Uh...I think you completely missed what I said. I look at this like Quantum Theory (bare with me). There are two possibilities, based on the actions of the player (which side you choose to help). If you choose to help the woman, then the Redgaurds are said to be there to kidnap or kill an innocent woman. If you choose to help the Redguards, the woman is said to be guilty of treason.RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:Its only grey because one half doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.Justanewguy said:For the record, I think it's funny how there are two different takes on the Redguards. On one side some people are saying they're there to kill an innocent woman for speaking out. On the other is a group saying that they're exacting justice on a criminal. It's these shades of grey that make the game worthwhile. Right and wrong are not really black and white here. What's true? It's hard to say, as there's no way to check the facts, but I'm impressed with what they did.
Even a bad guy tends to believe he's doing good things. They managed to give a quest that shows just that. That's impressive, and I'd like to see more of that.
The Alkir are there to kidnap ALIVE the woman that sold out the Redguard to the Altmeri during the war. She is not innocent, she is not getting killed for free speech, she is being taken back for trial for treason.
There is no way to be sure she is ACTUALLY guilty of treason, which is why I say it's like Quantum Theory. There are two outcomes. One where she is innocent, one where she is guilty. If you choose to believe she's innocent, the game plays out as if she is. Likewise, if you believe she's guilty, the game plays out as if she is. Essentially you open the box to find out whether Schrodinger's Cat is innocent or guilty. It's neither and both before you open the box, but once open you observe the state according to the laws of nature.
So...in essence, I'm saying you're wrong. The evidence the Redguards have is purely their word, they never present proof that she is guilty. They SAY she is, and if you help them then the assumption is that she is, but there is no tangible proof to say she really is. On the flip side, there's no proof she's innocent. She says she is, and if you help her then the assumption is that she is, but there's no tangible proof acquitting her of anything either.