Manaan Hotel: Quest?

[walkerguy]

Manaan Hotel: Is the only thing of use there a single medpac?

 

I've never been able to trigger anything.

[Jediphile]

It ties into the Sunry murder investigation, since that's where the deed was done.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sunry

[walkerguy]

Revan, who had arrived on Manaan with Bindo searching for a Star Map, offered to serve as Arbiter in his trial.

 

The case involving Sunry will only appear in the game if the player goes to Manaan after retrieving Jolee from Kashyyyk.

 

Ahh. I have never gone to Kashyyyk before Manaan. I do my favorites first. So no Bindo = no quest at hotel, then.

[Bass-GameMaster]

Yes it took my 4th playthrough to use the order required to trigger that.

 

Any body remember the trial on manaan where you must anwser the questions correctly... I kid you guys not it took me almost 11 trys to get it right my first playthrough .. at first I thought I did something wrong and was so pissed about it..

Edited July 16, 2008 by Bass-GameMaster

[Omelette]

Yup. Bring the old dude with you.

 

I usually go to Kashyyyk, Tatooine, Koriban and Manaan last (I hate it)

[walkerguy]

Yes it took my 4th playthrough to use the order required to trigger that.

 

Any body remember the trial on manaan where you must anwser the questions correctly... I kid you guys not it took me almost 11 trys to get it right my first playthrough .. at first I thought I did something wrong and was so pissed about it..

 

It only took me 2 (1 failure). I figured out I had to ditch the Arbiter. Besides that, its easy. Just keep making LS responses.

[caradoc]

The easiest way to end the trial is to hand over the evidence.

[Jediphile]

The easiest way to end the trial is to hand over the evidence.

 

Easiest, yes, but not the best for the Republic. Because Sunry insists on either being acquitted or else dragging the Republic into the matter, you must choose which goal it is better to serve - to see justice done in spite of the selkath consequently denying the Republic access to Kolto on Manaan or whether you must prove his innocence despite knowing he's guilty for the Republic to retain access to the Kolto essential to the war effort against the Sith. The latter is harder, but might be considered one of those lesser evils you must choose for the sake of the greater good in a time of war. It's one of the points I like in K1 - it's deliberately morally ambiguous.

[caradoc]

Since the Jedi promote Peace and Justice, turning Sunry in is the only viable option - for LS characters at least.

[Jediphile]

Since the Jedi promote Peace and Justice, turning Sunry in is the only viable option - for LS characters at least.

 

Always being LS ( ) I did so the first time only to decide to reload because the Selkath promptly threw Sunry in jail for years and cut the Republic's access to Kolto on Manaan.

 

So if I'm to take the moral choice, I must hinder the Republic war effort against the Sith by denying it a vital resource of healing essential to saving the lives of soldiers defending the Republic across the galaxy from the Sith's domination?

 

Yes, I realise the obvious choice is to always see the guilty pay for their crimes. Justice must be served. No argument. But isn't it a little too easy to do that while you insist on ignoring the implications? Are the resulting consequences to the Republic fair and just? Somehow take that choice seems "easy", which usually translates into "wrong" where morals and ethics are concerned. Of course Sunry deserves to pay for his crime, but during a war you might not be able to afford to choice to be so gullible in your choice. "Silent leges inter arma," as they say - "laws are silent amidst arms", which means during wartime. You also cannot ignore that the Selkath are completely superficial in their ruling, insisting on looking only at the absolutes - Sunry killed her, and he is a representative of the Republic. Hence he goes to prison and the Republic is banned from Manaan - case closed.

 

So in this case I'll choose to withhold evidence not because Sunry deserves it, but because the Sith did plot against him, and because while he deserves punishment, the Republic - and its soldiers - do not, and I can't ignore that. So Sunry gets to walk off and I sweep it under the carpet... on Manaan. Sunry better not look forward to the end of the war, because when it's over, I'll bring the matter up again and add that he took the Republic's safety hostage during a time of crisis to cover up his own crime, and so, while there might have been extenuating circumstances for the crime itself, Sunry's subsequent choices to protect his own hide do not reflect well on his character or his dedication to the Republic at all. But that will have to wait until after the war.

[caradoc]

So if I'm to take the moral choice, I must hinder the Republic war effort against the Sith by denying it a vital resource of healing essential to saving the lives of soldiers defending the Republic across the galaxy from the Sith's domination?

But what kind of society are you promoting if you condone a cold-blooded murder when it suits your purposes (or when it is done by one of your own). Edited July 26, 2008 by caradoc

[Jediphile]

So if I'm to take the moral choice, I must hinder the Republic war effort against the Sith by denying it a vital resource of healing essential to saving the lives of soldiers defending the Republic across the galaxy from the Sith's domination?

But what kind of society are you promoting if you condone a cold-blooded murder when it suits your purposes (or when it is done by one of your own).

 

What society am I condoning if I interpret my moral choices so strictly that the Republic might lose the war as a result? Am I not indirectly condoning the Sith, if I do that?

 

Don't get me wrong - letting Sunry off the hook is absolutely not fair. He did the crime and deserves punishment. But he was being manipulated the sith, who did fabricate evidence to incriminate him. And if he hadn't killed that Elassa, she would have done something nasty to him somewhere down the road. Clearly having him exposed is exactly what the sith want, and in and of itself that should give (and did) give me pause as to what choice to make. Having some overidealistic lightsider reveal the entire thing would make the sith cheer, since it plays right into their hands. You cannot be blind to that. Good means neither stupid nor ignoring something inconvenient. There are choices when you must do a little evil.

 

Take another example. Some terrorists or whatever are about to detone a nuclear bomb in a major city, but you've captured one of them, only he won't talk. Do you torture him? If you do, it's immoral. There is no question doing that is wrong. But if you don't, thousands, maybe millions of innocent people will die. Do you just ignore that so you can hold onto your moral high ground? Is THAT ethical?

 

Or what if they've captured your family, and you've captured one of them. Do you torture him for the location of your family? It would be unethical to do. So what do you do? Do you let your family die rather than do a little evil? Will that comfort you when your family is dead and you know you might have been able to save them? Now, that's more personal, but the outcome is the same - innocent people will suffer and die if you decide to take the absolute moral high ground in all of these situations.

[caradoc]

Once you begin slipping from your moral code, it might become easier and easier to continue doing so, until you end up being no better than the evil you are fighting against (in this case the Sith).

 

Anakin Skywalker, Yuthura Ban and countless other villains started out by doing just that - what they thought was justifiable.

[Jediphile]

Once you begin slipping from your moral code, it might become easier and easier to continue doing so, until you end up being no better than the evil you are fighting against (in this case the Sith).

 

Anakin Skywalker, Yuthura Ban and countless other villains started out by doing just that - what they thought was justifiable.

 

Yes, that's the danger. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. No argument.

 

But if you hold onto your moral code so firmly and strictly that you let innocent people die and suffer as a result, then you're just as likely to become something terrible. It just doesn't work to say "do the right thing always", because the thing about ethics and morality is that there is never an easy way. This part of KotOR1 was another way to illustrate that, except from the other side - it's rarely as easy as having to simply resist the temptation to gain more power or money or both for yourself.

[esabria]

So if I'm to take the moral choice, I must hinder the Republic war effort against the Sith by denying it a vital resource of healing essential to saving the lives of soldiers defending the Republic across the galaxy from the Sith's domination?

But what kind of society are you promoting if you condone a cold-blooded murder when it suits your purposes (or when it is done by one of your own).

 

What society am I condoning if I interpret my moral choices so strictly that the Republic might lose the war as a result? Am I not indirectly condoning the Sith, if I do that?

 

Don't get me wrong - letting Sunry off the hook is absolutely not fair. He did the crime and deserves punishment. But he was being manipulated the sith, who did fabricate evidence to incriminate him. And if he hadn't killed that Elassa, she would have done something nasty to him somewhere down the road. Clearly having him exposed is exactly what the sith want, and in and of itself that should give (and did) give me pause as to what choice to make. Having some overidealistic lightsider reveal the entire thing would make the sith cheer, since it plays right into their hands. You cannot be blind to that. Good means neither stupid nor ignoring something inconvenient. There are choices when you must do a little evil.

 

The republic hiding proof has nothing to do with the Sith inventing them? If Sunry was minimally smart he should have reported to the ambassador. They would have arranged everything for an "accident". Or at least for Sunry's hiding/protection.

 

Take another example. Some terrorists or whatever are about to detone a nuclear bomb in a major city, but you've captured one of them, only he won't talk. Do you torture him? If you do, it's immoral. There is no question doing that is wrong. But if you don't, thousands, maybe millions of innocent people will die. Do you just ignore that so you can hold onto your moral high ground? Is THAT ethical?

 

What is not ethical is having created the conditions for terrorism to appear. That said, there are ways of having that information without torture: through persuasion and psicology. You maybe need a high skill, but is is surely possible. And you can detect the radiation. An atomic bomb wouldn't be a problem unless the government permits it to be one.

 

Or what if they've captured your family, and you've captured one of them. Do you torture him for the location of your family? It would be unethical to do. So what do you do? Do you let your family die rather than do a little evil? Will that comfort you when your family is dead and you know you might have been able to save them? Now, that's more personal, but the outcome is the same - innocent people will suffer and die if you decide to take the absolute moral high ground in all of these situations.

 

IF they are smart they won't touch your family. They have family also, and there is no more dangerous man than one seeking vengeance with nothing to loose... Besides, what motives should they have to touch your family unless you are a politician or a high command (police or army, it's the same)?

 

Nothing justifies torture.

Edited July 28, 2008 by esabria

[Bass-GameMaster]

Good Ol' kotor 1.