36 réponses à ce sujet

[Katamariguy]

 1) Perjury
2) Reveal the evidence, tear apart the flotilla, crush Tali's soul
3) Derail a trial simply by pointing out its political nature ( we admit we had an agenda, so I guess she's innocent!)

[WolfForce99]

Not really, no.

[Strikebirg]

www.youtube.com/watch

[Mr Zoat]

Life doesn't always allow for ideal choices.

[capn233]

No. I like how it runs the gamut of possibilities.

And it isn't as if trials, especially public and politicized ones have not had the precedent of bad faith, character, or popular opinion defenses. Since the Quarian legal system is much less structured around the words of a law they make a little more sense in this instance as well.

[Yezdigerd]

It annoys me that a really interesting dilemma is made moot by allowing you to have the cake and eat it.
Never understood why perjury is the paragon way either.

[seirhart]

nope I don't agree my shepards quite enjoy lieing saying that there was no evidence get tali exiled for good possibly and have her loyalty

[Vegos]

I wonder why people talk about "perjury" as if the trial was being run under human laws.

It was run under quarian laws, which may as well be different.

[didymos1120]

Vegos wrote...

I wonder why people talk about "perjury" as if the trial was being run under human laws.

It was run under quarian laws, which may as well be different.

It's also not perjury because you don't lie: Paragon Shep simply says her record is all the evidence they should need, and then talks about all the political motives at play.  That and you're not under any sort of formal oath either.

[Ravellion]

The paragon and renegade choices cheapen what could have been almost as interesting a decision as the Virmire choice, so yes, the options are unsatisfying, but I would like LESS options instead.

[Yezdigerd]

Vegos wrote...

I wonder why people talk about "perjury" as if the trial was being run under human laws.

It was run under quarian laws, which may as well be different.

And maybe cannibalism is endorsed by quarian law, we don't know that either. A paragon, someone who follows a code of principles will try to do uphold them regardless of circumstance.
As a renegade its of course perfectly sensible to play the cultural relativism card,to justify withholding the evidence.

[didymos1120]

Yezdigerd wrote...
 A paragon, someone who follows a code of principles will try to do uphold them regardless of circumstance.

And does that code include the item "Slavishly follow as many laws as possible to the letter whenever possible"? 'Cause if it does, then there's a ridiculous amount of stuff in both games a Paragon wouldn't be "allowed" to do.  In any case, Paragon isn't about some rigid, well-defined code and never has been, no more than Renegade is or has been.  It's more about the way you interact with individuals and your general approach to situations.  The perfectly Paragon-compatible reason for withholding the evidence is to preserve the unity of the Migrant Fleet.  If you personally don't find that ethically acceptable, then, well, don't do it. That doesn't make you more Paragon-than-thou though.

Modifié par didymos1120, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

I take #2 because I don't believe obstructing justice in a high treason trial based on a war crime is the right thing to do.

Tali's personal issues be damned, they are not reason enough.

The political fractures of the Migrant Fleet already exist, I will not lie to maintain their lie. 

Choosing option #2 is choosing the truth.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:59 .

[AtreiyaN7]

I was a Paragon, and I was willing to commit perjury for Tali - partly because I consider her a friend who put her life on the line during the course of ME1, and partly because revealing the truth would serve no larger purpose that I could see other than hurting a friend and ruining her father's name. Loyalty goes both ways in my opinion.

EDIT: To elaborate a bit, as a Paragon, I don't believe that we are bound by rules and restrictions like the ones in Samara's justicar Code (and even Samara had some wiggle room in interpreting it). I do believe that Paragons possess a strong moral compass that guides their decision-making. Maybe some Paragons feel more bound by formal laws than others, but I'm in the slightly more free-wheeling camp.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:19 .

[didymos1120]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I was a Paragon, and I was willing to commit perjury for Tali...

OK, it's not perjury.  That is the crime of lying under oath when that lie directly affects the outcome of the proceeding.   In no version of events does Shepard do that.  One, Shep never actually lies.  The closest you can get is saying there's no evidence you wish to submit.  Which is the truth: you in fact don't want to submit the evidence you found if you're picking that particular option.  Two, you're acting as, essentially, an attorney, not a witness.  Three, no one there swore any oaths at all during the trial.  I'm not sure exactly what (human) criminal charges might apply to the situation (something like "failure to report {whatever}" and/or "obstruction of justice" maybe), but I do know perjury isn't one of them.

[upsettingshorts]

Obstruction of justice. You are both investigator/witness - in your role in boarding the ship and dealing with the problem - and counsel for the defense of Tali.

The person being charged with the crime is Tali. It can be argued that in your role as counsel you might not be required to or have interest in exposing her to guilt, but the truth in this case exonerates your client at the expense of her father, who you are not charged in the defense of. So in this role, you have no reason to withhold the evidence.

As investigator, your job is to clear up what happened with her father's experiments that led to the disaster. You do this through the course of the mission. Returning and telling the truth is your responsibility.

What reasons do you have, then, to not reveal the truth?

- Tali asked you to. She doesn't want her father to be known as the Great Quarian Bogeyman. This is one hundred percent personal. You want your friend to be happy and her father's reputation to be preserved in spite of the truth.

- You want to preserve the integrity of the Migrant Fleet. Then you have committed the same offense as the Admirals at the trial, cynically leveraged the opportunity the trial presents to pursue a political agenda. You can have good reasons for this, but the Admirals think they do, too.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 10:04 .

[Tonymac]

All is fair in love and war.

The trial was not about the evidence, they were trying to convict her of endangering the fleet by bringing active geth in as part of a secret project. She didn't. She asks you to spare her dead father's reputation - out of love for someone who tried so hard to give her the homeworld that he basically neglected her. She was willing to face exile to accomplish this - a large sacrafice.

A lie, or omission of truth forces the hand and decisions of those judging her in order to fuel their war cause. I see that as an acceptable option. Since the trial wasn't about Tali at all, they knew that they were wrong - so they did not find sufficient evidence to convict.

When you look at what the trial was really about - whether to go to war with the Geth and try to reclaim their homeworld, or find a new home - we can see that Tali was a convenient victim. I see nothing wrong with pointing out what the trial was really about, and shaming them into clearing her of all charges.

[upsettingshorts]

That's fine (@ both replies).

I just noticed when I told the truth which Admirals were pissed off at me: The warmongers.

That sold the decision for me in addition to the thought process I laid out above.  I, well my Shepard, am against continuing the Morning War and would prefer an armistice as opposed to escalation of hostilities.

Though I'm guessing ME3 wont be cooperating with me on that front.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 11:20 .

[AtreiyaN7]

didymos1120 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I was a Paragon, and I was willing to commit perjury for Tali...

OK, it's not perjury.  That is the crime of lying under oath when that lie directly affects the outcome of the proceeding.   In no version of events does Shepard do that.  One, Shep never actually lies.  The closest you can get is saying there's no evidence you wish to submit.  Which is the truth: you in fact don't want to submit the evidence you found if you're picking that particular option.  Two, you're acting as, essentially, an attorney, not a witness.  Three, no one there swore any oaths at all during the trial.  I'm not sure exactly what (human) criminal charges might apply to the situation (something like "failure to report {whatever}" and/or "obstruction of justice" maybe), but I do know perjury isn't one of them.

I agree, but I was lazy and opted to use the OP's term (I'm still working atm - heh). It was really just a withholding of information.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 27 octobre 2011 - 11:14 .

[AtreiyaN7]

BTW, doesn't one of the admirals admit later on that the trial was essentially held as a sort of proxy to contest their political positions? If this were legitimately about a quest for some great big objective truth, then maybe a person who rigidly hews to the idea of "justice" can blithely throw a friend/companion under the bus. I'd just never do that for a bunch of people playing power games.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 27 octobre 2011 - 11:40 .

[Vegos]

The way I saw my options.

When you arrive, you are told that you are expected to speak on Tali's behalf in her trial. Not get evidence, not act as a witness, but to speak for her. You are, for all intents and purposes, her "mouth" during the trial.

If you hand in the evidence, are you speaking on her behalf?

[upsettingshorts]

Vegos wrote...

The way I saw my options.

When you arrive, you are told that you are expected to speak on Tali's behalf in her trial. Not get evidence, not act as a witness, but to speak for her. You are, for all intents and purposes, her "mouth" during the trial.

If you hand in the evidence, are you speaking on her behalf?

That's a conveniently simplistic justification.  They ask you what happened, not what Tali wants you to say.

Plus, if you saw it that way then there is no option, just do whatever Tali says.  Why even have the choices there to begin with?

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vegos wrote...

The way I saw my options.

When you arrive, you are told that you are expected to speak on Tali's behalf in her trial. Not get evidence, not act as a witness, but to speak for her. You are, for all intents and purposes, her "mouth" during the trial.

If you hand in the evidence, are you speaking on her behalf?

That's a conveniently simplistic justification.  They ask you what happened, not what Tali wants you to say.

Plus, if you saw it that way then there is no option, just do whatever Tali says.  Why even have the choices there to begin with?

I'm not sure how the Quarian justice system works, so I'm going to think through the lens of the American one... Shepard is not legally obligated to submit the evidenve acquired on the research ship. As Tali's counsel, she is legally obligated to what Tali tells her to, within the limits imposed on her by law.

Turning over the evidence as part of that specific legal proceeding is malpractice. If Shepard is going to submit the evidence, she needs to recuse herself as Tali's advocate first.

That isn't an option in the game. I think "not committing malpractice" is likely not high on the list of your Shepard's priorities, so handing over the evidence anyway makes sense and is totes fine.