352 réponses à ce sujet

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
Do you really think the quarian people have any love lost for the geth? Or that quarian children are taught to see the geth as anything other than monsters and boogeymen?

Don't see why they would consider it a war crime then.

Even Tali admits to the mistakes of her ancestors. I would think that the reason what Rael did was so reprehensible is that the quarians are committed toward not repeating the mistakes of their past.

[crazyaz]

Nightwriter wrote...

Since didy already answered the first part nicely...

Pacifien wrote...

Well, everyone wants their cake and eat it, too, but sometimes you gotta make the tough calls. In any case, perhaps Tali was being a bit dramatic in an effort to make her case. Perhaps Rael isn't considered the worst criminal in all of quarian history, just one who is used as an example to children about how their war with the geth does not make it cool to experiment on sapient beings so you can cut corners and get your homeworld back sooner.

Oh, but the geth aren't sapient the way we are, so it's not as bad. I get that.

Do you really think the quarian people have any love lost for the geth? Or that quarian children are taught to see the geth as anything other than monsters and boogeymen?

Sometimes I think of the Geth as the children of the quarian race. Legion says the geth wish to understand the quarian-creators, which to me seemed like a kid trying to understand his/her parent's reasoning. I think that the quarians and the geth should be reunited under a truce. like "we give you your homeworld, you don't try to destroy us.


As to the main topic however, I Play my shepard as Lawful Good
While the key difference between Lawful Good and Neutral Good is the belief that upholding law/honor/social mores/etc. is required to set a proper example for others or to prevent a philosophical Moral Dissonance, the key difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral is the recognition that laws/honor/social mores/etc. exist only to protect the Greater Good, and will actually consider whether those strict guidelines really accomplish their tasks, rather than simply enforcing the rule for the rule's own sake

[Pacifien]

I actually don't think a schism amongst the quarians is a bad thing, but this is because it leads a portion of their fleet to seriously consider colonization of a new world, which is something I support the quarians doing anyway.

[Dionkey]

Ill tell you this. I feel no sympathy for the Quarians or Tali's annoying patriotism, they made a mistake and couldn't fix it, now they pay the price. I did stand up for Tali though, not that its the right decision. The game bottlenecks you into gaining their Loyalty or having a chance for them or someone to die on the SM, its absurd. I can't really roleplay when there is a non negotiable ultimatum in the way.

[Nightwriter]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Do you really think the quarian people have any love lost for the geth? Or that quarian children are taught to see the geth as anything other than monsters and boogeymen?

Don't see why they would consider it a war crime then.

Even Tali admits to the mistakes of her ancestors. I would think that the reason what Rael did was so reprehensible is that the quarians are committed toward not repeating the mistakes of their past.

Now I'm perplexed. I thought the reason it was a crime was Rael endangered millions of quarian lives by intentionally bringing geth parts aboard and reassembling them. And in fact was responsible for the deaths of many quarians.

[Cypher0020]

I wanted to show the evidence....but Rael is dead, Tali had no knowledge of what he was doing...... and the Reapers an possibly quarian/geth conflicts are much more important...

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
Now I'm perplexed. I thought the reason it was a crime was Rael endangered millions of quarian lives by intentionally bringing geth parts aboard and reassembling them. And in fact was responsible for the deaths of many quarians.

When they went to the Alarei, the did not know that Rael had done anything that would be deemed a war crime. This is only revealed when you discover that he was purposely reassembling geth, activating them, and networking them so that they achieved sapience. Only then does Tali make her appeal to hide what you had found because it was much worse than she had anticipated.

Without networking them as he had, then any weapons testing Rael was assumed to have been doing would be conducted on something that is little more than a VI. In which case his crime was simply activating geth in their simple state, not the conducting of experiments on what the quarians would consider a sapient entity.

[Dionkey]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Now I'm perplexed. I thought the reason it was a crime was Rael endangered millions of quarian lives by intentionally bringing geth parts aboard and reassembling them. And in fact was responsible for the deaths of many quarians.

When they went to the Alarei, the did not know that Rael had done anything that would be deemed a war crime. This is only revealed when you discover that he was purposely reassembling geth, activating them, and networking them so that they achieved sapience. Only then does Tali make her appeal to hide what you had found because it was much worse than she had anticipated.

Without networking them as he had, then any weapons testing Rael was assumed to have been doing would be conducted on something that is little more than a VI. In which case his crime was simply activating geth in their simple state, not the conducting of experiments on what the quarians would consider a sapient entity.

But is this not enough to show the evidence? I know she is trying to protect her fathers name but thats what Rael was trying to do for Tali in a sence when he didn't warn the Admiralty Board beforehand. You can't just paper over something, it will come back to bite you in the ass, apparent from the email that Xen sends you.

[Pacifien]

That would actually be why I support revealing the evidence and think it's the right thing to do.

[Dionkey]

Pacifien wrote...

That would actually be why I support revealing the evidence and think it's the right thing to do.

Oh.. then were on the same page then

[Sandbox47]

If Tali asks me not to then I won't even if that kills me.

[Alienmorph]

Pacifien wrote...

I actually don't think a schism amongst the quarians is a bad thing, but this is because it leads a portion of their fleet to seriously consider colonization of a new world, which is something I support the quarians doing anyway.

So... 1/2 of the Flottilla will be cannibalized to settle the pacific quarians on a planet that will need centuries to be colonized (Tali says explicitely that quarians will needs 600 years or so instead of few decades to adapt themselfes to a planet that's not Rannoch) lefting them vulerable to reapers, while the other 1/2 of quarians would go against geths making them too vulerable to Reapers? Doesn't sound a smart move... if fact it will deny the help of both the two most powerful fleets in the galaxy.

Modifié par Alienmorph, 06 janvier 2011 - 12:26 .

[implodinggoat]

Eddo36 wrote...

Tali doesn't want her father to be known as a war criminal, and that's understandable. But despite Rael'Zorah's good intentions, he has done what he did (activated Geth in the Fleet to experiment), and what he has done costed Quarian lives and put the entire Migrant Fleet at risk. Should it be fair for other law-abiding Quarians that his actions were covered up so he can't be punished for his actions posthumously?

Its a matter of pragmatism vs. idealism really.  If you're an idealist you'll find the concept of covering up the truth to be inherently unjust; but if you're a pragmatist you'll have to ask yourself what manner of justice is truly gained by exposing the already deceased Rael and what sort of harm will such a revelation inflict upon the living, in particular the harm it would inflict upon his grieving daugther who just happens to be a member of your crew.

As a pragmatist I think "Posthumously" is the operative word here.  Rael' Zorah is dead, he can't be punished since he has passed beyond mortal justice.  You could chuck stones at his corpse; but it's not really going to bother him. 

Furthermore the fact that Rael and all his associated were killed by the Geth already makes a very compelling case against experimenting on Geth so revealing the full scope of his crimes would do little to further dissuade others from repeating his actions; on the other hand revealing the methodology of his experiments might actually serve to encourage further Geth research by individuals such as Admiral Daro'Xen vas Moreh.

While one might be tempted to argue that the truth must be known the fact is that revealing that truth will do little to promote justice and dissuade actions such as Rael's; but would most certainly hurt Tali and could possibly lead to an unneccesary war between the Geth and the Quarians.

Rael paid for his crimes when the Geth blew him away forcing his innocent daughter (who happens to be a member of your crew) to suffer as well accomplishes nothing.

Modifié par implodinggoat, 06 janvier 2011 - 12:32 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Is it right (or at least justifiable) in a short-term, keep-a-team-member happy view? Sure. So is allowing murder on not one but two, arguably more, occasions. Most of Shepard's party loyalty missions involve requests for illegal, sometimes immoral acts.



Is it right in terms of unity of the fleet? Well, knowing that the fleet breaks up (and only breaks up) if you reveal the truth is not only a bit metagamey, but could also justifiably occur regardless of that decision.







Is it right in terms of justice, accountability, democratic views of transparency and honesty, respect to many victims of Rael's blunder, and honesty to the Quarian people as a whole?



It's hard to think of a comparable atrocity not only occuring, but backfiring magnificently, and most people not baying for the person responsible to be held accountable in some way.

[Elyvern]

Well my opinion will probably be ignored because you guys seem intent on going back and forth about the morality of the issue, but I cannot but play that decision without the metaknowledge that if I were to reveal the truth about Rael'Zorah's cupability, the quarian fleet basically fragmentate. Half goes off to find a new homework, while half continue to argue about taking the war to the geth.

Say what you will about the merits of such an outcome, but the fact is Tali gets extremely distraught by it and not just because that choice strikes Rael'Zorah's name off the roster feels like too big a price to pay for a sentient race that essentially comprises of only 17 million individuals and we know well that attrition to the Reaper war will likely reduce it further. *That* is what forces me to meta-game and refrain from giving the evidence more than anything else.

[Dean_the_Young]

implodinggoat wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Tali doesn't want her father to be known as a war criminal, and that's understandable. But despite Rael'Zorah's good intentions, he has done what he did (activated Geth in the Fleet to experiment), and what he has done costed Quarian lives and put the entire Migrant Fleet at risk. Should it be fair for other law-abiding Quarians that his actions were covered up so he can't be punished for his actions posthumously?

Its a matter of pragmatism vs. idealism really.  If you're an idealist you'll find the concept of covering up the truth to be inherently unjust; but if you're a pragmatist you'll have to ask yourself what manner of justice is truly gained by exposing the already deceased Rael and what sort of harm will such a revelation inflict upon the living, in particular the harm it would inflict upon his grieving daugther who just happens to be a member of your crew.

The pragmatic opposition: the real practical benefit of ensuring a society does not become accustomed to coverups and atrocities so long as they are not noticed, and the longer-term damage to social cohesion when the truth is (can be) found out.

As a pragmatist I think "Posthumously" is the operative word here.  Rael' Zorah is dead, he can't be punished since he has passed beyond mortal justice.  You could chuck stones at his corpse; but it's not really going to bother him. 

It can, however, directly effect the quality of life of the people he harmed. Rael is dead: he won't mind a verbal flogging. Hundreds of widows, orphans, parents, and friends of the lost can be given the respect they deserve to know the truth about why their loved one died, and vindicated in knowing that rank, privaleges, and family connections wouldn't see the one responsible excape any sort of accountability on the part of those left behind.

Rael is dead. The people whom his disaster harmed, are not. Justice and accountability aren't only for the sake of the person responsible, but for the rest of society as well.

Furthermore the fact that Rael and all his associated were killed by the Geth already makes a very compelling case against experimenting on Geth so revealing the full scope of his crimes would do little to further dissuade others from repeating his actions; on the other hand revealing the methodology of his experiments might actually serve to encourage further Geth research by individuals such as Admiral Daro'Xen vas Moreh.

Geth have always been dangerous: this is neither new, or novel. Infact, it's the single greatest impetus for studying them: to make them 'less' dangerous. 'Dangerous' science is not a historic or social limiter on any sort of research track, because by and large the reasons something is dangerous is the reason you want to mitigate it. 

While it is metagaming irony that your argument and the game are directly opposed (revealing the data is the only way to prevent Admiral Xen from continuing the research), it isn't even a definite in a non-metagaming perspective.

Rael didn't merely do what others before him had done: Rael went far, far further than anyone else, and with blatant disregard to the safety of his ship and the fleet. In the Quarian perspective, the true nature of his death is worthy of a cautionary tale, as it is that exceptional. A cautionary tale is what wards others against repeating an action.

If Rael's crimes are covered up, the Alarai incident becomes merely another case among many of the eternal foe being constantly dangerous. Maybe the person most likely responsible for the disaster (Tali) was punished. Maybe no one was. But it's just another replay of a story hundreds of years old, and hundreds of years of history and harm didn't stop the Geth research, it is the motivator for the geth research.

While one might be tempted to argue that the truth must be known the fact is that revealing that truth will do little to promote justice and dissuade actions such as Rael's; but would most certainly hurt Tali and could possibly lead to an unneccesary war between the Geth and the Quarians.

The game posits a contrary point. Rael's post-mortem crucification sets and enforces a public standard on the Quarians, blocks Xen from continuing the research, and turns a farce of a trial against an innocent into an appropriate cultural action against the truly guilty.

Legion already learns of the decision regardless of whether you cover up the facts or not, and the Quarians can still go to war with the Geth regardless as well. The evidence is the greatest factor you can have to knock out support from under the war-faction of the Quarians.

Rael paid for his crimes when the Geth blew him away forcing his innocent daughter (who happens to be a member of your crew) to suffer as well accomplishes nothing.

It accomplishes quite a lot, actually. It stops Admiral Xen's geth research ambitions. It gives the pacifist faction proof of the atrocities the war faction were willing to go for their war. It forces the war faction to come to terms with themselves. It gives closure to the other, far more numerous, people who were suffering.

[Dean_the_Young]

Elyvern wrote...

Well my opinion will probably be ignored because you guys seem intent on going back and forth about the morality of the issue, but I cannot but play that decision without the metaknowledge that if I were to reveal the truth about Rael'Zorah's cupability, the quarian fleet basically fragmentate. Half goes off to find a new homework, while half continue to argue about taking the war to the geth.
Say what you will about the merits of such an outcome, but the fact is Tali gets extremely distraught by it and not just because that choice strikes Rael'Zorah's name off the roster feels like too big a price to pay for a sentient race that essentially comprises of only 17 million individuals and we know well that attrition to the Reaper war will likely reduce it further. *That* is what forces me to meta-game and refrain from giving the evidence more than anything else.

That scenario doesn't doom you in any respect, though. The ships don't simply disappear off the map.

Fragmenting the Quarian fleet doesn't mean it can't come together again, but it does prevent it from being thrown into a needless geth war as a whole. You're guaranteeing yourself that at least some of the fleet remains when the Reapers come if they fragment, and the Reapers are the true threat.



But regardless, metagaming = poor argument standards. The fleet could just have easily split up had you covered the truth, with no resolution found and eventually everyone going their own way because of impass. Showing the data could easily have preserved unity by knocking out the support of the war faction, not only keeping the Fleet together but out of the geth war. The end result is purely by writer fiat.

[Elyvern]

Yes, but if we were to look at the rest of the LMs, apart from Legion's (and the jury is still out on that one) none of the end choices results in something so potentially game-breaking as revealing the data at the trial. You can call it emotional railroading, I certainly felt that way from the revelation of the fleet breaking up, the way Tali responds, her high level of distress and the definitive moment where she deviates from her "non-shepard fangirl" mode, makes it feel almost like the CB decision when back on the Normandy, you're left wondering why every squadmate is saying it's unwise to give Cerberus the base. It has the same vibe, a vibe so loud and noisy you can't help it intruding once you are aware of it.

[Dean_the_Young]

And so what? Are you going to let yourself be brow beat by an emotional appeal over what you think is best with the facts at hand?



You are Commander Shepard, not Tali Zorah. You make the choices you think are right, not the choices she feels good about. If there's ever a point you think you're right and she's wrong, her being upset doesn't make her less wrong.

[Elyvern]

Nope, but since the consequences feel so serious in comparison to the other LMs, I feel compelled to metagame and wonder if I'm shooting myself in the foot here by divulging the evidence. You can also read it another way and go out of your way to be a contrarian because you resent being railroaded by authorial intent via emotional blackmail.

[Dean_the_Young]

You're being contrarian by going along with the emotional blackmail?



Wouldn't a real contrarion react against the direction they were being pushed?

[GodWood]

Dionkey wrote...
Ill tell you this. I feel no sympathy for the Quarians or Tali's annoying patriotism, they made a mistake and couldn't fix it, now they pay the price. I did stand up for Tali though, not that its the right decision. The game bottlenecks you into gaining their Loyalty or having a chance for them or someone to die on the SM, its absurd. I can't really roleplay when there is a non negotiable ultimatum in the way.

How is you making a decision and than suffering for it later negative to your roleplaying.
I'd think that's a postive.

[implodinggoat]

Hmm, you make some very good arguments Dean_the_Young.

Your argument quite effectively contradicts my own not by attempting to rebuff it along idealist grounds; but by weighing the good that revealing the evidence might produce for the Quarian people as a whole against the good that covering it up would do for a single individual namely Tali.

Its really a pretty interesting mission from an ethical view since its really more of a test of Shepard's loyalty and not Tali's.  It presents an instance where Shepard must weigh his loyalty to truth and justice versus his loyalty to his friend and his dedication to completing his mission.

Hypothetical Good Versus Definite Harm.

When I played through it I did consider revealing the evidence simply because doing otherwise would subvert truth and justice; but as I said I decided to cover it up because everyone on Rael's team was already dead and thus quite immune to Quarian law.  Thus I concluded that covering up the evidence out of loyalty to a friend (Tali) was justifiable since the Geth had effectively already delivered their own justice when they killed everyone on the ship, though I did encourage the Quarians not to go to war after I covered up the evidence.

If you regard the Geth as the instrument of justice in this regard then the issue becomes one of weighing the right of the Quarian people to know the truth and the good that such information might do in preventing a war with the Geth versus the hardship such a revelation would impose upon the families of the guilty including Tali as well as the families of all the other Quarians who died as a result of Rael's experiment.

This presents a problem though since on the one hand you have a potential chance to do a great deal of good by revealing the evidence and averting a pointless war; but this is merely a hypothetical.   While on the other hand the pain you would inflict upon Tali and the families of the guilty would be far less significant than the pain that a war with the Geth would inflict; but unlike the potential war their pain is not merely a hypothetical scenario it is a definite result of your actions.

But; Is it really Shepard's decision to make?

Ultimately the way I played it out when I was playing the game was to take the viewpoint that the outcome of this mission was Tali's decision to make since it was her trial, her people and her father and since Shepard had been appointed to represent her interests at her trial.  So while I thought that the evidence should have been revealed, I had decided that whether it should be or not was ultimately not my decision to make.   As Tali's defense I was there to execute her wishes not to impose my own standards upon her and when she decided that she didn't want the evidence revealed that was the decision I had to roll with.

I didn't think it was the right decision; but it was her decision to make.

PS: Frankly I wasn't aware what happens if you turn the evidence in since I've never actually done so in the game;
but as you said analyzing the game's decisions based on what you know will happen misses the point anyway.

With that in mind, I wouldn't regard splitting the Quarian flotilla up as a positive outcome, nor is it an outcome I would have predicted revealing the evidence would produce.  This sort of supports my mindset that it should be Tali's decision to make though since Shepard's knowledge of the Quarian people is limited and therefore not sufficiently informed to confidently impose upon the entirity of the Quarian people.

Modifié par implodinggoat, 06 janvier 2011 - 04:46 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Tali should not be allowed to make that decision because it is her trial and because Rael is her father.



She is irrevocably biased and not thinking straight. I'd argue that she shouldn't have been allowed on that ship at all, but they had to throw in that "prove your innocence by leading a suicide charge against the opposition" into the proceedings.