Spoiler: Krogan Scouts or Raeka? Why?
And as followup, how did you resolve the choice with Sarissa? I wonder if people feel differently based on the order they made these choices or made them completely separate things. I also just like ...
Forum Discussion
@jpcerutti1 wrote:
@zeypherIN wrote:
Went with Raeka as she was the most sensible choice. While i kicked of Sarissa, as that was not her call to make. There is a reason a chain of command exists and Sarissa's role was to protect her pathfinder, not to go out there and let her die. So she abandoned her duty, disrespected a direct order and then proceeded to lie about it. The data she stole was useless as they didnt decrypt it, Sarissa tells this you that she is still decrypting it. A pathfinder is supposed to be someone who is looked upto, even Avictus tells this to you and Sarissa fails to measure up to that requirement. The pathfinders are supposed to be exemplars of their respective species and Sarissa does not measure up by that standard.
There is a reason the original pathfinders represented the best aspects of their species. Alec is an N7 signifying human adaptability and ingenuity, Macen is a Turian military commando leader (Blackwatch) signifying the turians soceity before self attribute, Ishara is a renowned diplomat who represents the Asari and their aptitude at diplomacy and peace and Raeka is a scientist and a dalatrass who perfectly represents the Salarians.
Being a pathfinder is not just about power but about what it represents of your species. So Raeka is a must and Sarissa is not fit for that role period. A person who abandons their own duty and disobeys the chain of command and proceeding to lie about it all while still pretending to be a hero is not a pathfinder.
The above is the same damn reason i hate Liam and i wish we could have removed him from the pathfinder team and Tempest. He makes decisions that he had not right to make and generally his actions amount to treason.
They do make the NPC's much more independent people in this game rather than supporting cast with us as lead - a shift to open world from space opera. I think part of that is the difference between governing by consensus instead of by authority. I also think the other part of that is them sticking others in similar situations to where they put you with different results. Motive, intent, and end result all factor much more heavily into all the decisions you make; they strip away the black or white/ good or evil you could adopt before or after your decisions in the original series.
How do you feel about your decision to defy the Nexus? In the original, it was easy for me to self justify defying the council. They made me a spectre who makes their own rules and I was saving the galaxy by lead, follow, or get out of the way. Here? Not-so-much.
The big difference is that for now at least the governing body of Andromeda is more civilian led and less military- this alone makes the rules somewhat different because civvies are not governed by military rules. I also doubt they have even had the time to really setup many laws and regulations yet. They would have had a plan which they were expected to follow but, when everything in Andromeda was not as expected those plans went out the airlock so to speak - no doubt along with some of the intended laws / rules because suddenly they find themselves in a position where they may not apply quite so clearly.
It will take time, for all of it. In time clear laws will be established - along with clear pubishments for breaking them. In time a proper military presence will be a requirement - especially with hostiles around. At that point, right or wrong in Andromeda will also be more clearly defined.
When the only goal at first is survival, all the lines blur and right or wrong becomes more grey.
P.S. also realistically there are often more times when a choice or decision is simply that. A decision, with neither option being the right one, because they are both right options but only one outcome can come to light.
Nykara360 wrote:
The big difference is that for now at least the governing body of Andromeda is more civilian led and less military- this alone makes the rules somewhat different because civvies are not governed by military rules. I also doubt they have even had the time to really setup many laws and regulations yet. They would have had a plan which they were expected to follow but, when everything in Andromeda was not as expected those plans went out the airlock so to speak - no doubt along with some of the intended laws / rules because suddenly they find themselves in a position where they may not apply quite so clearly.
It will take time, for all of it. In time clear laws will be established - along with clear punishments for breaking them. In time a proper military presence will be a requirement - especially with hostiles around. At that point, right or wrong in Andromeda will also be more clearly defined.
When the only goal at first is survival, all the lines blur and right or wrong becomes more grey.
P.S. also realistically there are often more times when a choice or decision is simply that. A decision, with neither option being the right one, because they are both right options but only one outcome can come to light.
Part of it is simply management style, personal choice, and a feel of the new frontier where the rules have yet to be established - but I hope there's more to it.
It feels, to me, much more like I am writing the rules for Pathfinder - and defining the role. That the decisions I am asked to make are bumps they put there to make me think about it instead of just winging it... but winging it is still a viable option. I'm defining what is right or wrong on a personal level, for a pathfinder, and for whoever is part of a pathfinder team.
If nothing else, that I am the person who does something, and as a result, they say "Okay, we need a rule to cover that".🙂
