About that smirk...(spoilers)

[Amiaze]

-snip-

I think we're all familiar with foreshadowing; but we have to remember that it can also work more than one way. As I mentioned earlier, I personally wouldn't have thought much of Tataru's smile had it happened at any other time. All the quests leading up to the Scion's downfall put special emphasis on small matters that would make the impact that much harder, such as exploring Yda's character a little bit more since you wouldn't be seeing her again. As others have mentioned, what she did was a rather typical anime trope suggesting betrayal. It's not really a matter of reading too much into it; the first time I watched the scene, that's what I automatically thought it was. I'd nearly forgotten what a Tataru was before then, honestly.

And given some of the revelations that we are left to piece together from the final area in the game concerning some pretty major plot elements, I wouldn't say that theorizing on certain aspects of the lore or characters -- which is all we're doing here -- is uncalled for. The devs left subtle hints in for major plot elements far earlier in ARR than I'd thought because I didn't start in Ul'dah.

Kaiser-Ace: I wasn't suggesting that she didn't have help. Quite frankly, I think she did have help. I just wonder who helped her, since the Warrior of Light is called upon whenever someone has a mild case of the sniffles.

As for what motive Tataru could have, that could be anyone guess, if the theory turns out to be correct. We weren't really sure what Lolorito's involvement in all this was until well through Heavensward.

[Cilia]

snip.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it runs on confirmation bias, a certain psychological fallacy where you interpret things so they line up with your hypothesis.

Tataru smiles and says "Well, I guess this is goodbye. ... wait, that feels too final. "See you later," I guess?" and goes on her way. That's all it meant. The trope wasn't suggesting betrayal, it was suggesting Tataru was a true friend you could trust and who was sad to part ways with you, and who chose her words poorly and corrected herself. You're twisting that to line it up with your "Tataru is a scheming, backstabbing rat" theory, which there is no concrete evidence for. Without evidence, your theory has no ground and can thus be disregarded.

As for how she got the materials for Y'shtola's new outfit... I don't think it's that big of a deal. She works odd jobs, and is stated to be pretty good at them, so having some spare change (plus whatever was left in the Scions' bank account after 2.5.5) makes it plausible she'd have the funds. There are chimeras outsize Azys Lla, they're just extremely rare and dangerous to fight (see: Cutter's Cry, A Relic Reborn, Go Go Gorgimera), so having the hide is possible (if a little improbable). I forget what her staff was made out of, if it was even explained beyond "it's rare and expensive."

You're just throwing out a wild hypothesis with no real evidence to back it up, which makes it very easy to shoot down. Honestly, I think all these "Tataru is evil" threads are coming up because we don't have much to speculate on after 3.0 except the Warrior of Darkness and people can't accept that there's a cheerful character when 3.0 is all doom and gloom. (Hint: we need Tataru to lighten the mood, lest we drown in our sorrow and despair.)

TL;DR ver.
What you're doing is this:

... which is an extremely, extremely poor argument.

[Toranja]

So, tell me, when Tataru twists that dagger in your back, how back is it going to hurt you?

[Cilia]

So, tell me, when Tataru twists that dagger in your back, how back is it going to hurt you?

I'm a dark knight.

I've accepted that today's allies may be tomorrow's enemies; this actually happens with the Church in 3.0 (though how much the Church could be considered an ally is tenuous at best).

If it comes to that, I will do what I must.

Until then, there's no reason to suspect Tataru of wrongdoing. The only thing supporting that argument is an interpretation of her words and a smile, neither of which are concrete evidence and that viewpoint does not match up with her characterization.

[Frederick22]

I'm a dark knight.

I've accepted that today's allies may be tomorrow's enemies; this actually happens with the Church in 3.0 (though how much the Church could be considered an ally is tenuous at best).

If it comes to that, I will do what I must.

Until then, there's no reason to suspect Tataru of wrongdoing. The only thing supporting that argument is an interpretation of her words and a smile, neither of which are concrete evidence and that viewpoint does not match up with her characterization.

About Y'shtola 's new clothes, I think she earn a lot of money working on the "Forgotten Knight", did nobody consider that option? xD

[Cilia]

About Y'shtola 's new clothes, I think she earn a lot of money working on the "Forgotten Knight", did nobody consider that option? xD

Considered, but waitressing doesn't exactly bring in the gil. Unless she was providing, shall we say, additional services (which also doesn't fit her characterization), there's no way Tataru could have earned enough money to buy the materials for Y'shtola's new equipment at the Forgotten Knight.

[Frederick22]

Considered, but waitressing doesn't exactly bring in the gil. Unless she was providing, shall we say, additional services (which also doesn't fit her characterization), there's no way Tataru could have earned enough money to buy the materials for Y'shtola's new equipment at the Forgotten Knight.

Are you sure? Maybe the hole gil she earned was just for hthe clothes, if you dont consider other stuff like food, etc. Tataru didnt needed that. Her purpose there was just to collect information.

[Cilia]

Are you sure? Maybe the hole gil she earned was just for hthe clothes, if you dont consider other stuff like food, etc. Tataru didnt needed that. Her purpose there was just to collect information.

While it's true we had no bills to pay as wards of House Fortemps, waitressing isn't a high-paying job (it's minimum wage or below IRL, so I would assume the same applies here) unless it's a posh, upscale restaurant; the Forgotten Knight is essentially the slums' dive bar with an inn attached, so I doubt she's being paid much. Unless she was really raking in the tips and we were gone for a really long time trying to get to Hraesvelgr (a few months, minimum), even without other bills to pay it's unlikely working in the Forgotten Knight would earn enough for extremely rare and expensive materials alone.

Now of course...

... but there's no evidence to support it, so it's rather improbable.

[Frederick22]

While it's true we had no bills to pay as wards of House Fortemps, waitressing isn't a high-paying job (it's minimum wage or below IRL, so I would assume the same applies here) unless it's a posh, upscale restaurant; the Forgotten Knight is essentially the slums' dive bar with an inn attached, so I doubt she's being paid much. Unless she was really raking in the tips and we were gone for a really long time trying to get to Hraesvelgr (a few months, minimum), even without other bills to pay it's unlikely working in the Forgotten Knight would earn enough for extremely rare and expensive materials alone.

Now of course...

... but there's no evidence to support it, so it's rather improbable.

The bar owner likes her and I saw her dancing with a lot of ppl looking at her, shouting xD ( evidence )


PD: Ohh common Cilia, you know me. At least my theory makes much more sence than the "evil tataru thing", do I deserve that gif ? :/

[Amiaze]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it runs on confirmation bias, a certain psychological fallacy where you interpret things so they line up with your hypothesis.

Not only have you not actually addressed my point that I did not have this theory before (I blatantly said I'd forgotten about Tataru), but you seem more interested in arguing a point and attempting to insult me rather than discussing a theory. So I'll just leave you with a reiteration of my earlier statement:

All we're doing is theorizing. Not bashing people, which you seem set on doing. Coming from an English major who took their psych courses, I'm intimately familiar with foreshadowing as a literary device and confirmation bias. Italicizing terms that you assume I don't know does not make you seem smarter, but it does make you seem rather condescending. Anyway, thank you for your two cents, I did appreciate the conversation.