The fate of Kadara Port

Except it's really not at odds, and pretty much consistent with what we hear and are told about Sloane and the uprising in-game. No one- except the more self-serving Tann and similar- claims the exiles were completely unjustified, or that the Nexus leadership was entirely in the right. No one claims Sloane started the uprising- we're told she joined in late, and went into exile with the exiles. We know from our arrival that the Nexus is in desperate need of food and resources, which they haven't been able to get. We know the Nexus is short on food, and that they prefer exile to imprisonment for crime. We know that Sloane came to Kadarra, removed the Kett, and set up a proto-state in which while the Angarra have it better than under the Kett, her priority is the Exiles of the Nexus. That she gives food and drink (we hear from the bar), extorts money in exchange for protection (also known as 'taxes'), and has a hardline view on keeping order that was affected/created by her departure from the Nexus.


The 'why' of the uprising may not be explained, but that's not needed to get a general grasp on Sloane. She's a hard woman who disagreed with the establishment in the uprising, and left with the Exiles when they were ejected with almost nothing from the Nexus. She went through hard times with them, and has resorted to harder measures in order to keep things in line as best she can for their own good, without expecting or relying on charity or benevolent authorities who repeatedly failed or betrayed them. She runs a hard and basic society, but it's about the only one that can exist in its context, where the Exiles include both good and bad eggs and have no one else looking out for them.


The main people who trash Sloan in-game are people who either have their own biases and self-interest in play. Tann wants everyone to believe the Exiles are monsters because he was half-responsible for taking a problem and turning it into a crisis. Reyes, ambitious, didn't help establish Port Kadarra but wants to 'be someone' and be freer to prey on the inhabitants himself for his own profit and ambition. Drack's condemnation is shaded by his loyalty to his clan, and his moral framing somehow misses the question of crushing them at all.

The game isn't really 'at odds' with Sloan and her history. People are just bad at filtering unreliable narrators and exposition/authority figures.

Um, no. Game provides enough evidence that her current backstabbing bitch self is her true self. If you're talking about outside sources, like books, those are nice little trinkets of knowledge for those who want to buy them, but most people don't, and therefore, don't factor into the equation so much. If BW wanted to make her more sympathetic to a wider audience they could, but instead they only include what's in-game. What's in-game proves that Sloane is a selfish, no good, dictator. You can look at her death as underhanded on Reyes' behalf. But I think of it as smart. Turns out Sloane is a DUMBASS brute. LOL.

That's the thing. Ryder can be underhanded too. Shoot the cardinal in the back or use the kill switch. Nobody seems to have qualms about those actions though.

And I don't think anyone would fault Ryder for being underhanded. Plus, doesn't Vetra make a living being underhanded and cunning. I mean, first example is her bribing Addison's lackey to get the Tempest out of the Nexus quick. That means, either 1) The Nexus is going to waste its time reviving a useless child ahead of much needed personnel, or 2) Vetra has no intention of keeping her word, and lied. Does the situation call for it? Sure, but then, I don't see why it's bad for Reyes to shoot Sloane in the back then. That was the SMART decision. That Sloane fell for it means she's not a very smart leader. I mean, how often did my Ryder or teammates call out obvious traps? 

As I understand, she only brought along Ryder bc The Collective had infiltrated the Outcasts, so Sloane didn't know which of her own people she could trust. She thought Ryder was a goodie to be trusted.

I still don't understand why Reyes being smart about a trap is a moral issue when the entire game has gray areas.

I still find it funny that lying is somehow this unforgivable sin yet apparently everything Sloane does is aokay

But why would she bring back up if she thought Reyes was being honest about the one on one duel and didn't think it was a trap?

And Reyes said it was to be  ONE on ONE duel between HIM and SLOANE. Then it turns out that he's brought a sniper to kill Sloane instead. THAT'S what I take issue with. That he LIED about the intentions of the meet up. I abhor lying when there's no good reason for it. There wasn't a good reason to lie about the intentions of the meet up.

Exactly. Overthrowing a petty tyrant by playing on their impulsiveness is a "good reason". He tricked her into leaving the safety of the port and even managed to get Kaetus away from her in the bundle. She charged out into the badlands like an idiot with the human pathfinder after being nothing but antagonistic and he knew she would if he pushed her buttons. She got played because he made a great strategic move. It's not "for no reason".

Maybe not to you. But different people have different views on lying. Lying without good reason (and that reason you listed isn't a good enough reason for lying, imo) is one of the things I abhor the most. And my initial play throughs of games are always self-insert. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that lying was justified in this situation. I can totally understand why he did it, but for me the lying part of it is just the nail in the coffin for a my current Ryder to trust that they'll not do the same thing again should he feel that doing so would be advantageous for him.

Who I choose to support in my next play through will depend on what character my next Ryder has.

But given the inside man (or men), he could have had the inside man get Sloane alone, or not around as many of her body guards, and assassinate her that way.

Or figure out a way to get Sloane off her game before killing her.

Or just simply not calling it a one on one duel between the two of them. There was no reason to call it such when it wasn't.

Given the other ways he could have gone about removing Sloane without a war, there wasn't a good reason to lie to do it.

The conflict is only going to end with one of them dead. I may not like assassinations, but more people would get hurt the longer the conflict remained.