the execution in specific details more than the conflict itself. I guess I'm weird in that I'm not concerned about execution when reading or viewing something, but very concerned about it when I'm writing it myself.

though, I myself remember in DA: Origins that they track mages using blood magic. and that their harrowing process is basically "throw them into the Fade and kill them if they get a boner for the demon that finds them". so as far as mages are concerned they're hypocritical and protect them from beasts by throwing them at beasts and hoping they don't mauled. I wouldn't says thats the best they could possibly do to protect people.

[Maryring]

As someone who sided with the mages in DAO and DA2 and then sided with the Templars in DAI, I wouldn't say they completely failed to achieve moral ambiguity with the mage/templar conflict.

DAI was the best for this, making an argument for the Templars being a force for good in Thedas while making the rebel mages look like a bunch of whiny bitches.

Overall, no they haven't completely failed to achieve moral ambiguity. Within DA2? There's no ambiguity. Both sides are unambigiously awful. Meredith is crazy. Orsino is terrible. The Templars use the rite of tranquility to make sexslaves. The mages can't embrace blood magic quick enough. Fenris and Merril are both idiots of the highest degree, and while Anders' extremism is kind of understandable because of Justice, the guy still blew up a Chantry full of innocents.

I feel so much could've been done better in DA2 if they'd kept both of Hawke's siblings alive. Killing off one of them at the beginning strikes me as really shooting yourself in the foot, since if they'd both remained, and they'd both ended up joining the circle/templars, with no chance of disappearing to join the Grey Wardens, you'd have a great opening to introduce more benevolent and sympathetic souls on both sides.

[Keltest]

Sounds like its the execution in specific details more than the conflict itself. I guess I'm weird in that I'm not concerned about execution when reading or viewing something, but very concerned about it when I'm writing it myself.

though, I myself remember in DA: Origins that they track mages using blood magic. and that their harrowing process is basically "throw them into the Fade and kill them if they get a boner for the demon that finds them". so as far as mages are concerned they're hypocritical and protect them from beasts by throwing them at beasts and hoping they don't mauled. I wouldn't says thats the best they could possibly do to protect people.

Phylacteries are a bit of a grey area in that they are magic that involves blood, but aren't actually fueled by it and so aren't actually part of the school. The mages are, of course, uncomfortable with it, but it isn't actually "real" blood magic, and the reasons why its a bit of a problem are largely unrelated.

And the harrowing is more like the controlled detonation of a bomb you know is going to go off eventually. Yeah, its not fun, but its a situation every single mage is going to encounter if they live into adulthood, so better to demonstrate that they can handle it in a controlled circumstance where the problem can be quickly contained if something goes wrong.

[Dienekes]

Inquisition's choice to side with Templars didn't involve siding with a madwoman but instead deciding that if you're dealing with a big, magical hole in the sky, you're going to need people who can deny magic. Then you take out the corrupt Templar leadership and try to steer the order back to what it should be instead of what it had become. So, you know, progress.

Honestly, this whole thing is a big pile of wasted potential. There's many interesting stories to be had with conflict between people who have powers, people who devote themselves to keeping them in check and the general populace. Dragon Age closes many of them off by having the mages be unequivocally under the Templars' boot and abused in many and varied ways, then repeatedly pushing for confrontation between the two. It just feels like taking the easy way out.

This is kind of what I was getting at. As a setting, the way magic works seems designed to make systems in which not just mages, but evil mages rule everything.

You are either born with or without magic. So there's no real upward mobility for people. The few examples of magic happening spontaneously in intense emotion and are usually dangerous. The easiest way for someone to gain power in this magic system is to use blood magic or make a deal with a demon. While, theoretically, both of these methods can be used peacefully, again, the quickest way to gain power is to sacrifice a lot of people for their blood. This means, if unchecked, the political system will lead to few powerful blood mages that rule over a slave society that they slaughter to increase their own power.

All told, that's pretty neat. And looking through the lore of Dragon Age we see that's pretty much how every powerful society functioned until the Templar. Trying to figure out a system that both prevents that horrific outcome while also isn't horrendously unjust to the mages is an interesting question that could have been interesting to explore. But the games really don't view things in those terms. Instead the games usually look at the situation on an individualistic level, in which case, there are just the oppressed and the oppressors. And I think most people will side with the oppressed every time. Especially when the oppressors tend to be stark raving mad and murder happy lunatics.

So to try and create some small degree of seeming neutrality, the oppressed are written in the most annoying terms ever

[Morty]

This is kind of what I was getting at. As a setting, the way magic works seems designed to make systems in which not just mages, but evil mages rule everything.

You are either born with or without magic. So there's no real upward mobility for people. The few examples of magic happening spontaneously in intense emotion and are usually dangerous. The easiest way for someone to gain power in this magic system is to use blood magic or make a deal with a demon. While, theoretically, both of these methods can be used peacefully, again, the quickest way to gain power is to sacrifice a lot of people for their blood. This means, if unchecked, the political system will lead to few powerful blood mages that rule over a slave society that they slaughter to increase their own power.

All told, that's pretty neat. And looking through the lore of Dragon Age we see that's pretty much how every powerful society functioned until the Templar. Trying to figure out a system that both prevents that horrific outcome while also isn't horrendously unjust to the mages is an interesting question that could have been interesting to explore. But the games really don't view things in those terms. Instead the games usually look at the situation on an individualistic level, in which case, there are just the oppressed and the oppressors. And I think most people will side with the oppressed every time. Especially when the oppressors tend to be stark raving mad and murder happy lunatics.

I don't think "mages will inevitably end up as tyrants if unchecked" is a good conceit, either. Binary situations and absolute statements are rarely useful for storytelling. If it happened once with Tevinter, that was one time too many. But having it always happen closes off stories just like universally tyrannical Templars and Circles.

Either way, I agree that starting out with oppression as the baseline just isn't a good idea. When you start out with oppression, the only possible story is a revolution. Having the First Enchanter and Knight-Commander of a Circle wield equal and opposite power, in theory, opens them up. You can have an uneasy balance like Irving and Greagoir had, a jack-booted maniac like Meredith or an overly-permissive Circle where disaster eventually strikes. Or something else altogether.

[Keltest]

I don't think "mages will inevitably end up as tyrants if unchecked" is a good conceit, either. Binary situations and absolute statements are rarely useful for storytelling. If it happened once with Tevinter, that was one time too many. But having it always happen closes off stories just like universally tyrannical Templars and Circles.

Either way, I agree that starting out with oppression as the baseline just isn't a good idea. When you start out with oppression, the only possible story is a revolution. Having the First Enchanter and Knight-Commander of a Circle wield equal and opposite power, in theory, opens them up. You can have an uneasy balance like Irving and Greagoir had, a jack-booted maniac like Meredith or an overly-permissive Circle where disaster eventually strikes. Or something else altogether.

Its less "mages will inevitably end up as tyrants" so much as "tyrannical mages are far more dangerous, destructive and difficult to depose." Even the Avvar and Dalish take measures to make sure their mages don't go out of control and start carving a path of destruction, and they put mages in leadership positions.

[Dienekes]

I don't think "mages will inevitably end up as tyrants if unchecked" is a good conceit, either. Binary situations and absolute statements are rarely useful for storytelling. If it happened once with Tevinter, that was one time too many. But having it always happen closes off stories just like universally tyrannical Templars and Circles.

Either way, I agree that starting out with oppression as the baseline just isn't a good idea. When you start out with oppression, the only possible story is a revolution. Having the First Enchanter and Knight-Commander of a Circle wield equal and opposite power, in theory, opens them up. You can have an uneasy balance like Irving and Greagoir had, a jack-booted maniac like Meredith or an overly-permissive Circle where disaster eventually strikes. Or something else altogether.

I do. Because unchecked does not necessarily mean completely dominated like the Qunari do to their mages. That’s probably the easiest way to deal with the problem, but will also lead to resentment, a la Anders.

If completely unchecked mages does not lead to mage tyranny then the answer to “what steps must be taken to prevent mage tyranny?” is always “none.”

Checks can be a good thing, if implemented humanely. But more than that, the question of one of safety vs freedom isn’t really a question to grapple with if you can pretty easily get both.

[tonberrian]

Oh boy is it Mages vs Templars time again? I love Mages vs Templars time, it's great to go over information that hasn't changed in like 5 years to make a new argument.

On the other hand, there's nothing interesting out about DA 4 yet, either...

I really should finish Inquisition at some point. I liked Origins well enough, but skipped over 2. Inquisition just never really grabbed me though...

[Dienekes]

Oh boy is it Mages vs Templars time again? I love Mages vs Templars time, it's great to go over information that hasn't changed in like 5 years to make a new argument.

On the other hand, there's nothing interesting out about DA 4 yet, either...

I really should finish Inquisition at some point. I liked Origins well enough, but skipped over 2. Inquisition just never really grabbed me though...

In fairness, this time the discussion is less "Who is in the right, Mages or Templar?" and more "why does the question work/not work for you?"

And yeah, it's not like we have anything new to discuss, and the Mage problem has been pretty central to every single Dragon Age game, and since we know Fenris is going to try to restart the world in 4, what to do about these people who are just born with the power to destroy everything will probably remain relevant.

[Keltest]

In fairness, this time the discussion is less "Who is in the right, Mages or Templar?" and more "why does the question work/not work for you?"

And yeah, it's not like we have anything new to discuss, and the Mage problem has been pretty central to every single Dragon Age game, and since we know Fenris is going to try to restart the world in 4, what to do about these people who are just born with the power to destroy everything will probably remain relevant.

Solas. Fenris may or may not help him, being an elf.

[Anteros]

I don't know if unchecked mages will inevitably end up a tyrants, but history has shown that they'll certainly destroy the country, everyone around them, and possibly the world at every single opportunity. How many deaths have unsupervised mages caused just in the few years the Dragon Age games span? It has to be in the millions.

It's like Marvels thing with mutants, except instead of most mutants innocently going about their lives, every single mutant you meet is an incredible moron that dooms everyone around them to a painful death.

[Morty]

Oh boy is it Mages vs Templars time again? I love Mages vs Templars time, it's great to go over information that hasn't changed in like 5 years to make a new argument.

On the other hand, there's nothing interesting out about DA 4 yet, either...

I really should finish Inquisition at some point. I liked Origins well enough, but skipped over 2. Inquisition just never really grabbed me though...

That was my first reaction too, but I ended up participating anyway. Strong will has never been my trait. And sadly, what extremely little we know about DA4 isn't promising.

[PraetorDragoon]

I never manged to finish Inquisition. For some reason it never managed to grab me.

[factotum]

I don't know if unchecked mages will inevitably end up a tyrants, but history has shown that they'll certainly destroy the country, everyone around them, and possibly the world at every single opportunity.

The Tevinter Imperium has been around for a while without blowing up the world or their country.

[lord_khaine]

I don't know if unchecked mages will inevitably end up a tyrants, but history has shown that they'll certainly destroy the country, everyone around them, and possibly the world at every single opportunity. How many deaths have unsupervised mages caused just in the few years the Dragon Age games span? It has to be in the millions.

It's like Marvels thing with mutants, except instead of most mutants innocently going about their lives, every single mutant you meet is an incredible moron that dooms everyone around them to a painful death.

That is what makes the conflict far more interesting.
Because at least there is a logical reason for supressing or controlling mages.
But yes, there is a lot of stupidity going around.

[Dienekes]

Solas. Fenris may or may not help him, being an elf.

Right, my bad.

[Lord Raziere]

The Tevinter Imperium has been around for a while without blowing up the world or their country.

Yeah, the Tevinter Imperium openly embracing magic and their own interpretation of the Chant kind of puts a big honking NO to the lie that Templars are strictly necessary for a sustainable society where mages that doesn't blow up everything. Its still a nobility using blood magic with slaves and pride in their power, and its implied that their Templars and Chantry are basically their toadies, but they've technically been around the longest despite everyone wanting the imperium to die, heck the Imperium is still alive despite the Qunari being to the north and invading every once in a while. and the Qunari aren't weak foes to face. also the Tevinter mages we face in Inquisition are explicitly said to be extremists in the minority. modern Tevinter no matter how much of its practices are disagreeable to the rest of Thedas, doesn't want to blow up or conquer the rest of the world like anyone else.

so Tevinter not only is a sustainable society, but one that has withstood multiple blights, everyone embracing the templars and breaking away from them, the relentless foe known as the Qunari invading, weathers through the Mage Templar conflict and even one of their own original blight-causing supervillain historical figures coming back to haunt them. Despite everyone seeing them as evil bastards and hating them. Tevinter is not just sustainable, its seemingly immortal.

and keep in mind: the first blight was 200 years long where entire generations lived and died fighting darkspawn. Tevinter did that just as much as everyone else. Either openly embracing blood magic led to some really powerful protection, or the people of Tevinter really like being ruled by mages.

[Keltest]

Yeah, the Tevinter Imperium openly embracing magic and their own interpretation of the Chant kind of puts a big honking NO to the lie that Templars are strictly necessary for a sustainable society where mages that doesn't blow up everything. Its still a nobility using blood magic with slaves and pride in their power, and its implied that their Templars and Chantry are basically their toadies, but they've technically been around the longest despite everyone wanting the imperium to die, heck the Imperium is still alive despite the Qunari being to the north and invading every once in a while. and the Qunari aren't weak foes to face. also the Tevinter mages we face in Inquisition are explicitly said to be extremists in the minority. modern Tevinter no matter how much of its practices are disagreeable to the rest of Thedas, doesn't want to blow up or conquer the rest of the world like anyone else.

so Tevinter not only is a sustainable society, but one that has withstood multiple blights, everyone embracing the templars and breaking away from them, the relentless foe known as the Qunari invading, weathers through the Mage Templar conflict and even one of their own original blight-causing supervillain historical figures coming back to haunt them. Despite everyone seeing them as evil bastards and hating them. Tevinter is not just sustainable, its seemingly immortal.

and keep in mind: the first blight was 200 years long where entire generations lived and died fighting darkspawn. Tevinter did that just as much as everyone else. Either openly embracing blood magic led to some really powerful protection, or the people of Tevinter really like being ruled by mages.

I suppose that depends on how one defines "blowing up" their country. Their practices led them to great heights, then promptly plummeted them off a cliff, losing vast swaths of territory that they have never come close to recovering. Dorian is pretty quick to point out that for all the power it brings magisters on an individual level, as a nation their practices have done little but cost them land and prestige since Andraste's rebellion.

[Lord Raziere]

I suppose that depends on how one defines "blowing up" their country. Their practices led them to great heights, then promptly plummeted them off a cliff, losing vast swaths of territory that they have never come close to recovering. Dorian is pretty quick to point out that for all the power it brings magisters on an individual level, as a nation their practices have done little but cost them land and prestige since Andraste's rebellion.

Eh.

"great heights then lost vast swathes of territory" is basically the story of every empire that has ever lasted past its glorious first leader. the fact that its still around with still recognizably the same culture is astounding. the fact that it loses those territories is immaterial as empires always do that sooner or later, its the fact that Tevinter remains as an identity in Theda's modern day that is worth consideration.

[Anteros]

The Tevinter Imperium has been around for a while without blowing up the world or their country.

From what we know their mages are still pretty strictly controlled except those at the very tippy top of the pyramid. Templars might not be strictly necessary, but given the stupidity of the average Dragon Age mage, some form of control structure is.

Also we're still talking about the Tevinter that corrupted heaven and doomed the world to eternal conflict? The ones that basically created the entire conflict of the series? That Tevinter? That's the Tevinter we're talking about that where mages don't need supervision? I'm just making sure we're all on the same page here.