459 réponses à ce sujet

[Rekkampum]

Dude, you are the one being spiteful now. We don't shun them, as if "I hate the Qunari and hope they have an bad day". We reject an alliance that can result in an future betrayal that BTW is very likely considering their history. What exactly would you do if one day they backstab you and screw you over because you trusted them? Just say "whopsy!"?

 

Well if you do ally with them, they'll name you Basalit-an, which essentially means that you're a non-Qunari they at least respect. They'd be more willing to negotiate with you and form a truce than they would other Bas. Glass-half full?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

There was no condescending tone intended. You imagined it from my wording.

 

Bioware may have retconned his death even after curiously asking me in the Keep of his fate. Or it might an example of them being lazy and having one dialogue option for both the Sten-is-alive and Sten-is-dead players. Note that they don't specifically mention his name, working with the Hero of Ferelden, etc.

There is no option for Sten being dead in DA Keep. The options are either you left him in the cage or got him in out in one of a few ways. 

[The Baconer]

Bioware may have retconned his death even after curiously asking me in the Keep of his fate. Or it might an example of them being lazy and having one dialogue option for both the Sten-is-alive and Sten-is-dead players. Note that they don't specifically mention his name, working with the Hero of Ferelden, etc.

 

To my knowledge, there is no "Sten is dead/Sten is Alive" option in the Keep, only whether or not you recruited him.

 

Lelianna, on the other hand, does explicitly have an option for being killed, and, well...

[Rekkampum]

To my knowledge, there is no "Sten is dead/Sten is Alive" option in the Keep, only whether or not you recruited him.

 

Lelianna, on the other hand, does explicitly have an option for being killed, and, well...

 

'Twas the Maker!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well if you do ally with them, they'll name you Basalit-an, which essentially means that you're a non-Qunari they at least respect. They'd be more willing to negotiate with you and form a truce than they would other Bas. Glass-half full?

Even then I don't expect them to honor it. Sten says the Qun sees such things as worth less than they paper they're written on. 

[Rekkampum]

Even then I don't expect them to honor it. Sten says the Qun sees such things as worth less than they paper they're written on. 

 

Well, that may be true, but titles are another story. Those things are not done lightly.

[congokong]

There is no option for Sten being dead in DA Keep. The options are either you left him in the cage or got him in out in one of a few ways. 

True. I suppose unless I see his head on a pyke I shouldn't assume he died. Correction: Even then I shouldn't assume (Leliana). I wonder how he managed to return to Pal-Valen without his sword. I suppose he got out of that cage, slew his way through an army of darkspawn, managed to find his sword in Redcliffe, sailed back home, and became Arishok.

 

...

 

I think I'll just assume there's another hornless qunari leading.

[Jaison1986]

Well, that may be true, but titles are another story. Those things are not done lightly.

 

They might respect the Inquisitor, yes, but I don't think that will change their general idea of south Thedas. They likely see it the same way the Arishok sees Kirkwall.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well, that may be true, but titles are another story. Those things are not done lightly.

And yet the Arishok has no qualms about trying to take Hawke captive or even killed even if Hawke is a basalit-an. If it comes to be between the Qun and a basalit-an, any Qunari would choose the Qun every time. 

[congokong]

Even then I don't expect them to honor it. Sten says the Qun sees such things as worth less than they paper they're written on. 

But "Kadan" is a different story though, yes?

[Rekkampum]

And yet the Arishok has no qualms about trying to take Hawke captive or even killed even if Hawke is a basalit-an. If it comes to be between the Qun and a basalit-an, any Qunari would choose the Qun every time. 

 

Someone forgot that Hawke was acquainted with the very person who stole their most sacred tome, the book of Koslun. They obviously aren't going to be very friendly with Hawke in light of that fact, although you can resolve the situation peacefully by turning Isabella in along with the tome(assuming your approval with her is high enough).

[Rekkampum]

They might respect the Inquisitor, yes, but I don't think that will change their general idea of south Thedas. They likely see it the same way the Arishok sees Kirkwall.

 

That I won't dispute. I think however, they might view the Inquisition's alliance as beneficial to their cause, especially in light of their dealings with Tevinter.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

But "Kadan" is a different story though, yes?

No. Kadan means "where the heart lies", which is basically just referring to someone the Qunari individual cares about as a friend, colleague, or in The Iron Bull's case lover. They would still choose the Qun even if their kadan are against it. 

 

 

Someone forgot that Hawke was acquainted with the very person who stole their most sacred tome, the book of Koslun. They obviously aren't going to be very friendly with Hawke in light of that fact, although you can resolve the situation peacefully by turning Isabella in along with the tome(assuming your approval with her is high enough).

Actually, that isn't necessarily true. Isabela is an optional companion. You can go the whole game without ever having her as a companion. Thus Hawke isn't acquainted with her. Yet they still do what they do. 

[Rekkampum]

 

 

No. Kadan means "where the heart lies", which is basically just referring to someone the Qunari individual cares about as a friend, colleague, or in The Iron Bull's case lover. They would still choose the Qun even if their kadan are against it. 

 

 

Actually, that isn't necessarily true. Isabela is an optional companion. You can go the whole game without ever having her as a companion. Thus Hawke isn't acquainted with her. Yet they still do what they do. 

 

 

You can do that certainly, just as you can Sten and other characters in the games. Doesn't change the facts though.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You can do that certainly, just as you can Sten and other characters in the games. Doesn't change the facts though.

Yes it does. How can "But Hawke was affiliated with Isabela thus the Arishok is mad at you" work if you aren't and never were affiliated with Isabela? The only fact that doesn't change is the Arishok leads a campaign against Kirkwall, including Hawke even if Hawke is a basalit-an. 

[sandalisthemaker]

The Qunari burn.  

 

Always.

[congokong]

 

 

No. Kadan means "where the heart lies", which is basically just referring to someone the Qunari individual cares about as a friend, colleague, or in The Iron Bull's case lover. They would still choose the Qun even if their kadan are against it. 

 

Yeah, I was joking around. It's just funny how basilit-an means "here's a worthless title and lets hope it brings your guard down" while kadan oozes respect.

[Rekkampum]

Yes it does. How can "But Hawke was affiliated with Isabela thus the Arishok is mad at you" work if you aren't and never were affiliated with Isabela? The only fact that doesn't change is the Arishok leads a campaign against Kirkwall, including Hawke even if Hawke is a basalit-an. 

 

We're talking about the overarching canon, not individual playthroughs. The only reason the Qunari are there is due to Isabella stealing the tome. They know she's there, and make it clear to Hawke that they can't leave until they find it. After the fiascos with the elven recruits to the Qun and the other murderers, the Arishok decides to attack. However, when Hawke finally meets the Arishok he has the chance to settle their dispute in single combat. If he wins they leave. The Arishok doesn't just start attacking them without reason.

[Qunquistador]

How little do you value qunari lives? Is one Charger worth more than 1000 qunari? 10,000? How much do philosophical differences devalue someone?

Quite a lot, apparently. I've read comments 'round here like "I'd kill every Qunari if I could". When I asked, "even the defenseless and children? (because not every Qunari is some duel-wielding holy warrior)" Radio silence was my reply.

 

It's much easier to speak in absolutes and commit atrocities when one views things simplistically, in terms of black and white. There's good and there's bad, but never an in between.

 

Qunari = the other = bad (kill them all!)

Mages = the other = abominations = Saarebas (chain them up!) Apostate (make them tranquil!)

 

It's kind of ironic that the "no good Qunari but a dead Qunari" tribe don't realize they sound even more radical than the staunchest Qunari, who believes there is no way but the Qun and everyone must submit to it.  They can't possibly comprehend that even amongst the Qunari, there will be conflict as to what the will of Qun dictates.  Some will be expansionists like Gaspard. Others will believe the Qun wills that they war only when necessary to protect their people.

 

The difference here though, is that we know for a fact that the Qunari will eventually invade and resume their crusade once the timing is right. It's inevitable.

 

The idea that an alliance with Qunari is wrong because they'll eventually invade - perhaps 10 or even 100 years from now - is laughable. War is an inevitability in Thedas.  Orlais will war with Ferelden again someday. But does that mean it was folly for my quiz to broker peace between them while she could?

 

If any Inquisitor thinks that way, then they might as well swan dive off the ramparts or hand in their sword. No reason trying to do good in a world that's ultimately doomed to blights and war, is there?

 

That said, my Inquisitor is a pragmatic, don't throw the baby out with the bath water sort. She didn't banish the Grey Wardens and she sent Thom to serve them even though she personally wanted to take his head.  There's no way she would sacrifice an alliance that would serve to bolster the Inquisition's power in the fight against a wannabe demigod to save a group of paid mercenaries who couldn't hold their own when it was crunch time. 

 

She knows what it means to be a mercenary. It means your life is expendable. And if you can't hold your own? Your life will be short.

[Rekkampum]

Quite a lot, apparently. I've read comments 'round here like "I'd kill every Qunari if I could". When I asked, "even the defenseless and children? (because not every Qunari is some duel-wielding holy warrior)" Radio silence was my reply.

 

It's much easier to speak in absolutes and commit atrocities when one views things simplistically, in terms of black and white. There's good and there's bad, but never an in between.

 

Qunari = the other = bad (kill them all!)

Mages = the other = abominations = Saarebas (chain them up!) Apostate (make them tranquil!)

 

It's kind of ironic that the "no good Qunari but a dead Qunari" tribe don't realize they sound even more radical than the staunchest Qunari, who believes there is no way but the Qun and everyone must submit to it.  They can't possibly comprehend that even amongst the Qunari, there will be conflict as to what the will of Qun dictates.  Some will be expansionists like Gaspard. Others will believe the Qun wills that they war only when necessary to protect their people.

 

 

The idea that an alliance with Qunari is wrong because they'll eventually invade - perhaps 10 or even 100 years from now - is laughable. War is an inevitability in Thedas.  Orlais will war with Ferelden again someday. But does that mean it was folly for my quiz to broker peace between them while she could?

 

If any Inquisitor thinks that way, then they might as well swan dive off the ramparts or hand in their sword. No reason trying to do good in a world that's ultimately doomed to blights and war, is there?

 

That said, my Inquisitor is a pragmatic, don't throw the baby out with the bath water sort. She didn't banish the Grey Wardens and she sent Thom to serve them even though she personally wanted to take his head.  There's no way she would sacrifice an alliance that would serve to bolster the Inquisition's power in the fight against a wannabe demigod to save a group of paid mercenaries who couldn't hold their own when it was crunch time. 

 

She knows what it means to be a mercenary. It means your life is expendable. And if you can't hold your own? Your life will be short.

 

The only thing laughable is the strawmen you're throwing out there. I never said it was bad, but from a strategic standpoint, many may rightfully see allying with possibly the most technologically advanced society - that has a history of invading territories - to be too much of a risk, and rightfully so. And I clearly pointed out earlier - I'm assuming you didn't follow my debate - that I didn't think either decision was wrong. But please, do continue to interpolate.

[RobRam10]

Do not speak Qun

Do not trust Qun

Kill Qun

[Sports72Xtrm]

 

 

She knows what it means to be a mercenary. It means your life is expendable. And if you can't hold your own? Your life will be short.

Why are you putting it all on the Chargers when the Inquisitor, i.e., you, are the one who placed them in that deathtrap? Soldiers know the risk of battle, but its a sad sight to see soldiers who fight like lions be led by donkeys. The Chargers are the brilliant few, why sacrifice them for the mediocre many? It isn't about hate, it's about seeing a needless and unacceptable loss be traded away for an intangible gain.

[Qunquistador]

The only thing laughable is the strawmen you're throwing out there. I never said it was bad, but from a strategic standpoint, many may rightfully see allying with possibly the most technologically advanced society - that has a history of invading territories - to be too much of a risk, and rightfully so. And I clearly pointed out earlier - I'm assuming you didn't follow my debate - that I didn't think either decision was wrong. But please, do continue to interpolate.

I did, actually, and if you read my comment, you'll find that I never personally accused you of anything, let alone saying the decision was wrong. Rather, I added your quote to my reply after it was written, as it was as much addressed to your comment as the multitude of other "Qunari can never be trusted and will (insert something shady here)!" comments in this 12 page thread. Yours was merely chosen because it claimed the inevitability of another Qunari invasion was a "fact". Unless it's from someone writing for Bioware, I find comments like that amusing.

[Kantr]

[congokong]

Quite a lot, apparently. I've read comments 'round here like "I'd kill every Qunari if I could". When I asked, "even the defenseless and children? (because not every Qunari is some duel-wielding holy warrior)" Radio silence was my reply.

 

It's much easier to speak in absolutes and commit atrocities when one views things simplistically, in terms of black and white. There's good and there's bad, but never an in between.

 

It is disgusting how people can be so in favor of mass genocide. The internet can really bring out the worst in people. If this were real and they were actually in the Inquisitor's position I wonder if they'd be so ruthless. Yes, they're qunari, and the qun's philosophical purpose in conquering/conversion of the world. That doesn't mean every individual qunari is less than a person. Many may not even agree/want to invade; even the warriors. Iron Bull is an example of this. It's emphasized several times how most qunari don't even care about conquest. They just live their lives. Yet because qunari soldiers are qunari their lives are worth nothing, and so any amount can die to save one Charger apparently by some. They are the enemy after all.