1580 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

Okay, assault after assault is what Tevinter endures. One Qunari flipping out on a farm then quickly submitting to justice, the Arishok reacting poorly to various offenses in a slum of a city then being denounced by the other leaders, and Viddasala's actions mainly blamed on Solas and the Inquisition "provoking" the Qunari; none of these rise to the level of "assault after assault". And this is over the span of 14 years.


You really see no significant difference between the Triumvirate actively trying to attack covertly and the Triumvirate being encumbered by the foolishness of their own agents?

Again, you won't even admit that it's possible that the Triumvirate lacked proper oversight of Viddasala, which allowed her to do what she did?


The females aren't. The merchants aren't. The bakers aren't.


Of course facts don't matter to you. I'll take this as you retracting your point about the Triumvirate updating their oversight policies after the Arishok's actions.


Not if that later date allows the South time to catch up to the Qunari in military strength and technology, or surpass them further regarding magic.

Honestly, would you prefer a protracted war over the course of centuries, or one massive war at the end of centuries of peace?


Yeah, the time to strike the Qunari, not the time for the Qunari to strike the South. Which is my entire point.


The Arishok says he is not authorized to take Kirkwall. The Ariqun and Arigena denounce him. The Triumvirate letter disavows Viddasala. The South is not at war with the Qunari at the end of Trespasser, and the epilogue states that the Triumvirate requests the Divine's aid in toppling Tevinter.


No you don't. He never said that.


This discussion is about the South's perspective, and that they view the Accords as still being in effect despite the Viddasala's actions.


That Trespasser wasn't authorized, or Dragon's Breath?

http://dragonage.wik...ers_and_Replies

There's your codex. So are you going to accept the canon facts now?

Nope, this is just the letter, it doesn't certify anything. As has been discussed here, it could well be a forgery even. So, where are the entries behind this entry that certify that it's not Plausible Deniability? Where is the evidence that contradicts a Qun loyal IB turning on the Inquisitor? This was the specific question in the interview in the OP, and the answer was that it was because it wasn't a rogue faction, or an offshoot of an offshoot. So we're going to need something that contradicts these Word of God statements.

[Dai Grepher]

Weekes has stated otherwise and stated the writer's intention,

No he didn't. Saying the Qunari in Trespasser were not a rogue group is not the same as saying they were authorized. Also, in the conference video, Weekes and Epler confirm that Viddasala was not authorized.

so aside from a letter that therefore is the Qunari invoking plausible deniability, what else do you have to present to the court beyond thinking that the Qunari are saints who'd never lie about their goals or intentions?

The Burden of Proof is on your side to prove that the letter is subterfuge and that the Triumvirate had knowledge of Viddasala's actions.

You also post a strawman argument. I never claimed they were saints who would never lie. But again, the onus is on you to prove that they lied.

The letter stated that they had no knowledge of Viddasala's actions, and this letter was in Viddasala's possession. That is proof that she prevented it's delivery.

And of course Weekes and Epler said Viddasala was not authorized.

I mean, we have codex entries talking about the Elven pantheon being Gods... so they must be, right? Any new information we receive from the games or the writers that would change that assertion means nothing, it doesn't count!

Those are all presented as legends or opinions. The Triumvirate's letter is evidence in itself, and Viddasala intercepting it and balling it up is also proof.

My general observation is that you think the Qunari want to be docile and are truly friendly and not trying to stir up a mess with the south. The point is the Qunari want tension and they really want to invade.

No. They don't want tension and they want to appear peaceful BECAUSE they want to invade. They DON'T want to stir up trouble in the South or cause tension because they want to invade in one massive campaign. They don't want the South to raise defenses or attack them before Par Vollen is ready for a world war, and that will not be until Tevinter falls.

What amounts as two major acts of war within 14 years is a pretty big deal.

Rubbish. The Arishok was attacked first. If anyone violated the Accords it was the Chantry. And Kirkwall was an isolated case where madness ran rampant among all parties involved, even Hawke's.

And Viddasala's plot was foiled before it even really began, and Teagan even blamed her actions on Solas' provocation. She was disavowed regardless, which means Par Vollen was not held responsible. Lo and behold, at the end of Trespasser there is no invasion attempt and the Accords are still in place.

To the people being harmed, there is no practical difference, especially when the Qunari themselves only respond with "we're soory" or "shut up about this" in resoonse.

I think you're purposely trying to disagree because you are stubborn over the authorization issue (which shouldn't matter). Obviously if the Triumvirate were actively trying to attack the South the number of attacks would be greater, not to mention better organized.

Sten and the Arishok, they simply snapped. We know those events were not authorized. So if the Triumvirate were actively trying to attack the South, and Viddasala's plot was an authorized attack, then that would make one assault against the South since the Accords were signed. Now, is this likely? Or is it more likely that one minor event in Kirkwall and one sloppy attempt against the South in hundreds of years is the work of a couple fringe lunatics?

In the context in which Dragon's Breath took place, no.

What context would that be?

Questions of who was and wasn't a combatant can wait until after Par Vollen has been subjugated.

So then you don't know who is or is not a combatant. So you are retracting your claim that all Qunari are combatants and will never be anything less?

So far, it isn't.

So the South would be BETTER off than they are now had the Qunari attacked them over and over for centuries?

I would like Thedas to commit to total war, until one side is utterly spent. The Qunari are still hesitant to attack the entire mainland, without schemes like Dragon's Breath to shake up the odds. Time to dogpile them.

What do you mean schemes like Dragon's Breath? If that had been official then it would be the opening attack to their invasion. So either they don't want to attack the South yet, or they did. There are no "schemes".

Also, your desire to see a full-scale war against Par Vollen is likely why you remain so biased on this issue. You want there to be a war, so you see Viddasala's actions as authorized in order to justify the war.

Well, I would like to see the South declare a new Exalted March against Par Vollen, but that doesn't mean I should imagine conspiracies that aren't there.

You side argument boils down to this. "The letter claiming no knowledge or involvement is a lie because we want it to be. We have no evidence that it was, but come on, of course they would lie if their opening attack were foiled."

Well, that's not evidence, it's supposition based on personal preference.

[Dai Grepher]

Nope, this is just the letter, it doesn't certify anything.

So you are rejecting canon proof? How dare you, sir?
 

As has been discussed here, it could well be a forgery even.

Post a codex stating that it was a forgery then.
 

So, where are the entries behind this entry that certify that it's not Plausible Deniability?

Where is the entry confirming that it is plausible deniability?
 

Where is the evidence that contradicts a Qun loyal IB turning on the Inquisitor?

I don't contest that a Qun-loyal Hissrad turned on the Inquisitor.
 

This was the specific question in the interview in the OP, and the answer was that it was because it wasn't a rogue faction, or an offshoot of an offshoot.

I never claimed it was a rogue group or an offshoot of an offshoot.

The claim is that this group of Qunari were not authorized by the Triumvirate, which the letter confirms.
 

So we're going to need something that contradicts these Word of God statements.

Weekes and Epler confirm that Viddasala was not authorized by the Triumvirate in the conference video.

[Almostfaceman]

No he didn't. Saying the Qunari in Trespasser were not a rogue group is not the same as saying they were authorized. Also, in the conference video, Weekes and Epler confirm that Viddasala was not authorized.
 

 

[midnight tea]

What do you mean schemes like Dragon's Breath? If that had been official then it would be the opening attack to their invasion. 

 

It was an opening attack for their invasion - until it was thwarted, of course.

 

Or do you mean that if it was an opening attack for their invasion it would be... well... open? If so, I can only shake my head at you.

 

 

Also, your desire to see a full-scale war against Par Vollen is likely why you remain so biased on this issue. You want there to be a war, so you see Viddasala's actions as authorized in order to justify the war.

 

Well here's the thing - it's not just people who want to have an open war with Par Vollen: Bioware itself wants to have a war  !

 

Weekes (AGAIN): "If we're gonna say that the Qunari want to start a war... let's have the Qunari start a war."

 

It's as simple as that.

[Dai Grepher]

It was an opening attack for their invasion - until it was thwarted, of course.
 
Or do you mean that if it was an opening attack for their invasion it would be... well... open? If so, I can only shake my head at you.
 
 
Well here's the thing - it's not just people who want to have an open war with Par Vollen: Bioware itself wants to have a war  !
 
Weekes (AGAIN): "If we're gonna say that the Qunari want to start a war... let's have the Qunari start a war."
 
It's as simple as that.

I mean if it was official, then it is the opening attack against the South, not a "scheme" to tip the scales or shake up the odds or whatever. It would be the first assault in the war, not a scheme to make some later war more likely to succeed.

Except it isn't BioWare, because at the end of Trespasser there is no war. There wasn't meant to be a war.

For all that those on your side post about "let's have the Qunari start a war" and "let's own it", you sure do dismiss the failure of Dragon's Breath as just "testing" or "scheming" or "plausibly deniable".

Either you start a war or you don't. Which is it? So far all you've claimed is, "Here's your war! ... LOL! J/K."

[robertthebard]

So you are rejecting canon proof? How dare you, sir?

Easy, you haven't provided any. 

Post a codex stating that it was a forgery then.
 

Where is the entry confirming that it is plausible deniability?
 

I don't contest that a Qun-loyal Hissrad turned on the Inquisitor.
 

I never claimed it was a rogue group or an offshoot of an offshoot.

The claim is that this group of Qunari were not authorized by the Triumvirate, which the letter confirms.
 

Weekes and Epler confirm that Viddasala was not authorized by the Triumvirate in the conference video.

What part of not authorized translates to not a rogue group? If they are doing things w/out authorization, they are rogue, that's what it means. Confirmation bias is a very real thing. You refuse to see the forest for the trees, and again, try to claim that everyone else has it wrong, including Weekes. Literally nothing you have provided comes close to saying what you claim it says. Literally. Nothing. You're so caught up in your fantasy about what happened that you can't see the truth.

[Sifr]

No he didn't. Saying the Qunari in Trespasser were not a rogue group is not the same as saying they were authorized. Also, in the conference video, Weekes and Epler confirm that Viddasala was not authorized.

 

Which confidence video would that be precisely? First I've heard about it.

[midnight tea]

Which confidence video would that be precisely? First I've heard about it.

 

The GDC conference. The one where Weekes said the exact opposite of what he claims 

[The Baconer]

Rubbish. The Arishok was attacked first. If anyone violated the Accords it was the Chantry. And Kirkwall was an isolated case where madness ran rampant among all parties involved, even Hawke's.

If the Qunari decided to use that as a reason to consider the Accords broken, that would be fine with me. But Kirkwall was under no obligation to grant the Arishok and his men shelter, let alone let them loiter around for years. The Qunari's negligence allowed the catastrophe to happen, and they've done nothing to make up for it, or even correct it. Then, surprise, the Viddasala makes an attack on the South, and the Qunari want to spin it as another field agent going out of control. Buying into their lie would simply mean their negligence and lack of oversight, again, leads to an international incident. It doesn't matter a single bit whether they are genuine or not.

And Viddasala's plot was foiled before it even really began, and Teagan even blamed her actions on Solas' provocation.

Right, so because the South had to stop the Qunari attack on the South before it could be truly executed, the South should just treat it lIke water under the bridge. You've really committed to a special brand of stupidity here.

I think you're purposely trying to disagree because you are stubborn over the authorization issue (which shouldn't matter). Obviously if the Triumvirate were actively trying to attack the South the number of attacks would be greater, not to mention better organized.

Sten and the Arishok, they simply snapped. We know those events were not authorized. So if the Triumvirate were actively trying to attack the South, and Viddasala's plot was an authorized attack, then that would make one assault against the South since the Accords were signed. Now, is this likely? Or is it more likely that one minor event in Kirkwall and one sloppy attempt against the South in hundreds of years is the work of a couple fringe lunatics?

Mm, so those affected by the Qunari attacks should just... be greatful that it wasn't worse? Be grateful that the alleged fringe lunatics weren't successful this time? While the Triumvirate themselves offer nothing in recompense?

Yeah, it says a lot about how the Qunari deserve to be treated.

So then you don't know who is or is not a combatant. So you are retracting your claim that all Qunari are combatants and will never be anything less?

No, I'm saying it's a concern that can wait until the South is already combing through the ashes of Qunandar.

So the South would be BETTER off than they are now had the Qunari attacked them over and over for centuries?

If the Accords were never signed and it stayed Qun vs. literally everyone esle, the South wouldn't be the ones on the defensive.

What do you mean schemes like Dragon's Breath? If that had been official then it would be the opening attack to their invasion. So either they don't want to attack the South yet, or they did. There are no "schemes".

Yeah, the opening attack failed, and now they don't have a way to optimally commit to total war without being at a disadvantage. I don't want to believe you are this thick, so I can only assume you are just compulsively dishonest.

Also, your desire to see a full-scale war against Par Vollen is likely why you remain so biased on this issue. You want there to be a war, so you see Viddasala's actions as authorized in order to justify the war.

I don't need the Viddasala to be authorized to want a war with the Qunari, I don't really need her to do anything. I don't like the Qunari.

Dragon's Breath only illustrates that the Qunari are a more immediate threat than we were thinking, and that it is a threat to be addressed sooner rather than later.

You side argument boils down to this. "The letter claiming no knowledge or involvement is a lie because we want it to be. We have no evidence that it was, but come on, of course they would lie if their opening attack were foiled."

There are only 40 pages of evidence, but you won't acknowledge it, and I know that won't change in the future.

[Heimdall]

Gotta give it to you guys, you have remarkable stamina.

[Kabraxal]

How is this still going on? Dai Grepher was proven wrong 40 pages ago... There is no argument to be had at this point.

[thats1evildude]

How is this still going on? Dai Grepher was proven wrong 40 pages ago... There is no argument to be had at this point.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

[Dai Grepher]

Easy, you haven't provided any.

If you refuse to acknowledge the canon facts, then you lose the argument.
 

What part of not authorized translates to not a rogue group?

I explained this to you. The Arishok was not rogue, nor did he lead a rogue Qunari group. Yet he was not authorized to attack Kirkwall. It is the same case with Viddasala.
 

You refuse to see the forest for the trees, and again, try to claim that everyone else has it wrong, including Weekes.

Most people agree with me, including Weekes.
 

Literally nothing you have provided comes close to saying what you claim it says. Literally. Nothing. You're so caught up in your fantasy about what happened that you can't see the truth.

I posted the codex you asked for. You dismissed it. That shows that it's you who refuses to see the truth.
 

Which confidence video would that be precisely? First I've heard about it.

Here's the video and notes
http://gdcvault.com/...tion-Trespasser
:

Spoiler

Game Developers Conference
Moscone Center San Francisco, CA
March 14-18, 2016 . Expo March 14-18

Goals for Trespasser

Set up the future of the franchise.

3:30 Epler - The Qunari, an invading force from across the sea that hates magic.

Here Epler refers to the Qunari we see in Trespasser as an invading force that hates magic. So clearly he is not referring to the Qunari people. He is only referring to the Qunari in the DLC that try to invade. This is Viddasala's group. This means Viddasala's group is separate from the rest of Qunari society in what they are doing in the DLC.


20:00 Weekes - Solas' spy, who points out the Qunari body, was not supposed to be his spy in the original draft. Idea added later.

This proves two things. 1. "The Qunari" can refer to anything, from one individual Qunari to the Qunari as a people or as race. So just because someone says "the Qunari" doesn't mean they are referring to the Qunari people or the Qunari leadership. 2. The original story had this elf as your agent. They changed this in the end to be Solas' agent. This proves that storylines can start out one way but end up being something completely different. Just because this elf was your agent in one of the first drafts doesn't mean she is in the canon release. So you wouldn't argue that she is actually an Inquisition agent, would you? No, because the storyline was changed. This is very important.


22:20 Wanted to have the Qunari present.

Establish the Qunari as a threat. Amp up tension.

Tie Qunari to lyrium mining. Hopefully enough of a hook. It wasn't.

The Qunari didn't have a great reason to be there mining lyrium. No story connection.

This is all self-explanatory. They had the Qunari minding lyrium, it wasn't enough of a hook because they had no reason and this didn't connect to the story in any way.


23:10 Weekes - At the start of the dungeon, you knew the Qunari were a problem doing something bad. At the end of the dungeon, you knew the Qunari were a problem doing something bad. No rising tension.

Explain what they are doing and give them a reason.

Again, Weekes is referring to the Qunari in Trespasser as "the Qunari". Not the Qunari as a nation or as a race. Also, he wants to give them a reason to be there mining lyrium.


23:33 Epler - Tension graphing. Low tension x3, then all of a sudden you're fighting the "Qunari leader".

John Epler explains the graph showing how much tension there was in the DLC at each stage. He points out three places with low tension, the Deep Roads included, and then refers to the stage in which the tension jumps and we are fighting the "Qunari leader". He is clearly referring to Viddasala and identifying her as the Qunari's leader. This proves that she was the top commander of this mission, and that she was alone in this command. Epler didn't call her "one of the Qunari leaders", he called her THE Qunari leader.

Now, we know from the game that she is nothing more than the head of the Ben-Hassrath's Dangerous Purpose branch. She is not a leader among the Qunari people. She is an agent. Calling her the leader proves that Dragon's Breath was her idea and hers alone. She had no other agents lateral or above her to direct the mission. She was the only high ranking official there. No other high ranking Qunari agent was involved. Not any other priest of the Ben-Hassrath, not the Ariqun, not the other members of the Triumvirate.

This proves Viddasala was unauthorized. In an authorized operation, she would not have been the leader.


24:05 Writing side. Weekes - What do the Qunari hate? Magic. They want to suppress magic. Best way to suppress magic is templars, so what if the Qunari were making templars? What if the Qunari were mining lyrium to make templars? This makes sense.

So here is Weekes explaining their thought process for giving the Qunari a reason to be there mining lyrium. The Qunari hate magic, so the first idea was to make templars.


24:40 Jerran explains Qunari are here mining lyrium to make templars so they can suppress our mages when they invade the South. This makes sense... or not.

The first idea was to have Jerran explain that the Qunari were making templars so they can suppress the Southern mages when they invade. This made sense, until it didn't.

Three things here. 1. Just because they are planning to invade the South doesn't mean the Triumvirate was. 2. This storyline was scrapped. So regardless of what you think Weekes was referring to, this storyline is not canon because it didn't make sense. 3. Even if the Triumvirate approved of a plan such as this, they wouldn't have started it during Trespasser. The Qunari would have tested out the templars ahead of time against Tevinter first. It makes no sense to test them right before Dragon's Breath. So the Triumvirate being involved makes no sense.


25:20 No templars in the DLC until now. Trying to add templars to the Qunari using magical mirrors to smuggle explosives into courts across Thedas, Exalted Council, mark on your hand, ancient elves, etc, was too much.

Going into the story on templars was too much.


25:55 Needed something simpler, something to work with the gameplay. Took out idea of Qunari templars. Didn't make sense. What did make sense was the saarebas.

A few things here. They scrapped the idea of Qunari templars being used for invasion to suppress southern mages. Scrapped it. Gone. Dead. Now, if the Triumvirate had at any point been intended to be part of this operation as having authorized it (which they weren't, and Weekes indicates this is still Viddasala only), then dropping this templar storyline would also mean dropping any storyline about the Triumvirate authorizing it. We know this because what are you left with to combat southern mages during an official invasion?

In other words, if your plan was to invade with templar Qunari to combat southern mages, but then this idea gets scrapped, then what would the official invasion use instead? Nothing. There is nothing else you can use.

So they replaced this with a plot where the Viddasala uses saarebas instead. This is because a saarbas fits the gameplay style.


26:19 Weekes - The saarebas are suppressed by the Qunari culture. The Qunari in Trespasser give lyrium to saarebas. They're making super-weapons. Taking parched mages and hooking them up to a fire-hose.

This is objectively a really bad idea for the Qunari. But that is the kind of short term gain/long term loss, dangerous deal with the devil that characters in the Dragon Age universe make all the time.

And here is Weekes 100% irrefutable confirmation that Viddasala was unauthorized. He differentiates the Qunari in Trespasser from the rest of Qunari culture. Separating the two. What the Qunari in Trespasser were directed to do is the exact opposite of what Qunari culture has taught since the culture was founded. The Qunari culture suppresses saarebas to magic. Viddasala and those she ordered around were immersing saarebas in magic. This directly contradicts the Qun and Qunari culture. The Triumvirate is confirmed to have no part in this by extension.

Weekes also confirms this is a bad idea, but is the type of deal that DA characters make all the time. By referring to characters, Weekes confirms this is Viddasala alone. This is not the Triumvirate as a collective making this choice. It is only Viddasala.

Also, to go back to my previous point of what else would you invade with, saarebas would not be the Triumvirate's answer. Not only would the Qunari not have templars to combat southern mages, but they would then be using their own saarebas. What does the South have to combat these saarebas? Templars! So how does it make sense to send your own mages against templars in the South? Clearly this was just Viddasala's insane plan, and Jerran even states as much in the game.

And to bring up another previous point, even if we are to believe that the Triumvirate made a sudden 180 on keeping saarebas separate from all magic, and instead started powering them up with lyrium (in violation of the Qun), then once again I state that they would have tested all of this on Seheron first in battles against Tevinter. They would not risk testing them during Dragon's Breath, which was supposedly the linchpin to a southern invasion.


29:07 Revision - Test ideas to see if they work. If they don't you can change them to something better.

This part proves that the writing team had ideas that didn't work, and they scrapped them. So even if Dragon's Breath was meant to be official at some point during production, then it was scrapped before the final release. But I contend this was never to be an authorized mission, and both Weekes and Epler confirmed this in the conference presentation.

That's every relevant part, point by point, but you can watch it for yourself.

[Almostfaceman]

I explained this to you. The Arishok was not rogue, nor did he lead a rogue Qunari group. Yet he was not authorized to attack Kirkwall. It is the same case with Viddasala.
 

 

The Arishok was not rogue when he arrived at Kirkwall and camped there for a while. He went rogue when he attacked the city. How do we know he went rogue? His actions were disavowed later. 

 

The Viddasala was authorized to do what she did, before she started to do so. Any letters to the contrary are just Qunari deception in case the first part of their plans failed. This is logical, it's an attempt to try and keep who they're attacking confused about whether or not there will be further attacks. Weekes clears that up, as stated in the OP. 

[Almostfaceman]

Most people agree with me, including Weekes.

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread agree with you. Weekes statement completely contradicts your argument. 

[Dai Grepher]

If the Qunari decided to use that as a reason to consider the Accords broken, that would be fine with me.

Well good for you, but the Qunari didn't. Why? Because Petrice and others were weren't authorized by any nation's officials, nor the Chantry. And that is how the South viewed the Arishok and Viddasala, because it was just as true in their cases.

But Kirkwall was under no obligation to grant the Arishok and his men shelter, let alone let them loiter around for years. The Qunari's negligence allowed the catastrophe to happen, and they've done nothing to make up for it, or even correct it.

WoT2 states that the Ariqun and Arigena publicly disavowed the Arishok in front of Chantry officials. Though WoT's accuracy is questionable, there has been nothing to contradict it on that issue.

Then, surprise, the Viddasala makes an attack on the South, and the Qunari want to spin it as another field agent going out of control.

And do you have evidence from the canon that the Triumvirate were spinning anything? How do you know they weren't telling the truth?

Buying into their lie would simply mean their negligence and lack of oversight, again, leads to an international incident. It doesn't matter a single bit whether they are genuine or not.

Except that it doesn't lead to an international incident, and it does matter whether they are genuine or not. If they are genuine, then it means they did not try to start a war with the South. It also means they were tricked by one of their own agents, and are not to blame for the attempted attack. Chastise them for their lack of oversight all you want, that isn't a violation of the Llomeryn Accords. Intentionally attacking is.

Right, so because the South had to stop the Qunari attack on the South before it could be truly executed, the South should just treat it lIke water under the bridge. You've really committed to a special brand of stupidity here.

Yes, just as Par Vollen should disregard Solas' attack on the Qunari and not hold it against the Inquisition or the South. His attack actually succeeded in killing some Qunari, even if they were being misled.

The point is, Viddasala's actions were unacceptable, but at least she did no damage to the South or its people.

Mm, so those affected by the Qunari attacks should just... be greatful that it wasn't worse? Be grateful that the alleged fringe lunatics weren't successful this time? While the Triumvirate themselves offer nothing in recompense?

This has nothing to do with the feelings of people in the South. The point is that the small number of incidents and the disorganized nature of them indicate unauthorized agents taking action on their own. It does not indicate a calculated, official effort to attack the South.

No, I'm saying it's a concern that can wait until the South is already combing through the ashes of Qunandar.

Oh. Well your previous statement looked like you were saying we can't know who is a combatant and who is not until the South is at war with them.

So how do you know they are all combatants and will never be anything less?

If the Accords were never signed and it stayed Qun vs. literally everyone esle, the South wouldn't be the ones on the defensive.

And where would they be exactly? On offense? If that were possible I doubt they would have drawn up the Accords in the first place. Taking Par Vollen would require superior ships, a great deal of soldiers to land on the shores and set up base camps, then more supply ships. So instead of working on all of this, they decided to make peace? Why? Is it because they would have been on the defensive for ages to come, just like Tevinter is now?

Yeah, the opening attack failed, and now they don't have a way to optimally commit to total war without being at a disadvantage. I don't want to believe you are this thick, so I can only assume you are just compulsively dishonest.

Well that's a separate point, but thanks for conceding your first one. So you think Dragon's Breath was the opening attack in a war effort. So the first attack failed. And you honestly think this means calling off the rest of the war? After all the troops and ships have been mobilized? No contingency plan for Dragon's Breath other than "plausibly deny"? No viddathari Tallises lying in wait with daggers ready to kill the nobles? And what does this say about the Qunari exactly? Is their military so weak that it can't even attempt to invade the South unless the southern leaders are killed first? So the leaders live... and this puts the Qunari at a disadvantage? So the entire war effort hinged on Dragon's Breath succeeding and being effective? And despite this weakness the Qunari risked provoking the South if the attempt failed?

You honestly believe the Qunari don't know how war is waged?

I'm neither thick nor dishonest. I believe the Qunari are more sensible when it comes to warfare than you give them credit for.

I don't need the Viddasala to be authorized to want a war with the Qunari, I don't really need her to do anything. I don't like the Qunari.

Well of course your want of war arises from within yourself, but you need Viddasala to be authorized for the South to consider it a violation of the Llomeryn Accords and to commit to a new Exalted March against Par Vollen.

[Dai Grepher]

Dragon's Breath only illustrates that the Qunari are a more immediate threat than we were thinking, and that it is a threat to be addressed sooner rather than later.

How's that? There is no war with the Qunari at the end of Trespasser, and the ending implies we'll be in Tevinter for DA4. Besides, Dragon's Breath was laughable. It had no chance of success.

There are only 40 pages of evidence, but you won't acknowledge it, and I know that won't change in the future.

Claiming that the letter is subterfuge isn't evidence, it's a claim. Show me canon evidence from the game that it was subterfuge. The fact that it wasn't delivered to the Inquisition proves it wasn't subterfuge.

How is this still going on? Dai Grepher was proven wrong 40 pages ago... There is no argument to be had at this point.

Because I wasn't proven wrong. I am correct, and no one on the other side has been able to refute me in 41 pages.

[Dai Grepher]

The Arishok was not rogue when he arrived at Kirkwall and camped there for a while. He went rogue when he attacked the city. How do we know he went rogue? His actions were disavowed later.

Yet this doesn't apply to Viddasala. Double-standard.

Besides, the idea that the Arishok went rogue is nothing but your opinion. As long as he remains committed to the Qun, then the others of the Triumvirate might not consider him "rogue". Weekes might not consider him rogue either.

The Viddasala was authorized to do what she did, before she started to do so.

Source?

Any letters to the contrary are just Qunari deception in case the first part of their plans failed.

Source?

This is logical, it's an attempt to try and keep who they're attacking confused about whether or not there will be further attacks.

Then why wasn't the letter delivered to the Inquisition to complete the deception? As it stood, failure to respond would mean the Inquisition would consider it an act of war.

Weekes clears that up, as stated in the OP.

No he doesn't. He says nothing of the sort. Nothing about Viddasala. Nothing about authorization. Nothing about deceptive letters.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread agree with you. Weekes statement completely contradicts your argument.

Starts here for the most part:

http://forum.bioware...2#entry20154238

Hanako Ikezawa, Jedi Master of Orion, Big I, Midnight Bliss, and Addictress, just to name a few.

My first post in this thread is here:

http://forum.bioware...2#entry20154398

[Almostfaceman]

Yet this doesn't apply to Viddasala. Double-standard.

Besides, the idea that the Arishok went rogue is nothing but your opinion. As long as he remains committed to the Qun, then the others of the Triumvirate might not consider him "rogue". Weekes might not consider him rogue either.


Source?


Source?


Then why wasn't the letter delivered to the Inquisition to complete the deception? As it stood, failure to respond would mean the Inquisition would consider it an act of war.


No he doesn't. He says nothing of the sort. Nothing about Viddasala. Nothing about authorization. Nothing about deceptive letters.


Starts here for the most part:

http://forum.bioware...2#entry20154238

Hanako Ikezawa, Jedi Master of Orion, Big I, Midnight Bliss, and Addictress, just to name a few.

My first post in this thread is here:

http://forum.bioware...2#entry20154398

 

Why were you asking for the source when all you had to do was wait until you finished reading to see that my source was the OP? Too much caffeine? 

 

I haven't seen any of those people agree with you. But I don't mind reading through the whole thread. 

 

Whether or not the Arishok was re-educated when he was disavowed is irrelevant. His action of attacking Kirkwall was disavowed, it was a rogue action and he returned to the Qunari for them to either kill him or punish him for going rogue. His personal views and relationship with the Qun is irrelevant, since the Qunari leadership decide who and who is not really serving the Qun faithfully. I've already posted the information from Inquisition that tells us the Arishok was disavowed. It's not a double standard, it's just a chain of events occurring in a certain way to achieve a certain result to tell parts of the story. 

 

Weekes doesn't have to mention any specific government components. When he says "the Qunari" and "the real Qunari" and uses it as opposed to "an offshoot" in the context of "the Qunari are gonna start a war" it makes it clear. Nobody has to ask him, "When you say 'the real Qunari,' do you mean the Viddasala?" because Weekes can't be talking about anyone else. Individual members of the Qunari don't make sense in the context of "the Qunari are gonna start a war". The Viddasala going rogue doesn't make sense in the context of "the Quanri are gonna start a war". If it were the Viddasala going rogue and leading her (supposedly real individual Qunari according to your theory) troops astray, that would be an "offshoot" in the context of "the (real) Qunari are gonna start a war." 

 

There's only one way "the (real) Qunari" can go to war. All parts of their government approved moving forward to start a war. Nothing else makes sense. 

[Almostfaceman]

@Dai Grepher - I went through the thread and I didn't find anyone that agreed with you. If I'm wrong and missed something, people are free to let us all know. Or if they changed their minds, that's fine as well. The strength of my argument isn't based on numbers. 

 

Of the people you mentioned, I noted this:

 

Jedi Master of Orion - he questions the letter, but he doesn't dispute Weekes or the OP assertion that the Viddasala is authorized.

 

Hanako Ikezawa - he thinks what Weekes says about the Qunari is stupid and doesn't like it, but doesn't try to make an argument that the Viddasala isn't authorized. 

 

If either is not a "he" no offense is meant. 

 

So far, you are the only one I've seen in this thread making an argument against the assertion of the OP. So far I haven't seen you convince anyone that your argument is correct. 

[BansheeOwnage]

No he didn't. Saying the Qunari in Trespasser were not a rogue group is not the same as saying they were authorized.

Isn't it? If they were a rogue group, then they were not authorized. If they were not a rogue group, then they were authorized.

 

Because going rogue is doing something without authorization. And it's confirmed that they were not rogue, therefore they were authorized.

[Almostfaceman]

Isn't it? If they were a rogue group, then they were not authorized. If they were not a rogue group, then they were authorized.

 

Because going rogue is doing something without authorization. And it's confirmed that they were not rogue, therefore they were authorized.

 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

lol okay that's funny. 

[robertthebard]

The Arishok was not rogue when he arrived at Kirkwall and camped there for a while. He went rogue when he attacked the city. How do we know he went rogue? His actions were disavowed later. 
 
The Viddasala was authorized to do what she did, before she started to do so. Any letters to the contrary are just Qunari deception in case the first part of their plans failed. This is logical, it's an attempt to try and keep who they're attacking confused about whether or not there will be further attacks. Weekes clears that up, as stated in the OP.

Interestingly enough, the Arishok could have been authorized to use any means necessary to accomplish his task. We have evidence, from that game, to the contrary, but I'm wondering, if he'd managed to defeat Hawke, would they have disavowed his actions? We know, from Origins, that they don't care one wit about the treaty, it was a piece of paper to make the Bas feel better. Taking Kirkwall would give them a better staging area against the South, and since we know they're planning to invade, sooner or later, it would be logical to have that. Denial of past events notwithstanding, they're going to start that war sooner or later.

That this was an attempt to make it as bloodless as possible is submitted in game, and that it wasn't a rogue group, in any way, is provided by Weekes. That bit is Word of God. It is supported by the fact that a Qun loyal IB will turn on the Inquisitor, even if romanced. There can be no doubt, and a lot of us had no doubt before this thread existed, confirming that this wasn't a rogue faction, or an off shoot of an off shoot. Once again, Dai has failed to provide anything that refutes what Weekes has to say, and hence I didn't bother to reply. Typing Citation Needed over and over would quickly become redundant. He can't provide citations, because they don't exist. It would be hilarious to no end if the notes on the letter in Qunlat said "Nothing personal, but we have to cover our ass. Keep doing what you're doing, maybe you can defeat the Inquisitor, and thus the Inquisition, before our invasion goes into full force".