Sounds rough, Storm Churro. :/

Kind of reminds me of how I used to play games like Dragon Age or Knights of the Old Republic. I never deleted characters that were very far along, but I'd delete a character right away if I got bad vibes from them or something didn't feel right. Or if I lost a tough encounter early on.

Finally got broken of that in Mass Effect 1 with the asteroid DLC. The Batarians were gonna drop an asteroid on a human colony with like 4.4 billion people. The way I read what was going on the first time, the option presented was to stop the Batarian and let the science team hostages die, or let the asteroid hit the planet. I was quite miffed when the Renegade option was saving the 4.4 billion colonists(you'd think saving 4.4 billion vs. saving 5 individuals would be Paragon, but nooooooo). Turned out that saving the scientists was Paragon, and all that happens is the Batarian leader gets away. We succeed in stopping the asteroid. It pissed me off, because it made me realize it was really a non-choice, especially when in the third game, you can run into that Batarian again, only now he's dying painfully and slowly in a refugee camp from some illness.

Like, yeah, that was me misreading the situation. Still made me realize that the choices we get to make, particularly in video games, can never really communicate right and wrong choice. They can show it, to some extent, but they lack proper consequences for most of the choices. The other thing that goes with the Batarian getting away, is that he could have setup with another batch of raiders, and ran more attacks on future colonies, which is why they tie him up all nice and neat in a, "Dying from the Space Plague" bow. And he makes sure to mention that he couldn't get back up and running and junk, even before the space plague. It's infantile when you analyze it. God forbid we're forced to think in a game where we're supposed to be weighing our choices heavily at each and every venture.