437 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

Siansonea II wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You are forgetting that quarian politics are not your business, and you are also ignoring the fact that you don't know quarian politics as well as Tali, so your opinion is worth less than hers.

And what I said about Rael'Zorah is that, between tarnishing the image of a dead man and protecting the stability of the quarian society, the latter is more important.

If it's not my business, I don't want to be involved. Speak for yourself, Tali. Problem solved.

You may think that's more important, but you're an alien. You are not the one who should be making that decision on behalf of the quarian people. I mean, yeah, you came back from the dead and all that, but you're not the quarian Messiah. You shouldn't be the one who decides which is the best course of action for an alien species. You were tasked with finding evidence to clear Tali's name, and to retake a ship overrun with geth. You accomplish both, but somehow you are now asked to conceal the evidence you find—commit perjury—in order to make your teammate happy, and maybe help preserve the stability of the quarian government. I'm still not quite sure why everybody flips out when they learn the truth anyway. All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect for Tali's code of ethics.

I'd hope you don't treat your real friends that way.

Once again, an appeal to the emotions. I thought women were supposed to be the emotional ones? And yet all you males are advocating 'going with your heart' in a situation that calls for a dispassionate adherence to the law and truth. Feelings are funny things, and everyone's are different. That's why we HAVE laws, so no one person's "feelings" can dictate how the rest of us live our lives. We all have to play by the same rules.

Actually, I think it's a misnomer that men are less emotional women.  Both are just as emotional.  The key difference is in source and application.  Women will tend to form their principles based on their feelings.  Men will tend to form their feelings around their principles.  Men also show emotion less often, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[ImmortalWarrior]

Siansonea II wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
*snips*

Try and not let your feelings towards Tali bias your decision.  Even if you dislike Tali, withholding the evidence is the morally better choice. 

I'm not saying your moral compass is f**ked, but Hitler thought Aushwitz and 400,000 butchered and tortured jews was a morally better choice too.

You are making a false analogy with regard to Hitler, and you know it. That is not an equivalent situation in any way. If anything, Tali concealing her father's war crimes is analogous to someone concealing Hitler's war crimes "to preserve the status quo of Europe". Not on the same scale, certainly, but you're the one who introduced the parallel.

I was being fececious for dramatic effect.  His "war crimes" were that he experimented on active Geth.  I suppose you could stretch that analogy, but I could do the same.  Experimenting on sentient machines isn't the same as injecting fluid directly into the skulls of living jews until their eyeballs popped out from the pressure.  You COULD make that analogy, but I say it is a whole different level of "war crime". 

Suffice it to say, it is probably a good thing you don't lead a government.

[Siansonea]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You are forgetting that quarian politics are not your business, and you are also ignoring the fact that you don't know quarian politics as well as Tali, so your opinion is worth less than hers.

And what I said about Rael'Zorah is that, between tarnishing the image of a dead man and protecting the stability of the quarian society, the latter is more important.

If it's not my business, I don't want to be involved. Speak for yourself, Tali. Problem solved.

You may think that's more important, but you're an alien. You are not the one who should be making that decision on behalf of the quarian people. I mean, yeah, you came back from the dead and all that, but you're not the quarian Messiah. You shouldn't be the one who decides which is the best course of action for an alien species. You were tasked with finding evidence to clear Tali's name, and to retake a ship overrun with geth. You accomplish both, but somehow you are now asked to conceal the evidence you find—commit perjury—in order to make your teammate happy, and maybe help preserve the stability of the quarian government. I'm still not quite sure why everybody flips out when they learn the truth anyway. All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect for Tali's code of ethics.

I'd hope you don't treat your real friends that way.

"All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian
government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect
for Tali's code of ethics."

Kill her off then and be on your merry way without her in ME3

So, what you're saying is, you don't have a rational argument to defend her lack of adherence to established quarian law? You are conceding that she's acting in an unethical manner by the standards of her own people, but that's 100% A-OK with you?

[ImmortalWarrior]

jamesp81 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You are forgetting that quarian politics are not your business, and you are also ignoring the fact that you don't know quarian politics as well as Tali, so your opinion is worth less than hers.

And what I said about Rael'Zorah is that, between tarnishing the image of a dead man and protecting the stability of the quarian society, the latter is more important.

If it's not my business, I don't want to be involved. Speak for yourself, Tali. Problem solved.

You may think that's more important, but you're an alien. You are not the one who should be making that decision on behalf of the quarian people. I mean, yeah, you came back from the dead and all that, but you're not the quarian Messiah. You shouldn't be the one who decides which is the best course of action for an alien species. You were tasked with finding evidence to clear Tali's name, and to retake a ship overrun with geth. You accomplish both, but somehow you are now asked to conceal the evidence you find—commit perjury—in order to make your teammate happy, and maybe help preserve the stability of the quarian government. I'm still not quite sure why everybody flips out when they learn the truth anyway. All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect for Tali's code of ethics.

I'd hope you don't treat your real friends that way.

Once again, an appeal to the emotions. I thought women were supposed to be the emotional ones? And yet all you males are advocating 'going with your heart' in a situation that calls for a dispassionate adherence to the law and truth. Feelings are funny things, and everyone's are different. That's why we HAVE laws, so no one person's "feelings" can dictate how the rest of us live our lives. We all have to play by the same rules.

Actually, I think it's a misnomer that men are less emotional women.  Both are just as emotional.  The key difference is in source and application.  Women will tend to form their principles based on their feelings.  Men will tend to form their feelings around their principles.  Men also show emotion less often, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Making informed decisions with our feelings in mind is what seperates us from the animals.  To ignore feelings completely is wrong, but to let them dictate your decisions is also wrong.  Conversely, being aware of them, and knowing when to allow them to effect our decisions, is the best way to go.  But, who is to say our feelings are correct then...

[Siansonea]

jamesp81 wrote...
*snip*

Actually, I think it's a misnomer that men are less emotional women.  Both are just as emotional.  The key difference is in source and application.  Women will tend to form their principles based on their feelings.  Men will tend to form their feelings around their principles.  Men also show emotion less often, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I don't think that's true at all. I think both men and women generally form their principles based on their emotions, they just happen to be different emotions in most cases. In any case, it's a generalization, and I think age plays a factor more so than gender, but that's just my opinion.

[jamesp81]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You are forgetting that quarian politics are not your business, and you are also ignoring the fact that you don't know quarian politics as well as Tali, so your opinion is worth less than hers.

And what I said about Rael'Zorah is that, between tarnishing the image of a dead man and protecting the stability of the quarian society, the latter is more important.

If it's not my business, I don't want to be involved. Speak for yourself, Tali. Problem solved.

You may think that's more important, but you're an alien. You are not the one who should be making that decision on behalf of the quarian people. I mean, yeah, you came back from the dead and all that, but you're not the quarian Messiah. You shouldn't be the one who decides which is the best course of action for an alien species. You were tasked with finding evidence to clear Tali's name, and to retake a ship overrun with geth. You accomplish both, but somehow you are now asked to conceal the evidence you find—commit perjury—in order to make your teammate happy, and maybe help preserve the stability of the quarian government. I'm still not quite sure why everybody flips out when they learn the truth anyway. All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect for Tali's code of ethics.

I'd hope you don't treat your real friends that way.

Once again, an appeal to the emotions. I thought women were supposed to be the emotional ones? And yet all you males are advocating 'going with your heart' in a situation that calls for a dispassionate adherence to the law and truth. Feelings are funny things, and everyone's are different. That's why we HAVE laws, so no one person's "feelings" can dictate how the rest of us live our lives. We all have to play by the same rules.

Actually, I think it's a misnomer that men are less emotional women.  Both are just as emotional.  The key difference is in source and application.  Women will tend to form their principles based on their feelings.  Men will tend to form their feelings around their principles.  Men also show emotion less often, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Making informed decisions with our feelings in mind is what seperates us from the animals.  To ignore feelings completely is wrong, but to let them dictate your decisions is also wrong.  Conversely, being aware of them, and knowing when to allow them to effect our decisions, is the best way to go.  But, who is to say our feelings are correct then...

I have theory on who's to say that are feelings are correct, but it would really get a **** storm started in a thread already experiencing some high winds.

[ImmortalWarrior]

Siansonea II wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You are forgetting that quarian politics are not your business, and you are also ignoring the fact that you don't know quarian politics as well as Tali, so your opinion is worth less than hers.

And what I said about Rael'Zorah is that, between tarnishing the image of a dead man and protecting the stability of the quarian society, the latter is more important.

If it's not my business, I don't want to be involved. Speak for yourself, Tali. Problem solved.

You may think that's more important, but you're an alien. You are not the one who should be making that decision on behalf of the quarian people. I mean, yeah, you came back from the dead and all that, but you're not the quarian Messiah. You shouldn't be the one who decides which is the best course of action for an alien species. You were tasked with finding evidence to clear Tali's name, and to retake a ship overrun with geth. You accomplish both, but somehow you are now asked to conceal the evidence you find—commit perjury—in order to make your teammate happy, and maybe help preserve the stability of the quarian government. I'm still not quite sure why everybody flips out when they learn the truth anyway. All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect for Tali's code of ethics.

I'd hope you don't treat your real friends that way.

"All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian
government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect
for Tali's code of ethics."

Kill her off then and be on your merry way without her in ME3

So, what you're saying is, you don't have a rational argument to defend her lack of adherence to established quarian law? You are conceding that she's acting in an unethical manner by the standards of her own people, but that's 100% A-OK with you?

Um no, I wish we could have this conversation in person.  Because I would gladly reiterate points verbally, but I am not going to type out the same arguments over and over again. Your agitation seems to be causing you to miss points that have already been refuted.  Maybe you should take a break and come back more relaxed.

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

"That's why we HAVE laws, so no one person's "feelings" can dictate how the rest of us live our lives. We all have to play by the same rules."

The system is not without flaws, though.

And you may not want to represent Tali, but Shepard does, as there's obviously no option to refuse yourself.

Also, the goal of the mission was TO GAIN TALI'S LOYALTY, not to PROVE TO THE QUARIANS THAT RAEL'ZORAH DID IT.

By your own admission, quarian politics are not your business, so you have as much of an obligation to give the data to the Admiralty Board as to go with Tali's idea and not give it them.

What you are doing is MAKING QUARIAN POLITICS YOUR BUSINESS, and then risking the integrity of their society out of self-righteousness.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 05:03 .

[Siansonea]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...
*snip*

Making informed decisions with our feelings in mind is what seperates us from the animals.  To ignore feelings completely is wrong, but to let them dictate your decisions is also wrong.  Conversely, being aware of them, and knowing when to allow them to effect our decisions, is the best way to go.  But, who is to say our feelings are correct then...

Actually, what separates us from the animals is thumbs and extra real estate in the cranial cavity. That's all. We actually ARE animals, you know. Letting our subjective feelings dictate our decisions actually makes us MORE like animals, who are incapable of dispassionate, rational thought. Animals don't do the right thing even when it goes against self-interest, they simply follow instinct—their 'feelings'. Humans are the only beings capable of putting aside their personal feelings, putting aside self-interest, and acting in accordance with a higher principle. Well, in the ME universe the other sentient aliens theoretically share this trait with humans. But it is incorrect to state that Tali's instinctive desire to preserve her father's memory is somehow noble, when it flies in the face of a higher ethical standard—telling the truth regardless of the personal cost. 

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

It's not about personal cost, though; it's about her entire species.

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

"That's why we HAVE laws, so no one person's "feelings" can dictate how the rest of us live our lives. We all have to play by the same rules."

The system is not without flaws, though.

And you may not want to represent Tali, but Shepard does, as there's obviously no option to refuse yourself.

Also, the goal of the mission was TO GAIN TALI'S LOYALTY, not to PROVE TO THE QUARIANS THAT RAEL'ZORAH DID IT.

By your own admission, quarian politics are not your business, so you have as much of an obligation to give the data to the Admiralty Board as to go with Tali's idea and not give it them.

What you are doing is MAKING QUARIAN POLITICS YOUR BUSINESS, and then risking the integrity of their society out of self-righteousness.

These are good points, actually. But it still doesn't appeal to me that by adhering to a code of ethics, Shepard is somehow doing the wrong thing with Tali. Adhering to a code of ethics, regardless of self-interest, is the very definition of a Paragon. You shouldn't get a free pass from having to tell the truth just because "it's your father" or some other emotional excuse. But BioWare says you do, and I think that's wrong. And that's one reason I dislike Tali.

[Siansonea]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...


*snip*


I'd hope you don't treat your real friends that way.

"All I can say is, I don't have a lot of respect for the quarian
government, if they're that fragile, and I really don't have any respect
for Tali's code of ethics."

Kill her off then and be on your merry way without her in ME3

So, what you're saying is, you don't have a rational argument to defend her lack of adherence to established quarian law? You are conceding that she's acting in an unethical manner by the standards of her own people, but that's 100% A-OK with you?

Um no, I wish we could have this conversation in person.  Because I would gladly reiterate points verbally, but I am not going to type out the same arguments over and over again. Your agitation seems to be causing you to miss points that have already been refuted.  Maybe you should take a break and come back more relaxed.

Casting aspersions on my emotional level of agitation does not help your argument. Nebulously referring to "previously refuted points" does not automatically render them refuted. Your statements have to stand on their own merits, not rely on antecedents that may or may not be in the readers' awareness at that time.

[Someone With Mass]

Easier said than done. I can say that about a lot of the words that keeps coming out of people's moths here.

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

It's not about personal cost, though; it's about her entire species.

That doesn't appear to be the overriding concern when talking to Tali. If anything, it comes across as an excuse she's using to support her personal wishes, a pretext. She's hardly in an emotional state to make declarations about the matter that should be given undue weight. She is 'under duress'. Now, if she was making these points while she still thought Rael'Zorah was alive, and actually discussing the scenarios if he is guilty and found alive, then it wouldn't sound quite so much like she was simply reaching for things to support her emotional preferences.

[Siansonea]

Nyoka wrote...

"risk the integrity of their society"? Because a dead guy was doing freaky things with geth?

Minimizing Rael'Zorah's actions don't render them any less illegal by the standards of quarian law. And the moral implications of experimenting on sentient geth was never the concern of the quarians, but doing so in such a way that endangers the Migrant Fleet IS a concern. And what happened was pretty much exactly what quarian law was designed to prevent: geth taking over a quarian ship and endangering the rest of the fleet. Rael'Zorah's actions were irresponsible and treasonous by the standards of his people. And not only did he pay the ultimate price for putting his own 'feelings' on the matter above quarian law, but every other quarian on that ship paid the price as well. This is exactly what I'm talking about. When someone does what they think is the right thing, even if it is against the law, then they have to accept the consequences of that decision. So, if Shepard wants to compound the injury of Rael'Zorah's actions with the insult of giving him a free pass, then Shepard is free to do so, but in no way, shape, or form, is Shepard taking any sort of "high road" by doing so.

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

I seems to me that you are convinced that your choices are purely Paragon, but to me they fall more along the lines of Lawful Neutral.

If you agree that what Rael did was wrong, why would you want the quarians to suffer for his mistakes? Because that's what's gonna happen if you give the data to the Admiralty board.

The quarians can either carry on with their lives in blissful ignorance, or enter a state of panic that will shatter their society.

If you talk to Tali after the mission, she even tells you that a lot of quarians have actually left the Migrant Fleet because of what happened.

Following the law blindly does not make you a "true" Paragon.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 07:03 .

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

I seems to me that you are convinced that your choices are purely Paragon, but to me they fall more along the lines of Lawful Neutral.

If you agree that what Rael did was wrong, why would you want the quarians to suffer for his mistakes? Because that's what's gonna happen if you give the data to the Admiralty board.

Shepard cannot know that beyond doubt before it happens. It's all speculation and opinion until it happens. And it still doesn't make Shepard's decision 'good', only 'expedient'.

You continually refer to events that happen AFTER Shepard makes the decision regarding the evidence as reasons for Shepard to have made that decision. You can't use those events as proof of the rightness or wrongness of Shepard's choice, as Shepard cannot possibly know all of the consequences of the decision beforehand. If you break the law, but there is a 'positive' result that you may or may not have foreseen, you still broke the law, and you should still be held accountable for it, in my opinion.

The quarians can either carry on with their lives in blissful ignorance, or enter a state of panic that will shatter their society.

If you talk to Tali after the mission, she even tells you that a lot of quarians have actually left the Migrant Fleet because of what happened.

Once again, this statement is bolstered by the certainty of knowing the outcome beforehand. Whether Shepard's actions preserve the status quo or not, it remains to be seen whether either circumstance ultimately has any affect on the fate of the quarian people as a whole. If the situation is at a flashpoint at the time of Tali's trial, it's not simply going to go away just because that particular situation was resolved without incident. Those Admirals aren't suddenly going to drink Shepard Kool-Aid and play nice with each other and abandon their previous goals and attitudes. It may well be that telling the truth in this situation will ultimately lead to a stronger quarian race, after a period of instability. We can't know the long-term repercussions of the decision until we play Mass Effect 3. And even then, you can't point to a 'positive' result as a pertinent factor for a decision, because the result occurs AFTER the decision.

Following the law blindly does not make you a "true" Paragon.

I think we differ on the definition of Paragon/Renegade. To me, a Renegade is someone who flouts the law to achieve their goals, "the end justifies the means" or "succeed at all costs". To me, a Paragon is someone who adheres to the law to the greatest extent possible, going to extra effort to achieve goals within the confines of a code of ethical behavior. All too often, it seems people interpret Paragon as "Good" or Passive and Renegade as "Evil" or Aggressive. In reality, they correspond more closely to Lawful and Chaotic, at least from my viewpoint.

And if my opinion on the Rael'Zorah issue makes me "Lawful Neutral", that's fine. I don't see how allowing a war criminal's actions to pass without comment can ever fall under the "Good" umbrella anyway. When it comes right down to it, for many people, Good and Evil pretty much boil down to "benefits me and mine" and "harms me and mine", rather than any sort of moral absolute. That's certainly the case with Tali, from my observation.

And my point isn't that people who like Tali in spite of her attitude toward the law are stupid/wrong/etc. Some people might like Tali because she doesn't play by the rules. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But it's important to realize that she isn't playing by the rules, rather than believe that she's somehow doing the Right Moral Thing by breaking the laws of her own people.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 03 mai 2011 - 07:41 .

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

You keep saying that I'm meta-gaming, but the point is that Tali herself says to you that there'd be bad repercussions if you gave the data to Admiralty board BEFORE you have the choice to do it.

You are assuming that you know better than her what is best for her people, which is a baseless assumption.

When you have no proof to support your own theory of what might happen, the least you could do is give someone who knows about the subject the benefit of the doubt and go along with what they suggest.

And good and evil are not as abstract as you think. Something that causes pain, physical or emotional to another, could be at least considered wrong. Giving the data to the Admiralty board is harmful to the quarians, and that makes it wrong.

I really don't see what's the point of following the law simply for the heck of it.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 07:46 .

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You keep saying that I'm meta-gaming, but the point is that Tali herself says to you that there'd be bad repercussions if you gave the data to Admiralty board BEFORE you have the choice to do it.

Only when you refer to events that occur after the decision is made to illustrate your point do I make references to metagame thinking. All Shepard has to go on is what Shepard knows before the decision is made.

You are assuming that you know better than her what is best for her people, which is a baseless assumption.

And you assume Tali, in a heightened emotional state, is more qualified to make the call than the quarian Admirals themselves, even though they are the recognized authority who are tasked with making the decision? The fact that Tali ends up being correct in her assessment of the outcome doesn't mean that she is more qualified to make that decision. She just happened to be right. The outcome is not part of the equation until it happens. The only things that matter in formulating Shepard's decision are the input received from Tali, the Admirals, and Shepard's own senses, and Shepard's attitude toward quarian law and Shepard's estimation of his/her own authority to follow or completely circumvent quarian law. If Shepard decides to break the law and make Tali happy, that's a valid choice, but it doesn't make Shepard's decision "good" or even necessarily "evil". But it very much makes the decision UNLAWFUL.

When you have no proof to support your own theory of what might happen, the least you could do is give someone who knows about the subject the benefit of the doubt and go along with what they suggest.

Again, Tali knows more than the Admirals? She has the right to decide the fate of her people, NOT the people who are actually legally endowed with that power?

And good and evil are not as abstract as you think. Something that causes pain, physical or emotional to another, could be at least considered wrong. Giving the data to the Admiralty board is harmful to the quarians, and that makes it wrong.

I really don't see what's the point of following the law simply for the heck of it.

Well, I hope I never find myself driving on the same roads as you. If you feel like red lights, stop signs, etc., only apply to you when you agree with them, I want to be as far as possible from your car. If you're this blasé about concealing evidence in a trial for TREASON, then I'm sure cheating on your taxes, disobeying traffic laws, petty theft, etc., don't cause any qualms either. Maybe that's a bit of hyperbole, but it's true. Where DO you draw the line? And why do you think you're ever above the law?

Modifié par Siansonea II, 03 mai 2011 - 07:59 .

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

Your argument is shallow, because you have no proof whatsoever that she could not think rationally in that situation. Some people become less functional during heightened emotional states than others. You just choose to believe you are better than her.

Weather she knows more than the Admirals is irrelevant, because the data is presented PUBLICLY, which means that a lot of quarians are going to know about it first-hand, and word of mouth is going to travel fast, and the panic that we are trying to avoid is of the QUARIAN POPULATION, not of the Admiralty Board. And I never argued that it is lawful or not; just that it is the right decision.

Very classy that you'd exaggerate like that. It really shows that you're running out of arguments. I also don't see why you need to do that, because this is not meant to be a hostile conversation.

We're talking about the FATE OF AN ENTIRE SPECIES, which is a lot more important than driving safely and paying taxes, and therefore might require more drastic measures. I'm a law-abidding citizen, but that does not stop me from being prudent.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 08:19 .

[Siansonea]

Nyoka wrote...

Truth should always prevail. Paragons are honest people. The quarians will decide what to do by themselves, as is their right as a sovereign people. They don't need a stranger to decide for them what's best for them. If some quarians disagree with whatever decision the Conclave (a democratically elected body) make about it, they can try to make them change their minds or they can leave, it's their prerrogative. These kinds of high ideals are very Paragon-ish.

A Renegade would just make sure Tali is loyal and the quarians are united because they could be important against the reapers, so she probably won't reveal the evidence. What's important for Renegades is what produces the best outcome. "Do whatever it takes", even if it means ignoring honesty and democracy.

I agree, and I think BioWare got it ass-backwards during the Tali: Treason mission. It seems like Paragon was interpreted in this mission to mean "Is What Tali Wants". Heaven forbid that Shepard actually uphold the law in spite of her plaintive appeals. I remember the first time I played through that sequence, I was pretty surprised that giving the evidence made her disloyal. But I just chalked it up to the fact that Tali's never been the most Paragon-ish character to begin with. I had forgotten that BioWare configured it so that telling the truth is a Renegade choice, I think I wasn't paying attention in my playthroughs, or I forgot about it after playing the mission. But it really is backwards the way they have it now.

[NICKjnp]

mrsph wrote...

handing over volatile information, stuff that could land in the hands of a warmonger and mad scientist, isn't really all that smart. even if tali had wanted me to turn the thing in i wouldn't.

Tali's father was a warmonger and mad scientist.  Hand over the evidence and it makes it less likely for the Quarians to want to repeat what happened.  Don't hand it over and the warmonger and the mad scientist will find out the information anyways.

Modifié par NICKjnp, 03 mai 2011 - 08:23 .