Sorry if I'm rehashing an old argument. I always find it interesting about this topic.

In Origins, I played as Warrior/Rogue and yeah I felt bad for them when it was framed that way. When playing as a Mage, I thought it was alright. The Commander imo felt reasonable and even the Grand Enchanter also felt reasonable. In a way, as a Mage, I understood why the magic was feared but it was fun intimidating people by being a Mage. I also felt bad for Cullen coz he was tortured by rogue mages.

In DA2, there was no neutrality at all. Hahahaha. It showed how troubling both sides are. There was corruption and even the chantry. I didn't like how some people romantisize Anders and his desicion to blow up the chantry. I mean, the guy is a terrorist and allowed the spirit of Justice to possess him. For me it did showed why Circles are there and why Templars are a thing. The whole game was really something. I don't think it mattered which side you helped coz both ended up corrupted.

My Inquisition playthtough is what people could say is interesting. I played as a Mage but sided with the templars and I really agreed with Vivienne and her reasoning. She was the complete opposite of Anders and it was refreshing. Her motives didn't bother me as much as it should. I made her Divine coz I think she was able to give reform in the perspective of a Mage and what a mage could achieve what she can and maybe more. It may not be everybody's fave but I stand by it . And a lot of side characters were for the Circles coz for them safety is important and learning was their thing. Even Connor didn't feel happy about some desicions made by his mage peers.

So based on games thus far, I just believe reform from Circles and Templars and the Chantry treatment of both is needed. But that's just me... any thoughts? I'm open to reading different sides and perspectives