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.
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.
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.
Yes. They really do. The Arishok was disavowed by the Triumvirate, and Tallis was reprimanded by the Triumvirate. This means in their actions they did not follow the Qun. What they did was un-Qunari-like. Just because we don't find out until later that their actions were against the will of the Triumvirate (against the Qun) doesn't mean their actions are any less rogue.
Just because the Triumvirate can't instantly swoop down on any of its citizens and stop them or reprimand them in the middle of committing an act they don't approve, doesn't make that action less unauthorized.
What's going on in a citizens mind doesn't make them Qunari. What makes them Qunari is following the Qun. The Triumvirate has the final say about who is and who is not following the Qun. The Triumvirate has the final say who is a Qunari. WHEN they make the pronouncement about an action committed previously doesn't change the fact that AT THE TIME THE ACT IS COMMITTED it's against the Qun. Who says it's against the Qun? The Triumvirate.
So the Viddasala, according to Weekes, is not in any way a rogue, an offshoot. This can only mean that she was authorized to do what she did by the Triumvirate. Otherwise, they find out later and consider her rogue. But we don't have to wonder what the Triumvirate thinks of the Viddasala. Weekes just tells us out right that there's no rogue or offshoot thingees going on at all in Trespasser. Weekes Is The Triumvirate. He knows what they think after the Viddasala did what she did.
The whole point of the Qun is that everyone is assigned a definite and notionally absolute role. Not fulfilling your role - doing something unauthorized, like an antaam who wants to he a baker - is not following the Qun.
And who has the final say on what your role is? The Triumvirate. Who has the final say on how well you've accomplished your role? The Triumvirate. Who has the final say on anyone committing an action they think is inside their role? The Triumvirate.
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.
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,' 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.' 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.
I just tweeted @PatrickWeekes with the link to this thread
Except my twitter account has 0 followers and looks like a creeper account so I'm not sure he'll look
... You probably shouldn't. I mean, that's probably the best way to discourage him or many other devs from visiting BSN entirely :[
Yes. They really do. The Arishok was disavowed by the Triumvirate, and Tallis was reprimanded by the Triumvirate. This means in their actions they did not follow the Qun.
What they did was un-Qunari-like. Just because we don't find out until later that their actions were against the will of the Triumvirate (against the Qun) doesn't mean their actions are any less rogue.
Just because the Triumvirate can't instantly swoop down on any of its citizens and stop them or reprimand them in the middle of committing an act they don't approve, doesn't make that action less unauthorized.
What's going on in a citizens mind doesn't make them Qunari. What makes them Qunari is following the Qun. The Triumvirate has the final say about who is and who is not following the Qun. The Triumvirate has the final say who is a Qunari. WHEN they make the pronouncement about an action committed previously doesn't change the fact that AT THE TIME THE ACT IS COMMITTED it's against the Qun. Who says it's against the Qun? The Triumvirate.
So the Viddasala, according to Weekes,
Weekes just tells us out right that there's no rogue or offshoot thingees going on at all in Trespasser.
And who has the final say on what your role is? The Triumvirate. Who has the final say on how well you've accomplished your role? The Triumvirate. Who has the final say on anyone committing an action they think is inside their role? The Triumvirate.
Then you may as well quit posting, because this is so wrong that it's not even funny.
Also, interestingly enough, since a Qun loyal IB will turn on you, at the order of the Viddasala, then he must know something you don't,
or rather, something that you've been denying since you popped into this thread. The Qunari, according to Weekes in the quote above, are starting a war.
Since you're so hung up on the details, that means that they are authorized to do what they're doing, since what they're doing is an act of war.
I neither know, nor care what romantic notion you have of the Qunari. It's irrelevant to the conversation, because in the very first post of this thread we have Word of God that they are starting a war.
Nothing that you have presented has countered that basic statement,
and boils down to "but my Qunari wouldn't do that".
When asked for citations
I just tweeted @PatrickWeekes with the link to this thread
Wow! Just like how Viddasala was disavowed. Neat.
The Viddasala wasn't disavowed. That would have made her an offshoot or a rogue. They don't exist in Trespasser. Just as Weekes says. That's not a projection. That's what the man says.
I haven't described a "cart before the horse" situation.
If you are following the Qun as dictated by the Triumvirate, you don't need reeducation, punishment, death or declarations of Tal'Vashoth. If you are not following the Qun as the Triumvirate sees fit, you get killed or re-educated. If you escape their power, you are declared Tal'Vashoth.
If the Triumvirate could hover over every one of their citizens, they could control them most efficiently. That's what the society is designed to do, control it's citizens as the Triumvirate sees fit. The Triumvirate, by means of applied force, is the Qun.
If the Triumvirate could hover over the Arishok while he was in Kirkwall, they would have stopped him from attacking Kirkwall. He was outside the will of the Qun. If the Arishok is repentent or shows potential for re-education, he's reeducated. If he doesn't, he's killed. Even if he's repentant, if they decide he has no more potential, he's killed. Or he escapes and is declared Tal'Vashoth.
Since the Triumvirate can't hover over the Arishok, they have to apply the Qun and punish him for going outside the Qun LONG AFTER he commits his offense.
If the Triumivrate could hover over Tallis, they'd stop her from going against their will. They'd punish her/re-educate her at that very moment. If she was deemed expendable, she'd be destroyed. If she escaped their power, she'd be declared Tal'Vashoth.
Patrick Weekes is the Triumvirate. He created them. He knows their will. He is their will. He's a Triumvirate that exists after Trespasser, can tell us the will of the Triumvirate after Trespasser. He can tell us Triumvirate secrets we wouldn't know inside the game, because he takes us out of the game giving us a behind-the-scenes view.
The Triumvirate declares that for Trespasser, there are no rogue operations, all was authorized. Nobody had to be reeducated. Nobody had to be punished. Nobody became an offshoot. Iron Bull obeys the Triumvirate, represented by the Viddasala geographically and turns against the Inquisitor.
After the Triumvirate tells us post-operation that there's no rogue operations or offshoots, any in-game letters to the contrary can be seen in their proper light... as mere misinformation.
You've built your entire argument on misinformation that's been debunked by the Triumvirate post-operation.
I just tweeted @PatrickWeekes with the link to this thread
Except my twitter account has 0 followers and looks like a creeper account so I'm not sure he'll look
... You probably shouldn't. I mean, that's probably the best way to discourage him or many other devs from visiting BSN entirely :[
Or maybe he'll be flattered the DLC is being so commented online. There's practically a new page everyday here.
Writers love having their work appreciated.
Or maybe he'll be flattered the DLC is being so commented online. There's practically a new page everyday here.
Writers love having their work appreciated.
Maybe, but we don't read there minds, do we? (Not to sound too not critical or anything...) But we can hope, right?
Or maybe he'll be flattered the DLC is being so commented online. There's practically a new page everyday here.
Writers love having their work appreciated.
I would't say this particular thread is a shining example of writer appreciation. Plus, we know exactly why this thread is so long...
Or maybe he'll be flattered the DLC is being so commented online. There's practically a new page everyday here.
Writers love having their work appreciated.
The Viddasala wasn't disavowed.
That would have made her an offshoot or a rogue.
They don't exist in Trespasser. Just as Weekes says.
I haven't described a "cart before the horse" situation.
If you are following the Qun as dictated by the Triumvirate, you don't need reeducation, punishment, death or declarations of Tal'Vashoth. If you are not following the Qun as the Triumvirate sees fit, you get killed or re-educated. If you escape their power, you are declared Tal'Vashoth.
If the Triumvirate could hover over every one of their citizens, they could control them most efficiently. That's what the society is designed to do, control it's citizens as the Triumvirate sees fit. The Triumvirate, by means of applied force, is the Qun.
If the Triumvirate could hover over the Arishok while he was in Kirkwall, they would have stopped him from attacking Kirkwall. He was outside the will of the Qun. If the Arishok is repentent or shows potential for re-education, he's reeducated. If he doesn't, he's killed. Even if he's repentant, if they decide he has no more potential, he's killed. Or he escapes and is declared Tal'Vashoth.
Since the Triumvirate can't hover over the Arishok, they have to apply the Qun and punish him for going outside the Qun LONG AFTER he commits his offense.
If the Triumivrate could hover over Tallis, they'd stop her from going against their will. They'd punish her/re-educate her at that very moment. If she was deemed expendable, she'd be destroyed. If she escaped their power, she'd be declared Tal'Vashoth.
Patrick Weekes is the Triumvirate. He created them. He knows their will. He is their will. He's a Triumvirate that exists after Trespasser, can tell us the will of the Triumvirate after Trespasser. He can tell us Triumvirate secrets we wouldn't know inside the game, because he takes us out of the game giving us a behind-the-scenes view.
The Triumvirate declares that for Trespasser, there are no rogue operations, all was authorized. Nobody had to be reeducated. Nobody had to be punished. Nobody became an offshoot. Iron Bull obeys the Triumvirate, represented by the Viddasala geographically and turns against the Inquisitor.
After the Triumvirate tells us post-operation that there's no rogue operations or offshoots, any in-game letters to the contrary can be seen in their proper light... as mere misinformation.
You've built your entire argument on misinformation that's been debunked by the Triumvirate post-operation.
On topic, I don't know why there is doubt on the Viddasala being authorized by the Triunvirate; the Ariqun controlls the Ben-Hassrath and the Arigena the caftmen, and both things are involved,
also, look who else is involved Qunari loyal IB wouldn't follow a rogue and even less Saarath
I'm not going to bother to quote, because he didn't say anything, but it seems we're back to "but the bakers and the farmers weren't involved, so it wasn't a real attempt to start a war.
@Dai
When referring to Patrick Weekes' statement, you have made it clear that the subject or point of the statement is irrelevant if he did not say the actual word/title, etc. or spell it out.
Such as this statement you've made:
Dai Grepher, on 27 Apr 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:And he said nothing of the Triumvirate or Viddasala.
So, I merely pointed out that in neither of his statements does he clarify that we are "fighting" anyone. He says:
No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot
He doesn't back that up with any clarification regarding what we do want - so by your own argument, I cannot consider any of your claims seriously, unless Patrick Weekes actually says the words.
It is crazy that you expect others to "address the subject of the statement," or recognize the "point" of a statement without those statements having the inclusion of said word/title, etc. Yet, you attempt to debunk other's claims with "But he didn't mention it."
This is absurd.
... You probably shouldn't. I mean, that's probably the best way to discourage him or many other devs from visiting BSN entirely :[
Oh I don't know. Devs have looked at these forums and have laughed at them before.
I think one was on how Cassandra's face was "too manly" and how he demanded that the real "feminine" Cassandra be brought back to DAI. And the devs were like "Aww! Cute! Look at em' being angry!"
No, that's what Weekes indicated by referring only to the Qunari we fight against in the DLC. Disagree with the lead writer if you want to, but I take him at his word on this.
@Dai
When referring to Patrick Weekes' statement, you have made it clear that the subject or point of the statement is irrelevant if he did not say the actual word/title, etc. or spell it out.
So, I merely pointed out that in neither of his statements does he clarify that we are "fighting" anyone. He says:
No, really, who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot
He doesn't back that up with any clarification regarding what we do want - so by your own argument, I cannot consider any of your claims seriously, unless Patrick Weekes actually says the words.
It is crazy that you expect others to "address the subject of the statement," or recognize the "point" of a statement without those statements having the inclusion of said word/title, etc. Yet, you attempt to debunk other's claims with "But he didn't mention it."
The fact of the matter is, you've been calling Weekes a liar since you first posted in this thread, all because you don't want to accept the truth: The Qunari had plans in motion to go to war.
Retour en haut
