1580 réponses à ce sujet

[Dai Grepher]

Except that the Arishok clearly states that taking over Kirkwall is not his role. So the rest of the Triumvirate disavowing him is correct.

[kimgoold]

Yes! I want to fight Stenishok. Bring it Bioware. So looking forward to this!. And on a lesser note we stop Solas ending the world.

[thesuperdarkone2]

The letter found in the Darvaarad from the Triumvirate to the Inquisition. Viddasala intercepted it, read it, and angrily crumpled it up, preventing its intended delivery. The letter stated that the Triumvirate had no knowledge of Viddasala's actions and was sending troops to investigate. It reassured the Inquisition that they valued the alliance. This proves that Viddasala was acting without authorization. Otherwise she would have allowed it to be delivered to the Inquisition for deception purposes. This was also an act against the Triumvirate that could have caused the Inquisition to assume that Par Vollen did commit an act of war.

Or maybe she wrote it and decided to scrap it and just get on with the plan, or maybe she's angry that she's been disavowed. Any of those make more sense than what you wrote now that Weekes confirmed this is an official operation.

 

 

Have you ever heard of any spy tropes and that whole "If you're caught, we will deny all evidence of your existence" spiel every mission control gives to a spy?

[Kurogane335]

It isn't that surprising. But what it spells for the future of the DA franchise makes me think that Trespasser was the last time I gave out my money for Bioware. If indeed the Qun end as an enemy in the next game but Tevinter isn't, or worse, can be saved/reformed, I can already tell that I won't buy it and probably no other DA game after it, since I wouldn't have any interest in it anymore. And since I've already zero interest in Andromeda, I doubt I'll buy another Bioware game for a long time, if ever. At least, it will free some money for other purposes, which is great.

[vertigomez]

It isn't that surprising. But what it spells for the future of the DA franchise makes me think that Trespasser was the last time I gave out my money for Bioware. If indeed the Qun and as an enemy in the next game but Tevinter isn't, or worse, can be saved/reformed, I can already tell that I won't buy it and probably no other DA game after it, since I wouldn't have any interest in it anymore. And since I've already zero interest in Andromeda, I doubt I'll buy another Bioware game for a long time, if ever. At least, it will free some money for other purposes, which is great.

That's a big assumption for a game that won't be out for god knows how many years. For all we know, we'll witness the collapse of the Imperium. Or we won't go there at all, we'll have a minor operation where we receive intel or encourage a slave riot or something.

Jesus, everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

[Kurogane335]

That's a big assumption for a game that won't be out for god knows how many years. For all we know, we'll witness the collapse of the Imperium. Or we won't go there at all, we'll have a minor operation where we receive intel or encourage a slave riot or something.

Jesus, everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

That's why I say if. But the track record of Bioware on that regard is terrible, especially with Trespasser where they have clearly dropped the ball on a nuanced storyline about the Qunari for a stupid "They too different. They evil".

[Dai Grepher]

Or maybe she wrote it and decided to scrap it and just get on with the plan, or maybe she's angry that she's been disavowed. Any of those make more sense than what you wrote now that Weekes confirmed this is an official operation.

Have you ever heard of any spy tropes and that whole "If you're caught, we will deny all evidence of your existence" spiel every mission control gives to a spy?

Scrapping it would make no sense in that case, as she knew that no response from the Triumvirate would result in the Inquisition and the southern nations concluding that Par Vollen committed an act of war. If she began forging a response letter, she wouldn't have stopped.

Why would she be angry that she's been disavowed to the enemy if the Triumvirate authorized her? Why wouldn't she just see it as the Triumvirate helping to deceive the Inquisition?

Weekes didn't confirm that it was an official operation. You're lying.

They might disavow her if she fails in her authorized mission, but they would also disavow her if she truly was unauthorized. And my point isn't only that she was disavowed, it was that she responded to it with anger. If she is one of those "we will disavow you if you fail" kind of agents, then why would she be mad at being disavowed?

If what you claim were true, she simply would have passed the letter on, or NOT intercepted it to begin with, and continued in her mission. But she didn't do that. Did she?

But of course you're getting off topic. This is about what Patrick Weekes said, and what he didn't say. He only said the Qunari we fought were real Qunari. He never said it was an authorized operation.

[Dai Grepher]

It isn't that surprising. But what it spells for the future of the DA franchise makes me think that Trespasser was the last time I gave out my money for Bioware. If indeed the Qun end as an enemy in the next game but Tevinter isn't, or worse, can be saved/reformed, I can already tell that I won't buy it and probably no other DA game after it, since I wouldn't have any interest in it anymore. And since I've already zero interest in Andromeda, I doubt I'll buy another Bioware game for a long time, if ever. At least, it will free some money for other purposes, which is great.

Don't believe the thread's author. He is ignoring what Patrick Weekes actually said, and inserting his own baseless opinion as fact.

Weekes never said the Dragon's Breath operation was authorized by the Triumvirate in Par Vollen.

[Kurogane335]

He never said so, but it is clearly implicit in what he said. I highly doubt that Bioware would call them real Qunari if they weren't sanctioned by Par Vollen. They do know what they write, after all.

[vertigomez]

That's why I say if. But the track record of Bioware on that regard is terrible, especially with Trespasser where they have clearly dropped the ball on a nuanced storyline about the Qunari for a stupid "They too different. They evil".

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. I don't think they've lost their nuance. Getting peeks into their everyday lives in DAI - hearing about how a baker's the same no matter what country they're from, listening to Bull and Cole reminisce about his beloved Tama, knowing that nobody goes hungry in Par Vollen - shows that they're not just some evil monolith.

[Kurogane335]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. I don't think they've lost their nuance. Getting peeks into their everyday lives in DAI - hearing about how a baker's the same no matter what country they're from, listening to Bull and Cold reminisce about his beloved Tama, knowing that nobody goes hungry in Par Vollen - shows that they're not just some evil monolith.

True. But all of this was basically dropped for absolute aggression in the DLC. At the very same time when, if the players had made the choice to befriend Solas, there is the possibility to have a nuanced future about him (even if it would probably be extremely difficult). Meanwhile, the active portrayal of the Qun Bioware has chosen with full knowledge of the fact that the Qunari-hating crowd would feel vindicated about it, involved betrayal of trust, terrorism and open hostility. Never have the Qunari even tried to contact an Inquisitor who have saved their alliance (since the content of letter written by the Ariqun makes no sense if you have chosen to prioritize the alliance, since it goes on to say that a dreadnought have been sunk, which happens only if one chose to save the Chargers).

 

There is no nuance, no wish to develop them into something more complex and understandable. Had they wanted to, Bioware's writers could have made us fight the Qunari during the DLC only to discover that it was all along what Solas wanted, to weaken the Inquisition standing with both the Qun and Southern Thedas. There would have been way to do so and retain the awesome fights we had in Trespasser. It was not chosen, and instead the Qunari were purely evil for the sake of it.

[Kabraxal]

True. But all of this was basically dropped for absolute aggression in the DLC. At the very same time when, if the players had made the choice to befriend Solas, there is the possibility to have a nuanced future about him (even if it would probably be extremely difficult). Meanwhile, the active portrayal of the Qun Bioware has chosen with full knowledge of the fact that the Qunari-hating crowd would feel vindicated about it, involved betrayal of trust, terrorism and open hostility. Never have the Qunari even tried to contact an Inquisitor who have saved their alliance (since the content of letter written by the Ariqun makes no sense if you have chosen to prioritize the alliance, since it goes on to say that a dreadnought have been sunk, which happens only if one chose to save the Chargers).
 
There is no nuance, no wish to develop them into something more complex and understandable. Had they wanted to, Bioware's writers could have made us fight the Qunari during the DLC only to discover that it was all along what Solas wanted, to weaken the Inquisition standing with both the Qun and Southern Thedas. There would have been way to do so and retain the awesome fights we had in Trespasser. It was not chosen, and instead the Qunari were purely evil for the sake of it.

It's been clear since Origins that the Qunari and the rest of Thedas are on a collision course... The Qun, while ot has its positives, is all about control and the denial of individual choice. It has been said and repeated that it is the duty of the Qunari to spread order to the world. War was always coming... It's a testament to the writing that they have shown the better side of the Qun and had characters that ascribe to ir be sympathetic. And they may very well allow the gamer to choose sides in the end or even be the voice of reform. The way Bioware has handled religion and philosophy should push for optimism here... Not cynicism.

[Dabrikishaw]

I get why this might suck for fans that liked the Qun...but they were never all that likable or sympathetic to begin with. This is hardly turning them into "purely evil for the sake of it".

[vertigomez]

True. But all of this was basically dropped for absolute aggression in the DLC.

Still, ultimately, gonna have to disagree. "Absolute aggression" is not new for them. Sten foreshadows this several times in DAO. The Arishok insists they will return. They have conquered southern nations in the past and their philosophy demands that they continue to do so.

The aggression isn't new. Solas took everyone by surprise, but the Qunari absolutely didn't.

[Robert Cousland]

Except that the Arishok clearly states that taking over Kirkwall is not his role. So the rest of the Triumvirate disavowing him is correct.

 

AND YOU SHOULD ALL BE GRATEFUL.

[Dai Grepher]

He never said so, but it is clearly implicit in what he said. I highly doubt that Bioware would call them real Qunari if they weren't sanctioned by Par Vollen. They do know what they write, after all.

How is it implied in what he said?

There is a difference between "real Qunari" and "sanctioned by Par Vollen". Were the Qunari under the Arishok in DA2 "real Qunari"? Were they "sanctioned by Par Vollen". They were real Qunari, and they were sanctioned by Par Vollen to recover the Tome of Koslun. They were not sanction to attack Kirkwall however. The Arishok wrongly ordered them to attack, and was disciplined for it if allowed to return to Par Vollen.

[IllustriousT]

 

There is no nuance, no wish to develop them into something more complex and understandable. Had they wanted to, Bioware's writers could have made us fight the Qunari during the DLC only to discover that it was all along what Solas wanted, to weaken the Inquisition standing with both the Qun and Southern Thedas. There would have been way to do so and retain the awesome fights we had in Trespasser. It was not chosen, and instead the Qunari were purely evil for the sake of it.

 

  I interpreted something different from their role in Trespasser. The ability for them to understand how the eluvians work, the ability to put spies in the inquisition, and the ability to mold magic for their benefit. They seem to be very complex. They feel the Inquisition, which at this point is a very powerful organization is in cohorts with a God like ancient Elvhen. 

 

I think they had reason to do as they did - and that isn't evil. 

[The Baconer]

Well, we've shifted from "Viddasala was Tal-Vashoth" to "Viddasala is real Qunari, and I've never claimed otherwise."

[KaiserShep]

I get why this might suck for fans that liked the Qun...but they were never all that likable or sympathetic to begin with. This is hardly turning them into "purely evil for the sake of it".

Aside from that, the southerners are a bunch of corrupt fiends from their perspective. Even if the Qunari ally with the Inquisition, it turns out that the Inquisition is basically overrun with elven rebel spies and from what they gathered, the entire organization was co-founded by an agent that gave a magister-turned-darkspawn a magical a-bomb that caused the world to become [more of] a demon-filled hellhole, which apparently passed on its power to their leader.

[Dai Grepher]

Well, we've shifted from "Viddasala was Tal-Vashoth" to "Viddasala is real Qunari, and I've never claimed otherwise."

Who wrote that she was Tal-Vashoth?

[In Exile]

Saving the Dreadnought isn't telling Iron Bull "to be specifically loyal to the Qun". I mean I don't disagree with the consequence for his character, but there are plenty of possible reasons to want to save the Dreadnought that have nothing to do with wanting him to be loyal to the Qun.

It is, though. You need to appreciate the conflict. The Qun demands that he sacrificed everything he values for the sake of his mission. He hesitates - he asks whether he should. Telling him to sacrifice the Chargers for the sake of the whole (because it will complete the mission, because the alliance has value) tells him that what matters is the mission and the role you've undertaken to complete it, no matter the cost. The Inquisitor might have plenty of reasons for wanting to let the Chargers die, but the pragmatic justifications all come down to duty.

[In Exile]

True. But all of this was basically dropped for absolute aggression in the DLC. At the very same time when, if the players had made the choice to befriend Solas, there is the possibility to have a nuanced future about him (even if it would probably be extremely difficult). Meanwhile, the active portrayal of the Qun Bioware has chosen with full knowledge of the fact that the Qunari-hating crowd would feel vindicated about it, involved betrayal of trust, terrorism and open hostility. Never have the Qunari even tried to contact an Inquisitor who have saved their alliance (since the content of letter written by the Ariqun makes no sense if you have chosen to prioritize the alliance, since it goes on to say that a dreadnought have been sunk, which happens only if one chose to save the Chargers).

There is no nuance, no wish to develop them into something more complex and understandable. Had they wanted to, Bioware's writers could have made us fight the Qunari during the DLC only to discover that it was all along what Solas wanted, to weaken the Inquisition standing with both the Qun and Southern Thedas. There would have been way to do so and retain the awesome fights we had in Trespasser. It was not chosen, and instead the Qunari were purely evil for the sake of it.

I don't get it - Sten straight up tells you the Qunari do not value an alliance or treaty all the way back in DAO. It has nothing to do with evil: it is their value system. They certainly do not do it out of malice. If you didn't think they were portrayed as being villains in DA2 then I cannot see what has changed in DAI.

There's no alliance with the Qunari. They have no concept of such a thing. Why do you think the IB is so apprehensive about it when the quest starts?

As to their being evil, all I can think of is the deluge of threads about them being toned down or made nicer by way of how the IB suggests they could see Krem (and he doesn't even say it's a positive - just watch his face and hesitation when Krem lights up at how the Qun might treat him better).

The Qunari would arguably make life a lot better for a lot of people - elves certainly. The poorest of Thedas probably - they would move up on the social ladder.

The Qunari operate on Blue and Orange morality. That and the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[The Baconer]

Who wrote that she was Tal-Vashoth?

"Viddasala's actions and reaction to the Triumvirate's reply is proof that she was Tal-Vashoth."

"She's acting outside the Qun. She has no rank."

"Hissrad and his stupid choice to side with the failure of a Tal-Vashoth Viddasala"

"So what is Hissrad's choice when this obvious Tal-Vashoth calls on him to kill the Inquisitor?"

You're like a politician. But not even a good one, really.

[Gilli]

Who wrote that she was Tal-Vashoth?

 

You keep saying the Viddasala went rogue. If she went rogue, she'd be a Tal-Vashot.

 

 

 

Qunari = Qunari loyal to the Qun examples: Arishok, Sten, Viddasala, Saarath, Ketojan, Iron Bull (if the Chargers were sacrificed)

 

Tal-Vashot = Qunari that left the Qun examples: Salit, Iron Bull (if Dreadnaught was sacrificed)

 

Vashot = Qunari not born under the Qun examples: The Inquisitor (Adaar), the other members of the Valo-Kas mercenary group.

[Hiemoth]

It is, though. You need to appreciate the conflict. The Qun demands that he sacrificed everything he values for the sake of his mission. He hesitates - he asks whether he should. Telling him to sacrifice the Chargers for the sake of the whole (because it will complete the mission, because the alliance has value) tells him that what matters is the mission and the role you've undertaken to complete it, no matter the cost. The Inquisitor might have plenty of reasons for wanting to let the Chargers die, but the pragmatic justifications all come down to duty.

 

I think the problem with the mission in question is that while I completely agree that the intent of the story was what is described above, the implementation of the story was horrid. And I don't even mean because of the weird presentation issue.

 

The Chargers were a military unit hired by the Inquisition for specifically take part in combat missions. While suicide missions are not a part of the agreement, there is an inherent risk in every single mission. This was a military mission where they are tasked in protecting a larger troop and, because of emotional ties, the IB decides to pull them for a field and thus sacrificing other allied military units in play. This wasn't a question of Qunari philosophy or anything like that, but rather that the Chargers were shown to be a really unreliable force in crucial military tasks, which I guess is fair for mercenaries.

 

To give a comparative example, let's say Orlais had ten scouts guarding a mountain pass where a hundred Inquisition troops were moving through, relying on the protection of those scouts. Then suddenly enemy troops move to ambush the Inquisition troops with the numerically overmatched scouts being the only people capable of buying time for the Inquisition troops to get to safety and whose very task being there is to protect those Inquisition troops. In this case if the Orleasian captain made the decision to save the scouts because he actually really cares about them and knowingly cause the death of the Inquistion troops who they were there to protect, would anyone even thinking about praising what a good captain that dude was?