1580 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

To be fair though the events of Tresspasser was not an invasion.  More like a Special Ops mission/ prelude to an invasion.  That is why the Qunari could back off at the end so easily and say 'not us.' 

[Heimdall]

To be fair though the events of Tresspasser was not an invasion. More like a Special Ops mission/ prelude to an invasion. That is why the Qunari could back off at the end so easily and say 'not us.'

Pretty sure an assassination attempt / Terrorist attack is generally considered grounds for war though.

[Al Foley]

Pretty sure an assassination attempt / Terrorist attack is generally considered grounds for war though.

They are.  But with such confusion over terminology I was trying to be specific.  Again in my mind had Dragon's Breath succeeded the Qunari would have invaded.  But the fact it didn't gave the Qunari enough room to say 'it wasn't us'.  And thus they plan for the next thing.  After all the South does not want war with the Qunari either so they are inclined to believe them and wait it out. 

[Almostfaceman]

Pretty sure an assassination attempt / Terrorist attack is generally considered grounds for war though.

 

The assassination of a national leader was the kickoff for the first World War. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.

[Dai Grepher]

If the mission requires it, the Qunari are fine treating their own people as disposable and necessary casualties.

The mission on the Storm Coast disproves that. Besides, this would be a case of Hissrad killing Qunari who are trying to make Dragon's Breath succeed. So I doubt the Qunari leadership are okay with any Qunari actively foiling an official mission.

We saw this in DA2, when the Arishok allows some of his own men to be killed while guarding a fake batch of Gaatlok, explaining that it was necessary because the thief wouldn't have believed the target was real if it was left unguarded. By leaving a token force, it gave the illusion of importance.

Not the same as sacrificing Qunari though. They were charged with defending it regardless. That guards were posted did not mean their lives weren't valued. Also, the case with Hissrad would have him actively killing Qunari and foiling the mission. That wouldn't make sense.

Furthermore, the Arishok's reaction to Hawke being forced to kill the Arvaraad who were trying to apprehend Saarebas is to comment that as long as the mission was completed and Saarebas is dead, he doesn't care. He's actually more impressed than mad that Hawke managed to best his soldiers.

Again, not an example of a Qunari having no concern for Qunari lives. It was their duty to kill Hawke, they failed. With the saarebas dead, there was no further need to try and kill Hawke. It is the past. Hissrad's case would be present tense. He would not be told to kill real Qunari and help the Inquisitor foil the official plan. He would be told to kill the Inquisitor when he isn't looking.

I'm curious how in your mind, mass assassination via dragon's breathe and launching an invasion attempt that is barely thwarted, something they have made it clear they've been planning to do for the past three games, do not constitute them wanting to start a war?

Because the Triumvirate didn't authorize it. Also, I never said the Viddasala didn't try to start a war. You might be mixing up my statements to various different questions over the course of the thread. 1. The Triumvirate did not authorize any action against the South. So they weren't trying to start a war at that time. 2. Viddasala was trying to start a war with the South, but she was unauthorized. 3. A war was not actually started because we foiled Dragon's Breath.

*Points to the network of magic mirrors that span most of Thedas*

And where is the evidence that they span most of Thedas? I know there is one in the Dragon Bone Wastes, one in Soldier's Peak, one in Halamshiral, and one in Skyhold. How do you know that there are more eluvians that span all of Thedas?

Yes, we have no idea how they could get their army rapidly deployed to numerous locations around the South, allowing them numerous beachheads on multiple fronts, before anyone even knows what's happening. It's not like there's an entire portal network that's sitting around that they've mapped a section of to rather good effect.

The magic mirrors are unreliable. Even if the Crossroads don't kill the Qunari or trap them, the mirrors themselves can be destroyed or redirected into hazards. Too risky.

As for spies, they are also unreliable, as they are all viddathari. Prone to becoming Tal-Vashoth or being caught.

*Points to the Eluvian network again*

*Points to Qunari mistrust of all things magic.*

Even if the gaatlok doesn't go off and kill everyone important, that's still a lot of chaos and panic before people know what's going on. Then you have all the spies and sleeper cells they've placed around Thedas, who would be in position to sabotage various targets, as well as providing undercover intelligence that will make it harder for anyone to organise a resistance movement.

Most of whom are elves, who would not be trusted out of automatic prejudice. Human spies would be a problem, but the remaining military leaders would take proper precautions. Circles of Magi would be activated. The Qunari would get wiped out on foreign terrain. A war needs borders. A front line that you keep pushing toward your enemy. If the Qunari showed up everywhere all at once, they would essentially be surrounded by their enemies.

They've had three hundred years or so to prepare their invasion plans, you really think they've been idly twiddling their thumbs all this time and not considering a myriad of ways they might go about it?

I'm sure they've been doing a lot. But the question is if it has been enough. I doubt it.

[Dai Grepher]

Except they did all become Tal-Vashoth. They were either re-educated and brought back into the Qun (anybody who acts against the leadership is outside the Qun) or they were killed.

No, the epilogue states they returned to the North. The Arishok's men also returned to Par Vollen and there was never any word of any of them facing any kind of punishment for the Arishok's actions and orders.

Well you can say I admitted something, but it doesn't make it true, unless you explain how I admitted something.

Because you wrote, "Weeke's explains the situation in those terms. He doesn't have to say anything more specific than that." So you agree that Weekes only gave the reason why Hissrad turned, not Hissrad's rationale.

So far, you've said the leader of the group in Trespasser was Tal'Vashoth and the minions were not Tal'Vashoth.

I wrote that I personally consider her Tal-Vashoth for destroying the Triumvirate's letter and not passing it on to its intended recipient. That doesn't mean the Triumvirate considered her Tal-Vashoth, because they were conducting an investigation into her once they were made aware of her activities. They could not have possibly declared her Tal-Vashoth until after capturing her and investigating her, which they never had the opportunity to do because she was killed. Whether they declared her Tal-Vashoth postmortem is something that would have taken place after the DLC.

I don't agree with that. So far you've said Iron Bull followed the leader of the group in Trespasser because of unknown reasons. I don't agree with that either. He followed orders of the Qunari. If he's loyal to the Qun.

No, he worked against her most of the DLC. He only decided to turn against the Inquisitor because he feared the mere possibility of being declared Tal-Vashoth.

Are you suggesting that the Triumvirate gave Hissrad his own separate orders? In any case, he did not follow the Triumvirate's will as expressed in the letter. They wanted Viddasala stopped.

Except he only kills his fellow Qunari up to a point, then he turns on the Inquisitor.

I only killed our fellow Qunari up to a point. I only foiled our legitimate plans because no one told me not to. LOL!

Any confusion about this is cleared up by Weekes, who explains that Iron Bull joins with an official Qunari group, following the Qun.

Except he doesn't say that, and your hypothesis makes no sense. If he joined them, why didn't he do it at the elvhen ruins?

A lot of people with more than basic reading comprehension are pointing out to you that your explanation isn't consistent with what Weeke's said. Including me.

And yet none of you have actually proven how it's inconsistent, because all of you are misquoting Weekes and injecting your own ideas into what he said.

In the interests of being fair and throwing a bone to Dai Grepher...

I suppose it might be possible that Viddasala was authorised to launch the invasion, but upon the Inquisitor discovering the plot, it was rapidly called off by the Triumvirate who then went into full spin mode and disavowed ever having sanctioned it.

I suppose it's possible, but there is still no evidence that the Triumvirate authorized it or even knew about it.

At which point she actually did go rogue, believing that it was in the best interests of the Qunari and the future of Thedas to carry it out, so did not tell her underlings that the mission had been aborted by their superiors.

Hmm... no, I think the Ariqun would have reassigned her or at least gone to check on her activities.

Yup. He's a tool of the Qun, he doesn't make choices outside of his role.

But this is about a choice within his role. To follow a horn-headed woman on the offhand chance she is authorized, or refuse the order and remain loyal to the original known order to be a spy within the Inquisition.

[Dai Grepher]

Which is consistent with what Weeke's says because the Qunari have set themselves against the Inquisitor.

Weekes didn't say that, and the Triumvirate valued the alliance. They stated this in the letter and proved it by giving the Inquisition other missions in the two-year gap.

Iron Bull follows his role in opposing the Inquisitor. "His own reasoning" doesn't come into play.

Sure it does. He needed a reason for thinking Viddasala was worth obeying. He could have refused her without consequence. He just didn't want to take the chance, that's all.

I think this is why Weeke's said what he said, to clear up any confusion wrought by Trespasser. Why he wanted to clear things up, I don't know. But he did.

No, he was talking about Iron Bull and why he betrayed the Inquisitor. Even you admitted that.

Maybe he knew we'd be arguing about it.

He was answering a question asked of him by the interviewer. I mean, really... you guys are starting to drift way out there now.

In the Biofan interview he commented on how he'd seen people discussing a Qun-loyal Bull's betrayal and how some forum goers were in denial or claiming that "Bull wouldn't do that...", leading everyone else to state the obvious, "Of course he would, what did you think would happen?"

Clearly he only saw the Twitter or Tumblr arguments, because those early arguments were only about a Qun loyal Hissrad somehow choosing to not attack us even when other Qunari tell him to. I don't think Weekes has seen any of the BSN arguments against Hissrad's choice in the Darvaarad. The Triumvirate letter, the evidence that Viddasala was unauthorized, the fact that she was not Hissrad's commanding officer, the fact that Hissrad had been siding with the Inquisitor throughout most of the DLC before that, etc.

So, if Nazi Germany merely ATTEMPTED an invasion into Poland in September 39 instead of succeeding, they wouldn't be starting a war?

A war requires at least two sides. The Triumvirate did not authorize the attack, and the South did not regard it as an act of war since the Inquisition managed to prevent it and because the Qunari leadership disavowed Viddasala.

At the end of Trespasser, there is no war between the South and Par Vollen. That's a fact.

Had to stop you right here, again, because he did in fact say that.

No, the word "invasion" does not appear anywhere in his statement. You are wrong.

[Dai Grepher]

LOL, watch out - since Weekes used the word war instead of invasion, it means that he never said that the Qunari want to start an invasion!

No, it means that the Qunari did not invade in Trespasser, which is what Robert's claim was. And this proves my point about you guys saying Weekes said things he never actually said.

This is why your side has no credibility. You guys claim Weekes said "invade" when the word "invade" appears nowhere in his statements.
 

This is such a bizarre piece of logic. If I followed it I could believe pretty much everything I'd like... like the "fact" that Inquisitor is a banana. Hey, nobody in game or from devs denied that Inky is a banana! So you can't prove that he/she isn't!

Wrong. Robert claimed that Weekes said something that he clearly did not say. That is not the same as saying you think something is true, and since Weekes didn't say something counter to your belief, that means what you believe is true. I never posited any such argument.

Pretty sure an assassination attempt / Terrorist attack is generally considered grounds for war though.

Correct. But it is not an invasion, which was Robert's claim.

Also, we agree that this assassination attempt was an attempt to start a war. Not an invasion, a war.

What we disagree on is whether that attempt was authorized by the Triumvirate or not.

[IllustriousT]

Hmmm...who was it...who was it...yes --> It was this:

 

jaysus

[robertthebard]

No, the word "invasion" does not appear anywhere in his statement. You are wrong.

I realize that you think starting a war means standing on opposite ends of the playground shouting insults or how you're going to tell, but in the case of nations, starting a war includes an invasion. You can stutter around it, stammer around it and deny it until you're blue in the face, as the general length of this thread demonstrates, but that doesn't change the fact that we have been told that this was an officially sanctioned action.

[Almostfaceman]

I realize that you think starting a war means standing on opposite ends of the playground shouting insults or how you're going to tell, but in the case of nations, starting a war includes an invasion. You can stutter around it, stammer around it and deny it until you're blue in the face, as the general length of this thread demonstrates, but that doesn't change the fact that we have been told that this was an officially sanctioned action.

 

[Sifr]

Because the Triumvirate didn't authorize it. Also, I never said the Viddasala didn't try to start a war. You might be mixing up my statements to various different questions over the course of the thread. 1. The Triumvirate did not authorize any action against the South. So they weren't trying to start a war at that time. 2. Viddasala was trying to start a war with the South, but she was unauthorized. 3. A war was not actually started because we foiled Dragon's Breath.

 

Yes, they did.

 

Weekes said they didn't want it to be an offshoot responsible, they specially chose to have the real Qunari intend to start a war in the South during Trespasser and stand by that decision, rather than weasel out of it with a scapegoat.

 

So if the real Qunari are intending to start a war, that means that the real Qunari were involved in this operation. Which also means the real Qunari, which is lead by the Triumvirate, authorised the mission that we saw take place.

 

Them denying any knowledge of it means nothing, because governments lie about the military operations they conduct all the time. Even if we know the outcome, we still sometimes don't get the entire story and have to go on their "official" version of what happened. For example, the precise mission details of everything that occurred in Zero Dark Thirty are still classified by the US government, even though they made public the mission's objectives and outcome.

 

The point is, if you're planning to invade somewhere and start a war, you don't admit that you've tried to have all the heads of state in your way either eliminated, deposed or assassinated. Nor do you admit that you are involved with the various "rebel" groups who are loyal to you, who happen to be causing mayhem in the country you want to invade. Not even if people are there to point out that they clearly have been getting weapons and supplies from your side, not to mention having proof of the troops that you've been sneaking in to help fight on your behalf.

 

Nope, the official line is always to deny absolutely everything.

 

There was a information minister during a certain conflict a decade ago, who became rather infamous as he'd repeatedly be on telly insisting that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and that the government forces were winning... all despite the visible sight of occupation forces rolling their tanks down the street behind him.

 

(Apologies for being oblique there. Was trying to avoid using real world examples lest we stir up a whole other hornet's nest, but the one above really demonstrates my point on government spin and it's distance from reality rather nicely)

[Addictress]

I realize that you think starting a war means standing on opposite ends of the playground shouting insults or how you're going to tell, but in the case of nations, starting a war includes an invasion. You can stutter around it, stammer around it and deny it until you're blue in the face, as the general length of this thread demonstrates, but that doesn't change the fact that we have been told that this was an officially sanctioned action.

*slaps knee*

[Dai Grepher]

I realize that you think starting a war means standing on opposite ends of the playground shouting insults or how you're going to tell, but in the case of nations, starting a war includes an invasion.

It does include that, but now you are trying to change the subject because you know you've been refuted. You claimed that Weekes said the Qunari invaded or tried to launch an invasion. I proved you wrong. Weekes didn't say that.

The question of if the Qunari in Trespasser tried to invade or not in the game is a separate issue.

Weekes said "start a war". While that can sometimes include invasion, it doesn't always, and Weekes did not say anything about invasion. You are projecting your own wants onto Weekes' statements.

You can stutter around it, stammer around it and deny it until you're blue in the face, as the general length of this thread demonstrates, but that doesn't change the fact that we have been told that this was an officially sanctioned action.

Then show me proof that the Triumvirate sanctioned it. Weekes stated no such thing.

Weekes said they didn't want it to be an offshoot responsible, they specially chose to have the real Qunari intend to start a war in the South during Trespasser and stand by that decision, rather than weasel out of it with a scapegoat.

An offshoot is a group of Qun followers who separate themselves from the Triumvirate, and set out on their own. Or they are Tal-Vashoth. We all agree that the Qunari we fought in Trespasser were not either of those. We fought real Qunari, but that isn't the same as them being authorized.

Being unauthorized does not make them a rogue group. As far as they knew, they were following the demands of the Qun because that is what Viddasala told them.

Now, regardless of what you believe about Weekes' commitment to a war storyline, the fact remains is that Trespasser did end with Viddasala being blamed for all of it (either honestly or as a scapegoat, whichever you want to believe), the Triumvirate disavowing any involvement with her, and with there being no war between Par Vollen and the South. Even the alliance will be maintained, if the alliance was established. I think that is proof that the South concluded that Par Vollen truly was not involved in Dragon's Breath.

So if the real Qunari are intending to start a war, that means that the real Qunari were involved in this operation.

Never wrote anything to the contrary. The question is if those real Qunari were authorized by the Triumvirate.

Which also means the real Qunari, which is lead by the Triumvirate, authorised the mission that we saw take place.

You are jumping to that conclusion without evidence. Real Qunari are quite capable of trying to start a war without being told to do so by anyone in authority over them. Sten's actions in killing everyone at the farm could have been seen as an act of war. Was Sten authorized to kill a farm full of bas? No.

The Arishok was not authorized to take over Kirkwall. Doing so was a blatant act of war and a violation of the Llomeryn Accords. The Arishok didn't care. He did it anyway. He was disavowed by the remaining members of the Triumvirate for his actions.

So you are simply wrong on this. The fact that real Qunari tried to start a war is not proof in itself that they were authorized by the Triumvirate to do anything. Soldiers and agents act on their own all the time. That doesn't mean their superiors approve of their actions or authorized them. Or do you think the Triumvirate authorized The Iron Bull to sound the retreat and let the dreadnought get blown up?

Them denying any knowledge of it means nothing, because governments lie about the military operations they conduct all the time.

I agree that their denial alone isn't proof they weren't involved, but it does mean one thing at least, that it is possible that they weren't involved. It means that the issue is in question. It isn't clear or apparent.

Now, beyond this, my proof involves Viddasala's response to reading the Triumvirate's letter. I think that is proof that she was acting on her own. So my proof doesn't just point to the denial alone, but also Viddasala's reaction to it. That and many other points.

Even if we know the outcome, we still sometimes don't get the entire story and have to go on their "official" version of what happened. For example, the precise mission details of everything that occurred in Zero Dark Thirty are still classified by the US government, even though they made public the mission's objectives and outcome.
 
The point is, if you're planning to invade somewhere and start a war, you don't admit that you've tried to have all the heads of state in your way either eliminated, deposed or assassinated. Nor do you admit that you are involved with the various "rebel" groups who are loyal to you, who happen to be causing mayhem in the country you want to invade. Not even if people are there to point out that they clearly have been getting weapons and supplies from your side, not to mention having proof of the troops that you've been sneaking in to help fight on your behalf.

Nope, the official line is always to deny absolutely everything.

I agree. However, if a general takes a unit into a certain territory and tries to start a war with that territory that you didn't authorize, what would your response be? That you disavow him and that you had no knowledge of or involvement with his actions.

There was a information minister during a certain conflict a decade ago, who became rather infamous as he'd repeatedly be on telly insisting that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and that the government forces were winning... all despite the visible sight of occupation forces rolling their tanks down the street behind him.
 
(Apologies for being oblique there. Was trying to avoid using real world examples lest we stir up a whole other hornet's nest, but the one above really demonstrates my point on government spin and it's distance from reality rather nicely)

I understand. Watch Under Siege with Steven Segal. There is an ensign who is given orders from the second in command that are strange and against regulation. After the officer leaves, the cook tells the ensign to call the Captain and clear the orders with him. The ensign blindly follows the order of the officer...

Spoiler

and ends up like Hissrad.

[Addictress]

It does include that, but now you are trying to change the subject because you know you've been refuted. You claimed that Weekes said the Qunari invaded or tried to launch an invasion. I proved you wrong. Weekes didn't say that.

I thought you were being obtuse on the semantics of saying "they launched an invasion"and how that technically is not true as their attempt failed. But now you concede we've been discussing in general their attempt
An attempt at invasion. An attempt at war inevitably including invasion. These are equivalent.


:/

[Almostfaceman]

Never wrote anything to the contrary. The question is if those real Qunari were authorized by the Triumvirate.

You are jumping to that conclusion without evidence. Real Qunari are quite capable of trying to start a war without being told to do so by anyone in authority over them. Sten's actions in killing everyone at the farm could have been seen as an act of war. Was Sten authorized to kill a farm full of bas? No.

The Arishok was not authorized to take over Kirkwall. Doing so was a blatant act of war and a violation of the Llomeryn Accords. The Arishok didn't care. He did it anyway. He was disavowed by the remaining members of the Triumvirate for his actions.

So you are simply wrong on this. The fact that real Qunari tried to start a war is not proof in itself that they were authorized by the Triumvirate to do anything. Soldiers and agents act on their own all the time. That doesn't mean their superiors approve of their actions or authorized them. Or do you think the Triumvirate authorized The Iron Bull to sound the retreat and let the dreadnought get blown up?
 

 

Weekes clearly says the Qunari are going to war. 

 

What's interesting about your analysis of this is that it tries to confuse the actions of Qunari citizens with official war movements of the Qunari government. Weekes was clearly saying the Qunari government was going to war... 

 

Say I'm an American citizen. I'm in some other country. I do something bad. Or me and a group of fellow Americans do something bad. I could start a war with that country if they decided to be pissed off enough at me to take it out on my country. 

 

This is completely different than my country (America) deciding on its own to go to war. 

 

Now, Weeke's doesn't say "Thedas gets pissed off at some stuff some Qunari citizens do on their own then decide to fight the Qunari nation." Nope. He says "let's have the Qunari start a war". If it were just some zany citizens, they'd be an offshoot. Weekes says this is not an offshoot situation. 

 

By the way, when the Qunari government finds out that any of its citizens are doing something unauthorized, they're re-educated. Anybody who doesn't tow the line... even if they think they're following the Qun... has to be adjusted. If the Qunari who don't tow the line get away, they're declared Tal'Vashoth. If they don't get away or try to escape, they're re-educated or killed. There isn't any evidence for anything else. 

[ModernAcademic]

Even if Par Vollen authorised Dragon Breath, at some point during her mission, the Vidassala might have taken actions that the Triumvirate explicitly forbade.

 

She might have acted against her orders in Trespasser. And the game does give one piece of ambiguous evidence that that might have been the case: the crumpled paper she threw away containing the answer of the Triumvirate to her question of whether she could proceed or not with a new phase of her mission, a phase she had planned on her own, it seems.

 

The Ben-Hassrath have a lot of liberty when carrying out missions abroad, but should they step out of the Qun, then that sole offense is enough for the Qunari to turn their back on him/her and declare them Tal-Vashoth.

 

 

 

Whether the Qunari following the example of Pontius Pilate hintes at them being guilty or not, that's for the player to decide. Without further information on what was going on in Operation Dragon Breath, enough to incriminate the Triumvirate, all we can do is make endless speculation and waste time on circular arguments.

 

 

 

Have some people even considered the possibility that the Vidassala was in contact with one of the members of the Triumvirate who disagreed from the other two and secretly gave her the thumbs up for carrying out her plans for Dragon Breath?

 

Who says the Qunari government is a cohesive structure and without corruption? There might be infighting just as there is everywhere else in Thedas and we would know nothing of it. 

 

 

If there's a "traitor" in the Triumvirate or in the lower levels of the government, then the true culprit(s) might be lurking there. In the end, the Vidassala might have just been following orders or received authorisation to act from someone who approved of her plans.

 

It might be someone moved by faith - who believes the Qunari have deviated from the true Qun and wishes to restore it to what it was -, moved by urgency - the Breach in the South showed the Qunari are not ready to face the threat of magic and more drastic measures are needed to contain it -or another reason that serves as an excuse for going against the rest of the Triumvirate. Treason is often called righteous insubordination or heroic insurgence when the villain is the government or an inneficient and unfair political system. 

 

DA 4 will be set in Tevinter and Trespasser hinted the war with the Qunari might become intensified, so perhaps we'll have a glimpse of the truth in the next installment. Who knows...

[Almostfaceman]

 The question is if those real Qunari were authorized by the Triumvirate.
 

 

What's even more interesting is that you or I don't decide who is and isn't "real Qunari". Even the Arishok goofing around in Kirkwall doesn't decide if he's "real Qunari" or, to be more precise... following the Qun.

 

You know who decides who's following the Qun? The Triumvirate. There isn't room for personal interpretation. If a Qunari goes out and does something that the government says is "outside the Qun" they get re-educated. Or killed. Or they can escape and the Triumvirate declares them Tal'Vashoth. 

 

So it doesn't matter if I think the Arishok was following the Qun. It doesn't matter if you think he was following the Qun. It doesn't matter if the Arishok thinks he's following the Qun. The final word on that is the Triumvirate. Of course, because of the nature of cause and effect, this is decided after-the-fact. So, while we're in the middle of fighting them... YOU don't get to declare them "real" Qunari. That all depends on how the Triumvirate wants to handle things. 

 

Iron Bull is the perfect example of this in action. If he goes against the Triumvirate, he gets declared Tal'Vashoth. Now, he doesn't even consider the option that they're wrong because he may have a different interpretation of the Qun. Nope, they say he's Tal'Vashoth. So he's Tal'Vashoth. 

[Almostfaceman]

 

Who says the Qunari government is a cohesive structure 

 

Sten and Iron Bull. Also Weekes when he says the Qunari are going to start a war. 

[ModernAcademic]

Sten and Iron Bull. Also Weekes when he says the Qunari are going to start a war. 

 

Both Qunari. And they tell it to outsiders.

 

Remember how the Guardian tells Sten he had "allowed the Qunari to be seen in such light" after murdering an innocent family? And how he's always comparing everything in Ferelden to Par Vollen just to show how Qunari are more ingenious, craftier and overall better than Southerners?

 

So that's the version they tell non-Qunari about their government. That it's perfect. Why would they say otherwise?

Because we all know what the Qunari think of outsiders...bas, not even worthy of respect.

 

(I suspect bas must mean cattle or something similar)

 

Not much of an impartial and realistic opinion, wouldn't you say?

 

Until our PC lands on Par Vollen or gets to play a Qunari who sees the Triumvirate up close, I'm not buying whatever Qunari have to say about their homeland.

[Almostfaceman]

Both Qunari. And they tell it to outsiders.

 

Remember how the Guardian tells Sten he had "allowed the Qunari to be seen in such light" after murdering an innocent family? And how he's always comparing everything in Ferelden to Par Vollen just to show how Qunari are more ingenious, craftier and overall better than Southerners?

 

So that's the version they tell non-Qunari about their government. That it's perfect. Why would they say otherwise?

Because we all know what the Qunari think of outsiders...bas, not even worthy of respect.

 

(I suspect bas must mean cattle or something similar)

 

Not much of an impartial and realistic opinion, wouldn't you say?

 

Until our PC lands on Par Vollen or gets to play a Qunari who sees the Triumvirate up close, I'm not buying whatever Qunari have to say about their homeland.

 

Weekes explains that the Qunari situation isn't an "offshoot" situation. Any internal politics or machinations at this point are irrelevant enough that the writers consider the Qunari movement towards war a homogeneous one. 

[ModernAcademic]

Weekes explains that the Qunari situation isn't an "offshoot" situation. Any internal politics or machinations at this point are irrelevant enough that the writers consider the Qunari movement towards war a homogeneous one. 

 

Yup, there will be war, those Vints are f*****, I'm not denying that, but I'm hoping we get to see some political infighting in Par Vollen as well.

 

Or at least evidence of how Qunari society REALLY is like. With, you know, our own eyes?

[sniper_arrow]

It does include that, but now you are trying to change the subject because you know you've been refuted. You claimed that Weekes said the Qunari invaded or tried to launch an invasion. I proved you wrong. Weekes didn't say that.

The question of if the Qunari in Trespasser tried to invade or not in the game is a separate issue.

Weekes said "start a war". While that can sometimes include invasion, it doesn't always, and Weekes did not say anything about invasion. You are projecting your own wants onto Weekes' statements.


Then show me proof that the Triumvirate sanctioned it. Weekes stated no such thing.


An offshoot is a group of Qun followers who separate themselves from the Triumvirate, and set out on their own. Or they are Tal-Vashoth. We all agree that the Qunari we fought in Trespasser were not either of those. We fought real Qunari, but that isn't the same as them being authorized.

Being unauthorized does not make them a rogue group. As far as they knew, they were following the demands of the Qun because that is what Viddasala told them.

Now, regardless of what you believe about Weekes' commitment to a war storyline, the fact remains is that Trespasser did end with Viddasala being blamed for all of it (either honestly or as a scapegoat, whichever you want to believe), the Triumvirate disavowing any involvement with her, and with there being no war between Par Vollen and the South. Even the alliance will be maintained, if the alliance was established. I think that is proof that the South concluded that Par Vollen truly was not involved in Dragon's Breath.


Never wrote anything to the contrary. The question is if those real Qunari were authorized by the Triumvirate.


You are jumping to that conclusion without evidence. Real Qunari are quite capable of trying to start a war without being told to do so by anyone in authority over them. Sten's actions in killing everyone at the farm could have been seen as an act of war. Was Sten authorized to kill a farm full of bas? No.

The Arishok was not authorized to take over Kirkwall. Doing so was a blatant act of war and a violation of the Llomeryn Accords. The Arishok didn't care. He did it anyway. He was disavowed by the remaining members of the Triumvirate for his actions.

So you are simply wrong on this. The fact that real Qunari tried to start a war is not proof in itself that they were authorized by the Triumvirate to do anything. Soldiers and agents act on their own all the time. That doesn't mean their superiors approve of their actions or authorized them. Or do you think the Triumvirate authorized The Iron Bull to sound the retreat and let the dreadnought get blown up?


I agree that their denial alone isn't proof they weren't involved, but it does mean one thing at least, that it is possible that they weren't involved. It means that the issue is in question. It isn't clear or apparent.

Now, beyond this, my proof involves Viddasala's response to reading the Triumvirate's letter. I think that is proof that she was acting on her own. So my proof doesn't just point to the denial alone, but also Viddasala's reaction to it. That and many other points.


I agree. However, if a general takes a unit into a certain territory and tries to start a war with that territory that you didn't authorize, what would your response be? That you disavow him and that you had no knowledge of or involvement with his actions.


I understand. Watch Under Siege with Steven Segal. There is an ensign who is given orders from the second in command that are strange and against regulation. After the officer leaves, the cook tells the ensign to call the Captain and clear the orders with him. The ensign blindly follows the order of the officer...

Spoiler

and ends up like Hissrad.

 

Have you even asked Weekes to begin with regarding about the Viddasala?

[robertthebard]

It does include that, but now you are trying to change the subject because you know you've been refuted. You claimed that Weekes said the Qunari invaded or tried to launch an invasion. I proved you wrong. Weekes didn't say that.

The question of if the Qunari in Trespasser tried to invade or not in the game is a separate issue.

Weekes said "start a war". While that can sometimes include invasion, it doesn't always, and Weekes did not say anything about invasion. You are projecting your own wants onto Weekes' statements.

I see, so in other words: Oops, but you can't backpedal on your position now. So Weekes said that they're going to start a war, but that they didn't start a war. The actual scenario is that they failed to start a war, because Solas exposed them. If not for that "intervention", Dragon's Breath succeeds, and the South, or what's left of it, is at war with the Qunari, er, I mean the rogue faction that launched Dragon's Breath, since you're claiming that, despite Weekes telling us that they're not an offshoot of an offshoot, they were in fact an offshoot.

I hear it, plain as day, every time you post, even if I'm not logged on to these forums:

BUT MY QUNARI WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING!!!1111ELEVEN!!

Here's the problem, they're not your Qunari. They belong to BW, and if the Lead Writer says they're doing something, they're doing something. You can jockey around with semantics all day, obviously, but you're not going to convince us, or maybe it's really yourself that you're trying to convince, that Weekes didn't know what he was talking about.

[Dai Grepher]

I thought you were being obtuse on the semantics of saying "they launched an invasion"and how that technically is not true as their attempt failed.

You misread what I wrote.

The discussion above is regarding what robertthebard claimed. He claimed that Weekes said "invasion". I and some others pointed out that Weekes did not say the word "invasion".

Now, whether the Qunari in Trespasser tried to launch an invasion or not is a separate issue, but we were not discussing that.

But now you concede we've been discussing in general their attempt An attempt at invasion. An attempt at war inevitably including invasion. These are equivalent.

We were discussing what Weekes actually said. He did not say "invasion". That is all we were discussing.

As far as the game goes, my position is that Viddasala was always trying to start a war and start an invasion by Par Vollen to the South. But the Triumvirate was not trying to start anything with the South. Viddasala was acting on her own.

Weekes clearly says the Qunari are going to war.

No he didn't. He said, "So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war, and let's own it."

The Qunari he is referring to are the Qunari in Trespasser, not the Triumvirate. And while those Qunari tried to start a war, they failed to do so. Which means the Qunari nation is not going to war. These are all facts.

What's interesting about your analysis of this is that it tries to confuse the actions of Qunari citizens with official war movements of the Qunari government. Weekes was clearly saying the Qunari government was going to war...

No he didn't. He never mentioned the Qunari government. I quoted him.

Say I'm an American citizen. I'm in some other country. I do something bad. Or me and a group of fellow Americans do something bad. I could start a war with that country if they decided to be pissed off enough at me to take it out on my country. 
 
This is completely different than my country (America) deciding on its own to go to war.

Mostly accurate, and in your scenario, you would be Viddasala, and the other Americans would be those who think they should be following you. The U.S. Government would be the Triumvirate, disavowing you and your actions. The only difference is that Viddasala is more than just a mere citizen. She is a members of the Ben-Hassrath. So in your scenario you would have to be a member of the CIA.

Now, Weeke's doesn't say "Thedas gets pissed off at some stuff some Qunari citizens do on their own then decide to fight the Qunari nation." Nope.

So what? I never used Weekes' comments as proof of my position. I am only pointing out that his comments do not support your position.

He says "let's have the Qunari start a war". If it were just some zany citizens, they'd be an offshoot. Weekes says this is not an offshoot situation.

It is you opinion that they would be an offshoot. They are members of the Ben-Hassrath, even if they are acting without orders from the Triumvirate. So they are not an offshoot.

By the way, when the Qunari government finds out that any of its citizens are doing something unauthorized, they're re-educated. Anybody who doesn't tow the line... even if they think they're following the Qun... has to be adjusted. If the Qunari who don't tow the line get away, they're declared Tal'Vashoth. If they don't get away or try to escape, they're re-educated or killed. There isn't any evidence for anything else.

So what's your point? Viddasala hid her actions from the Triumvirate for those very reasons.