Why Can't We Lie Sometimes?

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

@EgoMania

"....Well, it was a negotiating tactic and when you agree to have her release the pods the Kett do arrive, so in fact the reality is that you don't have time to set the charges...."

Charges are not how you blow up the base.  As I mentioned in my previous post, SAM was ale to blow up the base almost from the beginning.  So again, you're incorrect and not remembering the mission accurately.

Also, this would have no bearing on your ability to return to this base.

"...And even though what I propose would not be necessary by itself, I do believe it would be necessary for me to be believable if you want to have such options throughout the game..."

By this logic, to you the impulsive decision options through out the game aren't believable either as they often do not change how anyone else interacts with you either even though realistically it would.  That's fine if that is how you personally feel.  I just don't agree.

Though I agree that what you propose would be unnecessary because it would considering you would probably be talking about incorporating such an option 5 times maybe out of how many missions?

---

Well, I'll see what's what when I get there on my current playthrough.

And no, it would not make the other options unbelievable by default because these choices come at a cost. What you're proposing is an easy cop out choice that would get you what you want.

So how would you like it if you got the choice to lie, get the pods released, kill her and blow the base up, only to be surrounded by the Kett who kill all the Angara that were there and you only barely make it out with the Moshae who hates you for getting everybody else killed because of your choice putting a strain on your relationship with the Angara.

Would that be an acceptable outcome for you?

@EgoMania

"....Well, I'll see what's what when I get there on my current playthrough...."

You spoke with such certainty, I thought you already had.  Seems odd you chose to comment on that without first making sure you knew especially after the first time you were informed that you were incorrect.

"....And no, it would not make the other options unbelievable by default because these choices come at a cost..."

I can't speak to whether this holds true for all impulsive decisions as your statement implies, but I can say with absolute certainty that several impulsive decisions carry no consequences at all.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

@EgoMania

"....Well, I'll see what's what when I get there on my current playthrough...."

You spoke with such certainty, I thought you already had.  Seems odd you chose to comment on that without first making sure you knew especially after the first time you were informed that you were incorrect.

"....And no, it would not make the other options unbelievable by default because these choices come at a cost..."

I can't speak to whether this holds true for all impulsive decisions as your statement implies, but I can say with absolute certainty that several impulsive decisions carry no consequences at all.

---

Well, I was sure till you brought some counterpoints. I'm not the type of guy who insists on knowing better if people come with counterarguments. I'm not here to be the winner or the guy who's right. If someone else makes a valid point I try to adjust. What you say sounds like there may be something to it, so I want to investigate. Not just close my ears and act like you didn't say anything sensible.

And yes, some choices come without consequences so they are flat to me. Adding more flat choices wouldn't make the game better for me.

@EgoMania

"....I'm not the type of guy who insists on knowing better if people come with counterarguments..."

Wasn't trying to imply you were, just thought it was strange that after I pointed out you were incorrect, you still came back as though you knew without checking first.  That kind of seemed like a closed your ears moment.

But it's fine.  We all make mistakes.

"...And yes, some choices come without consequences so they are flat to me. Adding more flat choices wouldn't make the game better for me...."

A logical added choice may be flat to you, and that is fine.  You wouldn't have to use said choice.  That's what makes it a choice.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

@EgoMania

"....I'm not the type of guy who insists on knowing better if people come with counterarguments..."

Wasn't trying to imply you were, just thought it was strange that after I pointed out you were incorrect, you still came back as though you knew without checking first.  That kind of seemed like a closed your ears moment.

 

But it's fine.  We all make mistakes.

"...And yes, some choices come without consequences so they are flat to me. Adding more flat choices wouldn't make the game better for me...."

A logical added choice may be flat to you, and that is fine.  You wouldn't have to use said choice.  That's what makes it a choice.

---

Well I came back the first time because there was an alternate explanation that was possible in my mind.

Then you came back with something else where I clearly recognised that I needed to do some research so I will.

I mean, this is the internet after all. People say all kinds of stuff and I'm not going to fact check everything just because someone has a different opinion. However, you made a good point about SAM and I do have half a memory of that so it's clear that I need to check what happened there exactly. You do have to understand I have agreed that I need to check this, I have not yet agreed with your conclusions. For example, I'm not sure if you would have time to go to a terminal to get SAM connected to cause the base to blow up but rather than going back and forth with you about every detail I think it makes more sense to see that mission again and check what I missed and what that means.

And well, here we are on the topic of logic. Logic is not truth. What's logical to one person is not per definition logical for all. I get that BW likes to put key moments in the game where you have to make tough choices, choices that come at a cost. Even if the cost is not getting everything you want. Sure, they could make them more water tight and that is a gripe of mine as well, but I get that this is an element of the game construct as such.

Not all choices are as memorable as that but to me there is such a thing as superfluous choices. I generally like options but at some point they become unnecessary. Now, that may not be the same to you. From what I read here it's clearly not something you see that way. So ok, we have a difference of opinion on that.

I'm cool with that.

What I do find interesting is that you did not comment on my suggestion for a third option. That's what I was looking forward to the most.

@EgoMania

"... I'm not going to fact check everything just because someone has a different opinion...."

I can see that logic though I may not agree with it entirely, however in this case what you're saying doesn't apply as we weren't discussing opinion there.  We were discussing whether you remembered the mission accurately.  That's no a matter of opinion, but fact.  Once it was stated that you were remembering incorrectly, if you didn't know with absolute certainty, that would have been the time to check.

"...For example, I'm not sure if you would have time to go to a terminal to get SAM connected to cause the base to blow up but rather than going back and forth with you about every detail I think it makes more sense to see that mission again and check what I missed and what that means..."

That would be best as you're not remembering the mission accurately at all.  You do not need a terminal for SAM to blow the base up.  In fact, I would have thought it very strange if you did.

"...And well, here we are on the topic of logic. Logic is not truth. What's logical to one person is not per definition logical for all...."

This is only partially correct.  Logical means that something makes sense but not that it is necessarily correct.  Therefore, one may logically conclude that the color of something is dark grey based on what they can see or what have you, but the object could turn out to be black.

However, logic is logic even when or if we do not agree with it.  Sure we may struggle to see it from time to time, but once we have it, it is there.  In this case, given the circumstances, lying to the Kett would have actually been the most logical choice as it isn't logical to keep your word here.  Honorable, sure.  Logical no.

Can there be conflicting logic?  Absolutely.  Logic isn't necessarily true, it is just stating that something makes sense from a perspective that isn't factoring in something such as emotion.

You mistakenly make this about not getting everything you want.  No.  This is about logic.  Now if they wanted to create a situation where the only thing holding you back from being able to do both wasn't just you keeping your word to a  (and depending on what you do, dead) Kett, they could have.  They didn't.

So before you continue to divulge your opinion on this, it would just be better that you go play/replay the mission as your third option didn't make sense based on how the mission actually plays out.

In other words, while you can obviously do it, you sharing your opinion on this, without being properly informed regarding the relevant facts, is illogical.

But I agree with you, rather than continuing to go back and forth about this, you should reach this part or look it up.

i could completely get on board with lying to the kett cardinal at the facility, saving the hostages, shooting the cardinal, then blowing the facility on the way out... and as suggested, then perhaps you run into a situation latter on, and had you been honest (either way) you still have your word to rely on and you are presented with a diplomatic option, if you took the dishonest route diplomacy isn't an option, and you get a bigger blood bath, and perhaps a reputation of being a ruthless b*****d. or just ruthless.

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

i could completely get on board with lying to the kett cardinal at the facility, saving the hostages, shooting the cardinal, then blowing the facility on the way out... and as suggested, then perhaps you run into a situation latter on, and had you been honest (either way) you still have your word to rely on and you are presented with a diplomatic option, if you took the dishonest route diplomacy isn't an option, and you get a bigger blood bath, and perhaps a reputation of being a ruthless b*****d. or just ruthless.

---

Now I want the reputation of being a ruthless b*******d LOL!

I didn't choose renegade options that often before, but man... your post is making me feel a bit nostalgic now regarding there being a Renegade / Paragon system.  Just a little.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

@EgoMania

"....Well, it was a negotiating tactic and when you agree to have her release the pods the Kett do arrive, so in fact the reality is that you don't have time to set the charges...."

Charges are not how you blow up the base.  As I mentioned in my previous post, SAM was able to blow up the base almost from the beginning.  So again, you're incorrect and not remembering the mission accurately.

Also, this would have no bearing on your ability to return to this base.

---

As far as I understand the situation:

- SAM is ready to set up some EMP-like detonation that kills all Ketts and Angara in the vicinity. But in order to activate the charge (with some very short countdown) SAM needs to be there, so it cannot be done "remotely".

- Cardinal promises to release the captives if Ryder does not activate the charge. It is not about him doing it *now* - it is but a promise. Even so, there is no way for the cages to be opened, and Angara leaving the explosion zone in a matter of seconds or even minutes - I guess it would take them several hours to evacuate. With Kett reinforcments inbound there is *porbably* not enough time to wait that long on the platform.

My personal issues with the scene:

- By accepting Cardinal's suggestion we are forced to trust him. I mean we leave, and we must trust that he will indeed release all those captives *afterwards*. That is a leap of faith to me - while it is possible that Kett are honorable and always keep their word, they do *not* strike me as trustworthy people. So I see no good reason to trust the Cardinal - even though as per game he indeed keeps his word.

- Another thing is that when we accept Cardinal's solution and then shot him, prisoners are still released. It makes little sense to me. *Perhaps* it is so that Cardinal immediately opened those cages, and ordered his man to allow prisoners to leave, and thus shooting him in the face does not stop the process. All the same it will definitely take Angara some time to escape the base, so we cannot just set up the charge - or they will all die inside.

@PretzleMe

i think about some of those renegade interrupts in me2, and a few specific ones i say to myself... how is that renegade? to me that's just being prudent. like the opening bit with those mercs in miranda's loyalty mission, you know the monologue-ing merc one.