1580 réponses à ce sujet

[Andromelek]

The one to blame for the Viddasala's plot is the Ariqun, he/she (I'm not sure about the gender of the current Ariqun) controls the spies, it strikes me that it actually gives him/her more power than the Arishok or the Arigena.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I've never doubted otherwise. A rogue or unauthorized agent would never have access to the vast amounts of ressources the Viddasala had. Hordes of Antaam, warriors, elite Ben-Hassrath enforcers, enough magical artifacts to make a Magister green with envy, a cabal of Saarebas powerful enough to open Eluvians en masse, spies across every court in southern Thedas and the Inquisition, enough Gaatlok to blow up all those aforementioned people, a massive fortress, and a freaking captive dragon? This isn't the work of an islolated operative, unless the Qun's leaders have simply no oversight on their prominent agents at all which seems highly unlikely.

 

Not only that, but the Viddasala's plan only reaches its full value if the Antaam is poised to take advantage of it by attacking south Thedas just as its power structures are in disarray. 

[In Exile]

You should go back and read my post. I never denied that Viddasala was an official agent within the Qun. My claim was that she was acting on her own without authorization from the Triumvirate (similar to the Arishok in DA2). Weekes said nothing to the contrary. You simply misunderstood him. Better luck next time.

 

No. That the Viddasala overstepped the bounds of her authority does not mean that her original mission was not authorized by the Qun - it just means she went rogue. You're conflating two very important concepts: authorization of the mission, with authorization of her execution of the same. 

 

As to points like her fabricating her own explosives, that's just how clandestine missions work. IRL, part of being covert is not using stuff that is 100% and obviously traceable back to the government sponsoring your action. 

[Ieldra]

It's official. The Qun is Thedas' Cerberus

[greenbrownblue]

.....I thought it was obvious 

Lol... Same here...

[In Exile]

It's official. The Qun is Thedas' Cerberus

 

How so? Also, templars?

[Hiemoth]

 

He portrays it as a Demand of the Qun™. Recall his rant to Hawke in Act I, that we should be grateful that the Qun does not demand he take action re: Kirkwall, and how he alludes to the demand potentially "changing" in the future. Yes, as a practical matter the endless insults and provocations lead him to decide that now is as good a time as any to just raze the city to the ground since he also has a lead on the Tome of Koslun, but the fiction matters. 

 

I agree that the Qun is reactive, but it's important to appreciate just how driven they are by fictions re: their rules (akin to legal fictions in legal parlance). 

It's the No True Scotsman Fallacy (from wikipedia): 

 

I agree with this for the most part, but again this is slightly incorrect concerning the Arishok in DA2 and I write this as having just replayed that sequence within the past week.

 

The way it is presented, the demand itself stays constantly the same, to find the book, but the method of trying to achieve that changes. Since the Arishok was there not to conquer, he originally chose not to do that, but in reaction to provocations, he chose to conquer as that would make the initial task easier. The demand itself never changes over that arc.

 

By the way, what I often find interesting in discussions over Qunari, especially when someone argues that DAI misrepresents, is how Sten is used as the defining character of that culture and DA2 is ignored despite the fact that out of all the DA games, DA2 and MoA have given most actual insight in to the culture. Both Sten and IB talk about the Qunari and infodump about them, but DA2 actually shows the culture in action and reacting to events.

[In Exile]

I agree with this for the most part, but again this is slightly incorrect concerning the Arishok in DA2 and I write this as having just replayed that sequence within the past week.

 

The way it is presented, the demand itself stays constantly the same, to find the book, but the method of trying to achieve that changes. Since the Arishok was there not to conquer, he originally chose not to do that, but in reaction to provocations, he chose to conquer as that would make the initial task easier. The demand itself never changes over that arc.

 

By the way, what I often find interesting in discussions over Qunari, especially when someone argues that DAI misrepresents, is how Sten is used as the defining character of that culture and DA2 is ignored despite the fact that out of all the DA games, DA2 and MoA have given most actual insight in to the culture. Both Sten and IB talk about the Qunari and infodump about them, but DA2 actually shows the culture in action and reacting to events.

 

Where we differ, I think, is that I don't view the "Demand" of the Qun as being simply the instruction to perform a task, but also the means by which the task might be legitimately performed. For example, I would say that before the end of Act II, it was a Demand of the Qun not to raze Kirkwall to the ground and massacre every living being there, and build a ship out of their corpses. I see "Demands" in this sense as a kind of associated web of concepts. 

 

The Demand of the Qun, put differently, encompasses the cast and the authorized means of performing it. This is interpretive fluidity is also what allows the Qunari to engage in the post-hoc justification of their actions and simultaneously renounce those actions. 

[Mistic]

By the way, what I often find interesting in discussions over Qunari, especially when someone argues that DAI misrepresents, is how Sten is used as the defining character of that culture and DA2 is ignored despite the fact that out of all the DA games, DA2 and MoA have given most actual insight in to the culture. Both Sten and IB talk about the Qunari and infodump about them, but DA2 actually shows the culture in action and reacting to events.

 

But doesn't that work in two ways? Mostly, Sten is used as a counter-argument because he talks directly about the less savoury aspects of the Qun, while DA2 tries to offer a more positive vision of them. Both are equally valid, since I've yet to find any instance in which DA2 material goes against what we learnt of the Qunari in DA:O.

[In Exile]

But doesn't that work in two ways? Mostly, Sten is used as a counter-argument because he talks directly about the less savoury aspects of the Qun, while DA2 tries to offer a more positive vision of them. Both are equally valid, since I've yet to find any instance in which DA2 material goes against what we learnt of the Qunari in DA:O.

 

But I don't think either DA2 or DA:I emphasize the more positive version of them. In fact, I think DA:I likely gives us the darkest version of the Qun. What Sten does differently is his affect - he's more combative.

[Mistic]

But I don't think either DA2 or DA:I emphasize the more positive version of them. In fact, I think DA:I likely gives us the darkest version of the Qun. What Sten does differently is his affect - he's more combative.

 

I didn't mention DA:I

[In Exile]

I didn't mention DA:I

The post you responded to did, however? 

[Hiemoth]

But doesn't that work in two ways? Mostly, Sten is used as a counter-argument because he talks directly about the less savoury aspects of the Qun, while DA2 tries to offer a more positive vision of them. Both are equally valid, since I've yet to find any instance in which DA2 material goes against what we learnt of the Qunari in DA:O.

 

My general confusion about how much Sten is used as the source on the Qunari is that he doesn't actually say much about them. In fact, he specifically refuses to talk about them. Most of the things he is quoted on are pretty vague statements lacking context. Which also is the reason it fits so well with DA2, as there isn't much to make fit. However, all that IB says about the Qunari also fits with what was established in DA2.

 

Hence I find it curious that when discussing how the Qunari are represented in DAI, Sten from DAO is used as the counter-argument, despite the small amount of information he actually provides, instead of DA2, which pretty much defines the Qunari culture as represented in the games so far.

[In Exile]

My general confusion about how much Sten is used as the source on the Qunari is that he doesn't actually say much about them. In fact, he specifically refuses to talk about them. Most of the things he is quoted on are pretty vague statements lacking context. Which also is the reason it fits so well with DA2, as there isn't much to make fit. However, all that IB says about the Qunari also fits with what was established in DA2.

 

Hence I find it curious that when discussing how the Qunari are represented in DAI, Sten from DAO is used as the counter-argument, despite the small amount of information he actually provides, instead of DA2, which pretty much defines the Qunari culture as represented in the games so far.

 

Much of what he says also confirms the very 'controversial' things Sten says about the Qunari. The issue is that a lot of people have very strong and clear preconceptions about the Qunari, and see DA:I as confirming them rather than undermining them. As they then reason from these preconceptions. DA:I is a clear departure. DA2 didn't really challenge preconceptions as much.

[Mistic]

The post you responded to did, however? 

 

The post only mentioned DA2 and MoA as positive insight, not DA:I. If I'm not mistaken, the complaint seems to be that Sten (DA:O) and IB (DA:I) infodump about the Qunari, but players forget that only in DA2 we saw their culture in full force.

 

My general confusion about how much Sten is used as the source on the Qunari is that he doesn't actually say much about them. In fact, he specifically refuses to talk about them. Most of the things he is quoted on are pretty vague statements lacking context. Which also is the reason it fits so well with DA2, as there isn't much to make fit. However, all that IB says about the Qunari also fits with what was established in DA2.

 

Hence I find it curious that when discussing how the Qunari are represented in DAI, Sten from DAO is used as the counter-argument, despite the small amount of information he actually provides, instead of DA2, which pretty much defines the Qunari culture as represented in the games so far.

 

I understand. Nevertheless, Sten's quotes are valid when they explain an event not covered by DA2 information. In this case, the events in Trespasser. We don't have all the pieces about the Qun, but when a certain perspective doesn't match the data available, the wrong one is the perspective, not the data.

 

In this case, if Sten warned in DA:O that Qunari don't really honor their treaties, and word of god confirms that it's what happened in Trespasser, his words count more than fanon based on the impression given by the Qunari in DA2, since the Qunari themselves didn't say anything to contradict that possibility.

[Gilli]

My general confusion about how much Sten is used as the source on the Qunari is that he doesn't actually say much about them. In fact, he specifically refuses to talk about them. Most of the things he is quoted on are pretty vague statements lacking context. Which also is the reason it fits so well with DA2, as there isn't much to make fit. However, all that IB says about the Qunari also fits with what was established in DA2.

 

Hence I find it curious that when discussing how the Qunari are represented in DAI, Sten from DAO is used as the counter-argument, despite the small amount of information he actually provides, instead of DA2, which pretty much defines the Qunari culture as represented in the games so far.

 

Your post just reminded me of a banter between Bull & Varric

 

Varric: You know, I met the Arishok.

Iron Bull: Oh, the old one? Man, he had an impressive rack. The new Arishok doesn't have horns at all. Usually means they're destined for something special.

Varric: I met him too. The only thing they seem to have in common is a tendency to burn things.

Iron Bull: That pretty much sums up the antaam, yes.

[vertigomez]

My general confusion about how much Sten is used as the source on the Qunari is that he doesn't actually say much about them. In fact, he specifically refuses to talk about them. Most of the things he is quoted on are pretty vague statements lacking context. Which also is the reason it fits so well with DA2, as there isn't much to make fit. However, all that IB says about the Qunari also fits with what was established in DA2.

Hence I find it curious that when discussing how the Qunari are represented in DAI, Sten from DAO is used as the counter-argument, despite the small amount of information he actually provides, instead of DA2, which pretty much defines the Qunari culture as represented in the games so far.

My guess is that our interactions with the Arishok were 'tainted' by his being an antagonist. If everyone in the game constantly tells you that tensions are high and the Qunari are going to get fed up any minute (or as far as Petrice and her ilk concerned, came with the explicit purpose of conquering Kirkwall), then no matter what he does or says he's The Bad Guy™ and his motivations get swept under the rug when they should be analyzed. Compare that with having a chit-chat session with Sten.

Much of what he says also confirms the very 'controversial' things Sten says about the Qunari. The issue is that a lot of people have very strong and clear preconceptions about the Qunari, and see DA:I as confirming them rather than undermining them. As they then reason from these preconceptions. DA:I is a clear departure. DA2 didn't really challenge preconceptions as much.

Really? I thought all three games were perfectly consistent, but when people do start complaining about retcons it seems they mostly aim it at DAI, because suddenly we're not just dealing with stoic soldiers whose job it is to kill people and not explain the intricacies of their philosophy or their society. edit: Nevermind Sten saying it's weird that you assume all Qunari are like him, or conversations like this which present them as ordinary people:

Varric: How did you learn to speak Qunari?
Tallis: I wouldn't call what he does "speaking Qunari."
Fenris: I picked it up by listening to them.
Varric: That's the part I don't get. I've almost never heard Qunari talking to each other. They just stand around and glower.
Fenris: That's because they know you're watching. When there's no foreigners around, they gossip and complain just like anyone.
Tallis: Sometimes more. The antaam has made grousing a sport.

[In Exile]

Really? I thought all three games were perfectly consistent, but when people do start complaining about retcons it seems they mostly aim it at DAI, because suddenly we're not just dealing with stoic soldiers whose job it is to kill people and not explain the intricacies of their philosophy or their society.

 

I also think the games are consistent. But I will say this: people tend to misread the IB a lot, because he's often recoiling in horror at the prospect of a Qunari invasion. A lot of his dialogue seems more aimed at convincing himself than us. 

[vertigomez]

I also think the games are consistent. But I will say this: people tend to misread the IB a lot, because he's often recoiling in horror at the prospect of a Qunari invasion. A lot of his dialogue seems more aimed at convincing himself than us.

I agree. He spends much of the game pre-Demands of the Qun trying to squish his feelings into a Qun-shaped mould, never quite succeeding. Doesn't mean the mould's broken, though. I think the Qun itself has always been consistent, even if we have to filter it through his eye(s) or Sten's or the Arishok's.

[robertthebard]

Provided the lying and cheating follows a strict set of rules guided by the Qun. The Qunari are not all about results. The path you take to achieve such results matters.

If a Ben-Hassrath meets a Demand of the Qun, but does so by disrespecting the Qun's philosophy, then to the eyes of his people he has failed.

This is why the Qunari have such a highly organized society and dictate how people must perform even the most meaningless everyday tasks. The way of life in the Qun must reflect its philosophy. Otherwise, you're declared Tal Vashoth.

I'm curious, what reference materials are you using to draw your conclusions? Nothing that I have seen in 3 games is contradicted by what we see in Tresspasser, or by the facts laid out in the interview. We have some quotes from Sten in this very thread that show that the Qunari are more than ready to lie/cheat/steal their way through a situation, if it suits them/conforms to the Qun. Yet you're going on as if you'd written a thesis about their philosophy based on a lot more information than we have available.

[Hiemoth]

I understand. Nevertheless, Sten's quotes are valid when they explain an event not covered by DA2 information. In this case, the events in Trespasser. We don't have all the pieces about the Qun, but when a certain perspective doesn't match the data available, the wrong one is the perspective, not the data.

 

In this case, if Sten warned in DA:O that Qunari don't really honor their treaties, and word of god confirms that it's what happened in Trespasser, his words count more than fanon based on the impression given by the Qunari in DA2, since the Qunari themselves didn't say anything to contradict that possibility.

 

I agree with most of your comment, although I can't really recall anything Sten said in DAO that would contradict the Trespasser events. Partially, again, because Sten doesn't actually say much about the Qunari.

 

To clarify my point a little bit, I didn't mean that DA2 made Sten or IB 's comments obsolete, but rather that it provides the cultural context for what they are talking about. Hence, I don't think Sten's comments can be used against anything IB said, or vice versa, without considering them both from the perspective of the base culture as established in DA2. Don't know if I managed to explain myself any better there, but I'm sticking to it.

 

 

My guess is that our interactions with the Arishok were 'tainted' by his being an antagonist. If everyone in the game constantly tells you that tensions are high and the Qunari are going to get fed up any minute (or as far as Petrice and her ilk concerned, came with the explicit purpose of conquering Kirkwall), then no matter what he does or says he's The Bad Guy™ and his motivations get swept under the rug when they should be analyzed. Compare that with having a chit-chat session with Sten.


Really? I thought all three games were perfectly consistent, but when people do start complaining about retcons it seems they mostly aim it at DAI, because suddenly we're not just dealing with stoic soldiers whose job it is to kill people and not explain the intricacies of their philosophy or their society. edit: Nevermind Sten saying it's weird that you assume all Qunari are like him, or conversations like this which present them as ordinary people:

Varric: How did you learn to speak Qunari?
Tallis: I wouldn't call what he does "speaking Qunari."
Fenris: I picked it up by listening to them.
Varric: That's the part I don't get. I've almost never heard Qunari talking to each other. They just stand around and glower.
Fenris: That's because they know you're watching. When there's no foreigners around, they gossip and complain just like anyone.
Tallis: Sometimes more. The antaam has made grousing a sport.

 

Man, I hadn't seen that discussion, it is pretty hilarious.

 

You are probably correct about the viewpoint thing, although I do find it a little bit sad. Outside one possible exception, I can't think of another Bioware game that has put as much effort in conveying the antagonists' motivations than DA2, yet bizarrely often I've seen them just kind of ignored or labelled simply crazy.

 

And slighy point on Petrice, I actually she would have been happier if the Qunari had come as simple conquerors. For her, the peaceful Qunari were a larger threat as she saw them act as a temptation to the Faithful. Although Elthina's smackdown on that concept was kind of awesome.

[Dabrikishaw]

Weekes confirmed that the Viddasala was authorized by the Triumvirate by stating that she was Qunari. I'm not seeing how anyone can say there's a meaningful difference there.

[thats1evildude]

Weekes confirmed that the Viddasala was authorized by the Triumvirate by stating that she was Qunari. I'm not seeing how anyone can say there's a meaningful difference there.

Only if you're swayed by trivial things like "evidence" or "logic."

[In Exile]

Only if you're swayed by trivial things like "evidence" or "logic."

 

That can't be true, because the evidence of her being authorized is overwhelming. As to logic, well, people seem to confuse, as I say above, the difference between being authorized to execute a mission and being authorized to execute a mission by a particular means.

[Dai Grepher]

What Dai Grepher is saying is somewhat borne out by the storyline but I still think that what PW says is correct and the leadership in Par Vollen had authorised her mission.

Weekes did not say that Par Vollen authorized the mission.

Essentially the moment the big hole appeared in the sky, the Qun leadership decided they needed to do something about the out of control mages in the south.   This makes sense since this large scale reality changing magic affects everyone.    They took a two pronged approach, authorising the Viddasala to carry out her own investigations and ordering Hissrad to ingratiate himself with the Inquisition.

Impossible. Viddasala could not have began until Solas opened the eluvians, which was at the end of Inquisition at the earliest. By that time, the breach was closed, Corypheus destroyed, and the alliance cemented. The Triumvirate then continued to entrust the Inquisition with various missions involving magic and demons. The "Iron Bull and the last few years" note confirms this. Viddasala was likely angry that the Inquisition was outperforming her in her own role. Her claim that the order was given when the Breach occurred is a lie, and accepting Iron Bull's help would only give the Triumvirate more reason to trust the Inquisition, hence the offer of an alliance to test the Inquisition's abilities and character. Proving worthy in that removed all doubt of the Inquisition's reliability, as well as Iron Bull's.

The only way Dragon's Breath was an official operation is if it was a contingency plan that the Triumvirate decided to cancel in the event that the Inquisition proved itself worthy. The Inquisitor can do that, and even be named basalit-an.

What is less clear is at what point the Viddasala's actions went off brief.    We know from that Templar convert in the Deep Roads that her actions with the Saarebas were beyond what she should have been doing, which I believe Bull confirms, but essentially what she was trying to do was find a way of strengthening the Veil and reducing the flow of magic, which had she succeeded would have been something the leadership would have welcomed, so who is to say that she hadn't contacted Par Vollen, got their authorisation but with the proviso, if it goes wrong then we will disavow all knowledge.

Because she intercepted the letter from the Triumvirate and crumpled it up. The Darvaarad was also full of things that she would not have been authorized to tamper with. Giving lyrium to saarebas was also a no no, regardless of her motives.

You also have to notice how her actions are erratic and scattered. She had red lyrium and other dangerous magical things being researched, she had a pipe dream about blowing up the South, she had elvhen ruins being occupied, she had lyrium being mined to give to saarebas, she was making her own gaatlok from a dragon she was keeping in captivity, and she had a network of mirrors being mapped. She was doing all these things at one time? Just her? No other top ranking Qunari officials? Why would the Triumvirate authorize any of that, let alone assign one agent to oversee all of it?

The same would hold true of the planned invasion.   Obviously there would be no point her going ahead with the plan without the leadership being in the know because the whole point was to take advantage of the chaos following the assassination of the leaders across the south.   So their agents in the cities would need to be primed ready to act when the moment occurred, as would their forces (using the eluvians for fast travel from Par Vollen).    They wouldn't have needed huge forces in each city; the Arishok nearly succeeded in taking over Kirkwall with only a token army of qunari and the support of their elven converts.   All they needed was the signal to act; the large explosion in the seat of government.

None of this is possible. Viddasala only hoped that Par Vollen would use the opportunity to attack. But had she been successful, the Triumvirate only would have sent her to the re-educators. Par Vollen was in no position to invade all of Ferelden and Orlais, let alone the entire south. They couldn't even beat Tevinter. Sending forces south would have weakened them everywhere, and Tevinter would have been able to launch a counterattack that would have devastated them. Par Vollen also knows that killing Ferelden and Orlais' leaders would do nothing but cause others like them to take their place.

And why would the Triumvirate attack Demerim when just two years prior it helped save it from a Venatori fire ship? And if their plan was always to take the South, why not let the fire ship be successful?

Kirkwall was weak. And the Arishok can be defeated in single combat by just one Fereldan.

They eluvians were not reliable modes of transportation. Also, none of the Ferelden cities have eluvians. The closest know eluvian to Denerim is in the Dragon Bone Wastes on the northern coast.

Any explosion would only call in the spies. It would not alert any soldiers or ships waiting outside the cities. The only way a plan like that works is if it happens at a predetermined time. Yet when the plot is discovered Viddasala attempts to carry the plan out ahead of schedule. More proof that it isn't a coordinated attack.

However, when the plot was uncovered at the eleventh hour they naturally had to disavow their involvement both to safeguard their agents and the treaty that is keeping the south from aiding Tevinter against them.

Or the Triumvirate truly did not know about it.

It is noticeable in the epilogue that if you sided with the Qun, they contact the Divine and ask for her support (and that of her private army the Inquisition if you keep it going) against Tevinter, again insisting that the Viddasala was acting on her own.

Because she was acting on her own.

The only truth that the Qun are loyal to is the Qun itself.    Members of the Qun, particularly those higher up, should be well aware that they are dispensable if they fail in the mission, since they have not fulfilled he demands of the Qun, one of the chief ones is not to fail.

Yet Viddasala crumpled up the letter to the Inquisition out of anger. Why? Because she knew she had been exposed to her superiors. That's why she had been intercepting Hissrad's letters. She didn't want word to get out.

Whilst the Arishok may have recovered the tome, his mission was to do so without compromising the peace treaty with the southern nations; had his takeover of Kirkwall been successful, then the leadership would probably have overlooked this aspect.

Do you realize what you just wrote? Had his takeover of Kirkwall been successful it would have violated the Llomeryn Accords.

However, it was not successful, so even if he returned home with the tome, he was always going to be stripped of office and the leadership disavow his actions.

But according to the Arishok himself, he was not authorized to attack Kirkwall. So of course the rest of the Triumvirate would strip him of his rank for attacking Kirkwall.

The same is true of the Viddasala; she attacked Solas likely knowing what he would do to her because she had failed and placed them in a compromising situation, so even had she returned home, that would have been an end of her role and likely her life.

Or she attacked him because she knew that the Qunari would punish her for acting without authorization.