1580 réponses à ce sujet

[Dai Grepher]

Riight, Weeke's explanation as to why a Qun Iron Bull would care about the invasion have nothing to do with whether or not it was a sanctioned, official invasion by his bosses instead of some group he wouldn't give two spits about. [/sarcasm]
 

Don't cry, I'm sure you'll think of a valid argument eventually.

Weekes said nothing about Hissrad's thought process on those Qunari being authorized or not. He only said that you encouraged him to stay with the Qun. That has nothing to do with whether those Qunari were authorized or not.

So who do you think Weekes would side with in this argument?

I think Weekes would say that the question of authorization was up to the players to figure out by examining the clues, and was left somewhat ambiguous so the players could debate the issue.

But I also think Weekes personally sees the operation as completely unauthorized.

"We kicked around ideas, maybe it's a rogue faction of the Qunari and maybe they aren't really the "real" Qunari and Bull doesn't believe in them. And every time we tried... we tried to talk ourselves into it 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're playing an 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 going to say the Qunari are going to start a war, lets have the Qunari start a war and let's own that."
 
--Patrick Weekes - Biofan interview
 
Arguing that the Viddasala went rogue and the Triumivirate didn't approve of Dragon's Breath, nor intended to start a war is precisely why Weekes called that conceit as being completely "toothless" .

No, you are projecting again. Weekes didn't want us fighting Tal-Vashoth or some Vashoth impersonators of the Qunari, because there is no drama in that and there is no conflict for Hissrad. No teeth. Weekes wanted Hissrad to actually have a conflict of character. So of course Hissrad believed they were a rogue group and didn't mind cutting down one after another, until in the Darvaarad when Viddasala barked her order and Hissrad followed like a blind sheep. Weekes also wanted the threat of war with the Qunari. We got the threat in Trespasser. It was an empty threat of course, but it was still the threat Weekes was looking for.

And look at the ending of Trespasser. No war with the Qunari. So clearly, an actual war with the Qunari was never the goal. Weekes just wanted the threat.

It'd have been an easy way to play it safe when it comes to the direction they wanted to take the Qunari in, which is why the writers didn't go for it, instead preferring to have the Qunari intentionally seek to start a war.

Yes, those real Qunari were trying to start a war under the false pretenses they were put under by the unauthorized Viddasala. This all boils down to one thing, were these real Qunari authorized by the Triumvirate or not? Nothing Weekes said implies that they were authorized. He only said they were real Qunari.

So, you were saying we all got the wrong end of the stick?

I am stating that you are taking a quote or quotes from Weekes and claiming they prove your case, when in fact what Weekes said does not prove your case at all. It is completely unrelated.

It would be like me quoting David Gaider on Morrigan's personality during Origins and then claiming that was proof that Viddasala was not authorized.

This is insane. Even frikking Viddassala says at the end of Trespasser that since "the gentle path" has failed the Qunari will now go the way of blades, that is: full-blown invasion, because I don't think you're ridiculous enough to think that she only refers to her already decimated division? (oh who am I kidding...)

Ah yes, and how did that "way of blades" pan out exactly? What? There were no blades after all? Well... was Viddasala lying?

Viddasala lied constantly. She also believed incorrect things, like that you worked for the agent of Fen'Harel.

Such rogue, that Viddassala! Apparently working without the authorization of her superiors, but knowing exactly what they'd do in case she fails...

Which she was also wrong about. But of course she did know what they would do. Nothing. Because they didn't authorize any action against the South. She knew that. She lied to you. She tried to provoke you into a war with the Qunari. She was trying to force the Triumvirate into war.

DAI Gepher, for a while until recently, I viewed the end of the game like you did. I thought the Viddasala was a rogue agent - of course, a "true Qunari" and Iron Bull was following her because she might've initially been sent out with a legit mission from the Qun, from the homeland. Then, she simply 'went too far' on her own, in the course of her mission, while she was in the south, and strayed from the Qunari homeland. The Qunari homeland then said she went too far and distanced themselves officially.
 
However, I myself changed my position when I examined 1) the Patrick Weeked interview with Biofan. Read his comment again in Sifr's post above.

And what exactly about Patrick Weekes' comments in any way implied that the Viddasala was authorized?

2) the wording used in the epilogue slide, in which they have the word "disavowed." Just think of the diction here. That word has a certain connotation.

No, it doesn't. It has a definition. I gave you the definition a while back. The definition has not changed.

Just because you have heard it used in the deceptive context of a shady government bureau telling a secret agent that "should you be killed or captured we will disavow all knowledge of your existence", does not mean that the word itself takes on that connotation when used in a completely different series.

[Al Foley]

No war with the Qunari, because Dragon's Breath failed.  Though I suppose in that case that does not neccessarily prove the official sanction of the Vidi's mission one way or another because I feel, whether it was a rogue op or not, the Qunari would have invaded if it was successful.  Though the fact that the epilogue seems to make it very clear that they had troops pre positioned and only went back to fighting Tevinter after it failed is...telling. 

[Addictress]

disavow
verb (used with object)
1. to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate:


 

Um I don't know, if you've been around enough, you just have this feeling about English words that goes beyond their surface definitions.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/disavow

Just look at the examples the dictionary writers picked. Political parties. Backtracking on earlier statements. C'mon.

 

People need to back me up here. Fack.

[Dai Grepher]

A Qunari that goes rogue is Tal Vashoth, thus, not real Qunari.

Incorrect. A Qunari who goes rogue is often deemed confused, and in need of re-education and/or demotion. Tallis, for example. Iron Bull, as another example.

A Qun loyal IB will turn on the Inquisitor on her orders, thus, she's not Tal Vashoth.

Baseless speculation. Hissrad's actions do not determine the Triumvirate's actions. Hissrad may have turned on the Inquisitor because he did not want to take the risk of being declared Tal-Vashoth for doing so.

Also don't forget that Viddasala will bark the same order to Iron Bull who is already Tal-Vashoth. What does that say about her legitimacy?

This is really pretty simple, unless you've decided that nothing presented about the Qunari fits with what you want them to be, which is what we're facing here. You have decided what happened, to the point of telling the Lead Writer that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Completely wrong. I wrote that I will take Patrick Weekes' word for it, but I also pointed out that he did not say the real Qunari we fought in Trespasser were authorized by the Triumvirate. He merely said they were real Qunari, and I never denied that fact. I did not decided what happened. I observed what actually happened in the game and I point those out as examples to explain to you what happened. I have backed up all of my claims with proof from the game.

If I have to choose between what Weekes has told us, and what you're trying to feed us, I'm choosing Weekes every time. It is amusing to watch you thrash about though, do continue.

Well then why do you keep denying what Weekes said? We fought real Qunari, not a rogue group. I never wrote anything to the contrary. However, this doesn't mean those real Qunari were authorized by the Triumvirate to attack the South.

Before you ask, yes, he was completely serious in a thread called "Templars are narritively better for every reason"

Do you know what "irrefutable" means? If so, then I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that word.

Weekes made it clear that the Viddasala wasn't rouge

Show me where he said Viddasala wasn't rogue.

and if Dragons Breath when though  the Qunari would have stormed the South.

Really? Weekes said that if Dragon's Breath had been successful that the Qunari would have stormed the South? Please quote him stating this.

If you don't believe the Word of God; then so be it. There's no point in arguing about anymore about this.

I have written time and again that I will accept Weekes' word as valid on this issue. The problem is that he has not said anything close to what you claim he said.

Now can we all shut up about this?

It is not done.

[sniper_arrow]

Um I don't know, if you've been around enough, you just have this feeling about English words that goes beyond their surface definitions.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/disavow

Just look at the examples the dictionary writers picked. Political parties. Backtracking on earlier statements. C'mon.

 

People need to back me up here. Fack.

 

It depends on how the word is used in context. 

 

BTW, I'd rather not engage with someone who is not willing to face the truth even if that particular truth is right in front of them. Their choice.

[SweetTeaholic]

 

It is not done.

 

 

 

Then we have a problem, don't we?

 

Edit: Also, I refuse to answer your questions being I already addressed these earlier in the topic and you refused to listen. This is competely stupid already.

[Sifr]

No, you are projecting again. Weekes didn't want us fighting Tal-Vashoth or some Vashoth impersonators of the Qunari, because there is no drama in that and there is no conflict for Hissrad. No teeth. Weekes wanted Hissrad to actually have a conflict of character. So of course Hissrad believed they were a rogue group and didn't mind cutting down one after another, until in the Darvaarad when Viddasala barked her order and Hissrad followed like a blind sheep. Weekes also wanted the threat of war with the Qunari. We got the threat in Trespasser. It was an empty threat of course, but it was still the threat Weekes was looking for.

And look at the ending of Trespasser. No war with the Qunari. So clearly, an actual war with the Qunari was never the goal. Weekes just wanted the threat.

 

It's not projecting when the writer flat out said that they aren't an offshoot, they are the real Qunari and it was an invasion attempt.

 

Denying what he said repeatedly, despite having the actual words in front of you, that  would be projecting.

 

I have written time and again that I will accept Weekes' word as valid on this issue. The problem is that he has not said anything close to what you claim he said.

 

Except when his word (which I quoted above) doesn't agree with you, nor when it backs up exactly what the rest of us have been saying. It's not that we're trying to convince you of some outlandish theory, we've got Weekes himself backing us up on this... so isn't it a little futile to deny word of god, even though you've heard it directly from the burning bush, so to speak?

 

[Almostfaceman]

Don't cry, I'm sure you'll think of a valid argument eventually.

Weekes said nothing about Hissrad's thought process on those Qunari being authorized or not. He only said that you encouraged him to stay with the Qun. That has nothing to do with whether those Qunari were authorized or not.
 

 

Goes to your powers of observation, the gif is not of someone crying, rather of someone shaking their head and holding it in frustration. Please pay attention. 

 

The game establishes that Iron Bull works for the Qunari. Weekes explains why Iron Bull, one who hasn't gone Tal Vashoth, follows the group of Qunari in Trespasser. He (Iron Bull) knows they're an official group led by an official leader doing official things. Iron Bull, non-Tal-Vashoth, wouldn't have anything to do with a rogue group, or a rogue leader. Weeke's also lets us know that the Qunari are going to war. 

[Dai Grepher]

No war with the Qunari, because Dragon's Breath failed.

Or because the Triumvirate had no intention of going to war with the South at that time. But according to Viddasala, the war was supposed to happen even if Dragon's Breath failed. She lied. Par Vollen never even thought of attacking.

Though I suppose in that case that does not neccessarily prove the official sanction of the Vidi's mission one way or another because I feel, whether it was a rogue op or not, the Qunari would have invaded if it was successful.

Had Viddasala created an outstanding opportunity for Par Vollen to invade, I am sure Par Vollen would have seized on that opportunity. But that still wouldn't mean they authorized Viddasala to attack the South.

However, Dragon's Breath never had the potential to create any opportunity for Par Vollen to invade. Had Viddasala been successful, the South would still be impossible to invade, and the Triumvirate still would have disavowed her and seized her. And they would likely have an Exalted March to deal with because of her.

Though the fact that the epilogue seems to make it very clear that they had troops pre positioned and only went back to fighting Tevinter after it failed is...telling.

"Seems to make it very clear". Odd way to phrase it. Are you saying it looks very clear at first glance but isn't what it seems? Because the epilogue didn't state that there were Qunari troops in place ready to invade. It only states that the Qunari returned to the North. This is likely talking about the Qunari under Viddasala's command.

Um I don't know, if you've been around enough, you just have this feeling about English words that goes beyond their surface definitions.
http://www.merriam-w...tionary/disavow
Just look at the examples the dictionary writers picked. Political parties. Backtracking on earlier statements. C'mon.

Addictress, what the designers of a website decided to use as examples has nothing to do with the word's actual definition, and it certainly has nothing to do with Trespasser's use of the word.

[sniper_arrow]

Or because the Triumvirate had no intention of going to war with the South at that time. But according to Viddasala, the war was supposed to happen even if Dragon's Breath failed. She lied. Par Vollen never even thought of attacking.


Had Viddasala created an outstanding opportunity for Par Vollen to invade, I am sure Par Vollen would have seized on that opportunity. But that still wouldn't mean they authorized Viddasala to attack the South.

However, Dragon's Breath never had the potential to create any opportunity for Par Vollen to invade. Had Viddasala been successful, the South would still be impossible to invade, and the Triumvirate still would have disavowed her and seized her. And they would likely have an Exalted March to deal with because of her.


"Seems to make it very clear". Odd way to phrase it. Are you saying it looks very clear at first glance but isn't what it seems? Because the epilogue didn't state that there were Qunari troops in place ready to invade. It only states that the Qunari returned to the North. This is likely talking about the Qunari under Viddasala's command.


Addictress, what the designers of a website decided to use as examples has nothing to do with the word's actual definition, and it certainly has nothing to do with Trespasser's use of the word.

 

I'm horrifyingly curious. Why do you insist that the Viddasala was a rogue agent when Weekes revealed otherwise? 

[Almostfaceman]

Um I don't know, if you've been around enough, you just have this feeling about English words that goes beyond their surface definitions.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/disavow

Just look at the examples the dictionary writers picked. Political parties. Backtracking on earlier statements. C'mon.

 

People need to back me up here. Fack.

 

We're backing you up.

[Addictress]

Addictress, what the designers of a website decided to use as examples has nothing to do with the word's actual definition, and it certainly has nothing to do with Trespasser's use of the word.

Yeah it does. The fact that I independently identified that word as befitting scenarios involving politics and going back on prior actions or generally shady circumstances from writers on a dictionary website who're even more attuned to the English language than I am, who also independently chose examples of those kinds of situations, proves that the writers and I and many others share the same language and agree on contextual dispositions for that word - contextual dispositions which extend beyond rote definition.

[lynroy]

That's what this discussion has become.

[Dai Grepher]

It's not projecting when the writer flat out said that they aren't an offshoot, they are the real Qunari and it was an invasion attempt.

No, he didn't say it was an invasion attempt. You are imagining that.

Now, I agree they aren't an offshoot. I never wrote otherwise. My point is that just because they are real Qunari does not mean the Triumvirate authorized them to attack the South. That is the fact that you are not acknowledging here.

Denying what he said repeatedly, despite having the actual words in front of you, that  would be projecting.

Yes, that's what you're doing.

Except when his word (which I quoted above) doesn't agree with you,

And where does it disagree with me exactly? I agree that they were real Qunari. I agree they were not a rogue group.

nor when it backs up exactly what the rest of us have been saying.

It doesn't. It doesn't state that Viddasala wasn't rogue. It doesn't state that the Qunari in Trespasser were authorized by the Triumvirate. It doesn't say Par Vollen invaded or tried to invade.

It's not that we're trying to convince you of some outlandish theory, we've got Weekes himself backing us up on this...

No you don't. You are claiming that he said things he never said. You are quoting him and then writing that he said something different from what you quoted.

so isn't it a little futile to deny word of god, even though you've heard it directly from the burning bush, so to speak?

I haven't denied anything he said. I have denied your complete misinterpretation of what he said.

Goes to your powers of observation, the gif is not of someone crying, rather of someone shaking their head and holding it in frustration. Please pay attention.

Goes to show your powers of observation, I was joking.

The game establishes that Iron Bull works for the Qunari. Weekes explains why Iron Bull, one who hasn't gone Tal Vashoth, follows the group of Qunari in Trespasser. He (Iron Bull) knows they're an official group led by an official leader doing official things.

Weekes didn't say that. He only said that Hissrad was encouraged to stick with the Qun. He made no comment about Hissrad's thought process during that moment of choice.

Why Hissrad chose to obey Viddasala is left to fan theory. You think it's because he realized that Viddasala was authorized, but there was no evidence of this being the case. Her order was not proof in itself. If he thought she was authorized before this, then why did he kill so many Qunari? Also, even if Hissrad genuinely thought Viddasala was authorized, that wouldn't make it so. Hissrad's belief does not determine what the Triumvirate did or didn't do prior to this.

I on the other hand think it's because Hissrad was a blind sheep who would rather die than take the risk of disobeying someone who has even the slightest chance of being authorized, and thus being declared Tal-Vashoth for disobeying her.

Regardless, Weekes doesn't say what Hissrad was thinking, and he doesn't mention Viddasala either. He only says why Hissrad did it. He was loyal to the Qun.

Iron Bull, non-Tal-Vashoth, wouldn't have anything to do with a rogue group, or a rogue leader.

Well as I recall, he killed quite a lot of them before that. But we already established that it wasn't a rogue group. He would follow a rogue leader however, if he were afraid of being declared Tal-Vashoth for not following her. Or, even if he thought she was authorized, he would follow her in that case. Still doesn't mean the Triumvirate authorized her though.

Weeke's also lets us know that the Qunari are going to war.

No he doesn't. He said "let's have the Qunari start a war". That refers to the Qunari in Trespasser, not the Triumvirate. Also, end of Trespasser, no war started. So, your point is moot.

[Almostfaceman]

Weekes' explains why Iron Bull turns on you in Trespasser. Iron Bull, one loyal to the Qun, works for the Triumvirate/Par Vollen/Viddasala. He proves this by joining Viddasala because both he and Viddasala work for the Triumvirate/Par Vollen. The Qunari. Throughout all of Dragon Age we're aware of two factions. The Qunari and the Tal'Vashoth. Anything that's not Tal'Vashoth is the Qunari. 

 

Iron Bull, loyal to the Qun, is not loyal to just anybody with horns. This is why Tal'Vashoth and The Qunari are appropriate descriptors in explaining Iron Bull's loyalties. Iron Bull who is not loyal to the Qun (the Qunari) is Tal'Vashoth. 

 

That said, when we got to the Qunari (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen), we kicked around different ways to do it. We said 'Oh, okay, maybe it's a rogue faction (read Tal'Vashoth) of the Qunari and they aren't really the real Qunari (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen) 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 (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen), they're an offshoot (read Tal'Vashoth),' 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.' (read Tal'Vashoth) We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen) are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen) start a war, and let's own it. And in that case, the only reasonable outcome was that if you hadn't gotten Iron Bull out of the Qun (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen), it made no sense for him to do anything but turn on you.

 

...

 

And that it was a choice that had teeth; I love those, because it was really interesting after Trespasser shipped, watching the reaction to those. Because there were many people who were surprised and very unhappy and said 'This shouldn't have happened, even though I made Bull loyal to the Qun, (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen) he still should have respected me and not turned on me,' and there were a few people who would say that, but every time someone said that, everyone else would turn and look at them and go 'What did you think was going to happen? You did a plot and told this guy specifically to be loyal to the Qun, (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen) so yeah, when the Qunari (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen) come... You did a plot that told him to stay on their side,'

[Dai Grepher]

I'm horrifyingly curious. Why do you insist that the Viddasala was a rogue agent when Weekes revealed otherwise?

1. The facts of the game indicate this.

2. Weekes did not reveal otherwise.

Yeah it does. The fact that I independently identified that word as befitting scenarios involving politics and going back on prior actions or generally shady circumstances from writers on a dictionary website who're even more attuned to the English language than I am, who also independently chose examples of those kinds of situations, proves that the writers and I and many others share the same language and agree on contextual dispositions for that word - contextual dispositions which extend beyond rote definition.

No, it doesn't. What some web designers think of the word is not necessarily what the writers at BioWare think of the word. You are posting supposition.

Donald Trump disavowed David Duke because David Duke publicly stated his support for Donald Trump. Does that mean Donald Trump ever had anything to do with David Duke? No. Donald Trump didn't even know who David Duke was before he was asked about him.

[Almostfaceman]

No he doesn't. He said "let's have the Qunari start a war". That refers to the Qunari in Trespasser, not the Triumvirate. Also, end of Trespasser, no war started. So, your point is moot.

 

The small group we fought with in Trespasser couldn't make war on anything. And Iron Bull, loyal to the Qun, wouldn't give two spits about them. At best it would be some insignificant skirmish. The Qunari are going to war, just like Weeks said and the group in Trespasser was just a small part of the start of that war. 

 

If Weeke's wanted to get us excited about some rogue faction (Tal'Vashoth) going to war with Thedas, he's have said there was a particular group of Tal'Vashoth going to war with Thedas. And again, Iron Bull wouldn't join a Tal'Vashoth group working outside of the Qunari. Since he works for them and is not Tal'Vashoth. 

[sniper_arrow]

1. The facts of the game indicate this.

2. Weekes did not reveal otherwise.


No, it doesn't. What some web designers think of the word is not necessarily what the writers at BioWare think of the word. You are posting supposition.

Donald Trump disavowed David Duke because David Duke publicly stated his support for Donald Trump. Does that mean Donald Trump ever had anything to do with David Duke? No. Donald Trump didn't even know who David Duke was before he was asked about him.

 

I read Weekes' interview and he did confirm it. Have you even asked him on Twitter?

 

Also, politicians and businessmen lie. Never forget that.

[Almostfaceman]

Weekes didn't say that. He only said that Hissrad was encouraged to stick with the Qun. He made no comment about Hissrad's thought process during that moment of choice.

Why Hissrad chose to obey Viddasala is left to fan theory. You think it's because he realized that Viddasala was authorized, but there was no evidence of this being the case. Her order was not proof in itself. If he thought she was authorized before this, then why did he kill so many Qunari? Also, even if Hissrad genuinely thought Viddasala was authorized, that wouldn't make it so. Hissrad's belief does not determine what the Triumvirate did or didn't do prior to this.

I on the other hand think it's because Hissrad was a blind sheep who would rather die than take the risk of disobeying someone who has even the slightest chance of being authorized, and thus being declared Tal-Vashoth for disobeying her.
 

 

No Weekes was explaining why Iron Bull goes against the Inquisitor and it certainly wouldn't be for any group of Tal'Vashoth. Why Hissrad chose to obey Viddasala is explained by Weeke's - Viddasala is The Qunari, just like Hissrad. Him being a spy working for the Qunari, he'd know what's what. 

 

Your convoluted logic ignores what Weeke's is telling us and ignores the simplest explanation for what happens.

[Dai Grepher]

Weekes' explains why Iron Bull turns on you in Trespasser.

Yeah I know, I explained that to you already. You ignored my post, again.

Iron Bull, one loyal to the Qun, works for the Triumvirate/Par Vollen/Viddasala. He proves this by joining Viddasala because both he and Viddasala work for the Triumvirate/Par Vollen.

Groundless conjecture. He turns on you because he is afraid he will be declared Tal-Vashoth if he doesn't, and he is loyal to the Qun.

The Qunari. Throughout all of Dragon Age we're aware of two factions. The Qunari and the Tal'Vashoth. Anything that's not Tal'Vashoth is the Qunari.

Wrong answer again, AFM. There are also the Vashoth. Those of the qunari race but not of the belief. There are also Qunari who do their own thing. The Arishok. Tallis. The Iron Bull. All Qunari, but all acting without orders in some cases. We can add Viddasala to that list.

Iron Bull, loyal to the Qun, is not loyal to just anybody with horns. This is why Tal'Vashoth and The Qunari are appropriate descriptors in explaining Iron Bull's loyalties. Iron Bull who is not loyal to the Qun (the Qunari) is Tal'Vashoth.

And this is totally irrelevant to the issue. Of course Hissrad is not loyal to just anyone with horns. But he will choose to follow Viddasala's direct order for his own personal, unexplained reasons. He's afraid. Or he thinks she's legit. But let's assume you're correct. Hissrad suddenly thinks Viddasala is authorized. Okay. So how does Hissrad's assumption prove the Triumvirate authorized her?

[b]That said, when we got to the Qunari (read Triumvirate/Viddasala/Par Vollen), we kicked around different ways to do it. We said 'Oh, okay, maybe it's a rogue faction (read Tal'Vashoth) of the Qunari...

Physically injecting your own ideas into Weekes' statements now? Can't say I'm not surprised. Suffice it to say, your words are not Weekes' words.

[Sifr]

No, he didn't say it was an invasion attempt. You are imagining that.

Now, I agree they aren't an offshoot. I never wrote otherwise. My point is that just because they are real Qunari does not mean the Triumvirate authorized them to attack the South. That is the fact that you are not acknowledging here.

It doesn't. It doesn't state that Viddasala wasn't rogue. It doesn't state that the Qunari in Trespasser were authorized by the Triumvirate. It doesn't say Par Vollen invaded or tried to invade.

No you don't. You are claiming that he said things he never said. You are quoting him and then writing that he said something different from what you quoted.

 

Again, I shall quote from Weekes' own mouth... and what I previously highlighted  because it made it clear it was an invasion attempt.

 

"If we're going to say the Qunari are going to start a war, lets have the Qunari start a war."

 

The Qunari intended to use the Eluvians to give them a beachhead, as well as giving them a chance to get their people quickly into position to launch a surgical strike that would remove all the key players and cripple the southern leadership. In addition to the Exalted Council, we are told that they found Gaatlok in the Denerim royal palace, as well other important, making it obvious this was a highly co-ordinated plan that would have left the South completely rudderless and unprepared when the Qunari arrived in force.

 

Yeah... maybe you're right, none of this sounds at all like what you'd do if you're planning an invasion or a war. Getting rid of all your enemies in one single fell swoop doesn't help you take over. And let's forget that conversation with Leliana pointing out such a thing wouldn't only work, but is what Corypheus should have done from the start.

 

Yeah, I can see no benefit to the Qunari employing this strategy at all... not when it so easily could have worked?

 

[sniper_arrow]

Yeah I know, I explained that to you already. You ignored my post, again.


Groundless conjecture. He turns on you because he is afraid he will be declared Tal-Vashoth if he doesn't, and he is loyal to the Qun.


Wrong answer again, AFM. There are also the Vashoth. Those of the qunari race but not of the belief. There are also Qunari who do their own thing. The Arishok. Tallis. The Iron Bull. All Qunari, but all acting without orders in some cases. We can add Viddasala to that list.


And this is totally irrelevant to the issue. Of course Hissrad is not loyal to just anyone with horns. But he will choose to follow Viddasala's direct order for his own personal, unexplained reasons. He's afraid. Or he thinks she's legit. But let's assume you're correct. Hissrad suddenly thinks Viddasala is authorized. Okay. So how does Hissrad's assumption prove the Triumvirate authorized her?


Physically injecting your own ideas into Weekes' statements now? Can't say I'm not surprised. Suffice it to say, your words are not Weekes' words.

 

Have you even asked Weekes yet via Twitter? Maybe that should settle your mind. Or not. Your choice.

[Almostfaceman]

But he will choose to follow Viddasala's direct order for his own personal, unexplained reasons. 

 

Groundless conjecture. 

 

Hissrad doesn't just think Viddasala is authorized, Weekes tells us she is. Like I explained. That's the simplest explanation for why Iron Bull does what he does.

[Sifr]

The other explanation is that if Bull wasn't informed it was a legit operation offscreen, Bull has been conditioned to follow orders from extremely intimidating women from an early age... the game even tells us this is the reason Viv is able to make him fall into line so easily, because she reminds him too much of the Tamassrans.

[Addictress]

That's what this discussion has become.

:laughing for reals: