1580 réponses à ce sujet

[Dai Grepher]

That's a rogue faction. Your position is hair-splitting nonsense.

No it isn't.

The Qunari in DA2 were not a rogue faction, but they were led by an Arishok who went rogue. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Weeke's had the opportunity to say, "no, that was a group led by a rogue. The group doesn't represent the Qunari."

That wasn't the question posed to him. The question was about Iron Bull. There was no question about the validity of Dragon's Breath or Viddasala's actions.

What's the difference between a group consisting entirely of rogues, acting on their own outside official authority, getting rogue results... versus a group led by a rogue, followed by unwitting nit-wits, getting rogue results unsanctioned by the official authority?

One is full of rogues. The other is not.

That's right, both groups actions end in rogue results unsanctioned by official authority.

Irrelevant. The status of the members of the group is the subject, not the results had by their actions.

So, the results are the same and the differences in the group are inconsequential. The official authority would be pissed at either group.

It isn't inconsequential, it is the subject of Weekes' statement. The Qunari under Viddasala's command were real Qunari. It was Viddasala alone who went rogue and was acting without the Triumvirate's authorization. The real Qunari believed they were just following orders from a superior officer sanction by the Triumvirate. Some doubted. They were either deceived further or killed.

The Triumvirate would not be angry with the Qunari who were deceived by Viddasala. They would blame her for the calamity.

This is what I mean by hair-splitting nonsense.

I am dividing fact from your fiction. When you come in here and say "Weekes said they tried to invade" when he never uttered the word "invade", it makes you look incorrect. Because you are.

When you say Weekes said something he didn't, I point it out to you. That isn't called splitting hairs, it's called being correct.

Because they were, in a sense, betraying her. She was acting under their orders and they were labelling her a "rogue agent."

How were they betraying her if they authorized her actions and the letter was nothing more than deception meant to placate the Inquisition? They labeled her a rogue agent to her enemy in order to fool them. Why would that anger her?

[thats1evildude]

Because knowing what has to be done and liking it are two different things. Even if she recognized what had to be done, she could still have felt hung out to dry.

Or perhaps the Triuumverate was being two-faced. They told the Viddasala "Yeah, we got your back 100 per cent" while whispering to Josephine "We don't know this crazy b***h" as a way of covering for themselves. But the Vidassala got wind of their game.

Either explanation is plausible, and it makes far more sense than one crazy lady managing to convince hundreds of qunari agents to assist in her mad bombing plot, the Triuumverate being like, "LOL, whatevs" and Iron Bull turning on you for no reason.

[Dai Grepher]

Because knowing what has to be done and liking it are two different things. Even if she recognized what had to be done, she could still have felt hung out to dry.

But in this scenario she was not hung out to dry. It was just words on paper meant to deceive the enemy. Failing to pass on the letter is the real issue though. If the Triumvirate meant for this to fool the Inquisition, then why not allow the letter to reach its destination? Failing to reply would only make the South believe that the Llomeryn Accords had been violated, thus causing an Exalted March, which the Triumvirate was trying to prevent.

Or perhaps the Triuumverate was being two-faced. They told the Viddasala "Yeah, we got your back 100 per cent" while whispering to Josephine "We don't know this crazy b***h" as a way of covering for themselves. But the Vidassala got wind of their game.

And why would the Triumvirate tell her that if it weren't true? And if it were true, then why didn't Viddasala trust the Triumvirate to be true to her?

Either explanation is plausible, and it makes far more sense than one crazy lady managing to convince hundreds of qunari agents to assist in her mad bombing plot, the Triuumverate being like, "LOL, whatevs" and Iron Bull turning on you for no reason.

Viddasala only needed to convince a few dozen Qunari by lying to them about their mission, or just giving them orders that they would blindly follow. The actual bombing plot was all a matter of deceiving the elven agents, which would have been easy enough. They are gullible, and have a natural hatred for human lords.

Iron Bull turned for no reason regardless of what you believe of the Triumvirate's involvement. I already proved that.

And the Triumvirate was not informed of any of this. They did not just shrug it off like it was nothing. They vocally disavowed her. They did the same to the Arishok, and his actions were much less severe.

[robertthebard]

"The Qunari" is a general term that could apply to anything and everything within the Qunari race and/or culture. You cannot correctly infer that Weekes was referring to the entire nation of Qunari people and believers.

So now a military action has to be approved by the entire nation, people and believers? How much farther are you going to take this to deny what's presented? Are unborn children going to have to sign off on things now too? It's starting to get this ridiculous.

[thats1evildude]

But in this scenario she was not hung out to dry. It was just words on paper meant to deceive the enemy. Failing to pass on the letter is the real issue though. If the Triumvirate meant for this to fool the Inquisition, then why not allow the letter to reach its destination?

 

Who says it didn't? More than one copy of a letter can be sent out. Maybe one did reach Josephine and one went to Viddasala as a sort of "Heads up, we're officially disavowing you." And this rankles Viddasala more than a little, because it demonstrates that she'll be branded a traitor to the Qun if she fails.

 

But anyways, I think it's more likely that the Triumverate is being two-faced.

 

And why would the Triumvirate tell her that if it weren't true?

 

And who says they did? Here's the scenario:

 

1) Triuumverate authorizes Dragon's Breath operation.

2) Dragon's Breath starts going sideways.

3) Josephine asks Triumverate what they're doing.

4) Triumverate lies to Josephine that they have no idea what Vidassala is up to.

5) Vidassala gets ahold of correspondence she wasn't intended to see.

 

That's how the message ends up on her desk and that's why it ends up crumpled up in anger.

[Dai Grepher]

So now a military action has to be approved by the entire nation, people and believers? How much farther are you going to take this to deny what's presented? Are unborn children going to have to sign off on things now too? It's starting to get this ridiculous.

My reply was to Almostfaceman. It was his inference that "the Qunari" referred to the Qunari as a whole. So either you didn't read what I was replying to, or you're just posting a strawman here.
 

Who says it didn't?

The fact that it was in the Darvaarad.
 

More than one copy of a letter can be sent out.

But Viddasala didn't know that. She only knew about the letter she intercepted. So why didn't she pass on the only letter she was aware of?
 

Maybe one did reach Josephine and one went to Viddasala as a sort of "Heads up, we're officially disavowing you."

Then why wasn't Viddasala's letter personalized to her? "Stop what you are doing at once and return for re-education. Failure to comply will result in you being declared Tal-Vashoth. "
 

And this rankles Viddasala more than a little, because it demonstrates that she'll be branded a traitor to the Qun if she fails.

People are not traitors because they fail, and the Qunari do not see it that way. Tallis failed in her mission and was simply demoted to athlok. And besides, you are forgetting your own premise. Viddasala would have been given assurances before the operation that the Triumvirate might have to say they disavow her, but that she should disregard that as subterfuge and continue the mission if possible.
 

But anyways, I think it's more likely that the Triumverate is being two-faced.

That is your opinion, and that is fine. But the OP is posting his as if it's fact. I am simply demanding proof. I'm a skeptic, not a denier.

I think the evidence points to the Triumvirate truly having no involvement in or knowledge of Dragon's Breath.
 

And who says they did?

Um... you did.

"They told the Viddasala 'Yeah, we got your back 100 per cent' while whispering to Josephine 'We don't know this crazy b***h' as a way of covering for themselves. But the Vidassala got wind of their game."
 

Here's the scenario:
 
1) Triuumverate authorizes Dragon's Breath operation.
2) Dragon's Breath starts going sideways.
3) Josephine asks Triumverate what they're doing.
4) Triumverate lies to Josephine that they have no idea what Vidassala is up to.
5) Vidassala gets ahold of correspondence she wasn't intended to see.
 
That's how the message ends up on her desk and that's why it ends up crumpled up in anger.

So now Viddasala wasn't intended to see that letter? So she intercepted it? A copy wasn't sent to her to let her know "Heads up, we're officially disavowing you."?

So they told Viddasala to carry out Dragon's Breath, without assuring her that they would back her up if something went wrong even if they had to lie to the southern nobles to smooth things over? And Viddasala did not trust the Triumvirate to have her back even though they authorized the mission. And she actively defied the will of the Triumvirate by not sending the letter on to its destination to complete the deception because she assumed they sent more than one copy?

So Viddasala didn't understand through logical reasoning that the Triumvirate was just trying to deny involvement to prevent the South from starting an Exalted March? She just assumed that the Triumvirate was going to punish her and so she purposely crumpled the letter up thus defying the Triumvirate's intention for that letter to reach the Inquisition?

Seems to me like that would be what would get her in trouble. Failure would only result in a demotion at worst. It isn't like the Qunari never fail. They fail against Tevinter constantly. Tallis failed in her mission, but she wasn't declared Tal-Vashoth.

Don't you think it's more likely that Viddasala panicked because the Triumvirate was informed of her unauthorized actions that could have provoked an Exalted March against Par Vollen?

One more question. If she believed that she genuinely failed the Triumvirate and they were angry with her and wanted the mission to stop, why did she try to continue it? If she thought the letter was not subterfuge, then why didn't she obey it? A true Qunari would have quit right then and there. Like how Sten submitted himself to the cage for losing control and killing those who helped him.

[thats1evildude]

I'm offering up a couple of different theories as to why the Viddasala ends up with that letter on her desk. If you don't know how someone can know something rationally but still be angered by it emotionally, I can't explain it to you.

One more question. If she believed that she genuinely failed the Triumvirate and they were angry with her and wanted the mission to stop, why did she try to continue it?.

Did I say they wanted it to stop? No, the Triuumverate were behind it all the way. Right up until the Inquisitor freed/killed the ataashi, Dragon's Breath was still viable. No dragon=no more gaatlok.
They were just willing to disavow her to save face. That's all.

I'm going to make one last argument before boeing out of this thread, since you seem willing to argue forever and I'm not.

In the interview, Mr. Weekes says that they considered the qunari in Trespasser a "rogue faction" that Iron Bull didn't agree with, which would have avoided the necessity of his betrayal.

But ultimately, they considered that to be the narrative equivalent of the coward's way out. "Oh, you made this choice to keep Bull loyal to the Qun, but don't worry about any negative ramifications because these aren't REAL qunari. They're the offshoot of an offshoot of the qunari." He used the word "toothless."

If your theory is true and the Viddasala is a rogue agent acting on her own and there was no reason for Bull to betray you, then his statement makes no sense, because the Dragon's Breath qunari in Trespasser are betraying the Qun and, therefore, are basically the "fake qunari" Mr. Weekes wanted to avoid using.

So either you are wrong or the lead writer on Dragon Age and all the people who have disagreed with you are wrong. And if you still think you're in the right, then there's absolutely nothing that I or anyone can say to dissuade you of this delusion.

[Kurogane335]

I didn't realize this was ever in doubt.   Was made pretty clear that it was a Qunari operation.   The Qunari don't exactly have "rogue" elements.    Any free will makes them Tal'Vashoth.  

 

No. Free will is a thing under the Qun. Choices are your own under the Qun. But you can't have excuses after you've made them. That's all.

[Almostfaceman]

No it isn't.

The Qunari in DA2 were not a rogue faction, but they were led by an Arishok who went rogue. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.


That wasn't the question posed to him. The question was about Iron Bull. There was no question about the validity of Dragon's Breath or Viddasala's actions.


One is full of rogues. The other is not.


Irrelevant. The status of the members of the group is the subject, not the results had by their actions.


It isn't inconsequential, it is the subject of Weekes' statement. The Qunari under Viddasala's command were real Qunari. It was Viddasala alone who went rogue and was acting without the Triumvirate's authorization. The real Qunari believed they were just following orders from a superior officer sanction by the Triumvirate. Some doubted. They were either deceived further or killed.

The Triumvirate would not be angry with the Qunari who were deceived by Viddasala. They would blame her for the calamity.


I am dividing fact from your fiction. When you come in here and say "Weekes said they tried to invade" when he never uttered the word "invade", it makes you look incorrect. Because you are.

When you say Weekes said something he didn't, I point it out to you. That isn't called splitting hairs, it's called being correct.


How were they betraying her if they authorized her actions and the letter was nothing more than deception meant to placate the Inquisition? They labeled her a rogue agent to her enemy in order to fool them. Why would that anger her?

 

Of course Weekes said they were going to invade. In the game, they try to invade, which would start a war. Weeke's says:

 

"We said 'Oh, okay, maybe it's a rogue faction of the Qunari and they aren't really the real Qunari and Bull doesn't believe in them,' and every time... We tried to talk ourselves into that for a while, like, 'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,' and it just got so toothless. It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.' We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war,"

 

In Dragon Age 2, the Arishok and his merry band aren't sanctioned by the Qunari to start a war with any city in the Free Marches. But they do, so they become a rogue group. Unsanctioned. The group that tries to invade Thedas using the Eluvians isn't an offshoot. It's a sanctioned attack by the Qunari. Again, it's understood that "the Qunari" in this context is the head of the Qunari, the individuals able to make war with all the power available to the Qunari people. 

 

"The Qunari" are the group in charge of the Qunari. When a person says "The Qunari decided to attack," they're obviously talking about the Qunari leadership and military. Just the group to which answers the non-Tal-Vashoth Iron Bull. Just the group that Weekes is talking about. Just the group that really the audience is interested in in the context of Trespasser. Nobody gives a crap about the fine minutia of the Qunari leadership. They just want to know if the Qunari were trying to invade and make war on Thedas, or if it was some crazy rogue group unsanctioned by the Qunari. 

[SweetTeaholic]

This conversation took a turn for the moronic. 

[robertthebard]

My reply was to Almostfaceman. It was his inference that "the Qunari" referred to the Qunari as a whole. So either you didn't read what I was replying to, or you're just posting a strawman here.

It didn't imply it, it stated it outright, because that's exactly what it means. We are talking about the Qunari, that group of people that doesn't "do their own thing". We know this from Sten, we know this from the Arishok, and we know this from IB, if we bothered to talk to him a lot. Perhaps, instead of telling us how much we don't know about the Qunari, you should fill the gaps in your own knowledge before you try to "educate" us about them.

[midnight tea]

This conversation took a turn for the moronic. 

 

It's a farce.

 

I mean, it wasn't much of a compelling debate to begin with, but if we're reaching the point of stuff like "well, Viddassala might have not been sent by the true Qunari, or Qunari as a whole" despite the non-existence of any proof that there was ever faction of a Qunari separate from Par Vollen (they would immediately become Tal-Vashoth) and despite Weekes saying, in no unclear terms, "this is not an offshoot, Bull wouldn't betray you if this was a rogue group" or "let's have Qunari start a war" it's patently clear that nobody is ever going to break that wall of denial.

[In Exile]

No. Free will is a thing under the Qun. Choices are your own under the Qun. But you can't have excuses after you've made them. That's all.

That's not quite right. You have one choice under the Qun (from a conceptual POV): to accept your role or refuse it. Once you make the choice, there are no others (again, conceptually).

[In Exile]

Of course Weekes said they were going to invade. In the game, they try to invade, which would start a war. Weeke's says:

"We said 'Oh, okay, maybe it's a rogue faction of the Qunari and they aren't really the real Qunari and Bull doesn't believe in them,' and every time... We tried to talk ourselves into that for a while, like, 'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,' and it just got so toothless. It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.' We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war,"

In Dragon Age 2, the Arishok and his merry band aren't sanctioned by the Qunari to start a war with any city in the Free Marches. But they do, so they become a rogue group. Unsanctioned. The group that tries to invade Thedas using the Eluvians isn't an offshoot. It's a sanctioned attack by the Qunari. Again, it's understood that "the Qunari" in this context is the head of the Qunari, the individuals able to make war with all the power available to the Qunari people.

"The Qunari" are the group in charge of the Qunari. When a person says "The Qunari decided to attack," they're obviously talking about the Qunari leadership and military. Just the group to which answers the non-Tal-Vashoth Iron Bull. Just the group that Weekes is talking about. Just the group that really the audience is interested in in the context of Trespasser. Nobody gives a crap about the fine minutia of the Qunari leadership. They just want to know if the Qunari were trying to invade and make war on Thedas, or if it was some crazy rogue group unsanctioned by the Qunari.

We have no proof the Arishok wasn't sanctioned. This is because we have absolutely no idea about how the Qunari work as a system of government. The action in Kirkwall was done by the antaam alone. They are governed by the Arishok. It makes sense to say some decisions would be a decision of the Triumvirate and not an individual member - else why ever have them meet - but we have no reason to believe that something like razing a city is one that would require input from the Triumvirate if it does not involve Qunari outside the antaam.

That the Arishok was removed does not make the action unofficial. Think of the impeachment of a political leader. After the fact we can deny the action as legitimate and come up with dividing lines about power and its abuse - but at the time it is as official as any action can be official.

[Kurogane335]

That's not quite right. You have one choice under the Qun (from a conceptual POV): to accept your role or refuse it. Once you make the choice, there are no others (again, conceptually).

Sten made the choice to hand himself to the knights after he killed the farmers. He chose to endure his punishment, then (if the player try to convince him) chose to help the Warden. In the same way, the Arishok chose not to speak about the Tome of Koslun, he chose to not react directly against the actions of Petrice at first, and he chose to act against Kirkwall when the son of Dumar was killed. And of all those choices, only the latter may have been contrary to the tenets of the Qun, and even then, I'm not sure and I think the then Arishok was disowned less because he failed to capture the city or because his actions weren't dictated by the Qun but because being stranded and alone, without the other two parts of the Triumvirate he decided what was a Demande of the Qun without a consensus. But him being left alone was also a choice, both his and those of the Ariqun and Arigena.

[In Exile]

Sten made the choice to hand himself to the knights after he killed the farmers. He chose to endure his punishment, then (if the player try to convince him) chose to help the Warden. In the same way, the Arishok chose not to speak about the Tome of Koslun, he chose to not react directly against the actions of Petrice at first, and he chose to act against Kirkwall when the son of Dumar was killed. And of all those choices, only the latter may have been contrary to the tenets of the Qun, and even then, I'm not sure and I think the then Arishok was disowned less because he failed to capture the city or because his actions weren't dictated by the Qun but because being stranded and alone, without the other two parts of the Triumvirate he decided what was a Demande of the Qun without a consensus. But him being left alone was also a choice, both his and those of the Ariqun and Arigena.

That's why I said conceptually. Listen to the Arishok again when he talks about the Qun - I'll find the video - about how Karasten are soldiers, and the choice is to accept your role in the Qun or deny it.

Of course they choose - the Qun as a philosophy is often gibberish from a logic POV but the point is that they don't see it as a choice from their own theory of behaviour.

[Almostfaceman]

We have no proof the Arishok wasn't sanctioned. This is because we have absolutely no idea about how the Qunari work as a system of government. The action in Kirkwall was done by the antaam alone. They are governed by the Arishok. It makes sense to say some decisions would be a decision of the Triumvirate and not an individual member - else why ever have them meet - but we have no reason to believe that something like razing a city is one that would require input from the Triumvirate if it does not involve Qunari outside the antaam.

That the Arishok was removed does not make the action unofficial. Think of the impeachment of a political leader. After the fact we can deny the action as legitimate and come up with dividing lines about power and its abuse - but at the time it is as official as any action can be official.

 

You say we have no proof that the action was unsanctioned, then you bring in the proof that we have that the action was unsanctioned. 

 

And, you're looking for subtlety in a Bioware game. I mean... c'mon. This was clearly "Hey this is why we don't have the Qunari attacking all the Free Marches right now." Because people are going to ask that after so many Qunari get slaughtered in the Free Marches and Bioware did it (the attack) because drama. 

[Heimdall]

You say we have no proof that the action was unsanctioned, then you bring in the proof that we have that the action was unsanctioned. 

 

And, you're looking for subtlety in a Bioware game. I mean... c'mon. This was clearly "Hey this is why we don't have the Qunari attacking all the Free Marches right now." Because people are going to ask that after so many Qunari get slaughtered in the Free Marches and Bioware did it (the attack) because drama. 

It still isn't clear.  It isn't even clear why they removed him.  They might have demoted him for incompetence after losing Isabella rather than taking any action against the Qun.

[Almostfaceman]

It still isn't clear.  It isn't even clear why they removed him.  They might have demoted him for incompetence after losing Isabella rather than taking any action against the Qun.

 

It's clear to me that they told us this to explain why this wasn't the Qunari starting a war with the Free Marches. Which is what people are going to wonder, naturally. 

[Dai Grepher]

I'm offering up a couple of different theories as to why the Viddasala ends up with that letter on her desk. If you don't know how someone can know something rationally but still be angered by it emotionally, I can't explain it to you.

It doesn't make sense in this case. If Viddasala knew the plan was authorized and knew that the Triumvirate needed to stay distant from it, then this should not have surprised or angered her. She knew Solas messed up her plan long before this, and she knew the Inquisition found out about it and prevented the attack. Receiving or intercepting a letter from the Triumvirate distancing themselves from it to prevent a premature conflict should have been a predictable result if they authorized it. Sending the letter on to its intended destination as if she never intercepted it should have been Viddasala's action, not balling it up and leaving it.

Did I say they wanted it to stop? No, the Triuumverate were behind it all the way. Right up until the Inquisitor freed/killed the ataashi, Dragon's Breath was still viable. No dragon=no more gaatlok. They were just willing to disavow her to save face. That's all.

But you're trying to have it both ways. Either she genuinely thought the Triumvirate was turning their back on her, or she knew it was subterfuge. If she thought it was genuine, and was angered because she thought it was genuine, then she would have also believed that the Triumvirate wanted the operation to end quickly and quietly, because that was expressed in the same letter. Or, if she knew it was just to placate the Inquisition, then she wouldn't have been mad. She wouldn't have balled up the letter. She would have passed it on as normal.

Also, Viddasala picked up the fail when the Inquisition sent word to the various courts warning them of the gaatlok. Dragon's Breath became impossible at that point. The dragon had nothing to do with it. The dragon was nothing more than a commodity at that point, though Viddasala had claimed to the workers that the dragon would be killed humanely once Dragon's Breath was complete. In any case, if the operation had been authorized, the Arigena would have allowed the use of more regular gaatlok. So the dragon was nothing to an official operation. The reason the dragon was used was because Viddasala was making gaatlok in secret, without the Arigena's knowledge or consent.

I'm going to make one last argument before boeing out of this thread, since you seem willing to argue forever and I'm not.

I'm just questioning your explanation. You seem to be arguing two different things, that Vid was angered by a letter she thought was genuine, and that she somehow knew it wasn't genuine.

In the interview, Mr. Weekes says that they considered the qunari in Trespasser a "rogue faction" that Iron Bull didn't agree with, which would have avoided the necessity of his betrayal.

But ultimately, they considered that to be the narrative equivalent of the coward's way out. "Oh, you made this choice to keep Bull loyal to the Qun, but don't worry about any negative ramifications because these aren't REAL qunari. They're the offshoot of an offshoot of the qunari." He used the word "toothless."

If your theory is true and the Viddasala is a rogue agent acting on her own and there was no reason for Bull to betray you, then his statement makes no sense, because the Dragon's Breath qunari in Trespasser are betraying the Qun and, therefore, are basically the "fake qunari" Mr. Weekes wanted to avoid using.

Not so. I explained this already. The Viddasala was acting on her own, but she was commanding real Qunari who were loyal to the Qun and thought they were just following orders from an authorized commander. This is consistent with Weekes' statement. We did fight actual Qunari. They were not a rogue faction. They were a legitimate part of the Qunari who were being misused by one agent who took matters into her own hands and hid them from the Triumvirate.

This has been done before. The Arishok did it in Act 2 of DA2.

Tallis also took matters into her own hands when her superior would not approve her idea to kill Salit and destroy the list of names.

And as for Iron Bull, as I explained, his betrayal had no rhyme or reason regardless of whether Viddasala was authorized or not. The failure of Dragon's Breath, combined with the Triumvirate's letter disavowing Viddasala and expressing favor for the Inquisition alliance should have been all Iron Bull needed to put her on blast. But if Viddasala was rogue, Hissrad simply failed to see it. He just blindly followed an order given to him by someone he wasn't sure about. So instead of risk disobeying the Qun, he just decided to follow the order. Poor dumb Bull.

So either you are wrong or the lead writer on Dragon Age and all the people who have disagreed with you are wrong. And if you still think you're in the right, then there's absolutely nothing that I or anyone can say to dissuade you of this delusion.

Nothing Weekes said contradicts my position. You and others are simply projecting your own meaning onto his words. I am pointing out the plain meaning of his words. The Qunari we fight in Trespasser are not a rogue group. I never claimed they were. That has nothing to do with the Triumvirate however, and Weekes said nothing about the Triumvirate or the legitimacy of Dragon's Breath.

Another thing, I keep bringing up the example of the Arishok in DA2, but no one has refuted this yet (though Almostfaceman tries below). He was definitely not authorized to attack Kirkwall. He even admits this. Yet he attacks Kirkwall, and he leads real Qunari into this fight. He was disavowed as well. So clearly, having real Qunari participate in an attack does not automatically mean they were authorized to do so.

[Dai Grepher]

Of course Weekes said they were going to invade.

Except he never used the word "invade", nor did he allude to it.

In the game, they try to invade, which would start a war.

No. Viddasala planned to invade Halamshiral using some antaam soldiers she had under her command, but it never came to that. The step before this was to blow up the delegation. This was stopped. But even before that, her soldiers were killed off. Making her invasion step impossible.

At no point in the game or in Weekes' comments is it implied that the Triumvirate planned an invasion. No ships, no landing parties, no camps, no nothing. No statement that the Triumvirate tried to start a war.

And seriously, if the Triumvirate was going to invade, would it really be contingent on something as disorganized as Dragon's Breath? And would the Triumvirate call off an invasion simply because Dragon's Breath failed to blow up a few leaders? Viddasala said that now that Dragon's Breath was foiled, they would now have to take the way of blades. Well, Par Vollen never sent any blades to take the South. Should we be shocked by the fact that Viddasala was wrong in this statement as well?

Weeke's says:

Repeating Weekes' statements won't make the word "invade" magically appear within them. It won't change the fact that real Qunari can act without authorization.

In Dragon Age 2, the Arishok and his merry band aren't sanctioned by the Qunari to start a war with any city in the Free Marches. But they do, so they become a rogue group. Unsanctioned.

How do the Qunari under the Arishok become rogue? They were just following orders. It is the Arishok who is to blame, not them. And it is the Arishok who is condemned by the other members of the Triumvirate.

The group that tries to invade Thedas using the Eluvians isn't an offshoot. It's a sanctioned attack by the Qunari. Again, it's understood that "the Qunari" in this context is the head of the Qunari, the individuals able to make war with all the power available to the Qunari people.

But you just admitted that the Arishok and his men tried to start a war. So it is possible for unauthorized Qunari to start a war. This satisfies Weekes' statement without the Qunari we fight in Trespasser being authorized.

They aren't an offshoot, just as the Arishok and his men were not an offshoot.

It isn't a sanctioned attack by the Qunari leadership. You are projecting your own wants onto the story.

It isn't understood that "the Qunari" refers to the leadership. Weekes could have easily been referring only to the Qunari we fought in the DLC.

Now you're changing the issue. This isn't about who has the ability to carry on a war, it's who has the ability to start one. Weekes said "start a war", not maintain one. A few Qunari are capable of starting a war, even those without authorization to do so, as you admitted was the case with the Arishiok in DA2.

"The Qunari" are the group in charge of the Qunari.

The Qunari are the group in charge of the Qunari. Wow. So the group in charge of the group in charge of the group is the group in charge of the group in charge of the group.

When a person says "The Qunari decided to attack," they're obviously talking about the Qunari leadership and military.

Obviously. Because you say so, right? Well, "the Qunari" decided to attack Kirkwall. So that obviously means the Triumvirate authorized it, right? "The Qunari" also decided to kill a farm full of innocent men, women, and children who saved his life. Guess that means the Triumvirate authorized it, obviously.

Just the group to which answers the non-Tal-Vashoth Iron Bull. Just the group that Weekes is talking about. Just the group that really the audience is interested in in the context of Trespasser. Nobody gives a crap about the fine minutia of the Qunari leadership. They just want to know if the Qunari were trying to invade and make war on Thedas, or if it was some crazy rogue group unsanctioned by the Qunari.

Yeah, that's the whole point of the discussion. Nothing suggests the Triumvirate was trying to start a war with the South. It was Viddasala. She twisted true Qunari from their purpose, as the Arishok did in DA2.

[Dai Grepher]

It didn't imply it, it stated it outright, because that's exactly what it means.

Yet when you thought I wrote that, you tried to chastise me for it. Seems like you are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing. Have you actually read about any of my stated positions on these issues?

We are talking about the Qunari, that group of people that doesn't "do their own thing".

Sten, Tallis, DA2 Arishok, Jerran, Saarath, and now Viddasala.

We know this from Sten, we know this from the Arishok, and we know this from IB, if we bothered to talk to him a lot.

Yeah, like in our first conversation where he just outright admits to being a Qunari spy. He wasn't doing his own thing there at all, was he.

Perhaps, instead of telling us how much we don't know about the Qunari, you should fill the gaps in your own knowledge before you try to "educate" us about them.

Great advice, for you.

I mean, it wasn't much of a compelling debate to begin with, but if we're reaching the point of stuff like "well, Viddassala might have not been sent by the true Qunari, or Qunari as a whole" despite there never existing proof that there was ever faction of a Qunari separate from Par Vollen (that would immediately become Ta-Vashoth)

Not sure where you got any of that from. Almostfaceman is the one trying to claim that "the Qunari" means all Qunari. My position has been crystal clear from the start. Viddasala began as a normal agent of the Ben-Hassrath. But some time before Trespasser she decided to act on her own beliefs and launch an attack against the Inquisition and the South, and she did this without authorization from the Triumvirate.

and despite Weekes saying, in no unclear terms, "this is not an offshoot,

Never claimed it was. An offshoot would either be Tal-Vashoth, or some "new Qun" that believes in a different path. A Qun cult, in essence. The Qunari that Viddasala commanded were real Qunari who were being misled, and Viddasala was keeping her actions secret from the Triumvirate.

Bull wouldn't betray you if this was a rogue group" or "let's have Qunari start a war" it's patently clear that nobody is ever going to break that wall of denial.

Weekes referred to those we fight in Trespasser as Qunari. I do not deny this fact. I have always known they were actual Qunari, just as the Qunari in Demands of the Qun in DA2 were actual Qunari. The question is if the Triumvirate authorized these Qunari to do what they did. The answer is no, and nothing Patrick Weekes said in that interview indicates otherwise.

You are simply picking out one small unrelated statement of his and ascribing your own misinterpretations and preferred storylines to it.

[Almostfaceman]

Yeah, that's the whole point of the discussion. Nothing suggests the Triumvirate was trying to start a war with the South. It was Viddasala. She twisted true Qunari from their purpose, as the Arishok did in DA2.

 

No.

 

In Dragon Age 1, Sten tells us the Qunari are going to invade. Make war. Make all of Thedas the Qunari empire.

 

In Dragon Age 2, we have a really large conflict with the Qunari. Then Bioware explains this isn't the Qunari invasion -  this isn't the Qunari attacking the rest of Thedas to make Thedas all Qunari Empire as foreshadowed in Dragon Age 1.

 

In Dragon Age 3, we finally, at the end, have the Qunari starting their war on Thedas. This IS the Qunari invasion. The war foreshadowed by Sten in Dragon Age 1. 

 

That's all any of us really have been wondering since Dragon Age 1. Are the Qunari attacking yet? Like I said, this isn't all that subtle or nuanced. 

 

"We said 'Oh, okay, maybe it's a rogue faction of the Qunari and they aren't really the real Qunari and Bull doesn't believe in them,' and every time... We tried to talk ourselves into that for a while, like, 'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,' and it just got so toothless. It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.' We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war,"

[In Exile]

You say we have no proof that the action was unsanctioned, then you bring in the proof that we have that the action was unsanctioned. 

 

And, you're looking for subtlety in a Bioware game. I mean... c'mon. This was clearly "Hey this is why we don't have the Qunari attacking all the Free Marches right now." Because people are going to ask that after so many Qunari get slaughtered in the Free Marches and Bioware did it (the attack) because drama. 

 

What? As I literally said, the fact that the Arishok was removed is not proof his action was unsanctioned. He might have been removed from power for not burning Kirkwall to the ground fast enough, since it took him years to achieve his mission and return the Tome of Koslun. Maybe he's removed (remember, this is the scenario where we give up Isabella) because she escaped (did she steal the Tome again in this scenario)?

 

I'm not looking for subtlety. I'm just pointing out that we have no idea how their system of governance works, or what "sanctioned" by the Qunari would even look like in-game. With the IB, it's strongly hinted that the Qunari had serious doubts about his loyalty, but nevertheless allowed him substantial discretion in the field. 

 

It's clear to me that they told us this to explain why this wasn't the Qunari starting a war with the Free Marches. Which is what people are going to wonder, naturally. 

 

Since the Qunari are going to star a war with the Free Marches (and everyone else) that doesn't actually answer the question. 

 

Edit:

Ah, I see the issue. You think DA2 was a "large conflict". It clearly wasn't. It was a ship of Qunari. It was as large a conflict as what we saw in the IB's mission in DA:I - that's how much for the Arishok had with him. It's why he relied on converts in the first place. 

[Almostfaceman]

What? As I literally said, the fact that the Arishok was removed is not proof his action was unsanctioned. 

 

Since the Qunari are going to star a war with the Free Marches (and everyone else) that doesn't actually answer the question. 

 

The Arishok being removed CAN be taken as proof that the action was unsanctioned. You said there wasn't any proof at all. There is some proof.

 

The Qunari starting a war with the Free Marches is happening now. At the end of Trespasser. The explanation was for then. That wasn't going to be the impetus or couldn't be taken as a sign of all-out-invasion-war with the rest of Thedas.