1580 réponses à ce sujet

[IllustriousT]

@ Dai: If Weekes stated that Qunari are going to start a war, but the Qunari in Trespasser are as you described:

 

Yes. Obey the Viddasala. Do not think. Do not question.
 

 

 

And the Viddasala, by your logic, isn't part of this Qunari Group:

"We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war, and let's own it. And in that case, the only reasonable outcome was that if you hadn't gotten Iron Bull out of the Qun, it made no sense for him to do anything but turn on you."

No mention of Viddasala, the Triumvirate letter, or the legitimacy of Dragon's Breath. Here Weekes said they own the qunari, so if they are going to say the Qunari are going to start a war, then let's have the real Qunari start a war. Starting a war is not the same thing as authorizing a war. Any Qunari can start a war. Only the Triumvirate can authorize it. The Qunari we fought were real Qunari, and for this reason, if you didn't get Bull out of the Qun, then he sides with his fellow real Qunari.
 

 

 

Then what Qunari is trying to start a war in your mind?  You've said that those that follow her are mindless "real" Qunari, and Viddasala isn't included in this group of "real" Qunari...so that leaves --

 

Oh, Weekes must have been talking about that other Qunari group that wasn't in Trespasser. 

[Dai Grepher]

@ Dai: If Weekes stated that Qunari are going to start a war, but the Qunari in Trespasser are as you described:

And the Viddasala, by your logic, isn't part of this Qunari Group:

No, she leads the group (as Epler said at the conference), but she is not among those we fight in combat (those Weekes referred to in the interview). That is the distinction.

Then what Qunari is trying to start a war in your mind?

As far as Weekes' statement goes, the Qunari we fight in Trespasser.

You've said that those that follow her are mindless "real" Qunari, and Viddasala isn't included in this group of "real" Qunari...

They can blindly follow her orders and still start a war if her orders involve facilitating hostile acts against the South.

[Almostfaceman]

No, she leads the group (as Epler said at the conference), but she is not among those we fight in combat (those Weekes referred to in the interview). That is the distinction.

 

Incorrect. Weekes doesn't mention her specifically because he doesn't need to do so. When he says "the real Qunari" that obviously involves all the Qunari. The Triumvirate. The Viddasala. The Mooks. Iron Bull. Just like "America defeated the British." Also, heads of groups can be mentioned as fighting one another without them actually them fighting one another. Rommel vs Patton. The Allies vs Hitler. Stalin vs Hitler. 

 

We fought the "real Qunari",  just like Weekes says. We don't have to fight the Triumvirate personally to not have fought "an offshoot". We don't have to have fought the Ben Hassrath leaders when we fight the Ben Hassrath by fighting Iron Bull. 

 

Why, just look at all who's involved in "the real Qunari". Here's a link. 

 

Weekes says: It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.' We own this.

 

So we fight the "real Qunari". But wait, according to your logic, since we don't personally fight individual members of the Triumvirate, we're not fighting "the real Qunari". The Tevinter are fighting the "real Qunari" all the time and they never once have to be crossing swords with individual members of the Triumvirate. But Tevinter is very much fighting the Triumvirate. The Archon is fighting against the Triumvirate. The Magisterium is fighting the Triumvirate. 

 

Your logic fails. We (the Inquisition) very much do fight the Viddasala as she is fighting on behalf of the Triumvirate which is the same thing as saying we're fighting "the real Qunari."

[Tatar Foras]

This thread needs more dank memes

 

 

 

[IllustriousT]

They can blindly follow her orders and still start a war if her orders involve facilitating hostile acts against the South.

 

Soldiers do not start wars. Leaders do. 

 

If Viddasala is not authorized, then neither are the actions of those that follow her (whether they know this or not is irrelevant) - and this is a direct contradiction of Weekes Statement. 

 

So, by this same logic - Weekes stating "Let's have the Qunari start a war," and your claim that she does not belong to this particular group of Qunari in his statement, places her outside of this conflict. That leaves only the soldiers, who you claim are mindlessly following her orders, but if they are the "real" Qunari and Viddasala is not - then by default, they are directly authorized by the Triumvirate. The soldiers cannot be "real" Qunari following a non-Qunari leader while continuing to be labeled "real" Qunari. 

 

Eplers statement that Viddasala is the Qunari leader is correct - placing her directly in opposition of the Inquisition. 

Weekes statment that those in opposition are the Qunari is correct. 

 

They did not define "fighting" as hand-to-hand combat, the definition also means "to contend with." 

They are not trying to trick us by omitting the purpose of the antagonist in Trespasser. 

[Dai Grepher]

Incorrect. Weekes doesn't mention her specifically because he doesn't need to do so. When he says "the real Qunari" that obviously involves all the Qunari. The Triumvirate. The Viddasala. The Mooks. Iron Bull. Just like "America defeated the British." Also, heads of groups can be mentioned as fighting one another without them actually them fighting one another. Rommel vs Patton. The Allies vs Hitler. Stalin vs Hitler.

 

We fought the "real Qunari",  just like Weekes says. We don't have to fight the Triumvirate personally to not have fought "an offshoot". We don't have to have fought the Ben Hassrath leaders when we fight the Ben Hassrath by fighting Iron Bull. 
 
Why, just look at all who's involved in "the real Qunari". Here's a link. 
 
Weekes says: It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.' We own this.
 
So we fight the "real Qunari". But wait, according to your logic, since we don't personally fight individual members of the Triumvirate, we're not fighting "the real Qunari".

I have always stated that we fought the real Qunari. The point is that Weekes was only referring to the real Qunari we fought in the DLC, not the Qunari as a people or Par Vollen as a nation. He clearly states this in the quote you posted. This is no different from how we fought the Arishok in DA2, not the Qunari people as a whole or Par Vollen as a nation. It was a fight between Hawke and one small group of Qunari who were not authorized to attack Kirkwall.
 

The Tevinter are fighting the "real Qunari" all the time and they never once have to be crossing swords with individual members of the Triumvirate. But Tevinter is very much fighting the Triumvirate. The Archon is fighting against the Triumvirate. The Magisterium is fighting the Triumvirate.

Because the Triumvirate authorized those battles.
 

Soldiers do not start wars. Leaders do.

That's how it's supposed to work, yes. But soldiers can indeed start wars if they commit acts of hostility, even without authorization.
 

If Viddasala is not authorized, then neither are the actions of those that follow her (whether they know this or not is irrelevant) - and this is a direct contradiction of Weekes Statement.

How's that? Of course none of them are authorized, but that in no way contradicts Weekes' statements.
 

So, by this same logic - Weekes stating "Let's have the Qunari start a war," and your claim that she does not belong to this particular group of Qunari in his statement, places her outside of this conflict.

It places her outside of Weekes' identification of what Qunari he was referring to in that interview. Nothing more. The Qunari we fight in the DLC were also used to try and start a war.

You need to re-read Weekes' statement. He is saying what the writers will do. If we're going to say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war. And let's own it. I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's how it went. So all he's saying here is that the writers used real Qunari to try and start a war in the DLC. Those Qunari don't have to be aware of what they're doing to start a war, they just have to blindly follow their orders from Viddasala.
 

That leaves only the soldiers, who you claim are mindlessly following her orders, but if they are the "real" Qunari and Viddasala is not - then by default, they are directly authorized by the Triumvirate.

How do you figure that? They are real Qunari following Viddasala, a real Qunari acting without authorization, and they follow her because they are under the false impression that she is authorized and in command.
 

The soldiers cannot be "real" Qunari following a non-Qunari leader while continuing to be labeled "real" Qunari.

Why not? The Arishok's men continued to follow him even though he wasn't authorized in his actions.
 

Eplers statement that Viddasala is the Qunari leader is correct - placing her directly in opposition of the Inquisition. 
Weekes statment that those in opposition are the Qunari is correct.

These are separate statements made at separate times regarding separate issues. You're mixing the two up.
 

They did not define "fighting" as hand-to-hand combat, the definition also means "to contend with." 
They are not trying to trick us by omitting the purpose of the antagonist in Trespasser.

You have to consider what question Weekes was answering. The question had nothing to do with Viddasala. So the answer had nothing to do with her. And Weekes clearly made reference to playing a game where you are fighting, so clearly he was talking about being in combat with a group.

[Serza]

Yes, the thread is still as nutty as I remember.

[midnight tea]

Yes, the thread is still as nutty as I remember.

 

Let's open a Nutella factory!

[Dai Grepher]

Blame that on the "authorized" side. They have been misinterpreting Weekes' statements since the first post.

[midnight tea]

Blame that on the "authorized" side. They have been misinterpreting Weekes' statements since the first post.

 

Oh boy... nobody can master you in art of misinterpretation.

[Dai Grepher]

All he said was that we fought those who were part of the Qun, as opposed to those outside of the Qun. And that's why Hissrad turned on us.

He said nothing about the act of war being authorized by the Triumvirate.

And that's that.

[BansheeOwnage]

No. My argument is that Weekes did not mention her at all in any of his statements, so whether Weekes sees her as rogue or not is unknown.

Why would Viddasala be randomly exempt from the label of "The Qunari" Weekes was using? She's naturally included in that group. He didn't need to specify her any more than Antaam Sten #168.

[Dabrikishaw]

For real, Dai Grepher's entire argument depends on the Viddasala not being Qunari when it's inconvenient to him.

[Dai Grepher]

Why would Viddasala be randomly exempt from the label of "The Qunari" Weekes was using? She's naturally included in that group. He didn't need to specify her any more than Antaam Sten #168.

Because Weekes' statements were specific to the Qunari we fought against, and we did not fight Viddasala. I am just being exact with Weekes' statements. He might consider her "rogue", or he might not. He doesn't say. Either way, he said nothing of her being authorized.

For real, Dai Grepher's entire argument depends on the Viddasala not being Qunari when it's inconvenient to him.

Wrong. I have always stated that she was real Qunari who was not authorized.

[Almostfaceman]

Because Weekes' statements were specific to the Qunari we fought against, and we did not fight Viddasala. I am just being exact with Weekes' statements. He might consider her "rogue", or he might not. He doesn't say. Either way, he said nothing of her being authorized.
 

 

That doesn't make any sense. It wasn't just a statement about who we fought against, it was also a statement about whom Iron Bull reports to. That's the Ben Hassrath, who are "the real Qunari". 

 

Qun-following Iron Bull doesn't report to unauthorized people. Rather than even chance doing something against the Qun, he turns himself in for reeducation. 

 

Who did we fight against AND also are the people Iron Bull reports to? The "real Quanri", which are the authorized agents we fight in Trespasser, including the Viddasala. She only gets her authority from the higher ups, the same people all "real Qunari" report to. The same people who decide who's following the Qun. 

 

In the minds of the Triumvirate, anyone who is not doing as they're told is going rogue. An offshoot. They must be reeducated or destroyed. If the Triumvirate can't get their hands on who's not doing what they're told, they declare those persons Tal'Vashoth and continue to persecute. 

[IllustriousT]

Because Weekes' statements were specific to the Qunari we fought against, and we did not fight Viddasala. I am just being exact with Weekes' statements. He might consider her "rogue", or he might not. He doesn't say. Either way, he said nothing of her being authorized.
 

Hmm...okay, Dai...let us try a different approach. 

 

The first statement made by Patrick Weekes in regards to "fighting," is:

 

"and every time... We tried to talk ourselves into that for a while, like, 'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,' and it just got so toothless. It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.'""

 

So, they didn't go with that, despite how you wish to define "fighting" - it is now irrelevant. 

 

Second:

Patrick Weekes states:

 

"We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war, and let's own it. And in that case, the only reasonable outcome was that if you hadn't gotten Iron Bull out of the Qun, it made no sense for him to do anything but turn on you."

 

Again, no mention of actual hand-to-hand combat. This is in regards to starting a war.

[thats1evildude]

Well, now I know what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

[midnight tea]

Well, now I know what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

 

Well... let's at least educate ourselves on the matter:

 

[BansheeOwnage]

Because Weekes' statements were specific to the Qunari we fought against, and we did not fight Viddasala. I am just being exact with Weekes' statements. He might consider her "rogue", or he might not. He doesn't say. Either way, he said nothing of her being authorized.

Even disregarding what IlloustriousT explained about the context of the word, we did fight Viddasala. Physical battle is not the only definition of "fight" by a long shot. Look it up. You'll find many definitions that have nothing to do with physical altercation. Even just googling synonyms yields:

 

- quarrel or argue

- campaign determinedly for or against something, especially to put right what one considers unfair or unjust

- struggle or campaign against (something).

 

But more importantly, the word "fighting" in vernacular is understood to mean many different things, and this is yet another example of you being far too literal-minded. Seemingly everyone else already acknowledges that "fighting" means more than what you think it does, and applies neatly to Viddasala, whereas you are stuck on just one possible definition that is obviously not the appropriate one in this instance.

[Dai Grepher]

That doesn't make any sense. It wasn't just a statement about who we fought against, it was also a statement about whom Iron Bull reports to.

Wrong. You are projecting your own idea onto his statement again.
 

Qun-following Iron Bull doesn't report to unauthorized people. Rather than even chance doing something against the Qun, he turns himself in for reeducation.

Yet he would disobey a direct order from one of those re-educators at the risk of doing something against the Qun?
 

Who did we fight against AND also are the people Iron Bull reports to?

Irrelevant. Weekes said nothing about who Hissrad reports to.
 

The "real Quanri", which are the authorized agents we fight in Trespasser,

They don't have to be authorized to be real Qunari.
 

including the Viddasala. She only gets her authority from the higher ups

Unless she's lying and only claiming to have authorization.
 

In the minds of the Triumvirate, anyone who is not doing as they're told is going rogue. An offshoot. They must be reeducated or destroyed. If the Triumvirate can't get their hands on who's not doing what they're told, they declare those persons Tal'Vashoth and continue to persecute.

Incorrect. Tallis disobeyed orders and failed her mission. She was only demoted. The Triumvirate couldn't declare Viddasala Tal-Vashoth until they had captured her and investigated her activities. By the time they mobilized against her, we were already chasing her through elvhen ruins far to the west of Halamshiral.
 

So, they didn't go with that, despite how you wish to define "fighting" - it is now irrelevant.

You aren't even addressing the subject of the statement. They dropped the idea of fighting a rogue group, but they replaced it with the idea of fighting a real group. So yes, Weekes was still referring to the Qunari that we fight against. They dropped the idea of them being rogue, not us fighting them.
 

Again, no mention of actual hand-to-hand combat. This is in regards to starting a war.

Yeah? The point with that statement is that the Qunari we fought, as specified in the previous statement, are the ones being used to try and start a war. It isn't the Qunari leading Par Vollen doing this, or the Qunari people as a whole.

But you are right that we should try a different approach. Let's go over Weekes' full statement again and see where we agree and where we disagree.

BioFan: How did the possibility of Iron Bull's death in Tresspasser come about?

Notice the subject is how they came up with Iron Bull's death in Trespasser. Not about Viddasala, or the Triumvirate, or the legitimacy of Dragon's Breath. Do we agree on this?

Patrick Weekes: Okay, this one was tough. Because... The bad news on having a character die in the game, as a possibility means that you are inherently limiting how much they can ever appear in the future. You know. It's not a hard limition; we had Ash or Kaidan die in Mass Effect 1, and still have them as full squad mates in Mass Effect 3. So it's not like that's a hard line, but whatever you say 'hey this character can die if this happens in the game', it makes it a lot harder to bring them back in the future. So it was definitely something we thought long and hard about.

So nothing important here. Just that killing him makes him more difficult to bring back and they thought long and hard about it. Agreed?

That said, when we got to the Qunari, we kicked around different ways to do it. We said 'Oh, okay, maybe it's a rogue faction of the Qunari and they aren't really the real Qunari and Bull doesn't believe in them,'

Here Weekes states that they thought about making "the Qunari" a rogue faction. So, who are "the Qunari"? Well he can't be referring to every Qunari in Thedas as Almostfaceman speculates, because obviously not every Qunari in Thedas is part of a rogue faction. Weekes says "rogue faction". A faction is a group, segment, or subset. Okay, so he was referring to a specific group, yes? Do we agree on this?

So he says at first they were a rogue faction of the Qunari. Okay, this is the second reference to "the Qunari". Who are these Qunari? This second group stands in opposition to the first group. Meaning, we have the rogue group, and now we have a different set of Qunari. These groups are separate. Weekes clarifies saying they are a rogue faction and not really the "real Qunari". Ah ha. So this is correct. We have the rogue group, of qunari, lowercase "q", and we have the real Qunari, capital "Q". And so because these are rogues and not part of the real Qunari, Bull doesn't believe in them. Do we agree on this?

and every time... We tried to talk ourselves into that for a while, like, 'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,' and it just got so toothless.

Okay, so every time they tried to talk themselves into having this be a rogue group, Weekes uses the word "they", the idea just got so toothless. Weak, lame, unsatisfying. Agreed?

It got to a point where we were like 'No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot.' We own this. The Qunari aren't being used anywhere but in our games. So if we're gonna say the Qunari are gonna start a war, let's have the Qunari start a war, and let's own it.

The underlined is my emphasis on Weekes' word. He is directly referring to this group of Qunari, not any single one of them, as a group that we fight. Do you agree?

So he says who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot? Who wants to fight some fakers? Right?

Next he says we own this. So BioWare owns this. "The Qunari", there's that reference again, aren't being used anywhere but in Dragon Age games. So who is he referring to here? I believe he is referring to the real Qunari. The Qun carrying members of the Qunari society. He is making the point that they don't have to make sure not to mess up the storylines of any other games. They can do whatever they want with the Qunari. Agreed?

His following statement indicates this as well, because BioWare is saying the Qunari will start a war, so lets have the real Qunari start a war. And let's own it. Agreed?

So what was the outcome? That the rogue group idea was dropped, and they (the writers) used real Qunari instead, for the purpose of trying to start a war. Do we agree on this?

Now, where I think your side and mine are diverging is in regards to how Weekes statement applies to "the Qunari", or who he is talking about. Perhaps you think that Weekes' statement now opens it up to Qunari society and Par Vollen in general. Like, we say the Qunari in Par Vollen will one day start a war, so let's have the Qunari in Par Vollen start a war THIS day. Is this what you think he was saying?

Well, here's my retort to that. When we take Weekes' previous reference in context, that he is referring specifically to the group of Qunari we fought in the DLC, and we make that group real Qunari instead of rogue qunari, it simply means that these real Qunari are being used by BioWare in the context of Trespasser's story to try to start a war. The writers are using real Qunari to try to start the war that BioWare is always talking about.

This is clear in Weekes' statements. He specifically referred to BioWare saying that the Qunari will start a war, so now they are using real Qunari in this group that we fight to try and start a war. Do you agree or disagree with this? If not, why?

Also, no reference here to Viddasala, the act of war being authorized, and no mention of the Triumvirate. No mention of Par Vollen or the Qunari as a whole. Agree or disagree?

And in that case, the only reasonable outcome was that if you hadn't gotten Iron Bull out of the Qun, it made no sense for him to do anything but turn on you.

Pretty self-explanatory here. Because they chose to use real Qunari, it made no sense for Hissrad to do anything but turn on you. Because by mere fact of them being real Qunari it means Hissrad is duty bound to fight along side his fellow Qunari, probably regardless of circumstances. So unless you got him out of the Qun, he had to side with the real Qunari. Do we agree?

It's one of those things where, you know, I don't know if we would have done things differently if we had known 'Oh we definitely want to have the Qunari in the Trespasser DLC, and what does that do for Iron Bull?', if we had known that years and years ahead of time, if we would have changed Iron Bull's plot somewhere, had him start as a Tal'Vashoth, or something like that, but I really like that choice.

Nothing important here. They wanted the real Qunari in Trespasser. He wonders if they would have changed things had they known that. Agree?

I love that we gave you a choice, and that it didn't immediately have a white hat and a black hat on it. And that it was a choice that had teeth; I love those, because it was really interesting after Trespasser shipped, watching the reaction to those.

Nothing important. Having real Qunari gave the choice "teeth". Agree?

Because there were many people who were surprised and very unhappy and said 'This shouldn't have happened, even though I made Bull loyal to the Qun, he still should have respected me and not turned on me,' and there were a few people who would say that, but everytime someone said that, everyone else would turn and look at them and go 'What did you think was going to happen? You did a plot and told this guy specifically to be loyal to the Qun, so yeah, when the Qunari come... You did a plot that told him to stay on their side,' so really, there was no other way for us to do that.

Now, this isn't exactly true. Weekes' forgets about the fact that we could skip the quest entirely, and also that telling Bull to hold the hill so the dreadnought can escape isn't the same as saying stay loyal to the Qun. But putting that aside, Weekes refers to "the Qunari" again. Who is he talking about here? The real Qunari in the DLC, the group that we fought. The group Hissrad sides with. Agree?

And it certainly wasn't something I was happy about, it wasn't something Freddie [Prinze Jr] was happy about. You know, it's a wrenching thing, doing something that you know is going to lead to, fortunately at least the possible death of his character, rather than a definitive death of his character, but you know, it's a wrench doing that stuff.

Nothing important here, but I just have to respond to something that irritates me. He says this is at least a possible death rather than a definitive death. Um... it's the more likely result, statistically speaking. If you protected the dreadnought, Hissrad dies. If you don't do the quest, Hissrad dies. He only lives if you are the type of person to agree to a joint operation with the Qunari and agree to defend positions, and then pull out of on of those positions and let the Qunari allies be killed. And if you are that type of person, why agree to the mission in the first place?

So yeah, Iron Bull is most likely dead thanks to the way Trespasser was written.

I am almost to Trespasser in a playthrough where Iron Bull was never contacted, so I don't know if he lives in that case. But even in that case, why would you bring back a character who was never recruited?

But I did that to the actors who played Tali in Mass Effect 3, I did it to the actor who did Mordin in Mass 3, you know, doing that to Freddie Prinze Jr here, it's never happy, but you know... In all these cases the actors looked at it and go 'Oh this is what's happening, this is the plot. Yeah, this is what my character would do,'. And if it makes sense that way, you just have to go with it.

Nothing important there.

So basically this comes down to your side opening up Weekes' statement to apply to all Qunari, when in fact it doesn't. And just having real Qunari in the game doesn't mean they are authorized to commit acts of war.

EDIT: Sorry for screwing up the italics.

Modifié par Dai Grepher, 27 avril 2016 - 01:45 .

[Dai Grepher]

Even disregarding what IlloustriousT explained about the context of the word, we did fight Viddasala. Physical battle is not the only definition of "fight" by a long shot. Look it up. You'll find many definitions that have nothing to do with physical altercation. Even just googling synonyms yields:
 
- quarrel or argue
- campaign determinedly for or against something, especially to put right what one considers unfair or unjust
- struggle or campaign against (something).
 
But more importantly, the word "fighting" in vernacular is understood to mean many different things, and this is yet another example of you being far too literal-minded. Seemingly everyone else already acknowledges that "fighting" means more than what you think it does, and applies neatly to Viddasala, whereas you are stuck on just one possible definition that is obviously not the appropriate one in this instance.

No, you and those on your side just WANT it to mean something else because you want to twist Weekes' statements to fit your theory. Weekes clearly explained what he meant, as shown above.

[Almostfaceman]

They don't have to be authorized to be real Qunari.

 

Of course they do. The Triumvirate has the final say on who is following the Qun. If you don't have their say, you aren't following the Qun. To be a real Qunari, you have to be following the Qun. 

[IllustriousT]

[lynroy]

Wow. Just wow.

[Dai Grepher]

Of course they do.

No, they really don't. They can be real Qunari who swear to the Qun, and they can act on Viddasala's orders, who can lie to them and tell them that she is authorized to attack the South. Viddasala can also be real Qunari and act on her own, just like the Arishok did in DA2. Just as Tallis did in MotA.

The Triumvirate has the final say on who is following the Qun. If you don't have their say, you aren't following the Qun. To be a real Qunari, you have to be following the Qun.

Well the Triumvirate was not available to judge Viddasala's actions until after she was already dealt with. So, in Viddasala's mind she was following the Qun by trying to make war with the South.