Talk:Tom

Morality of Endings
Could someone explain to me why leaving Tom alive with a nuclear armed sub is the good ending?--Revan&#39;s Exile (talk) 16:07, February 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they're both rather grey, but the submarine not being exploded is probably the good ending because of guaranteed deaths versus possible deaths. You blow up the sub, your guaranteed to have killed Tom and his men, who make up a good deal of the non-Bandit population of Vladivostok, and you don't know with any certainty if he would ever actually use the nukes if you leave Tom alive with the sub. And there's also the more selfish fact (on Sam's part) that one gets you pack to California, the other leaves you stranded in Russia. Aiden4017 (talk) 17:53, February 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * Not destroying the sub definitely sounds bad to me: Tom wants to be a dictator or whatever word he wants to use threatening anyone who doesn't do what he says or give him what he wants with nuclear annihilation. Plus this would fall under selfish. --Revan&#39;s Exile (talk) 18:14, February 12, 2020 (UTC)