1580 réponses à ce sujet

[thesuperdarkone2]

Hope we learn more about the kossith in da4

[Dai Grepher]

Says someone who's spent 60 pages now disagreeing with the writers?

No, writes someone who disagrees with your side's misinterpretation of what the writers said.

Who are the Qunari from Par Vollen! They provided an actual definition for these Qunari were, all the boxes are ticked for describing Qunari under the Qun! Face it, these are the actual Qunari from Par Vollen!

I never wrote that they weren't from Par Vollen. Where else would they be from, Orzammar?

Just because they are from Par Vollen doesn't mean the Triumvirate authorized them to leave Par Vollen and attack the South.

You simply think, "The Qunari, an invading force from across the sea" means all of Qunari culture. It doesn't. It means the Qunari in Trespasser are an invading force from across the sea. It doesn't mean Par Vollen as a nation is trying to invade.

Weekes stated that they didn't want to chicken out by making them a rogue group. The writers decided to have the Qun-following Qunari to invade the South and own that decision. I honestly don't now how they could have made the fact this was a legitimate invasion any clearer!

No. You're being inaccurate. He said two things there. He said, "and every time we tried to talk ourselves into [making them a rogue group] it just felt so toothless", and "let's have the Qunari start a war, and let's own it".

Now, as I proved to you before, Weekes' definition of "rogue group" is those of the qunari race who are outside of the Qun. He said they did not go with that storyline, and I acknowledge this fact. The Qunari in Trespasser were real Qunari who believed in the Qun, but so were those in Kirkwall. They weren't authorized to attack Kirkwall, just as those under Viddasala were not authorized to attack the South.

Just because that group was Qunari doesn't mean all Qunari were told to invade the South. It was only that group, and the game itself clearly indicates this in the epilogue and in the Triumvirate letter.

As for how they could have made your idea clear had it been true, they could have said that the invasion was official, or authorized, or instructed by the Triumvirate. They could have made reference to the Qunari nation. The only time they made reference to the Qunari society was to say that it cuts saarebas off from magic, while the group in Trespasser was doing the opposite.

No-one else seems to be having any problem following this?

Your entire side is having problems.

Women weren't engaging in warfare.... they were engaging in infiltration, espionage and assassination.

I grant those. However, she also directed a military unit to invade. That is a role reserved only for men.

Qunari understand the difference. The direct approach is the purview of soldiers, while the sneaky approach is the purview of spies.

She used the direct approach in the order given to the antaam soldier to position units in the elvhen ruins near the mirror leading to Halamshiral.

We know no such thing. That's your speculative extrapolation from what we know about the Qun conception of gender.

This is canon fact. Military actions are for men to perform. Viddasala is not a man. Therefore she could not have been authorized to give any order to invade.

Like I said, you're making this "women aren't warriors" into an absolute even when we know it doesn't stop them from sending women in to kill people. We simply do not know where the line is with this idea.

This isn't just about killing people. If authorized, this would be a full-scale invasion. An act of war. Only men can engage in war actions.

But your "facts" aren't facts, they're absolutist extrapolations of an ill defined set of ideas that we know exist in the Qun. We do not know what the limits of these ideas are. We cannot say that "The Qunari would never do this," because this is not simply a woman being part of the Antaam or a woman commanding a military operation. This is a woman fulfilling her role as Vidasala, researching and studying magic, in pursuit of a military goal. It makes sense that both branches would be involved just as it make sense that the one who's actually knowledgable about what their dealing with would be in charge.

No, what makes sense is having Viddasala work on her aspect of the mission, the actions that fit her roles, and some male of the Antaam working on the invasion aspect.

I think you're trying to shield your theory with the Qunari culture's ambiguity and mystery because this point disproves your theory. Yes, there are things about the Qunari that are not explained to us, such as how they rationalize certain situations and actions. However, some things are clearly defined for us already by the games and by the writers. One of those clearly defined things is that military action is reserved for males only. There is no debate on this point.

Viddasala gave military orders to the karashok in the Forgotten Temple. She directed the entire operation, which was an opening attack in what you claim to be an invasion. That is a war decision. Females are never authorized to engage in war decisions.

Too big to "formulate"? No, I don't think it's too big to "formulate", there is no problem with one agent coordinating it. I think it's too big from a practical standpoint for one operative to pull off and completely escape the notice of the Qunari given all the resources involved, including not just access to the Antaam and supplies, but also access to Viddathari with relevant knowledge. That's not even getting into her need to coordinate with Qunari spies across southern Thedas to get the barrels in place.

What resources were involved? First, the resources she got herself:

Gaatlok. The Arigena wasn't needed because Viddasala was making her own gaatlok using unskilled viddathari workers. So Par Vollen would have no idea any of this was going on.

Lyrium. Dangerous Actions branch was not needed because she was using her own Dangerous Purpose branch for this. Also, she found a source for lyrium, so Par Vollen would have no way of knowing this. Jerran, the one who knew enough to expose her plan, is killed by her agents. Also, the red lyrium she could have gotten from almost anywhere in the South.

The eluvians. It is her role to find, study, and stop magic. She found the eluvians, she studied them, and it appears that she smashed some of them. But she also used certain ones. So because this was her role, she and those under her command would have been the only ones to know that they were being used. This also applies to the objects or knowledge used to open the eluvians.

The Ben-Hassrath. She was a Ben-Hassrath priest. She already had her own people.

The viddathari. It was also her role to reeducate people. She was in charge of the viddathari. So it is logical that she was able to convince them that her goal was authorized and that they were to report only to her.

Blueprints of various courts. She could have obtained these from the viddathari spies that she reeducated. Or she could have obtained copies from the Ben-Hassrath in the event that they have already made sketches of their layouts far in advance.

The dragon. This could have been hunted down and taken at any time before Trespasser, and then transported to the Darvaarad for study. If any outside the Dangerous Purpose branch knew of this, then the cover story could have been to determine if it could be tamed or not.

The Darvaarad. A place of quarantine for dangerous magic. This place was already Viddasala's home base. She had control over most of it. As for the front gate, she had her agents lie to the gatekeeper about where they found their relics, never revealing the true locations, which were thousands of miles away and would have aroused suspicion.

Now for what Viddasala needed the other branches for:

The Antaam soldiers. She would need to request them from the Arishok branch. Her excuse could have been that she needed them to protect her agents while they destroyed elvhen ruins. During this time, she could have convinced them that the Inquisition was attacking them through Solas, and that the Inquisition and its allies would need to be stopped. She could have easily told them that the Triumvirate authorized action against the South.

The saarebas. I think the Dangerous Actions branch is in control of them. She would need to get at least four, as that was the number that we fought, not including Saarath, who was ashkaari before this. One in the mines, one in the Vir Dirthara, two at the Darvaarad (one was at the entrance, the other was in the room before the dragon). So I think this is easily done. Viddasala could have said the reason was to help destroy magical artifacts that could not be destroyed physically. Or for protection. Or to study the saarebas themselves. In any case, none of the saarebas had arvaarads with them, which is another no-no under the Qun.

That's it. That's all she needed from the other branches. So I don't know what resources you think she had that she wouldn't be able to get from those outside her branch.

As for those outside her branch not knowing about her activities, that is easily explained by the major flaw in the Qunari's command structure: assumed trust. The Triumvirate assumes that its agents are loyal to them. They assume that lower ranking Qunari are loyal to the Qun. They assume everyone under the Qun understands the Qun's meaning. They assume that their trusted agents will not deviate from the Qun because they assume the punishments are enough to deter them from doing so. Those who report to a commanding officer assume that their commander is truly representing the demands of the Qun, and so they rarely question anything they're doing.

Viddasala took advantage of all these assumptions. And as for those who questioned her actions, she either convinced them that she was right and authorized, or she killed them.

[Dai Grepher]

The Qunari believe that individuals should be assigned roles based on their observed skills and affinities (fact). They give tasks to each according to their roles (fact).

Correct.

The primary task of Dragon's Breath was gathering arcane knowledge to open Eluvians to the relevant locations (fact).

Not fact. First, Dragon's Breath's legitimacy is in question. So it may not have even been within the allowances of the Qun to begin with. Second, all we have to go on is Viddasala's claims about Dragon's Breath's purpose. She claimed it was to bring peace to the South by quickly killing all southern leaders and clearing the way for invasion and easy conversation of the toilers. If this were true, it would require an invasion force from Par Vollen. In this case, Dragon's Breath would be a war action, not a magical gathering and study action. Figuring out eluvians and feeding lyrium to saarebas has nothing to do with invasion of the South. If this were an official invasion, then that would have been the focus. Viddasala's side projects would need to wait for another time, if they were to be done at all. The dragon would have been unnecessary, as the Arigena would have manufactured and turned over enough gaatlok to complete the war effort, or at the very least the Arigena would have been involved in its production with the use of the dragon's venom.

In other cases like creating the gaatlok they brought in specialists whose role presumably didn't fall under the Ben-Hassrath (fact).

No they didn't. They were not specialists. They were novices. The note in the factory proves this. They kept getting the mixture wrong and filling the room with deadly gas. Perhaps you are thinking of the animal trainer, who was advising on the keeping of the dragon. The logbook shows that the trainer disapproved of how the dragon was being kept, even if the Qunari were better than the Orlesian master she once served. Still, this convert is shown to be viddathari, and was questioning the Qun because of Viddasala.

You seem to be making the assumption that the three-part separation of Qun society is absolute, that no part of one section may serve under another even for a specific mission, only under their own.

I wrote nothing of the sort. I made the point you admitted was fact above. Each individual has specific roles designated based on their observed traits. Had this been official, individuals from various branches would have been involved to perform their specific roles. Instead what we see is Viddasala ordering those not suited to those roles being placed in those roles anyway, and kept there even when they constantly fail.

As for serving other leaders of other branches, I have always acknowledged that this is possible. The Antaam soldiers can be directed to various locations by Viddasala to protect the workers. This is a legitimate function under the Qun. What is not legitimate for Viddasala however is to command the Antaam to position itself for an invasion against Halamshiral.

We do not know that this is the case and there very well could have been workers technically under the Arigena in the mines or Darvarrad.

If that were true then Jerran would have mentioned it. Instead he mentions that the Qunari died when they tried to mine lyrium until they figured it out through trial and error. And as I wrote, the Darvaarad workers kept messing up. We also see only Antaam and Ben-Hassrath workers mining the lyrium with gaatlok. There were no non-combatant laborers in the mines or Darvaarad.

That's one of the main points I had raised back there. We know nothing of Qunari society except for what a few characters told us in Origins and Inquisition (therefore all were partial and biased information) plus the very short experience with the Arishok in DA2 (which didn't tell us that much, either).

What we were told is enough to rule out Dragon's Breath as an official operation. Viddasala was a woman. She had no place commanding an invasion effort. Therefore it was not an invasion effort. It was her own plot to start a war with the South.

But as it's expected in a massive forum, people kept insisting there was enough information to judge what the Viddasala was and how her interaction with the Qunari government was supposed to be. Even though we've never even seen Par Vollen at first hand and have no idea what the Triumvirate is, how it operates or how it's even supposed to look like.

We don't need to see buildings and people to know how they and their system of command are structured. We know about the Ariqun, Arishok, and Arigena. We know the purposes they serve. That is more than enough to determine that Viddasala was acting outside of her role. Even the Qunari in Trespasser knew this, and either had to be indoctrinated or killed.

People were building hypothesis on top of hypothesis and insisting the available evidence pointed out to their conclusion being the only one valid. And implying that automatically invalidated the argument of the opposite side of the discussion. And forcing that conclusion upon the other side to the point of ganging up against one guy(!), just because he calmly said there wasn't enough evidence for him to agree with them.

I appreciate the defense, but I think the other side is using what we don't know about the Qunari to hypothesize that Dragon's Breath was authorized. In other words, we don't know how the Qunari society operates; therefore it's possible that Viddasala was solely appointed to do all the things in Trespasser. While I do indeed point out that there isn't any evidence of that, the other side doesn't seem to take that as a mark against their theory. In fact they rely on it. So they aren't using evidence, they are using the lack of evidence.

It was like watching two blind people argue over a painting. They can't see the actual painting, only imagine what it looks like after touching the surface.

True enough for their side. I see and regard the facts. But they will argue that developer statements prove them right. My counter is that they are purposely misinterpreting what Weekes said.

[Dai Grepher]

I don't need an in-depth understanding of how the qunari society functions to dismiss the idea that the Viddasala was a rogue agent. The idea defies common sense.

But you do if you are going to claim that she was acting within the confines of that society. If you don't have an in-depth understanding of how it functions, how can you conclude Viddasala was acting within their rules?

Not claiming she was rogue, but she was unauthorized. How does it defy common sense to think that she was taking action without being ordered to do so by her superiors?

You post about commonsense, and yet the game itself ends with the Qunari disavowing Viddasala and the South accepting that outcome. It states no one was sure if The Iron Bull knew he would be forced to turn on his companions or if he was lying the whole time. So according to these statements, everyone in southern Thedas lacks commonsense. The Triumvirate letter is found balled up in Viddasala's office stating that the top brass has no knowledge of her actions. There are things in the game clearly indicating that she was not authorized. Why should any of that evidence be dismissed?

It requires me to somehow accept that one moderately high-ranked qunari managed to fool dozens of fellow agents and viddathari into helping her essentially wage war on the south, and to commit actions that are in flagrant violation of the Qun.

She committed acts in flagrant violation of the Qun regardless of whether she was authorized or not. So that isn't the issue. Her legitimate role is to reeducate people, so taking control of the viddathari would be easy for her. That also is not the issue.

The real issue is fooling those around and above her. We see evidence of this as well. She instructed her agents not to disclose the locations of the relic they were bringing back to the Darvaarad. We also see that she was able to intercept Hissrad's letters to his superiors, and she was able to intercept the Triumvirate's reply letter to Josephine. But she was not able to intercept Josephine's letter, likely because she sent it through her own private channels.

Also, the Darvaarad was Viddasala's legitimate base of operations. She had eluvians locked up there, far away from the eyes of the Ariqun. She could use the eluvian to travel to the Crossroads, and then to various other locations many miles away to set up her plan. If the Ariqun ever requested Viddasala's presence or ever visited the Darvaarad, Viddasala could be there instantly, and all the smashed eluvians would make it look like she was fulfilling her role. There would also be no record of Viddasala leaving the island by ship, which is the only way the other Qunari would be able to come or go. So the Triumvirate had no reason to suspect Viddasala was doing anything outside the Darvaarad other than send her agents out to retrieve dangerous magical artifacts and quarantine them.

And it requires massive ineptitude from the other qunari, who could stop her from starting a war with a single message passed on to one of the agents she's misled. I thought the qunari were a force to be reckoned with, not a collection of buffoons.

Couldn't the same be said of the Inquisition and every court across the South? Face it, the Qunari were turned into buffoons no matter what side of the debate you're on. At least on my side they were tricked by one of their own who exploited the blind trust that existed at every level of Qunari government. On your side you have a government that dumps a multifaceted operation on one agent who isn't qualified for half of it, gives her no assistance whatsoever, and then blows the whole thing off as if it were nothing when in fact it could have been used against the Qunari as a violation of the Llomeryn Accords thus allowing the entire South to attack Par Vollen if it decided to. Oh, and in the process, risking gaatlok falling into the hands of southern leaders and exposing their spy network, both of which did end up happening.

Cool, show me some thesis work that clearly demonstrates that "not a rogue faction" equals "not authorized", and I'll bow out of the dialog gracefully.

That is a strawman argument though. It was never my side's claim that "not rogue" means "not authorized". Our claim is that "not rogue" does not mean "authorized". They can be real Qunari and still not be authorized to attack the South. There is already an example of this in DA2.

Show me a situation where head canon trumps Word of God, and I'll accept that head canon overrules actual canon.

Well... the ME3 ending. But this is irrelevant. We aren't claiming that Weekes' word is trumped here by anything. Weekes' statements simply do not support your claim. You are misusing his words. Weekes only said they were not those outside the Qun. He never said they were authorized to attack the South.

I played Trespasser, and I formed an opinion. I read the OP, and had that opinion validated. I have then watched in amusement bordering on horror as some people jumped through flaming hoops, and other less appealing mental gymnastics to reach a conclusion that more accurately reflected their romanticized notion of the Qunari, instead of what Word of God tells us is true about the Qunari. So I guess, in a way, you're right, I just don't think it applies to whom you'd wish it to apply.

What flaming hoops would those be? Weekes said they were not outside the Qun. No one on my side has disagreed with this fact. All I'm doing is pointing out that being under the Qun does not mean you are automatically authorized by the Triumvirate to attack the South.

Here's the thing, differing opinions make a discussion go around, until that opinion contradicts established lore, or, in this case, Word of God.

I agree that canon outweighs opinion, but I don't think you should be referring to writer statements as "Word of God". Writer statements can change. They can also contradict canon, and when they contradict canon the same rule applies, canon outweighs opinion. This has already been demonstrated numerous times with David Gaider and at least once that I know of with Patrick Weekes.

That isn't what's happening here. Weekes' statements do not contradict canon in the case of the Trespasser Qunari being real Qunari. However, his statements also do not confirm that they were authorized to attack the South.

This isn't Common Core math, where saying 75 is about what a person who read 75 pages is an incorrect answer. This is the (new) lead writer of the series, and the person who actually wrote IB explaining that a Qun Loyal IB will turn on the Inquisitor because he knows they're not a rogue faction, or an offshoot of an offshoot.

But nothing Weekes said indicated that those real Qunari were authorized to attack the South. That is the question here. Did the Triumvirate attack the South, or was it just Viddasala acting without permission?

Do tell, however, if, upon learning from Josie that the Viddasala was off the reservation, the Qunari didn't send forces in to deal with her?

They did. Their letter states in all cases that they are investigating the claim of gaatlok being used in the South. The intercepted letter reached Viddasala before any ships reached the island. This is logical. And the Inquisitor also reached the island before the ships because he used the eluvians. The ships wouldn't arrive until after the Inquisitor dealt with Viddasala. And after all this, the Qunari alliance is still in effect if you agreed to it.

[Dai Grepher]

While I can see what ModernAcademic is saying, because it is true that sometimes a passionate fandom can form an opinion and entrench themselves into it... this is not one of those times. Because unlike a debate where there are no canon answers, this actually has been answered by the writers and devs, but one person refuses to accept it.

Your side has a lot more than just one person on it.

Or rather, has twisted said answer into something completely the opposite, because it suits them better.

Yes, your side has done exactly that, which is what I have been pointing out all along.

The reason we keep repeating the same quotes and sources are because the devs answered this in regards to whether this was a legitimate invasion by the Qunari from Par Vollen.

The interview in the OP states nothing either way. The conference video does however show statements that prove the operation was not authorized.

The problem however is that Dai refuses to accept that answer, as despite the devs giving an actual definition of them and calling them "real Qunari", he refuses to accept it as meaning the real "real Qunari".

I never claimed they weren't the real Qunari. The question is one of authorization. I refuse to accept your misinterpretation of Weekes' statements. That they are real Qunari does not mean they are authorized, and you have ignored this truth since I first pointed it out to you.

At this point, the debate is analogous to someone insisting that Dumbledore isn't gay, because it wasn't stated in the books, even though Rowling confirmed it. Because their own personal idea of Dumbledore is someone who crosses wands with many wizards, but would never... well, cross wands with other wizards!

No, it's analogous to someone insisting that because Rowling confirmed that Dumbledore was homosexual, it automatically means that he "crossed wands" with Harry Potter.

As for my own personal idea of the Qunari, I fully acknowledge that they would cross (literal) swords with the South eventually just as Sten told my Hero King of Ferelden. I also wanted Par Vollen to go to war with the South in Trespasser. But my wanting that plot doesn't make it so, and it doesn't change the facts of the game. It doesn't change the fact that invasion of the entire South is impossible, as Hissrad admits. Par Vollen couldn't even take Tevinter. If it were to divide its forces across the entire South, the Qunari race would be annihilated by Tevinter alone, never mind the Southern nations banding together to counterattack.

[Tatar Foras]

Goddamn, Weekes really needs to see this thread, 62 pages of talking in circles. 

[Dai Grepher]

If the other side would answer the points instead of repeat their own refuted points over and over, then this thread would end.

Weekes defined "rogue group" as those outside the Qun. The group we fought in Trespasser was within the Qun. That doesn't mean they were authorized to attack the South.

This is simple logic. The other side keeps trying to twist his statement to mean something it does not.

[IllustriousT]

[Tatar Foras]

If the other side would answer the points instead of repeat their own refuted points over and over, then this thread would end.

Weekes defined "rogue group" as those outside the Qun. The group we fought in Trespasser was within the Qun. That doesn't mean they were authorized to attack the South.

This is simple logic. The other side keeps trying to twist his statement to mean something it does not.

 

 

Frankly the statement can be interpreted either way because of the terms Weekes used, he should've been slightly more specific I suppose. While his statement seems to imply that the Viddasala was authorized you have pointed out Dai, that the Viddasala may not been authorized to attack similar to the situation with the Arishok, which is a fair conclusion to come to. I don't really believe that either side is twisting Weekes' statement, it's just a classic case of what happens when people make statements that aren't completely clear.

[ModernAcademic]

If the devs hadn't been driven away from the forum because of the toxic atmosphere a few years ago, there'd be a chance for Weekes to come visit us and provide us with some answers...

[Tatar Foras]

If the devs hadn't been driven away from the forum because of the toxic atmosphere a few years ago, there'd be a chance for Weekes to come visit us and provide us with some answers...

Yeah 

[Dai Grepher]

Tatar Foras, the Viddasala is another point of contention though, because Weekes did not mention her at all. Yet the other side also misinterprets Weekes' statement to include her somehow.

Here is the core of this thread's discussion. From Weekes...

"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."

Now, here's my argument. Three things Weekes said...

1. "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 he clearly defines what he means by "rogue faction". They aren't really the real Qunari, and thus Bull doesn't believe in them.

2. "'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,'"

Again, clearly defining a "rogue faction" to be those of the qunari race who are outside of the Qun.

3. "'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 all he said here was that the group he referred to above were real Qunari.

That's it. Real Qunari. Not that they were authorized to attack the South. Nothing about Viddasala. Nothing about the Triumvirate. Just that they were real Qunari, which is a fact I never denied.

Yet the other side twists this to mean that these real Qunari were somehow authorized by the Triumvirate, and when called on it they never justify their rationale. I even gave three examples of real Qunari doing things that were not authorized by the Triumvirate. Sten killing a farm full of people, the Arishok attacking Kirkwall, Tallis and her failed mission as well as MotA. Technically four examples. Did the Triumvirate authorize any of these acts? No.

So having real Qunari in the plot does not automatically mean they are authorized.

[pdusen]

Dear God, why won't it die

[robertthebard]

That is a strawman argument though. It was never my side's claim that "not rogue" means "not authorized". Our claim is that "not rogue" does not mean "authorized". They can be real Qunari and still not be authorized to attack the South. There is already an example of this in DA2.


Well... the ME3 ending. But this is irrelevant. We aren't claiming that Weekes' word is trumped here by anything. Weekes' statements simply do not support your claim. You are misusing his words. Weekes only said they were not those outside the Qun. He never said they were authorized to attack the South.

Actually, that's exactly what he said: If we're going to have the Qunari start a war, let's have them start a war and own it.

Those are his words, paraphrased, because providing a quote isn't worth the effort, since you disregard them anyway because "but my qunari wouldn't do that. You have spent page upon page disagreeing with this statement, all while claiming that you're not disagreeing with the writers. You want your head canon to trump Word of God, and have resorted to "you are misrepresenting what he said". The fact is, nearly everything you've provided misrepresents what Weekes had to say in the interview. You have attempted to misrepresent statements given from other sources to support "but my qunari wouldn't do that". For example:

What flaming hoops would those be? Weekes said they were not outside the Qun. No one on my side has disagreed with this fact. All I'm doing is pointing out that being under the Qun does not mean you are automatically authorized by the Triumvirate to attack the South.

What part of "let's have them start a war" means they're acting w/out authorization. This is what I asked for in the post you quoted here, and yet, you didn't provide that. You did go on and on and on about how "but my qunari wouldn't do that".

I agree that canon outweighs opinion, but I don't think you should be referring to writer statements as "Word of God". Writer statements can change. They can also contradict canon, and when they contradict canon the same rule applies, canon outweighs opinion. This has already been demonstrated numerous times with David Gaider and at least once that I know of with Patrick Weekes.

...and yet, here's another essay saying "but that's not what he said". The interview in the OP states that IB will turn on you because they are the "real" Qunari. Since it only applies to a Qun loyal IB who's still getting regular reports, and sending regular reports, since that's what he stated he was going to be doing when you recruited him, he'd know if they weren't authorized. If they're not authorized to be doing what they're doing, he wouldn't risk himself to support them. This is the exact same scenario as his "loyalty" mission: You pick the Chargers, he's Tal Vashoth, because he let the "real" qunari die to save them. You turn on the Inquisitor for an unauthorized operation, you're turning your back on the "real" qunari.

Nothing that I asked for was provided here, just more "but my qunari wouldn't do that", which is head canon, and contradicts Word of God.

[Dai Grepher]

Actually, that's exactly what he said: If we're going to have the Qunari start a war, let's have them start a war and own it.

And the Qunari he was referring to are the Qunari we fight in Trespasser, which he also clearly stated. This does not apply to the Qunari as a society.

You want your head canon to trump Word of God, and have resorted to "you are misrepresenting what he said".

That's because you are misinterpreting what he said. I have no headcanon. I am merely going by what Trespasser and the writers stated. As I wrote numerous times, I would have preferred that Par Vollen go to war with the South.

The fact is, nearly everything you've provided misrepresents what Weekes had to say in the interview.

Then reply to my previous post and prove me wrong. I quoted him directly and proved my points. Refute them if you can.

You have attempted to misrepresent statements given from other sources to support "but my qunari wouldn't do that". For example:

And where did I write that "my" Qunari wouldn't do that? I quoted what Weekes said. You're simply dismissing facts that prove you wrong.

What part of "let's have them start a war" means they're acting w/out authorization.

I didn't claim Weekes said they were acting without authorization in that quote. I only pointed out that "let's have the Qunari start a war" doesn't necessarily mean that the Triumvirate is trying to start a war. That statement only refers to the Qunari we fought in Trespasser, and yes, I proved this point as well.

This is what I asked for in the post you quoted here, and yet, you didn't provide that. You did go on and on and on about how "but my qunari wouldn't do that".

I know what you asked for, but you were asking for something I never claimed. You posted a strawman.

...and yet, here's another essay saying "but that's not what he said". The interview in the OP states that IB will turn on you because they are the "real" Qunari. Since it only applies to a Qun loyal IB who's still getting regular reports...

Stop. This is where you start twisting things out of context. Yes, Weekes implies that Bull turns because he realizes they are real Qunari. I agree with that. But when you start adding your own opinion to the mix, that's where you go off the rails. Weekes said nothing about Bull getting regular reports. Stick to what Weekes actually said. What you think happened in Trespasser is irrelevant. Focus on what Weekes said.

He implied that Bull turns because he realizes that these are real Qunari. Fine. We agree on that.

So what does that have to do with authorization? Nothing. Those can be real Qunari and they still might not be authorized to attack the South. That's my point. Weekes' statements do not indicate that these real Qunari were authorized to attack the South.

he'd know if they weren't authorized. If they're not authorized to be doing what they're doing, he wouldn't risk himself to support them.

Completely baseless speculation, and contradictory to Weekes' comments. How would he know if they weren't authorized if Viddasala is intercepting his letters and reports? In fact he didn't know if they were real Qunari or not, which is why he's fine with killing them throughout most of the game. He thought they were not real Qunari. Weekes even confirms this, as Hissrad turns exactly BECAUSE he realized they were real Qunari at that point. It had nothing to do with authorization. As long as they are real Qunari, Hissrad is obligated to protect them. That is why the Triumvirate letter doesn't matter to him.

This is the exact same scenario as his "loyalty" mission: You pick the Chargers, he's Tal Vashoth, because he let the "real" qunari die to save them.

And yet you believe that he knowingly killed real Qunari the whole time up until the factory room in the Darvaarad? He murdered real Qunari in order to foil an official invasion plan? Don't be ridiculous.

You turn on the Inquisitor for an unauthorized operation, you're turning your back on the "real" qunari.

No, because those unauthorized Qunari are still real Qunari. Hissrad is obligated to defend his people regardless.

[Darkstarr11]

Wow.  Just wow.

 

Okay, I've been watching this for a while.  I'm not going to bother to break it down, I'm simply going to state that after listening to Weekes (again), I can see in no way how it was in any way ambiguous.  The intent was for the Qunari in Trespasser under the Viddisala to be going to war.  The Iron Bull, if he was convinced to submit to the Qun, is following orders under authorization.  Following simple comprehension rules and standards I can infer that the intent was for the Viddisala and the Qunari to be an authorized force to start and END a war in rapid fashion.  The plan was pretty clever, but ran into a huge snarl.  There was no real plan B.  So, tactically, it was a blunder.  I can pick that up simply from execution.

 

I don't NEED lore to figure that out.  I simply listened to the interview.  And no, my comprehension skills DON'T need work.  I've been teaching ESL comprehension as well as having been authorized to give TOIEC and Eiken comprehension tests for nearly sixteen years.  I bandied this about with OTHERS in my field.  Viddi was authorized.  

 

EDIT:  I do want to note that the term 'offshoot' is key.  Offshoot refers to something that branches out from the whole, the origin.  By denoting that they are NOT going utilize an offshoot or a form thereof they are legitimizing or authorizing the Viddisala and her group as 'official' Qunari by way of disallowing ANY offshoots from the source.  That statement alone confirms authorization merely by definition of the words and terms used therein.   

 

https://en.wiktionar...g/wiki/offshoot

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/own

[Dai Grepher]

Okay, I've been watching this for a while.  I'm not going to bother to break it down,

Because you can't refute the points when they are broken down.

I'm simply going to state that after listening to Weekes (again), I can see in no way how it was in any way ambiguous.

Same here.

The intent was for the Qunari in Trespasser under the Viddisala to be going to war.

Wrong. Start a war. START. This is why your side will not win this. You aren't using Weekes' ACTUAL WORDS. You are making up your own conclusions based on things he never said.

The Iron Bull, if he was convinced to submit to the Qun, is following orders under authorization.

And where did you get this from? Quote Weekes stating that Bull was following orders under authorization.

Following simple comprehension rules and standards I can infer that the intent was for the Viddisala and the Qunari to be an authorized force to start and END a war in rapid fashion.

So not only have you fabricated a premise, you have assumed how it unfolded.

The plan was pretty clever, but ran into a huge snarl.  There was no real plan B.  So, tactically, it was a blunder.  I can pick that up simply from execution.

So you drew all this from Weekes' statements did you? What interview did you listen to?

There was nothing clever about Dragon's Breath, and there was no plan B because it wasn't planned by the Triumvirate.

I don't NEED lore to figure that out.  I simply listened to the interview.  And no, my comprehension skills DON'T need work.  I've been teaching ESL comprehension as well as having been authorized to give TOIEC and Eiken comprehension tests for nearly sixteen years.

You don't need facts huh? You found this all in the interview? Then quote Weekes confirming these wild claims of yours.

I bandied this about with OTHERS in my field.  Viddi was authorized.

I presented this to a co-worker of mine and he concluded that being part of the Qunari society or the Ben-Hassrath does not authomatically mean those persons were authorized. It's no different from some members of the Mexican army firing shots on American leaders on American soil even though the Mexican government gave no such order.

EDIT:  I do want to note that the term 'offshoot' is key.  Offshoot refers to something that branches out from the whole, the origin.  By denoting that they are NOT going utilize an offshoot or a form thereof they are legitimizing or authorizing the Viddisala and her group as 'official' Qunari by way of disallowing ANY offshoots from the source.  That statement alone confirms authorization merely by definition of the words and terms used therein.

No it doesn't. Viddasala was part of the Ben-Hassrath, which means she and her followers are not an off-shoot. She can commit acts without authorization and still not be an off-shoot. An off-shoot is one who leaves the organization. Rebels against it. Separates from it completely. And saying they are NOT something doesn't automatically make them something else.

So why don't you address my points, which I made in direct response to Weekes' actual words?

Here is the core of this thread's discussion. From Weekes...

"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."

Now, here's my argument. Three things Weekes said...

1. "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 he clearly defines what he means by "rogue faction". They aren't really the real Qunari, and thus Bull doesn't believe in them.

2. "'Oh Bull wouldn't do this, they're not the real Qunari, they're an offshoot,'"

Again, clearly defining a "rogue faction" to be those of the qunari race who are outside of the Qun.

3. "'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 all he said here was that the group he referred to above were real Qunari.

That's it. Real Qunari. Not that they were authorized to attack the South. Nothing about Viddasala. Nothing about the Triumvirate. Just that they were real Qunari, which is a fact I never denied.

Yet the other side twists this to mean that these real Qunari were somehow authorized by the Triumvirate, and when called on it they never justify their rationale. I even gave three examples of real Qunari doing things that were not authorized by the Triumvirate. Sten killing a farm full of people, the Arishok attacking Kirkwall, Tallis and her failed mission as well as MotA. Technically four examples. Did the Triumvirate authorize any of these acts? No.

So having real Qunari in the plot does not automatically mean they are authorized.

[Darkstarr11]

Actually, I don't break it down because it detracts from the core statement:  It's official, the Viddisala wasn't a rogue agent.  This entire thread has become a war of attrition.  Salami slicing the argument has turned this from a discussion into a legal debate.  Which, in terms of a debate or legal setting, this is not just a viable but a necessary tactic.  It wears down your opposition, confuses the issue and forces them to refute on your terms.  However, what it ALSO does is obscure the meaning, and make the ACTUAL topic become an afterthought.

 

Yeah, not doing that.  I'm not approaching this from that standpoint.  

 

One side says that she was authorized, the other does not.  Weekes said it was toothless to go with an offshoot.  He said we own this.  So, HOW do they own it if they make the Viddisala run a rogue group that operates outside the Qun?  This is what we call a logical fallacy.  A contradictory statement.  She can't be rogue AND be REAL Qunari.  What the OTHER Qunari did is irrelevant to the topic.  They add nothing to the debate.  The ONLY item that matters is Weekes statement.  

 

This is what we call a Hamburger or Sandwich Conundrum.  We have two pieces of bread, and cooked hamburger.  One person states that it is a hamburger.  The other states that it is a sandwich.  Someone puts a piece of chicken there, and asks again.  Is it still a hamburger?  Then they add lettuce, cheese, a bit of fish, avocados and some mayonnaise.  Is this a Hamburger or a Sandwich?  

 

You see, therein lies the rub.  This isn't what we started with, so it doesn't matter.  It has been fundamentally altered beyond what it started as, therefore the question has become irrelevant.  So, back to bread and burger.  

 

 

"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."

 

Offshoot.  Toothless.  We own this.  Weekes said that they didn't want it to be toothless.  Why would he state that, and THEN take the teeth out from the attack.  If it is a rogue group, it has NO TEETH.  NO lasting impact if it fails.  Also, they DID start a war.  I don't know about anyone else, but I live next to a FEW countries that are STILL at war with the one I live in.  No big battles, no guns...but they ARE at war.  If everyone is expecting something out of Braveheart, I'm sorry to say, that isn't how it always works.  Sieges, diplomacy and spies are all part and parcel.  So the Qunari retreated...so what?  There was an attack.  There was no peace treaty signed.  The statement above confirms authorization through Weekes noting how utterly weak it was to send a non-official faction after the South.  Who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot?  REALLY?  REALLY?  How does that even remotely state that the Viddisala was a rogue?  It would be TOOTHLESS to do so.  THEIR words.  THEIR STATEMENT, in its entirety, read as a whole (which is how things are often stated and/or read, NOT chopped into tiny bits for analysis).  Her being unauthorized make it toothless and WEAK.  Which makes the above statement a LIE.  Simple as that.

[Donk]

[robertthebard]

snip

Once again, an essay level reply that doesn't provide what I asked for. I didn't misrepresent Weekes, I did, however, paraphrase him, because, as I pointed out, providing the quotes is pointless. You disagree with him on what "real Qunari" means. You believe that every man, woman and child must be involved, or it's not the "real Qunari".

So tell me, if you pick the Chargers, and the Dreadnaught is sunk, IB becomes Tal Vashoth. Is this because the Qunari society was onboard? It sure seemed like it was an awfully small ship for that.

[lynroy]

I think posting this gif in this thread is beating a dead horse.

[Patricia08]

No, writes someone who disagrees with your side's misinterpretation of what the writers said.


I never wrote that they weren't from Par Vollen. Where else would they be from, Orzammar?

Just because they are from Par Vollen doesn't mean the Triumvirate authorized them to leave Par Vollen and attack the South.

You simply think, "The Qunari, an invading force from across the sea" means all of Qunari culture. It doesn't. It means the Qunari in Trespasser are an invading force from across the sea. It doesn't mean Par Vollen as a nation is trying to invade.


No. You're being inaccurate. He said two things there. He said, "and every time we tried to talk ourselves into [making them a rogue group] it just felt so toothless", and "let's have the Qunari start a war, and let's own it".

Now, as I proved to you before, Weekes' definition of "rogue group" is those of the qunari race who are outside of the Qun. He said they did not go with that storyline, and I acknowledge this fact. The Qunari in Trespasser were real Qunari who believed in the Qun, but so were those in Kirkwall. They weren't authorized to attack Kirkwall, just as those under Viddasala were not authorized to attack the South.

Just because that group was Qunari doesn't mean all Qunari were told to invade the South. It was only that group, and the game itself clearly indicates this in the epilogue and in the Triumvirate letter.

As for how they could have made your idea clear had it been true, they could have said that the invasion was official, or authorized, or instructed by the Triumvirate. They could have made reference to the Qunari nation. The only time they made reference to the Qunari society was to say that it cuts saarebas off from magic, while the group in Trespasser was doing the opposite.


Your entire side is having problems.


I grant those. However, she also directed a military unit to invade. That is a role reserved only for men.


She used the direct approach in the order given to the antaam soldier to position units in the elvhen ruins near the mirror leading to Halamshiral.


This is canon fact. Military actions are for men to perform. Viddasala is not a man. Therefore she could not have been authorized to give any order to invade.


This isn't just about killing people. If authorized, this would be a full-scale invasion. An act of war. Only men can engage in war actions.


No, what makes sense is having Viddasala work on her aspect of the mission, the actions that fit her roles, and some male of the Antaam working on the invasion aspect.

I think you're trying to shield your theory with the Qunari culture's ambiguity and mystery because this point disproves your theory. Yes, there are things about the Qunari that are not explained to us, such as how they rationalize certain situations and actions. However, some things are clearly defined for us already by the games and by the writers. One of those clearly defined things is that military action is reserved for males only. There is no debate on this point.

Viddasala gave military orders to the karashok in the Forgotten Temple. She directed the entire operation, which was an opening attack in what you claim to be an invasion. That is a war decision. Females are never authorized to engage in war decisions.


What resources were involved? First, the resources she got herself:

Gaatlok. The Arigena wasn't needed because Viddasala was making her own gaatlok using unskilled viddathari workers. So Par Vollen would have no idea any of this was going on.

Lyrium. Dangerous Actions branch was not needed because she was using her own Dangerous Purpose branch for this. Also, she found a source for lyrium, so Par Vollen would have no way of knowing this. Jerran, the one who knew enough to expose her plan, is killed by her agents. Also, the red lyrium she could have gotten from almost anywhere in the South.

The eluvians. It is her role to find, study, and stop magic. She found the eluvians, she studied them, and it appears that she smashed some of them. But she also used certain ones. So because this was her role, she and those under her command would have been the only ones to know that they were being used. This also applies to the objects or knowledge used to open the eluvians.

The Ben-Hassrath. She was a Ben-Hassrath priest. She already had her own people.

The viddathari. It was also her role to reeducate people. She was in charge of the viddathari. So it is logical that she was able to convince them that her goal was authorized and that they were to report only to her.

Blueprints of various courts. She could have obtained these from the viddathari spies that she reeducated. Or she could have obtained copies from the Ben-Hassrath in the event that they have already made sketches of their layouts far in advance.

The dragon. This could have been hunted down and taken at any time before Trespasser, and then transported to the Darvaarad for study. If any outside the Dangerous Purpose branch knew of this, then the cover story could have been to determine if it could be tamed or not.

The Darvaarad. A place of quarantine for dangerous magic. This place was already Viddasala's home base. She had control over most of it. As for the front gate, she had her agents lie to the gatekeeper about where they found their relics, never revealing the true locations, which were thousands of miles away and would have aroused suspicion.

Now for what Viddasala needed the other branches for:

The Antaam soldiers. She would need to request them from the Arishok branch. Her excuse could have been that she needed them to protect her agents while they destroyed elvhen ruins. During this time, she could have convinced them that the Inquisition was attacking them through Solas, and that the Inquisition and its allies would need to be stopped. She could have easily told them that the Triumvirate authorized action against the South.

The saarebas. I think the Dangerous Actions branch is in control of them. She would need to get at least four, as that was the number that we fought, not including Saarath, who was ashkaari before this. One in the mines, one in the Vir Dirthara, two at the Darvaarad (one was at the entrance, the other was in the room before the dragon). So I think this is easily done. Viddasala could have said the reason was to help destroy magical artifacts that could not be destroyed physically. Or for protection. Or to study the saarebas themselves. In any case, none of the saarebas had arvaarads with them, which is another no-no under the Qun.

That's it. That's all she needed from the other branches. So I don't know what resources you think she had that she wouldn't be able to get from those outside her branch.

As for those outside her branch not knowing about her activities, that is easily explained by the major flaw in the Qunari's command structure: assumed trust. The Triumvirate assumes that its agents are loyal to them. They assume that lower ranking Qunari are loyal to the Qun. They assume everyone under the Qun understands the Qun's meaning. They assume that their trusted agents will not deviate from the Qun because they assume the punishments are enough to deter them from doing so. Those who report to a commanding officer assume that their commander is truly representing the demands of the Qun, and so they rarely question anything they're doing.

Viddasala took advantage of all these assumptions. And as for those who questioned her actions, she either convinced them that she was right and authorized, or she killed them.

 

I think Dai Grepher that this is the longest post i have ever seen on this forum so congratulations  . The original post was longer of course because there are posts where you were replying to that are missing here. 

 

I just kept scrolling and scrolling  . 

[Patricia08]

Dear God, why won't it die

 

I don't know what you are talking about here who is it    ? 

[Dai Grepher]

Actually, I don't break it down because it detracts from the core statement:  It's official, the Viddisala wasn't a rogue agent.

That is thesuperdarkone2's statement, not Weekes' statement. So you won't address Weekes' statements because it will disprove thesuperdarkone2's statement. That about sums up this whole thread.
 

This entire thread has become a war of attrition.  Salami slicing the argument has turned this from a discussion into a legal debate.  Which, in terms of a debate or legal setting, this is not just a viable but a necessary tactic.  It wears down your opposition, confuses the issue and forces them to refute on your terms.  However, what it ALSO does is obscure the meaning, and make the ACTUAL topic become an afterthought.

Separating the statements so they can be addressed individually does not obfuscate anything, it clarifies what each statement means and forces both sides to respond.
 

Yeah, not doing that.  I'm not approaching this from that standpoint.

Then what are you doing here?
 

One side says that she was authorized, the other does not.  Weekes said it was toothless to go with an offshoot.  He said we own this.  So, HOW do they own it if they make the Viddisala run a rogue group that operates outside the Qun?  This is what we call a logical fallacy.  A contradictory statement.  She can't be rogue AND be REAL Qunari.  What the OTHER Qunari did is irrelevant to the topic.  They add nothing to the debate.  The ONLY item that matters is Weekes statement.

And here is where you misunderstand my side of the argument. I never wrote that she was a rogue agent. I never wrote that she was an offshoot. I have always written that she was real Qunari, an official part of the Ben-Hassrath.

Your problem is that you see her as being ordered to attack the South by the Triumvirate, and your stated basis for this is simply the fact that she is real Qunari. That is your logical fallacy.  
 

This is what we call a Hamburger or Sandwich Conundrum.

That looks so made-up.
 

We have two pieces of bread, and cooked hamburger.  One person states that it is a hamburger.  The other states that it is a sandwich.

Well wait a minute. You just separated the ingredients, just as I separated each of Weekes' statements in order to identify what he was talking about. So you just did the same thing. You described each component of the sandwich individually.
 

Someone puts a piece of chicken there, and asks again.  Is it still a hamburger?  Then they add lettuce, cheese, a bit of fish, avocados and some mayonnaise.  Is this a Hamburger or a Sandwich?

It was always a sandwich because a sandwich has bread. A hamburger requires buns.
 

You see, therein lies the rub.  This isn't what we started with, so it doesn't matter.  It has been fundamentally altered beyond what it started as, therefore the question has become irrelevant.

Yeah, added to by those on your side making up things Weekes never said. You made up the idea that he said the Qunari were "going to war", when in fact he said "start" a war. You are the extra ingredient adder. Not me.
 

Offshoot.  Toothless.  We own this.  Weekes said that they didn't want it to be toothless.  Why would he state that, and THEN take the teeth out from the attack.  If it is a rogue group, it has NO TEETH.  NO lasting impact if it fails.

I never claimed it was a rogue group. You're fighting your own strawman argument.
 

Also, they DID start a war.  I don't know about anyone else, but I live next to a FEW countries that are STILL at war with the one I live in.  No big battles, no guns...but they ARE at war.  If everyone is expecting something out of Braveheart, I'm sorry to say, that isn't how it always works.

No, there is no war. They didn't start a war. They tried to and they failed. The epilogue confirms that any Qunari in the South returned to the North. If you have the alliance with the Qunari, they pledge that the alliance will apply to the Chantry. So not only is there no war, but the alliance is still in effect, as are the Llomeryn Accords.

[Dai Grepher]

Sieges, diplomacy and spies are all part and parcel. So the Qunari retreated...so what? There was an attack. There was no peace treaty signed.

There is no war between Par Vollen and the South. The Llomeryn Accords are still in effect. So what if there was an unauthorized attack that was planned and foiled before it was initiated? If anything that only demands further negotiation with your ally to ensure that something like that never occurs again.
 

The statement above confirms authorization through Weekes noting how utterly weak it was to send a non-official faction after the South.

Wrong. Just because he said it was toothless (poor story quality) to have them be non-official, does not mean that making them an official part of the Qun also made them AUTHORIZED to attack the South. You are engaging in a leap in logic.

It's like claiming that because Sten killed a farm full of Fereldans, and because he was official Qunari, this automatically means the Triumvirate authorized him to kill a farm full of Fereldans. That's exactly what you're saying about Viddasala.
 

Who wants to play a game where you are fighting the offshoot of the offshoot of the offshoot? REALLY? REALLY? How does that even remotely state that the Viddisala was a rogue?

I never claimed she was rogue. The question is, how does that even remotely state that Viddasala was authorized to attack the South?
 

It would be TOOTHLESS to do so. THEIR words. THEIR STATEMENT, in its entirety, read as a whole (which is how things are often stated and/or read, NOT chopped into tiny bits for analysis). Her being unauthorized make it toothless and WEAK. Which makes the above statement a LIE. Simple as that.

You are committing logical fallacies. That's all. Her being unauthorized doesn't make it toothless. Her being completely outside the Qun makes it toothless. I never claimed she was outside the Qun. She was real Qunari, but she was not authorized.

You fail to distinguish between an outside group and an inside group that lacks authorization. Of course a group outside the Qun would not have authorization, but a group inside the Qun could also attack the South without the Triumvirate authorizing it or knowing about it.

The letter in the Darvaarad states that the Triumvirate had no knowledge of Viddasala's actions.
 

Once again, an essay level reply that doesn't provide what I asked for. I didn't misrepresent Weekes, I did, however, paraphrase him, because, as I pointed out, providing the quotes is pointless.

Yeah, providing FACTS is pointless for your side since the facts prove you wrong. So instead you "paraphrase" to avoid the facts.
 

You disagree with him on what "real Qunari" means. You believe that every man, woman and child must be involved, or it's not the "real Qunari".

Who's posts are you reading? I never wrote that.

I have been posting since the beginning that they were real Qunari.

 You have no idea what you're writing about.
 

So tell me, if you pick the Chargers, and the Dreadnaught is sunk, IB becomes Tal Vashoth. Is this because the Qunari society was onboard? It sure seemed like it was an awfully small ship for that.

No, it's because there were real Qunari onboard, just as there were real Qunari in the Darvaarad. None of them were authorized to attack the South however.