1580 réponses à ce sujet

[midnight tea]

Because Qunari are cartoon villain when it comes to magic.

Remember that plot with the mage in DA2?Who killed himself because he spend 2 days away from his jailor?

Then said jailor wants to kill you just because you're a mage and dared talk to him , or because you spend 30 scd with an unwatched mage and lord knows what might have happened?

 

It's not "cartoon villainy" when you can think of real life situations that are similar to this (own family members reporting 7-year olds in North Korean concentration camp for stealing a few kernels of corn) - people can be conditioned to be that way and, if anything, Qunari are masters of psychological conditioning, as evidenced by the mage, the Iron Bull, as well as many Qunari spies that were basically brainwashed by them.

 

 

 

This is the Qun and magic.

They think people can catch demons like you catch the flu.

 

They're not that very different from regular Thedosians then. I'd like to point out that strained relationship between people and magic is one of the big themes of entire series. It's not really that shocking to see that in a universe in which people are super-weary of magic a society that works on insane troll logic would have some insane views concerning the Fade or people connected to it.

 

And should I even mention the fact that people were burned at stakes in our world for alleged 'demon-spreading'?

 

 

 

There's not even a good explanation as to why Sten and the Arishock are cool with a mage pc , if I remember correctly the best excuse one of the writer came up with was well they see you as an "unicorn".

 

Considering that... well... one of them is an Arishok, and another eventually becomes one, the Qunari probably thinks that Sten and Arishok have enough of mental resistance to withstand the influence of a mage. And that's pretty much what happens - they don't budge an inch when it comes to their convictions, no matter how 'unicorny' they think DA protagonists are.

[Serza]

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.

 

You're building all of that knowledge over the fact a letter was crumpled?

[The Baconer]

Typical Baconer. Quoting things out of context from different threads and drawing all the wrong conclusions.

I would like to see these in context, please. Post links to these quotes. Looks to me that I was stating my own personal opinion about her based on her actions during Trespasser, not what her official designation was before Trespasser, which is what we are discussing here.

Yeah, I already knew you'd just play to semantics and shift the goalposts. Just keep doing your thing.

[midnight tea]

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.

 

Wow, that's a bookcase example of confirmation bias.

 

You seem to entirely exclude the possibility that Viddasala might have simply crumpled the letter, because it meant that all their work was for naught and now the Qunari has to take a way of blades, which she has right to be furious about (both considering all the effort that went into the now burned plans, and also because she appears to genuinely believe that this was indeed a gentler approach that spared unnecessary bloodshed). In fact, she very explicitly states exactly that to Inquisitor the last time we can talk with her.

[Wulfram]

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.

Generally being in favour of duty isn't the same as telling "this guy specifically to be loyal to the Qun".

And arguably you're exhibiting a respect for life that goes beyond faction and ideology, which goes against helping the Qun commit mass murder. Or maybe you just really find Dalish's "not a mage" joke annoying, that's not got much to do with duty...

[In Exile]

[Triple post ]

[In Exile]

[Triple post ]

[In Exile]

Except this ignores the context in which those actions happen. If Iron Bull had been forced to send the Chargers on a suicide mission because the Qun required him to remove them, then the choice would happen the way you describe. However, it didn't. The plan itself wasn't even stupid, those locations needed to be secured in order to protect the dreadnought and even there IB gave the easier location for the Chargers to take over.

Again, the way they structured the choice wasn't about the Qunari ideology, it was about basic military discipline and action. The problem with your argument about the Orlesian captain example I presented is that you are can't remove the point about being a good soldier. In the larger context, whenever you take a military action, there needs to be a trust that those who swore to protect your back actually protect your back. Otherwise it is an act of desertion on the battle field, which the Chargers literally do if IB withdraws them from the battle. The choice isn't about Qunari values, but rather is the worth of countless of unknown lives less than the lives of a handful of familiar lives.

It's absolutely desertion. That's the point - the IB is a desserter. The Qun is all about military discipline in all parts of your life - when the IB is asked to follow through on military discipline, he's following through on the Qun. The plan was stupid, but let's avoid that aspect of it as this sidetracks us. Whatever you think of the merits of the strategy, the IB is asked to choose between desertion of duty or the sacrifice of his charges.

You're also right about the unknown whole vs. the known few. But again - this is the essence of the Qun! That's what makes the build up lead to the IB accepting the Qun as defining his identity.

[In Exile]

Generally being in favour of duty isn't the same as telling "this guy specifically to be loyal to the Qun".

And arguably you're exhibiting a respect for life that goes beyond faction and ideology, which goes against helping the Qun commit mass murder. Or maybe you just really find Dalish's "not a mage" joke annoying, that's not got much to do with duty...

This is the Qun, though. I get that from an outside perspective it's obviously a faction with an ordinal ranking of life that starts with them at the top and ends with us at the bottom. However, it's own internal logic is that it IS a factionless system that respects life beyond faction and ideology.

[Hiemoth]

It's absolutely desertion. That's the point - the IB is a desserter. The Qun is all about military discipline in all parts of your life - when the IB is asked to follow through on military discipline, he's following through on the Qun. The plan was stupid, but let's avoid that aspect of it as this sidetracks us. Whatever you think of the merits of the strategy, the IB is asked to choose between desertion of duty or the sacrifice of his charges.

You're also right about the unknown whole vs. the known few. But again - this is the essence of the Qun! That's what makes the build up lead to the IB accepting the Qun as defining his identity.

 

But it's not desertion from the Qunari, it's general desertion. There was nothing tying it Qunari philosophy and identical scene could have been done with Fereldan military instead of the Qunari.

 

By the logic of that act, when the Orleasian troops were fighting Cory's troops at the Elven temple, they totally should followed IB's example and deserted since people they knew were dying around them. Or the Inquisition troops attacking the Grey Warden's, who again should have deserted. And the list goes on.

 

I understood what they were going for in that quest, I just thought they did a horrible job with it. Iron Bull's choice wasn't between being Qunari or not, it was between the Chargers being soldiers or not. What makes the choice so bizarre is that if you literally choose to have the Chargers desert from a joint military operation involving the Inquisition and causing massive avoidable casualties, somehow this leads them to still remain soldiers for the Inquisition. At that point I felt they should be as far from any active duty as possible.

[thats1evildude]

I understood what they were going for in that quest, I just thought they did a horrible job with it. Iron Bull's choice wasn't between being Qunari or not, it was between the Chargers being soldiers or not. What makes the choice so bizarre is that if you literally choose to have the Chargers desert from a joint military operation involving the Inquisition and causing massive avoidable casualties, somehow this leads them to still remain soldiers for the Inquisition. At that point I felt they should be as far from any active duty as possible.

 

But you give the order. You tell Iron Bull to sound the retreat. You, the head of the Inquisition. The Bull's Chargers, who are employed by the Inquisition and not the qunari, fight and die otherwise. How could they be at fault for literally following orders?

[Mistic]

I understood what they were going for in that quest, I just thought they did a horrible job with it. Iron Bull's choice wasn't between being Qunari or not, it was between the Chargers being soldiers or not. What makes the choice so bizarre is that if you literally choose to have the Chargers desert from a joint military operation involving the Inquisition and causing massive avoidable casualties, somehow this leads them to still remain soldiers for the Inquisition. At that point I felt they should be as far from any active duty as possible.

 

But that's where the Inquisitor's decision comes up, isn't it? In the end, Iron Bull doesn't do anything that contradicts your orders, and only yours. The Chargers don't desert the operation, the Inquisition as a whole does. I mean, even if they retire, they do so because they are called with the horn. They followed orders, like good soldiers.

 

EDIT: thats1evildude was faster.

Modifié par Mistic, 21 mars 2016 - 10:00 .

[Dai Grepher]

You're building all of that knowledge over the fact a letter was crumpled?

Intercepted from the Triumvirate, opened, read, crumpled up, and denied delivery to its intended recipient by Viddasala, and also the content of the letters, yes.

Viddasala was informed of the letter being sent to the Inquisition from the Triumvirate. She panicked, intercepted the letter that was not for her to read, she opened it, read it, realized that her scheme had been exposed to her superiors and that her superiors were angry with her and had sent soldiers to apprehend her. So she crumpled the letter up out of anger and frustration and told all those still under her to speed up Dragon's Breath. Now, where she really went wrong was in not carefully resealing the letter and sending it on to the Inquisition anyway. This is because Josephine specifically wrote that failure to reply would be interpreted as an act of war. Viddasala may have even intended for the Inquisition to interpret it that way, and that is why she denied the letter's delivery. Either way, she defied the Triumvirate's wish that the response reach the Inquisition and avert a world war against Par Vollen.

Yeah, I already knew you'd just play to semantics and shift the goalposts. Just keep doing your thing.

Well separate issues are what they are. You can't take a quote in reply to something completely different and apply it to the current issue. That's called dishonesty. Fact is I never said Viddasala started out as Tal-Vashoth, just that her actions during Trespasser made her so, and the letter from the Triumvirate should have confirmed it as far as Hissrad was concerned.

Wow, that's a bookcase example of confirmation bias.

Not at all. The letter was supposed to go to the Inquisition to prevent world war against Par Vollen. They send the letter regardless of your choice concerning the alliance. Viddasala intercepts it regardless of your choice concerning the alliance. She denies delivery regardless. It all proves that defies the Triumvirate's wishes, and actively tries to start a war with the South the entire time.

You seem to entirely exclude the possibility that Viddasala might have simply crumpled the letter, because it meant that all their work was for naught and now the Qunari has to take a way of blades, which she has right to be furious about (both considering all the effort that went into the now burned plans, and also because she appears to genuinely believe that this was indeed a gentler approach that spared unnecessary bloodshed).

I considered all possible alternatives before I concluded that Viddasala went rogue in Trespasser. Viddasala still issues orders to speed up Dragon's Breath even after intercepting the Triumvirate's letter. She still believed that Dragon's Breath could succeed if they acted fast enough. So crumpling the letter couldn't have been because of that. She also didn't care about taking the way of blades, since she declined to pass the letter on, knowing full well that not doing so would only cause the Inquisition and southern nations to assume that Par Vollen had already waged war. Thus, Thedas would have prepared for war and would have been ready for it, leading to more deaths.

In fact, she very explicitly states exactly that to Inquisitor the last time we can talk with her.

I know. I was there. She wanted the way of blades the whole time. The Triumvirate did not. She was trying to force a war.

[In Exile]

But it's not desertion from the Qunari, it's general desertion. There was nothing tying it Qunari philosophy and identical scene could have been done with Fereldan military instead of the Qunari.

By the logic of that act, when the Orleasian troops were fighting Cory's troops at the Elven temple, they totally should followed IB's example and deserted since people they knew were dying around them. Or the Inquisition troops attacking the Grey Warden's, who again should have deserted. And the list goes on.

I understood what they were going for in that quest, I just thought they did a horrible job with it. Iron Bull's choice wasn't between being Qunari or not, it was between the Chargers being soldiers or not. What makes the choice so bizarre is that if you literally choose to have the Chargers desert from a joint military operation involving the Inquisition and causing massive avoidable casualties, somehow this leads them to still remain soldiers for the Inquisition. At that point I felt they should be as far from any active duty as possible.

It's not general dessertion, in the sense that he deserts from both the Inquisition and Qunari, because the Inquisitor always sanctions his choice. In the world where the Inquisitor says, "save the Chargers", the IB only abandons one duty and one side - the Qun. In the world where the Inquisitor tells Bull to keep to the mission, again, the two duties line up. But his duty to the Qun always trumps. If we want to split hairs the Inquisitor technically doesn't tell Bull to desert in the universe where you don't save the Chargers rather than telling Bull to desert, but it amounts to the same thing. He never abandons his duty to the Qun.

It's not a matter of whether they "should" desert. The IB is very clearly in the wrong - he's a traitor. Again, you're entirely right with your example using other soldiers. They would be desserters, in dereliction of their duty. The only reason we see the IB as something other than a traitor is because he sides with us, in the end. What ties it to the qunari philosophy is simply the ordinal ranking of discipline and duty vis-a-vis other values. We don't see ourselves as having moral duties to do our jobs. The Qunari do.

Let's flip this around and look at what the Viddassala is asking the IB. She's his actual superior. She gives him a direct order. All this stuff about duty etc., is back in play. This time the Inquisitor asks the IB to be a desserter - but it's too late.

[Hiemoth]

But you give the order. You tell Iron Bull to sound the retreat. You, the head of the Inquisition. The Bull's Chargers fight and die otherwise. How could they be at fault for literally following orders?

 

But that's where the Inquisitor's decision comes up, isn't it? In the end, Iron Bull doesn't do anything that contradicts your orders, and only yours. The Chargers don't desert the operation, the Inquisition as a whole does. I mean, even if they retire, they do so because they are called with the horn. They followed orders, like good soldiers.

 

EDIT: thats1evildude was faster.

 

I actually did think on that while writing, but didn't touch on it as it, for me, further illustrates why that mission narratively fails. Iron Bull doesn't actually choose, it is Inquisitor who does during a military mission.

[In Exile]

Well separate issues are what they are. You can't take a quote in reply to something completely different and apply it to the current issue. That's called dishonesty. Fact is I never said Viddasala started out as Tal-Vashoth, just that her actions during Trespasser made her so, and the letter from the Triumvirate should have confirmed it as far as Hissrad was concerned.

And this is where the argle-bargle comes in. PW says they're not a rogue faction DURING Trespasser. You're standing on your head to come up with a distinction that's meaningless anyway. No one ever took the position that Vidassala was a Tal-Vasoth before Trespasser.

[In Exile]

I actually did think on that while writing, but didn't touch on it as it, for me, further illustrates why that mission narratively fails. Iron Bull doesn't actually choose, it is Inquisitor who does during a military mission.

The IB does choose. The elf - Gatt - straight up tells the IB that if he picks the Chargers he's betraying the Qun. The Inquisitor tells him to desert and save the Chargers. But the IB doesn't answer to the Inquisitor over the Qun.

[Hiemoth]

It's not general dessertion, in the sense that he deserts from both the Inquisition and Qunari, because the Inquisitor always sanctions his choice. In the world where the Inquisitor says, "save the Chargers", the IB only abandons one duty and one side - the Qun. In the world where the Inquisitor tells Bull to keep to the mission, again, the two duties line up. But his duty to the Qun always trumps. If we want to split hairs the Inquisitor technically doesn't tell Bull to desert in the universe where you don't save the Chargers rather than telling Bull to desert, but it amounts to the same thing. He never abandons his duty to the Qun.

It's not a matter of whether they "should" desert. The IB is very clearly in the wrong - he's a traitor. Again, you're entirely right with your example using other soldiers. They would be desserters, in dereliction of their duty. The only reason we see the IB as something other than a traitor is because he sides with us, in the end. What ties it to the qunari philosophy is simply the ordinal ranking of discipline and duty vis-a-vis other values. We don't see ourselves as having moral duties to do our jobs. The Qunari do.

Let's flip this around and look at what the Viddassala is asking the IB. She's his actual superior. She gives him a direct order. All this stuff about duty etc., is back in play. This time the Inquisitor asks the IB to be a desserter - but it's too late.

 

And this kind of brings me back to my initial point, where I felt the execution of the mission was a failure, not the concept. If the writing had in anyway indicated that the Qunari had intentionally arranged the Chargers to go on a suicide mission in order to test Iron Bull's loyalty and had made that a requirement for the alliance, I would have no complaints. I would think that it would fit how the Qunari are presented and really force the player to judge their own values and motivations. However, what we got was the Qunari literally trusting the Inquisition to have their back and the Inquisitor deciding that desertion is worth saving some lives. While literally seeking allies to risk their lives and ordering the Inquisition troops to dangerous situations. But all that was okay, since we were never explicitely told that someone cared about those soldiers.

 

Again, my issue is with the implementation of the story, not the story being told.

[Mistic]

I actually did think on that while writing, but didn't touch on it as it, for me, further illustrates why that mission narratively fails. Iron Bull doesn't actually choose, it is Inquisitor who does during a military mission.

 

I think we are expected to see the scene as Iron Bull deciding in his mind whether following the Qun or the Inquisitor is the right thing to do, combined with his love for his Chargers. But our meta-knowledge makes it a secondary matter, because we know what he will do regardless.

 

Maybe a better implementation would have been something like what happened to Zevran in DA:O. If his approval is high enough, when the Crows ask him to betray the Warden, he sides with our heroes. If not, he attacks us. That way it seems that even Zevran has an option to do what he feels is right, not just what the PC or another faction tells him.

[thats1evildude]

And this kind of brings me back to my initial point, where I felt the execution of the mission was a failure, not the concept. If the writing had in anyway indicated that the Qunari had intentionally arranged the Chargers to go on a suicide mission in order to test Iron Bull's loyalty and had made that a requirement for the alliance, I would have no complaints. I would think that it would fit how the Qunari are presented and really force the player to judge their own values and motivations. However, what we got was the Qunari literally trusting the Inquisition to have their back and the Inquisitor deciding that desertion is worth saving some lives. While literally seeking allies to risk their lives and ordering the Inquisition troops to dangerous situations. But all that was okay, since we were never explicitely told that someone cared about those soldiers.

 

I do read the situation as being manipulated by the qunari as a "loyalty test" for the Iron Bull, but you obviously don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[In Exile]

And this kind of brings me back to my initial point, where I felt the execution of the mission was a failure, not the concept. If the writing had in anyway indicated that the Qunari had intentionally arranged the Chargers to go on a suicide mission in order to test Iron Bull's loyalty and had made that a requirement for the alliance, I would have no complaints. I would think that it would fit how the Qunari are presented and really force the player to judge their own values and motivations. However, what we got was the Qunari literally trusting the Inquisition to have their back and the Inquisitor deciding that desertion is worth saving some lives. While literally seeking allies to risk their lives and ordering the Inquisition troops to dangerous situations. But all that was okay, since we were never explicitely told that someone cared about those soldiers.

Again, my issue is with the implementation of the story, not the story being told.

I get that. But I don't actually think it's a suicide mission. While I like the symmetry of the idea that the Qun basically set it up from the start to force the IB to pick sides, I actually think the scene works just fine with the totally coincidental fact that the Chargers just end up in a bad position as an ironic twist (the IB gives them what he thinks is the easier task because he coddled them but he's dead wrong).

I don't disagree that to scene requires the Inquisitor to seemingly throw away an alliance for a random cadre of troops (which you meet a few times). But I don't think that's a flaw. More to the point, I don't think the pragmatic choice is choosing the Qun. They're asking you to let your own men die for theirs, otherwise there's no Alliance. But why should we eat that cost? We let their spy in our midst. Let the qunari prove their goodwill by allowing their men to die to prove their willingness to sacrifice for our alliance.

[thats1evildude]

I get that. But I don't actually think it's a suicide mission. While I like the symmetry of the idea that the Qun basically set it up from the start to force the IB to pick sides, I actually think the scene works just fine with the totally coincidental fact that the Chargers just end up in a bad position as an ironic twist (the IB gives them what he thinks is the easier task because he coddled them but he's dead wrong).

 

Of course, that may have been the point. The qunari fed him and the Inquisitor misinformation, and then counted on Bull to give the Chargers the "easier task." The hill was easier to take, but much more difficult to hold.

 

Now, I don't question that the qunari wanted to stop the red lyrium shipments; that was the top priority. But the Ben-Hassrath probably thought, "Hey, let's kill two birds with one stone and confirm the loyalty of our agent in the Inquisition." Half of them thought he was Tal-Vashoth already.

 

Oh, and determine how much the Inquisition valued an alliance with the qunari.

[Hiemoth]

I think we are expected to see the scene as Iron Bull deciding in his mind whether following the Qun or the Inquisitor is the right thing to do, combined with his love for his Chargers. But our meta-knowledge makes it a secondary matter, because we know what he will do regardless.

 

Maybe a better implementation would have been something like what happened to Zevran in DA:O. If his approval is high enough, when the Crows ask him to betray the Warden, he sides with our heroes. If not, he attacks us. That way it seems that even Zevran has an option to do what he feels is right, not just what the PC or another faction tells him.

 

You know, as I am currently replaying DA2, I was thinking again on the friendship/rivalry system and which characters it might have benefitted in DAI. And now with this discussion, I almost think Iron Bull would have really benefitted from that system as it would have really allowed IB and the PC debate about the merits of the Qunari and their system before that choice, allowing for something similar than the Fenris and Aveline payoff at the end of it.

 

 

I get that. But I don't actually think it's a suicide mission. While I like the symmetry of the idea that the Qun basically set it up from the start to force the IB to pick sides, I actually think the scene works just fine with the totally coincidental fact that the Chargers just end up in a bad position as an ironic twist (the IB gives them what he thinks is the easier task because he coddled them but he's dead wrong).

I don't disagree that to scene requires the Inquisitor to seemingly throw away an alliance for a random cadre of troops (which you meet a few times). But I don't think that's a flaw. More to the point, I don't think the pragmatic choice is choosing the Qun. They're asking you to let your own men die for theirs, otherwise there's no Alliance. But why should we eat that cost? We let their spy in our midst. Let the qunari prove their goodwill by allowing their men to die to prove their willingness to sacrifice for our alliance.

 

Oh, I didn't think it was a suicide mission, my point was that it would have worked better if it was. And even here, the Qunari are not actually asking the Inquisition to have their soldiers, they are asking the Inquisition to partake in a joint military operation against a common enemy. They are not asking the Inquisition to sacrifice their troops, but to protection for the Qunari troops who are undertaking their own risky military operation.

 

Actually, the Qunari actions in that mission were almost weirdly accomodating towards the Inquisition.

[Dai Grepher]

It's not general dessertion, in the sense that he deserts from both the Inquisition and Qunari, because the Inquisitor always sanctions his choice. In the world where the Inquisitor says, "save the Chargers", the IB only abandons one duty and one side - the Qun. In the world where the Inquisitor tells Bull to keep to the mission, again, the two duties line up. But his duty to the Qun always trumps. If we want to split hairs the Inquisitor technically doesn't tell Bull to desert in the universe where you don't save the Chargers rather than telling Bull to desert, but it amounts to the same thing. He never abandons his duty to the Qun.

That's false. He recalls the Chargers because he is loyal to them, not the Inquisition. They are his security blanket, like the Qun had been up until that point. The Cowardly Bull has the choice between the soft fuzzy blanket or the thick heavy one. And Bull doesn't desert the Qun in either case, it's that the Qun kicks him out in one. If the Qun had not kicked him out, he'd still be loyal to the Qun, and he'd still betray you and the Chargers. And had you said nothing to him on the hill, he would have let the Chargers die anyway.

The only reason he will take the risk of being kicked out of the Qun is because he will have the Chargers and the Inquisition to cling to afterward.

It's not a matter of whether they "should" desert. The IB is very clearly in the wrong - he's a traitor. Again, you're entirely right with your example using other soldiers. They would be desserters, in dereliction of their duty. The only reason we see the IB as something other than a traitor is because he sides with us, in the end. What ties it to the qunari philosophy is simply the ordinal ranking of discipline and duty vis-a-vis other values. We don't see ourselves as having moral duties to do our jobs. The Qunari do.

Yeah but this is about telling him not to make the Chargers desert their post, not telling him to not to desert his duty to the Qun.

Let's flip this around and look at what the Viddassala is asking the IB. She's his actual superior. She gives him a direct order. All this stuff about duty etc., is back in play. This time the Inquisitor asks the IB to be a desserter - but it's too late.

Completely wrong. First, she's not his superior. Second, his duty in that case is to be a spy in the Inquisition. By deserting that role, he becomes Tal-Vashoth by the same standards as in the personal quest. What's more is he followed someone who was basically a Tal-Vashoth in all but name at that point herself.

I just don't think you understand these storylines at all.

[Dai Grepher]

And this is where the argle-bargle comes in. PW says they're not a rogue faction DURING Trespasser.

And this is where your disconnection from logic comes in. I already answered this for you. Just because the Qunari that Viddasala commanded were real Qunari doesn't mean that she was not an official Qunari agent gone rogue acting without authorization. Patrick Weekes said NOTHING about Viddasala. You are typing things that have nothing to do with what you're trying to reply to.

You're standing on your head to come up with a distinction that's meaningless anyway. No one ever took the position that Vidassala was a Tal-Vasoth before Trespasser.

That was my point. I never took the position that Viddasala was a Tal-Vashoth before Trespasser. Baconer seems to think I did, but clearly he got confused. That's what happens when you copy/paste someone's posts out of context to keep in your private collection of Dai Grepher quotes.

My point was always that Viddasala went rogue during Trespasser. Nothing Patrick Weekes said contradicts this.