46 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

...because he does at the end of Act 2. 

Is he stepping outside of his role?  Perhaps out of frustration?  Or is making policy within the arishok's purview?  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:47 .

[Taleroth]

Who says he's making and not following?

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

...because he does at the end of Act 2. 

Is he stepping outside of his role?  Perhaps out of frustration?  Or is making policy within the arishok's purview?  

I don't have the link right now, but Qunari policy is governed by a Triumvirate of which the Arishok is but one part. Mr. Gaider said that the Arishok broke the Llomeryn Accord, but whether his motivations would be known to, and how they would be viewed by, the rest of the Ariqun is unknown at this time.

[Herr Uhl]

He is the one that handles diplomacy, so he would probably be in the right.

[OmegaBlue0231]

Since he controls the soldiers I guess he does have the authority to do so.

[upsettingshorts]

Taleroth wrote...

Who says he's making and not following?

The Llomerryn Accord for starters.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I don't have the link right now, but Qunari policy is governed by a Triumvirate of which the Arishok is but one part. Mr. Gaider said that the Arishok broke the Llomeryn Accord, but whether his motivations would be known to, and how they would be viewed by, the rest of the Ariqun is unknown at this time.

I was under the impression that an Arishok - using Roman terminology another general with imperium - was a member of the triumvirate back in Par Vollen. Not that two thirds of it are back in the capitol, or wherever, waiting for his return. The Arishok struck me as a General who was tasked with a specific mission, to recover the Artifact, and eventually went beyond his orders. Hence the clarifying thread!

Edit: Word change

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:26 .

[Taleroth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Who says he's making and not following?

The Llomerryn Accord for starters.

Do you really think the Llomerryn Accord is more viable policy to Qunari than the Qun itself?

Breaking the Accord to uphold the Qun sounds entirely like SOP for the Qunari.

[upsettingshorts]

Herr Uhl wrote...

He is the one that handles diplomacy, so he would probably be in the right.

That would qualify.

OmegaBlue0231 wrote...

Since he controls the soldiers I guess he does have the authority to do so.

I'm not questioning his authority to give orders to his command.  I'm wondering if using them in a treaty violation was within the scope of his mission, and if it was not, if he has the authority within the Qun to expand his mission to include such actions.

Taleroth wrote...

Do you really think the Llomerryn Accord is more viable policy to Qunari than the Qun itself?

Not really, hence the thread being "Does the Arishok have the authority to do what he did?" not "Do the events of Act 2
indicate that the Qunari do not take the Llomerryn Accord terribly seriously?"

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:26 .

[_Aine_]

Perhaps circumstances that effect their individual missions/goals are able to be decided by the Arishok in the field?

Not like they had cell-phones to connect to the Triumvirate just to double-check. (this answer in regards to within the Qun, not necessarily treaty)

Modifié par shantisands, 21 mars 2011 - 03:26 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I was under the impression that an Arishok - using Roman terminology another general with imperator - was a member of the triumvirate back in Par Vollen. Not that two thirds of it are back in the capitol, or wherever, waiting for his return. The Arishok struck me as a General who was tasked with a specific mission, to recover the Artifact, and eventually went beyond his orders. Hence the clarifying thread!

Perhaps, as I was initially taken aback that we'd be facing the Arishok in Kirkwall, but Mr. Gaider's statement re-affirmed by assumption that the man we fought was one-third of the ruling body of all the Qunari.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

...because he does at the end of Act 2. 

Is he stepping outside of his role?  Perhaps out of frustration?  Or is making policy within the arishok's purview?  

I suspect that he doesn't have that authority.

[upsettingshorts]

shantisands wrote...

Perhaps circumstances that effect their individual missions/goals are able to be decided by the Arishok in the field?

That would seem likely.  In that case the question is under what circumstances can the Arishok make such decisions, and within what restrictions?

The Qunari do seem like they would value the - again to use Roman terminology - the idea of a dictator with the authority to wield absolute if temporary power given the right environmental factors.  But that's just speculation on my part.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

...Mr. Gaider's statement re-affirmed by assumption that the man we fought was one-third of the ruling body of all the Qunari.

Do you have a link to this?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:28 .

[mesmerizedish]

Here's the other thread, in which Mr. Gaider comments.

A lot of people after him are all "Omigod, what if there are lots of Arishoks?!" but I think Mr. Gaider's statement is pretty clear that he is one of three (not three Arishoks, but three leaders).

[Taleroth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Do you really think the Llomerryn Accord is more viable policy to Qunari than the Qun itself?

Not really, hence the thread being "Does the Arishok have the authority to do what he did?" not "Do the events of Act 2
indicate that the Qunari do not take the Llomerryn Accord terribly seriously?"

The thread is actually "does the Arishok have the Authority to make Qunari policy?"  Not "Does the Ariskhok have the authority to do what he did?"  Unless you automatically assume that what he did was establish policy, which is not a necessarilly safe assumption.  Hence my question.

Again, if the Qun is policy and his actions are in line with the Qun, he is not necessarilly making policy.  Even if they violate the Accord.

[mesmerizedish]

Taleroth wrote...

Again, if the Qun is policy and his actions are in line with the Qun, he is not necessarilly making policy.  Even if they violate the Accord.

What Mr. Gaider says in the thread I linked was that the Arishok justified his attack by telling himself that it was in line with the Qun, but that the rest of the Ariqun could disagree entirely.

[Raygereio]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
..because he does at the end of Act 2.  

Does he? I guess that's the more important question, not whether or not deciding on Qunari policy fits into the Arishok's role; several Qunari as well converts to the Qun have been killed at that point. It's a guess, but I'm fairly sure the Qun might have a thing or two to say about retribution in this case. With sad retribution probably being the Arishok's responsibillity.

Modifié par Raygereio, 21 mars 2011 - 03:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Here's the other thread, in which Mr. Gaider comments.

I can see how those comments would lead to the interpretation that he is literally a third of the Triumvirate, but I'm not totally convinced as it wasn't explicit.

Taleroth wrote...

The thread is actually "does the Arishok have the Authority to make Qunari policy?"  Not "Does the Ariskhok have the authority to do what he did?"  Unless you automatically assume that what he did was establish policy, which is not a necessarilly safe assumption.  Hence my question.

A fair distinction.  I do think the assumption is safe because I am actually talking about foreign policy.  If your argument is that his actions follow some pre-established doctrine however and his decision didn't create the policy only followed a contingency, than that would make sense.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:31 .

[Taleroth]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Again, if the Qun is policy and his actions are in line with the Qun, he is not necessarilly making policy.  Even if they violate the Accord.

What Mr. Gaider says in the thread I linked was that the Arishok justified his attack by telling himself that it was in line with the Qun, but that the rest of the Ariqun could disagree entirely.

They could.  But that's not a disagreement with my point, merely room for doubt of the affirmative.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

The thread is actually "does the Arishok have the Authority to make Qunari policy?"  Not "Does the Ariskhok have the authority to do what he did?"  Unless you automatically assume that what he did was establish policy, which is not a necessarilly safe assumption.  Hence my question.

A fair distinction.  I do think the assumption is safe because I am actually talking about foreign policy.  If your argument is that his actions follow some pre-established doctrine however and his decision didn't create the policy only followed a contingency, than that would make sense.

I'm not really saying he did follow the established doctrine, merely that it's another possibility.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 mars 2011 - 03:34 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I can see how those comments would lead to the interpretation that he is literally a third of the Triumvirate, but I'm not totally convinced as it wasn't explicit.

Well... I think you're interpreting it more openly than it reasonably can be. "The Arishok is not the leader, he's a leader. The Qunari are ruled by a Triumvirate." I don't see how it can be taken any other way. I might be channeling Sylvius here, though.

@Taleroth: I wasn't arguing against what you were saying, just providing some (hopefully) clarifying info

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 21 mars 2011 - 03:34 .

[upsettingshorts]

Well, the Roman Republic had two Triumvirates during which time they still had several generals - consuls, proconsuls, governors, etc - who could also have been called "leaders" with similar authority.

Don't get me wrong I realize I'm interpreting it broadly because I'm interested in an explicit answer - if any is forthcoming.

Taleroth wrote...

I'm not really saying he did follow the established doctrine, merely that it's another possibility.

I understand and I think that's a good observation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:36 .

[Herr Uhl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Here's the other thread, in which Mr. Gaider comments.

I can see how those comments would lead to the interpretation that he is literally a third of the Triumvirate, but I'm not totally convinced as it wasn't explicit.

Well, would this count then?

Mary Kirby wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

The arishok too. They handle foreign relations and battle plans. Of course, they are underneath the priesthood in rank, but they do other things.

OR am I remembering wrongly. *shakes fist at dragonagecentral for being down*

This was pretty much correct, except for the bit about the priesthood. There's not really a "rank" to the different disciplines of the Qun. The body, the soul, and the mind (the army, the priesthood, and the artisans) are of equal importance.

Thread.

[Vilegrim]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Perhaps circumstances that effect their individual missions/goals are able to be decided by the Arishok in the field?

That would seem likely.  In that case the question is under what circumstances can the Arishok make such decisions, and within what restrictions?

The Qunari do seem like they would value the - again to use Roman terminology - the idea of a dictator with the authority to wield absolute if temporary power given the right environmental factors.  But that's just speculation on my part.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

...Mr. Gaider's statement re-affirmed by assumption that the man we fought was one-third of the ruling body of all the Qunari.

Do you have a link to this?

It could be that he had the same type of authority as Ambassadors had before global communications (vestiges of this can be seen by how complicated it is to  appoint one) that is, in a foreign land to take actions in ine with known policy, up to and including declaring war or making alliances.  Roman Governors and Generals with sufficent imperium certainly could and did make that kind of call.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 21 mars 2011 - 03:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Well, would this count then?

Thanks for the link/quote.

I'd say it sort of does.  It still isn't clear if the Arishok is "a" or "the."  But it does imply that if it's the latter and he is a third of the Triumvirate than if he doesn't have the unilateral authority then I'd have to wonder who does.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Vilegrim wrote...

It could be that he had the same type of authority as Ambassadors had before global communications (vestiges of this can be seen by how complicated it is to  appoint one) that is, in a foreign land to take actions in ine with known policy, up to and including declaring war or making alliances.  Roman Governors and Generals with sufficent imperium certainly could and did make that kind of call.

Indeed it could, I'm not doubting that he could possibly have authority, just wondering publicly if Act 2 is:

• A case of the Arishok following a pre-existing doctrine or policy
• The Arishok exercising unilateral authority to make foreign policy decisions
• Or even the Arishok violating his role within the Qun and stepping outside his authority to make that call

Because it could reasonably be interpreted by the player as potentially any of these things. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mars 2011 - 03:41 .

[_Aine_]

IF there is only one Arishok, I find it hard to believe they would be abandoned in Kirkwall over a relic. Wouldn't they just kill the one who had it lost under his command and carry on with things? I too am interested in the answer, because I likened the Arishok to a Leader of a mission. A large mission mind you, more like a Qun-goal Leader and that there were many goals/mission for the people of the Qun so several Arishoks.

I understand the Triumvirate but didn't necessarily think they were simply one person, almost like a country ran by three governmental parties, who perhaps *did* have an ultimate representative of their faction but still was comprised of more than one individual...

Would be very interesting to know. Google searches provide more speculation than fact.

Everything I know about the Qun ( little, admittedly) makes me think that the Arishok at least fully believed he was acting within his role for his purpose there.  They were too unwavering in their conviction. I think they would, if even tempted to step away from the Qun, kill themselves rather than live apart from the Qun.  Outside interpretation, even from within their own society, of course, may disagree with him. Who knows. 

Modifié par shantisands, 21 mars 2011 - 03:47 .