As with many, many of the stories in ME, after thinking about Tali's trial and, in particular, Tali's reason for not wanting to present the evidence of her father's experiments, I come away completely baffled as to how her reasoning is supposed to make sense.
What did her father do that was a war crime? How did her father commit treason? Why would an experiment gone bad turn him into a monster? Does anything Tali says make sense?
From what I understood, the safety of the flotilla is the top priority and bringing live geth on the flotilla is a crime, an act of treason. (I'd think it is because of quarians' previous bad experiences with the geth. They wiped out millions of quarians after all and they generally seem like dangerous and unpredictable enemies.) Her father thus not only broke the law and did, from the quarian point of view, something absolutely unacceptable, but endangered the whole flotilla and got a lot of people killed by his carelessness (Does anyone know how many lives were lost? Since Alarei is a ship, I assume it were many...?), including people's loved ones, including the marines that were trying to save the ship, possibly losing the whole ship (and we know there's very little more important to quarians than ships). Therefore he would be the one to point fingers at, a criminal, a traitor, an idiot, somebody who caused great losses and heartache to the flotilla and put it in danger, a person to hate for all the surviving friends and family members and whatnot. It seemed to me Tali simply didn't want her father to become part of the quarian history this way and to be remembered by nothing more than this.
I'm not saying it does or doesn't make sense. It's what I understood from the mission, however.
From what I gather, it's that he was knowingly building new geth and networking them into the Alarai's network, and then doing live weapons and virus testing.
He endangered the fleet by networking the Geth in the Alarai, and apparently broke several of their laws by experimenting on active Geth and so on. Not to mention the loss of life of an entire crew of a ship.
It never made any sense to me. Tali seemed appalled at the idea of weapons tests on live platforms more than the danger of bringing geth on line in the first place. Why would they have 'sacred laws' against weapons testings on robots that they hate? I can see a taboo against geth in the flotilla, but who cares if you shoot off a few blinky lights for science?
Some people here said it already, but what I mostly took away was you do not bring active geth into the fleet. Which is why Tali's charged in the first place because they think that it was Tali's doing what happened on the Alarei.
For me Tali's reaction made sense. She didn't want the image of her father destroyed because of one mistake he made. Seems it is really severe what he did, and I can understand how he would become an example for a cautious tale.
I wonder now though, is there nothing on the codex about the quarian laws?
I know quarians need to do things in a way to ensure that the fleet is safe, so I assume these kind of experiments which highly endanger the fleet, even with the goal in mind to retake the homeworld, must be a big crime. The safety of the fleet comes first and foremost and the geth could have done a lot of damage.
I wonder now though, is there nothing on the codex about the quarian laws?
I don't remember such an entry. However, if I remember correctly, Shala'Raan says they don't even have their laws in written form and there are no loops or anything like that. (Otherwise Shepard could hardly represent Tali at the court.) It would seem that they decide by... uhh... common sense, for the lack of better expression. It seems to be an unwritten rule that you do not bring live geth or geth (parts) that could spontaneously self-repair or activate. And given they consider it treason, it's probably a really huge and well-known no-no. Rael'Zorah was aware of this. That's why he wanted to keep Tali out of it as much as possible.
And, yeah, Tali seems to have been accused of treason based on the fact she might have brought live geth on the flotilla, not for experimenting on them or anything. I'd assume that was in part the problem with her father, too. I don't think they were worked up about the experimenting itself as much as about the thing they were experimenting upon which should've never been brought on one of the flotilla's ships.
What bothered me the most is that Tali wanted Shepard to keep her father's acts hidden from the Admiralty board. I get that her father is dead and she's sad about that, but she has to remember what he did caused everyone on that ship to be killed. I shouldn't be surprised by that since in ME3, Tali as well as Raan, make no effort to stop the geth from uploading the code, if Shepard chooses the geth over the quarians.. She never cared about her people. All she wanted to do was to protect her father's reputation and was willing to be exiled to have that reputation protected.
Not turning over the information gives paragon points while turning it over gives renegade points. I guess Bioware felt Tali's loyalty was more important than the lives that died because of what her father was doing. I did that once and only once. Now, if I choose to do her loyalty mission, I always turn over the evidence.
I get it, Tali just listened to her father confessing that he was doing everything he could to ensure that she would get a chance to step onto Rannoch.
She probably felt everything from sorrow to grief and pride in her father, you know, lots of emotions, protecting him was natural. I always just go back into the trial and yell at them. I've never chosen the Paragon dialogue there, it's too fun to yell at the idiots and the reactions are funny.
Agreeing with Whitering: getting to hear Veetor and Kal'Reeger speak their minds to the Admirals is awesome. Besides, I love Kal'Reeger ("I'm just a soldier, ma'am. A soldier can't offer his opinion unless he's asked. ...I'll work on that, ma'am.").
In ME3, after Sanctuary, when Tali is drunk ("emergency induction port"), she asks when we finally get to stop reacting to our parents. So I think she later realizes her dad wasn't that great a fellow. And let's be honest: for most of us, if we just found out our dad had died five minutes ago, would we be willing to hand over incriminating evidence about him? Tali didn't have time to rationalize anything. It can take days or weeks or months to get back to a "rational" point of view on the sudden death of a loved one.
While I really do want to tell the truth about Raal, I usually just end up letting Veetor and Kal'Reeger put on the show. I personally find the paragon option a fairly lousy speech that also dodges the issue (arguing that just because Tali did good things in ME1 is really poor logic to argue she wouldn't do them in ME2. Philosophy minor talking here).
Agreeing with Whitering: getting to hear Veetor and Kal'Reeger speak their minds to the Admirals is awesome. Besides, I love Kal'Reeger ("I'm just a soldier, ma'am. A soldier can't offer his opinion unless he's asked. ...I'll work on that, ma'am.").
In ME3, after Sanctuary, when Tali is drunk ("emergency induction port"), she asks when we finally get to stop reacting to our parents. So I think she later realizes her dad wasn't that great a fellow. And let's be honest: for most of us, if we just found out our dad had died five minutes ago, would we be willing to hand over incriminating evidence about him? Tali didn't have time to rationalize anything. It can take days or weeks or months to get back to a "rational" point of view on the sudden death of a loved one.
While I really do want to tell the truth about Raal, I usually just end up letting Veetor and Kal'Reeger put on the show. I personally find the paragon option a fairly lousy speech that also dodges the issue (arguing that just because Tali did good things in ME1 is really poor logic to argue she wouldn't do them in ME2. Philosophy minor talking here).
I sort of disagree about the Paragon speech, and also someone who studied some philosophy.
What Shepard was appealing to was not dodging the issue, okay, it was, but it was all about highlighting Tali's service record, a record that was swept under the carpet and ignored in favor of deciding a course of action on the geth.
The trial was NOT about Tali or the Alari at all, it was all about Garel and Koris having a fight over getting the Quarian race to either attack the Geth or not, and Xen was only interested in learning if Raal discovered anything. Tali's innocence or guilt was only periphery to the politics. The paragon speech is reminding a people technically under martial law the value of military honor and looking at the service record.
It was about Tali's qualifications and character, not the deaths.
The whole trial was really largely about the politics.
I sort of disagree about the Paragon speech, and also someone who studied some philosophy.
What Shepard was appealing to was not dodging the issue, okay, it was, but it was all about highlighting Tali's service record, a record that was swept under the carpet and ignored in favor of deciding a course of action on the geth.
The trial was NOT about Tali or the Alari at all, it was all about Garel and Koris having a fight over getting the Quarian race to either attack the Geth or not, and Xen was only interested in learning if Raal discovered anything. Tali's innocence or guilt was only periphery to the politics. The paragon speech is reminding a people technically under martial law the value of military honor and looking at the service record.
It was about Tali's qualifications and character, not the deaths.
The whole trial was really largely about the politics.
Well, yes, but I think it is simply more fun to incite a mutiny. 
Well, yes, but I think it is simply more fun to incite a mutiny.
Most certainly.
That's one way to remind politicians that their power is derived from the masses, not some aquatic ceremony.
Most certainly.
That's one way to remind politicians that their power is derived from the masses, not some aquatic ceremony.
If only Veetor had said to the admirals, "Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you." That would have rocked.
And I'll give you props for your argument. Character witness does have some merit, and she should be innocent until proven guilty. And no matter how you view it, the case is a travesty; there's no firm proof against Tali, and the trial ultimately is about the geth war. Side note: it always struck me as odd how in ME2 Garrel is a decent guy but Korris is rather a jerk, but then in ME3 Korris is the total reasonable and heroic one while Garrel is the idiotic war-bent jock who fires on the Geth dreadnought with you inside. Strange how the two roles reversed. Too bad Garrel's ship didn't get shot down...
*As Tali is being sentenced to exile, she cries out:* Help, help! I'm being oppressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Ya but Garrel wasn't technically wrong to do it. He doesn't know how important Shepard is to holding together a tenuous alliance against the Repears, he just knows there's a huge threat that is vulnerable and it would be a noble sacrifice of those 3 soldiers caught on board, two of whom are not even Quarian. That's the renegade and true military way to view that.
Ya but Garrel wasn't technically wrong to do it. He doesn't know how important Shepard is to holding together a tenuous alliance against the Repears, he just knows there's a huge threat that is vulnerable and it would be a noble sacrifice of those 3 soldiers caught on board, two of whom are not even Quarian. That's the renegade and true military way to view that.
Funnily enough it's the Paragon choice in the game that makes Shepard agree with what you say iirc 
Funnily enough it's the Paragon choice in the game that makes Shepard agree with what you say iirc
And, oddly enough, later on Cronos Station, Shepard tells Hackett to unleash fire on the station while he's still on board.
@Whitering: Maybe, but especially as you find out that the quarians, not the geth, are the real aggressors in the war, I have less and less sympathy toward the quarians and toward Garrel in particular. He's an overgrown schoolyard bully, not unlike Raal and Xen. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I understand if others feel differently.
Gerrol was totally right to destroy the Geth Dreadnought. If he hadn't and the Quarians had retreated as planned, would we have been able to free the Geth from Reaper control?
1) Yes. Legion had already disabled the dreadnought, so it was out of the fight anyway. It could have been a valuable asset if you resolved the war peacefully or kept the geth.
2) Even if it hadn't, Gerrel would still have been wrong. He acted as the aggressor against an enemy seeking solely to defend itself and risked the lives of several of his allies, including his fellow admiral. Even if he had been right on everything else (and I don't think he was), it would be wrong to initiate an attack that sacrifices the life of an equal officer. Sacrifices, if they absolutely must be made, should be down the chain of command, not across or up.
Your argument relies heavily on Tali being an Admiral. In only half my playthroughs is she an Admiral. (I generally alternate between exile and admiralty.) It also relies on the idea of the admirals agreeing to a retreat instead of counter attack. If the Shepard I am playing had encouraged a counter-attack she/he would almost certainly agree that Gerral made the correct call.
It makes sense in a way I guess.
Tali's dad pulled the equivilent of making a dirty bomb in the middle of New York. When something went wrong everyone found out about it. While there were underlying politics to it Tali was pulled in because she helped supply the parts that allowed the creation of the dirty bomb.
When Tali found out that her father was in fact responsible for the problem. While maybe not the best father in the world she wanted to protect his reputation because of everything he has worked for. That is one act would undermind everything else he has done for the Fleet and for Tali in his own way.
And, oddly enough, later on Cronos Station, Shepard tells Hackett to unleash fire on the station while he's still on board.
@Whitering: Maybe, but especially as you find out that the quarians, not the geth, are the real aggressors in the war, I have less and less sympathy toward the quarians and toward Garrel in particular. He's an overgrown schoolyard bully, not unlike Raal and Xen. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I understand if others feel differently.
I was pretty certain that it was established in ME1 that the quarians were the aggressors from the very beginning. That being said, in their position, if I had a means to wipe the geth out for good and retake the planet my ancestors lost, I would have done so without hesitation.
1) Yes. Legion had already disabled the dreadnought, so it was out of the fight anyway. It could have been a valuable asset if you resolved the war peacefully or kept the geth.
2) Even if it hadn't, Gerrel would still have been wrong. He acted as the aggressor against an enemy seeking solely to defend itself and risked the lives of several of his allies, including his fellow admiral. Even if he had been right on everything else (and I don't think he was), it would be wrong to initiate an attack that sacrifices the life of an equal officer. Sacrifices, if they absolutely must be made, should be down the chain of command, not across or up.
Wanted to let you guys know I had read your responses. Hadn't responded myself because I didn't see a profitable conversation coming forth, but I could be wrong. To each his own, perhaps, but it still seems to me that Gerrel's choice, like Tali's trial, and like what Raan himself did, is seeking a good thing by evil means. Much, perhaps even most, of the evil perpetrated in-game is somebody seeking a "good" thing through evil means; the cost is simply too high.
Raan seeks a good thing (regaining the homeworld), but pursues it in evil ways (cutting corners, endangering the fleet, not following security protocol).
The admirals seek a "good" thing (resolution about the geth situation), but pursue it in evil ways (sacrificing Tali by putting her on trial).
Gerrel seeks a "good" thing (regaining the homeworld) but pursues it in an evil way (endangering his own allies).
The geth seek a good thing (self-preservation), but pursue it in an evil way (allying with the Old Machines).
Cerberus seeks a good thing (human advancement), but pursues it in a hundred evil ways (Sanctuary, wanting the Collector Base, Reaper augmentation).
Renegade Shepard in Bring Down the Sky seeks a good thing (stopping Balak) at an evil cost (killing the hostages).
Saren seeks a good thing (peace with the Reapers) but pursues it in an evil way (compromising with them, killing many innocents).
Javik seeks a good thing (destruction of the Reapers), but pursues it in an evil way (seeing his allies solely as means to an end).
Gavin Archer seeks a good thing (ending the war with the geth), but pursues it in an evil way (sacrificing his brother David).
Miranda admits Cerberus sought a good thing in experimenting on the rachni and Thorians and the Pragia facility (seeking to make troops to save human lives), but they went about it in an evil way (endangering people, using sentient creatures for slaves and kidnapping and torturing children).
The salarian dalatrass seeks a good thing (avoidance of future galactic war with the krogan), but pursues it in an evil way (lying to the rest of the party, sabotaging the cure, and, if necessary, killing Mordin).
Udina seeks a good thing (help for Earth), but pursues it in an evil way (allying with Cerberus and killing the other councilors).
My point is, one's end goal does not make one virtuous; you have to have a virtuous goal that you pursue by virtuous means (don't make me best out Just War Theory).
Not looking to argue (though, of course, you can); looking to explain.
Or maybe I'm sounding like the King of the Boy Scouts. My favorite insult-compliment of the game.
Firing on the dreadnought is a problem - it's the sort of thing that should've at least been mentioned before the mission (since the whole point of the mission is to disable it). If it was just Tali onboard it might've been acceptable without prior discussion, with someone pretty important from another power it's a really, really stupid move. It's not as if it was a completely unexpected change that needed to be taken advantage of quickly - since you board with the intention of disabling it.
Tactically it might've been just about justified, strategically the man was an idiot.
<snip>
Liking this for the truth of it, and also that how you view all these things highly depend on how you yourself would react, but also how your Shepard would react.
That's what I love about these games. Your Shepard can have a certain mindset, and can react accordingly. Roleplaying here is so much fun, I have a blast every time.
With my last Shepard, who was a mission first type... she agreed with a lot of what Javik said, while I personally never would. And that's the beauty for me in ME, you get to see different sides, different angles, can perceive the story told and its characters in different ways every time you play a new Shepard. Depending on how you play, you will side with different people and see things through their eyes, or the other way around next time.
Retour en haut