1580 réponses à ce sujet

[midnight tea]

I thought of it more as a poorly thought out rage-fueled heat of the moment decision. I just don't think she got to the point of "Well, I'm gonna do this knowing I'm going to die."

 

Her "seriously?" face right after he turns away is especially hilarious.

[Dai Grepher]

???

We are discussing how the Triumvirate reacts to Viddasala. You think they try to brush her actions under the rug. I asked, when have they ever do that? You answered with Viddasala's example. But that is the situation in question. You can't use that as proof. What examples before this have they tried to cover up?

That it was. I'm talking about their reaction to it. Whatever mess they do, be it authorized or not, they expect everyone to get over it as if nothing happened and hold no grudges.

But before this you claimed they brushed it under the rug. The claim wasn't about how they expect others to react. I don't know if they expect people to get over it and hold no grudges. I'm sure that's what they hope, but I doubt they expect anything from bas except maybe that they will react irrationally. The point is that they publicly disavowed the Arishok. They didn't sweep anything under the rug. They addressed it, they moved on. Same with Viddasala. They disavowed her in the letter, then sent Qunari to investigate her (according to the letter).

I'm talking about their attitude towards everything. That just shows what sort of people they really are. They'll never admit to anything that puts them in a bad light.

But what evidence do you have of this? Sten surrendered to the templars and admitted his crimes. He also acknowledged that he portrayed his people in a bad light if asked about it by the Guardian.

The Arishok had one job, to find the tome. Him attacking Kirwall isn't that outrageous since Isabela might've been hiding somewhere. It's not like she left a note saying she left the city.

That is not a reason to attack a southern state, because the thief might be hiding there.

For all we know, a living Arishok not being the Arishok anymore must be because it took him too long to find his dumb book, while he did nothing but sit on his ass waiting for it to materialize in his lap.
Besides, he himself says that the Qun might demand to step in if things get out of control, which they did.

What does his removal from that position have to do with anything?

He said the demand might change. But who changes it? Not him alone. The other two Salasari who sent him there would logically have a say.

They don't knowledge because if they did, then they'd have 3 nations and a powerful organization ready to attack them.

You're bringing up a different issue. This particular point was about the Llomeryn Accords. So do you concede that?

As for Viddasala, they did acknowledge that she was not authorized. If you mean that they would not acknowledge that they authorized Dragon's Breath, you are assuming that they did. It is likely they didn't, which is why they genuinely disavowed it. But what if they did authorize it? What proof do you have that they would deny it? How do you know they wouldn't claim they approved it just to let them all know that the Qunari were at war with the world again?

You could say, "They would never be that stupid", but again, how do you know? What examples can you give?

It's the wording. They could have just mentioned the loss of the dreadnought and not get into details about it. I don't know how you read that letter but it sounded bitter. It's a wonder it didn't burn your hands when you read it.

It was, but so what? It had a theme of, "you dare blame us when you let our people get killed". All that says to me is that they are taking the moral high-ground in denying the Inquisition's accusation. It also shows that they dislike the Inquisition, but will still take the time to respond to an Inquisition letter than warns of a world war.

And I don't even know why you brought up the dreadnought in the first place.

I was replying to your point about how they are quick to bring up about how their "sorry boat" sank.

If you paid attention to the epilogue, after the Exalted Council, the qunari attacked Tevinter. Brutally did they do so. They were waiting for their genius plan in the south to succeed. And since it didn't they took out their frustration on Tevinter.

No, they merely renewed their attacks on Tevinter. The epilogue does not state that they went at them with greater numbers or with more brutality. It also states that the renewed attacks caught the already unstable Imperium off guard. And this was after debates were waged in Par Vollen. Debates no one outside of Par Vollen knows the topics of. But this could be the Triumvirate yelling at the Ben-Hassrath and maybe even the Ariqun for not watching Viddasala closely enough, which is what allowed her to do what she did.

Why the dreadnought?
 
You just read what you want so you can come up with arguments that have nothing to do with most things most say.
I'm sure there's a word for it but it's 6AM.

Rebuttal?

It's proof that the Qunari leadership won't just look at each other and nod if the mission succeeds, as you claimed. To them, success does not justify going against the rules.

[Dai Grepher]

So, losing a dreadnaught, her crew, and a highly placed agent in the Inquisition is considered a win by the Qunari? How the hell does anyone take them seriously in Thedas?

... No. That's considered a loss. Which is why I wrote, "Yet the Triumivrate doesn't just nod to each other in contentment and make any move." My point is that the mission itself was a success in any case, the red lyrium never left Ferelden, but the Qunari don't consider that a win because the dreadnought was supposed to be defended by the two squads that took each hill. In fact, the letter in this worldstate calls it the "failed" joint operation.

All this shows is that the Qunari treat the words, treaties and oaths they make as if they were water. As something that a parched man is so desperate for, they fail to realise it will eventually run out and that which drunk will not satisfy their thirst indefinitely.

Or in other words;

Qunari say what you want to hear, because you want to hear it and because it suits them at the moment to let you believe it.

They didn't make the Llomeryn Accords, they only signed them. The way Sten saw it, this signing meant nothing at the time and means nothing now. There was no honor in signing. Honor is what will bring the Qunari back to southern shores. So this has nothing to do with how the Qunari respond when one of their own acts without authorization. I'm not sure it shows how Qunari respond if a war operation fails, but the way Sten spoke of Qunari honor, if they attempted to start a war then this was honorable and the Qunari should claim credit for it. And then they should continue with war. But I won't make that claim, or at least not yet.

Sten straight up tells you they don't value treaties and only sign them because other cultures seem to value them. They stopped because the Qun demanded it. Sten - and every qunari we meet since - tells us blatantly they will start again when they decide it is appropriate.

And yet there is no war at the end of Trespasser. Does this not indicate that they genuinely believed that war was not appropriate at present?

If the point is that she doesn't want to be captured, may as well fight the target you haven't a chance of surviving against.

Why? If she can kill the Inquisitor then he can't capture her. Then she can escape with one of the major mission objectives completed.

I need to ask: what chance? At the end of Trespasser, the Inquisitor has a lengthy chat with Solas before the mark starts acting funny again.

Assume Viddasala was not petrified. She turns to leave and there's the Inquisitor. He calls to Solas. Then his hand acts up and he falls to his knees. This is Viddasala's chance to run away. Solas then uses his magic to bring the mark under control. Then the two start talking.

So, is she deaf? The music we hear is not diegetic. The Eluvians make a sound when activated. The Inquisitor doesn't precisely approach stealthily.

Yeah, especially if its the British male, who sounds like Homer Simpson when he yelps. But this was a ways away from where Solas and Viddasala were. The Inquisitor had to walk in a ways before he could hear Viddasala and Solas talking. Viddasala was focused on Solas.

Eluvian activation + steps + no "for the Qun!" or something cry = the person or people behind me are not reinforcements for my side. It's not as if she wasn't in a position to expect them if the other Qunari forces had killed the Inquisitor. But if someone crosses and is not rushing to help her it means her worst fears are confirmed.

She couldn't hear his footsteps. She was on higher ground than he was, which means the sound is blocked.

It is. Revealing some information when you think the witnesses are going to die is a case of holding the Cliched Villain Ball, but very different from being captured by an enemy who is not going to be defeated and will use that information to cause harm to your side.

And what makes Viddasala think that the Inquisitor's companions will die?

No offense, but this thread is clear proof that the Qunari could get away with planning the worst terrorist attack in Thedosian history as long as the wronged party didn't gather enough evidence against them.

None taken. It's actually evidence that Par Vollen could have nothing to do with it and yet still be blamed for it even though the accusers have no evidence. No offense.

"Did you find any compromising letters? Of course you didn't. Ah, so did she say something? Well, maybe she was mad and needed some reeducation. Oh, you say it isn't the case? Then, tell me, is she there with you? Did you have the chance to get a complete confession? No, of course. She died. A pity, isn't it?".

Well, I disagree with your analogy. This particular point is regarding Viddasala's behavior. Is she a good scapegoat for the Triumvirate, or is she a liability in that she implicates them? That's a different discussion from "did you find evidence"? Well, in a scenario in which you find no evidence, then yeah, you can't rightly hold them responsible. You have no evidence. So if they did plan it, yeah they would get away with it. The thing is, we find evidence that supports the idea that the Triumvirate had nothing to do with Dragon's Breath or Viddasala's actions. The letter, which Viddasala intercepted and denied delivery. We also have evidence that she was crazy, as was Saarath.

[Dai Grepher]

Her capture would not only have made the Qunari's plausible deniability harder to defend, but it could have even worse consequences. At worst, leaving Dragon's Breath plan in the open may push Qunari-South relations back to a similar state as in the past. Even that can be assumed. But Viddasala is one of the most important people among the Ben-Hassrath. She's in charge of conversion, reeducation and magic. Revealing state secrets in any of those areas would be a disaster to the Qunari.*

*(I admit this last point could be used for a non-loyal Viddasala too, because she would know those secrets regardless her loyalty).

I would think she would be trained to withstand interrogation. She's probably up to biting off her own tongue.

Not even in our world do secret agencies like the idea of chances. Otherwise, they wouldn't have invented the suicide pill. And Qunari in-universe are no different. Remember how Ketojan killed himself because of the remote chance he could be corrupted after being outside the karataam? That's not the kind of people who like chances either.

Different case. Viddasala was fine with taking chances, no matter how slight, when she balled up the Triumvirate letter and tried to rush more gaatlok anyway, thinking there was still a chance to attack the South.

In any case, I admit there were other options for her, but I can't blame her for not seeing them in her state of mind. As I said before, failure after failure, a final humilliation and fearing the worst ("death" not being the worst) are not the best clues for cold, rational and informed decision-making.

She willingly chose death though. It isn't like Solas brought out his shadow wolf and was about to finish her Mortal Kombat style. She had time to think. I bet all she could think of was how she could not return to Par Vollen after acting without authorization like that.

I don't have the energy to quote the relevant portion, but this is in response to Dai Grepher.

Any student of history can tell you that execution for failure was been standard procedure in many militaries throughout the world.

What about the Qunari culture? We saw Tallis' failure met with demotion, not even met with qamek. The Qunari also profess to value lives as a precious resource. They aren't going to kill a Qunari for trying their best and failing, especially when it comes to war, which boils down to how strong your opponent is.

And the qunari do not put a particular value on life. If you make Iron Bull, they send two assassins to kill him. To be clear: they sent just TWO assassins armed with a poison he already had an antidote for. They threw those agents' lives away just to send a message.

Not necessarily. Two might be the only ones they could possibly sneak in. They also might not have known Iron Bull was resistant to that poison. The Qunari may have also expected those assassins to succeed. It isn't that they didn't value their lives, it's that the Qun demanded that a Tal-Vashoth be hunted down and killed.

To this discussion of the Vidasala's apparently suicidal decision to attack Solas, I feel I should point out that she committed to her last attack only after he turned his back on her. I think she thought she had a legitimate chance to catch him off guard.

*Bangs spear* Hhhrrrrrrrrrraaaaa-*petrified*

[LOLandStuff]

Sifr said it better. They just tell you what you want to hear, and you bought right into it.

 

For all their rules, the higher-ups are quick to bend them to suit their needs. And that makes perfect  sense. If they want to function properly in a world with magic and whatnot, they can't blindly do as their Big Book of so many Rules dictates.

[Dai Grepher]

Rubbish. The facts speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with what I or any game character wants to hear. Par Vollen had no involvement. And why don't you reply to any of the points I made in rebuttal to yours?

[robertthebard]

Rubbish. The facts speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with what I or any game character wants to hear. Par Vollen had no involvement. And why don't you reply to any of the points I made in rebuttal to yours?

I know why I don't. You don't make very many valid points, and "Citations Needed" gets really boring after a while. This is our latest example of that: "Par Vollen had no involvement.", after we've been told that this wasn't an offshoot of an offshoot, or a rogue group.

[LOLandStuff]

We are discussing how the Triumvirate reacts to Viddasala. You think they try to brush her actions under the rug. I asked, when have they ever do that? You answered with Viddasala's example. But that is the situation in question. You can't use that as proof. What examples before this have they tried to cover up?

 

They brushed it under the rug by denying it? It doesn't just mean covering it up.

The word "deny" has flown around so many time, I'd be in a coma if I started a drinking game.

 

But before this you claimed they brushed it under the rug. The claim wasn't about how they expect others to react. I don't know if they expect people to get over it and hold no grudges. I'm sure that's what they hope, but I doubt they expect anything from bas except maybe that they will react irrationally. The point is that they publicly disavowed the Arishok. They didn't sweep anything under the rug. They addressed it, they moved on. Same with Viddasala. They disavowed her in the letter, then sent Qunari to investigate her (according to the letter).

 

Of course they'd disavow the Arishok since he wasted 5 years doing nothing, and having his men going native and steering up trouble along the Wounded Coast. And before telling me they're no longer Qunari,they're still their responsibility. They brought them to Kirkwall, they have to deal with them.

And of course they'd disavow the Viddasala and "investigate", because lying your through your teeth is a big no no in the Qun.

 

But what evidence do you have of this? Sten surrendered to the templars and admitted his crimes. He also acknowledged that he portrayed his people in a bad light if asked about it by the Guardian.

 

Sten is an indoctrinated who surrenders because he had a mental breakdown in a foreign country. He had his comrades butchered by Darkspawn and his third limb sword missing, without which would've been suicide to return home. The guy just wanted to die.

 

That is not a reason to attack a southern state, because the thief might be hiding there.

 

Yes it is when you have your holy book around which their whole society and way of life revolves.

 

What does his removal from that position have to do with anything?

He said the demand might change. But who changes it? Not him alone. The other two Salasari who sent him there would logically have a say.

 

The Demand of the Qun, that in which he believes in. If things go contrary to his belief, which they did, he will take action.

 

You're bringing up a different issue. This particular point was about the Llomeryn Accords. So do you concede that?

As for Viddasala, they did acknowledge that she was not authorized. If you mean that they would not acknowledge that they authorized Dragon's Breath, you are assuming that they did. It is likely they didn't, which is why they genuinely disavowed it. But what if they did authorize it? What proof do you have that they would deny it? How do you know they wouldn't claim they approved it just to let them all know that the Qunari were at war with the world again?

You could say, "They would never be that stupid", but again, how do you know? What examples can you give?

 

Do you really think Tevinter would pass up the opportunity to murder the Qunari?

 

Sorry to break it to you, but all the thing with the Viddasala not being authorized...nothing but lies.

 

I'll just 5 year old this. But how do you know they didn't lie to you? Because of a letter? A letter which no doubt was full of lies.

They sent that letter just in case the Viddasala would've failed. And she did, and you believed them.

[LOLandStuff]

It was, but so what? It had a theme of, "you dare blame us when you let our people get killed". All that says to me is that they are taking the moral high-ground in denying the Inquisition's accusation. It also shows that they dislike the Inquisition, but will still take the time to respond to an Inquisition letter than warns of a world war.

 

Yeah, how dares the Inquisition accuse them of having spies running amok planting bombs during the Exalted Council. And finding more bombs in different parts of the South. And being attacked by them when the Inquisitor went to investigate. The nerve! No wonder nobody likes the Inquisition.

 

I was replying to your point about how they are quick to bring up about how their "sorry boat" sank.

 

After you brought it up out of the blue.

 

No, they merely renewed their attacks on Tevinter. The epilogue does not state that they went at them with greater numbers or with more brutality. It also states that the renewed attacks caught the already unstable Imperium off guard. And this was after debates were waged in Par Vollen. Debates no one outside of Par Vollen knows the topics of. But this could be the Triumvirate yelling at the Ben-Hassrath and maybe even the Ariqun for not watching Viddasala closely enough, which is what allowed her to do what she did.

 

And that doesn't raise any question?

They had part of their forces sitting on the bench waiting for their plan to succeeded. But since it failed miserably, they went full force on Tevinter.

And those debates? They could've debated the weather. Or how they should've chosen someone more competent for the job.

 

Rebuttal?

It's proof that the Qunari leadership won't just look at each other and nod if the mission succeeds, as you claimed. To them, success does not justify going against the rules.

 

No, not rebuttal. More like coming up with stuff to deviate from the main point.

 

I never mentioned this mission in the first place, you did. I just said they'd nod to each other if they succeed at something. Maybe even pat each others' back.

Yeah, rules they're all too happy to break if they're not caught, and if they are they'll just deny it and find a scapegoat.

 

They're more like: Listen to what I say and don't mind what I...That one over there totally did it.

 

Rubbish. The facts speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with what I or any game character wants to hear. Par Vollen had no involvement. And why don't you reply to any of the points I made in rebuttal to yours?

 

And those facts are? What? Because they told you so?

Strong argument there. Totally gonna believe them.

 

You let yourself be deceived by their poker face. No wonder their faces are so static, they must be lying all day, all night.

And that letter? It's just a piece of paper the bas believe in.

[In Exile]

Where is the proof they disavowed the Arishok? We know he was removed from power. And we know that the Qunari gave some half-hearted apology for basically razing half of Kirkwall. But that's not the same as disavowing the Arishok.

[midnight tea]

Where is the proof they disavowed the Arishok? We know he was removed from power. And we know that the Qunari gave some half-hearted apology for basically razing half of Kirkwall. But that's not the same as disavowing the Arishok.

 

If Varric is to be believed their only comment on that was "we will never speak of that again"

[robertthebard]

Where is the proof they disavowed the Arishok? We know he was removed from power. And we know that the Qunari gave some half-hearted apology for basically razing half of Kirkwall. But that's not the same as disavowing the Arishok.

I think Varric either says it, or implies it in Haven, or whenever you talk to him about Hawke/Kirkwall.

[Reznore57]

Where is the proof they disavowed the Arishok? We know he was removed from power. And we know that the Qunari gave some half-hearted apology for basically razing half of Kirkwall. But that's not the same as disavowing the Arishok.

 

I think the Arishok lost his job even if he survived Kirkwall .

It seems if he survived and took Isabela , she ran with the book again , and he got home anyway and got through some court martial.

Whatever happens the tamassran decide to pick a new Arishok , and change their way of selecting one because they weren't satisfied with the method of old Arinoob.

 

And "In the aftermath of the Qunari attack on Kirkwall, in an unprecedented public display, the two remaining members of the Qunari ruling body traveled to Kont-aar, the only Qunari settlement on mainland Thedas, and made a public statement denouncing and disavowing the Arishok's attack on the city before a crowd of Chantry officials, diplomats and Rivaini seers"

 

from :http://dragonage.wik...om/wiki/Arishok

 

Still I don't know what happened to old Arishok after he was judged , well except of course he lost his job.

[LOLandStuff]

His years spent in Kirkwall lent him a job as a chair tester. Making sure they're not Ikea quality.

[thats1evildude]

Here's a Youtube video of Varric discussing what happened to the living Arishok.

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=wYMVOhQzeZw

[Dai Grepher]

I know why I don't. You don't make very many valid points, and "Citations Needed" gets really boring after a while. This is our latest example of that: "Par Vollen had no involvement.", after we've been told that this wasn't an offshoot of an offshoot, or a rogue group.

You were told that the Qunari in Trespasser were not from outside the Qunari society. That is all.

They brushed it under the rug by denying it? It doesn't just mean covering it up.
The word "deny" has flown around so many time, I'd be in a coma if I started a drinking game.

When you brush, or more accurately, sweep something under the rug, you hide it without addressing it. Meaning, you don't clean it up, you move it to where it isn't seen. That is the origin of that allegory.

The Triumvirate is denying they made the mess. They didn't try to cover it up. They recognize that it exists and they claim they did not order its creation.

I think if we are going to get anywhere in this discussion we need to figure out if the Triumvirate made the mess in the first place or not.

Of course they'd disavow the Arishok since he wasted 5 years doing nothing, and having his men going native and steering up trouble along the Wounded Coast. And before telling me they're no longer Qunari,they're still their responsibility. They brought them to Kirkwall, they have to deal with them.
And of course they'd disavow the Viddasala and "investigate", because lying your through your teeth is a big no no in the Qun.

But you are just posting supposition here. No evidence of your claims.

The remaining Salasari did not disavow the Arishok's mission to recover the tome. They disavowed his aggressive action against Kirkwall. The Arishok's own testimony also proves that he was there in an official capacity to recover the tome, and that he was not demanded to take any action against Kirkwall.

I'm not claiming the Triumvirate would not lie about Viddasala and Dragon's Breath. I'm claiming that there is no evidence that they lied, and there is no evidence that they were involved or authorized it. There is only evidence against these things. And of course they will need to investigate if Viddasala's actions had just been brought to their attention.

Sten is an indoctrinated who surrenders because he had a mental breakdown in a foreign country. He had his comrades butchered by Darkspawn and his third limb sword missing, without which would've been suicide to return home. The guy just wanted to die.

Then why not die in the wilderness, or against the templars who investigated the farm? Why bother admitting to the crime unless he believed justice was due? He didn't even want to leave his cage unless he would be doing something with his life to atone for his crimes.

Yes it is when you have your holy book around which their whole society and way of life revolves.

No it isn't, because attacking a city and possibly provoking the South to war will not get the book back.

The Demand of the Qun, that in which he believes in. If things go contrary to his belief, which they did, he will take action.

That demand is determined by the Triumvirate, not the Arishok alone. He was tasked with recovering the tome, not attacking a city, not defending criminal elves, not destroying that which he considered offensive to his senses.

Do you really think Tevinter would pass up the opportunity to murder the Qunari?

What does Tevinter have to do with this?

Sorry to break it to you, but all the thing with the Viddasala not being authorized...nothing but lies.

But how do you know this?

I'll just 5 year old this. But how do you know they didn't lie to you? Because of a letter? A letter which no doubt was full of lies.
They sent that letter just in case the Viddasala would've failed. And she did, and you believed them.

Because the evidence corroborates their statement. Evidence that I have gone over again and again in this thread. What evidence do you have that they lied?

I cannot rightly claim that they lied unless I have proof that they lied.

Yeah, how dares the Inquisition accuse them of having spies running amok planting bombs during the Exalted Council. And finding more bombs in different parts of the South. And being attacked by them when the Inquisitor went to investigate. The nerve! No wonder nobody likes the Inquisition.

Yes, especially when the Triumvirate authorized no such action against the South. That's the point. That version of the letter responds with incredulity because they don't trust the Inquisition, but they still take the matter seriously even thought the Inquisition in that worldstate promised to defend the dreadnought and then allowed it to be destroyed.

[Dai Grepher]

After you brought it up out of the blue.

No I didn't. If you trace that conversation back to the source, it goes back to your post. You did not quote me, you merely posted your own opinion on the matter. I then replied to you. Your point had to do with the Triumvirate mentioning the dreadnought in their letter.

And that doesn't raise any question?
They had part of their forces sitting on the bench waiting for their plan to succeeded. But since it failed miserably, they went full force on Tevinter.
And those debates? They could've debated the weather. Or how they should've chosen someone more competent for the job.

They didn't go full force on Tevinter. They merely renewed their attacks on Tevinter, same as they have been doing for ages. You also have no evidence that their forces were sitting on the "bench" waiting for Dragon's Breath to succeed. There were no reports of Qunari units waiting off the shores of any southern nation.

The debates are implied to be important ones, not something about the whether or how they should have allegedly picked someone else to direct Dragon's Breath. If it had been authorized, I don't think there would be any debate that Viddasala was incompetent. She failed after all. What is there to debate? What would cause important debate is the Ariqun's lack of oversight and how to prevent agents from acting on their own like that ever again. Viddasala proved that betrayal and corruption was possible even in Qunari government. That would be something worth debating behind closed doors.

No, not rebuttal. More like coming up with stuff to deviate from the main point.

Deflection? Obfuscation? No, I posted evidence that countered your claim. That is called a rebuttal.

I never mentioned this mission in the first place, you did. I just said they'd nod to each other if they succeed at something. Maybe even pat each others' back.
Yeah, rules they're all too happy to break if they're not caught, and if they are they'll just deny it and find a scapegoat.

They're more like: Listen to what I say and don't mind what I...That one over there totally did it.

Yeah, and I proved you wrong on that. Achieving the objective doesn't matter to them if the method of doing so was not the method they ordered. They are not results oriented, they are method oriented. When you complete a mission they give you in a way they did not approve of, at worst you are proving that they are wrong. At least, you are proving that their way is not the only right way. The Qunari do not like that. They want their way to be proven to be the only right way.

And those facts are? What? Because they told you so?

No. Because their letter telling us so was intercepted and discarded by Viddasala. Because Viddasala was violating the Qun in multiple ways. Because her statements are contradicted by in-game facts. Because Par Vollen could not have possibly taken the South, let alone held it.

You let yourself be deceived by their poker face. No wonder their faces are so static, they must be lying all day, all night.
And that letter? It's just a piece of paper the bas believe in.

I analyzed all the facts of the case and determined that the Triumvirate was not responsible. Their own claim of non-involvement was not counted as evidence in an of itself, nor have I ever used it as evidence in these debates.

I think the Arishok lost his job even if he survived Kirkwall .
It seems if he survived and took Isabela , she ran with the book again , and he got home anyway and got through some court martial.
Whatever happens the tamassran decide to pick a new Arishok , and change their way of selecting one because they weren't satisfied with the method of old Arinoob.

And "In the aftermath of the Qunari attack on Kirkwall, in an unprecedented public display, the two remaining members of the Qunari ruling body traveled to Kont-aar, the only Qunari settlement on mainland Thedas, and made a public statement denouncing and disavowing the Arishok's attack on the city before a crowd of Chantry officials, diplomats and Rivaini seers"

from :http://dragonage.wik...om/wiki/Arishok

Still I don't know what happened to old Arishok after he was judged , well except of course he lost his job.

Correct. The information doesn't state what happened to him after he was removed from his position. But he was disavowed.

[LOLandStuff]

See, you're so trusting you don't even bother being a little bit suspicious of them.  And all your facts and evidence boil down to them denying everything in a letter or whatever.

"All that happened? His/her idea. Honest." doesn't even sound convincing in the first place.

It's like believing NK has a unicorn lair because it says so on a carved chunk of rock.

[Dai Grepher]

See, you're so trusting you don't even bother being a little bit suspicious of them.  And all your facts and evidence boil down to them denying everything in a letter or whatever.
"All that happened? His/her idea. Honest." doesn't even sound convincing in the first place.
It's like believing NK has a unicorn lair because it says so on a carved chunk of rock.

Suspicious of them about what? Dragon's Breath? I suspected them the whole time, but I didn't jump to any conclusions. I examined the facts as I found them.

When Hissrad turned on the party I suspected that the operation was official, since he saw the Triumvirate letter (I assume he saw it, though it wasn't acknowledged in the game), and then I thought about it. I concluded that if Hissrad was in on any official operation, he would have turned on me in the beginning at the Forgotten Temple or at least in the Vir Dirthara, not after the plan was foiled. So his betrayal must have been for some other reason. He was scared of being called Tal-Vashoth, or he knew he couldn't kill those he knew were real Qunari, even if they were unauthorized.

If you're referring to the Arishok in DA2, no I never suspected the other Salasari because the Arishok admitted that he wasn't authorized to attack Kirkwall.

I already wrote in my previous post, I never used the letter itself as proof that they weren't involved. I used the fact that Viddasala intercepted it and balled it up as proof that she wasn't authorized. And I have a lot more proof that this, not that you will bother to reply to any of it.

[Gold Dragon]

Even if Weekes came in here, It wouldn't help.

 

Things have a (Very Bad) habit of changing.  The only way to be certain of what happened is when DA4 comes out. If even then.

[Dai Grepher]

It might help. Those on the "authorized" side claim to be following what Weekes said, even if they are misinterpreting him. I have stated that I will take Weekes' word for it if he settles the issue.

As for DA4, short of the (ex)Inquisitor talking directly to the Ariqun or Arishok about it, I doubt it will be referenced at all.

[Sifr]

It might help. Those on the "authorized" side claim to be following what Weekes said, even if they are misinterpreting him. I have stated that I will take Weekes' word for it if he settles the issue.

 

Which is a little hard, since every time we point out that Weekes has already given his word on it, you claim we're "misinterpreting" him.

 

As I said a couple dozen pages ago, this is like denying the Word of God even after hearing it from the Burning Bush?

[lynroy]

And the cycle continues.

[robertthebard]

You were told that the Qunari in Trespasser were not from outside the Qunari society. That is all.

Basically, yes, that's exactly what we were told, meaning that, since it's not a rogue group or an offshoot of an offshoot, the Qunari were planning to go to war, but had those plans dashed by Solas, who exposed them. W/out that, their plan is a resounding success. No hoops required, no headcanon excuses, no mental gymnastics to reach a conclusion, it's spelled out for us in the OP of this thread, in an interview with the writer responsible for it. That is "Word of God", and it trumps all headcanon. Sorry about your luck, but really, that's the way it was.

[Dai Grepher]

Which is a little hard, since every time we point out that Weekes has already given his word on it, you claim we're "misinterpreting" him.

You are misinterpreting him. And at this point most on your side are misinterpreting him on purpose.

If Weekes replied to this thread, it wouldn't be the same as the interview because in the interview he was addressing Hissrad turning on us. In this thread he would be addressing the status of Dragon's Breath and Viddasala directly, which he did not do in the interview.
 

Basically, yes, that's exactly what we were told, meaning that...

No "meaning that". This is where you start injecting your own interpretation into it. Weekes only said the Qunari we fought were not simply those of the qunari race who existed outside the Qunari society, rather they were real Qunari inside Qunari society. That says absolutely NOTHING about them being authorized in their actions or not.
 

...since it's not a rogue group or an offshoot of an offshoot, the Qunari were planning to go to war...

And by your illogic, the Arishok in DA2 was part of Qunari society and thus automatically authorized to attack Kirkwall, thus Par Vollen was waging war on the South.

Tallis was part of Qunari society, thus Par Vollen waged war on Orlais when she assassinated the Orlesian lord.

Sten killed people on a farm. He was part of Qunari society, thus Par Vollen was waging war against Ferelden.
 

...but had those plans dashed by Solas, who exposed them.

Weekes said nothing about Solas or the plan being dashed.
 

W/out that, their plan is a resounding success.

Baseless speculation. Also never stated by Weekes.
 

No hoops required, no headcanon excuses, no mental gymnastics to reach a conclusion, it's spelled out for us in the OP of this thread, in an interview with the writer responsible for it. That is "Word of God", and it trumps all headcanon.

This is nothing but your own fabrication.
 

Sorry about your luck, but really, that's the way it was.

Nope, Weekes and Epler proved me right in the conference video. You deny the word of the writers.