I think what they did was more of them wanting to make the Chantry/Templars evil
is that why they added a scene where your deus vult army sings campfire hymms
Inquisition takes it further and makes them rational and noble contrasted to the Templars and the Chantry itself being crazy and bloodthirsty.
I don't agree.
When the game starts the chantry is in disarray, its leadership fucking died in a nuke and of course the high clergy remaining thinks your inquisition are a bunch of upstarts. Leliana and Cassandra go out of their way to point out that the remaining sisters are all angling for the mamacy and that some will try and take lead as best they are able.
As for the templars, that initial scene in val royeaux where the templars disavow the church and punch a cleric makes it pretty obvious that there's something wrong with the templars. They aren't just pissed off that the church held them back. Cassandra talks about how the knight commander is acting weird. Their voices are strange and stunted.
The player might then be persuaded to go and see what the mages are about. At which point you discover that most if not all the mages in redcliffe are high on mage supremacy and full throttle support fiona's decision to go ask the magisters for an intervention on their behalf.
A half observant player will by then realize that both factions of the mage-templar war are being usurped from within. You have your suspicions on both sides. And it's up to you which side you want, really. I felt that the mage npcs in redcliffe were untrustworthy, which is why I went with the templars even though I was a mage.
I find it hilarious that some guy who thinks we should lock up a group of people just a little bit instead of a whole lot is considered reasonable and rational.
The point I wished to make is that if they wanted to portray the Circles as prisons, then DA:O wasn't very good at that concept. Case in point, the actual Anders was a playful womanizer who made several prison breaks and wasn't hurt for it. Then he gets possessed and goes to Kirkwall, where things were meant to be worse than in Ferelden. They just overcorrected.
Yes, I'm aware of the whole demon possession thing, but it's the writers who wrote it that way and then turned around to pretend there is some nuance to the whole thing. There was literally 0 reason to introduce demonic possession as something unique to mages.
Mages are already powerful enough and would require some kind of legislation to keep in check, there is no difference between a trigger-happy mage and a demon-possessed one, so why include this?
Yeah, if anything one of the points that Inquisition liked to make (through Vivienne) is that the circle is an archaic institution that was partly founded to also protect the mages from everybody else. Before the andrastian church was formalized you had lots of these andrastian cults running around, the quasi inquisition included, and one of the things they most enjoyed doing was to kill mages. Mages had just destroyed the world and people were reacting accordingly.
Meanwhile the level of paranoia that sudden demonic possessions should instill on people seem to vary according to the plot's needs. DA:O gives you the impression that a properly trained and steeled mage can just stave off the demons, which creates a basis of trust there. Then DA2 seems to argue that the reason mages can easily become insane/possessed in kirkwall regardless is because the city was cursed / actually welcome to the DLC, it was just corypheus all along. I tend to think the former is the rule of thumb.
One great C&C is you can ask Irving to go onto the Fade to save Conor if you saved the Circle.
I always felt that was cowardice on their part. Letting the player have their cake and eat it too.