96 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunatic LK47]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

scorptatious wrote...

Personally, I do believe in capital punishment in real life. But in Mass Effect 2, when I reached Garrus's loyalty mission, I did not want Garrus to kill Sidonis. Even if he was responsible for the deaths of ten of his comrades, what he was doing just seemed like pointless revenge.

What about you guys?

Ten guys is just a number, huh?. That guy deserved death, and I'm glad I helped Garrus.

No kidding. These are ten guys who trusted Garrus with their lives, and Garrus wanted to honor them.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

GothamLord wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

scorptatious wrote...

Personally, I do believe in capital punishment in real life. But in Mass Effect 2, when I reached Garrus's loyalty mission, I did not want Garrus to kill Sidonis. Even if he was responsible for the deaths of ten of his comrades, what he was doing just seemed like pointless revenge.

What about you guys?

Ten guys is just a number, huh?. That guy deserved death, and I'm glad I helped Garrus.

I guess if Jack wigged out on the Normandy killing everyone onboard then ran away, Shepard shouldnt track her down and put a bullet inbetween her eyes.   Its just pointless revenge.

Yeah, I agree. Totally not understand Scorp's argument of it being pointless.

[Persephone]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

scorptatious wrote...

Personally, I do believe in capital punishment in real life. But in Mass Effect 2, when I reached Garrus's loyalty mission, I did not want Garrus to kill Sidonis. Even if he was responsible for the deaths of ten of his comrades, what he was doing just seemed like pointless revenge.

What about you guys?

Ten guys is just a number, huh?. That guy deserved death, and I'm glad I helped Garrus.

No kidding. These are ten guys who trusted Garrus with their lives, and Garrus wanted to honor them.

It's actually more sadistic to let Sidonis live in the hell he himself created. I never kill him. Like Shaw said, "murder breeds murder". One murder does not extinguish another and I'd never help a friend assassinate somebody. Ever. That is what we have laws for, this has nothing to do with capital punishment. (Due process)

[GothamLord]

Persephone wrote...

It's actually more sadistic to let Sidonis live in the hell he himself created. I never kill him. Like Shaw said, "murder breeds murder". One murder does not extinguish another and I'd never help a friend assassinate somebody. Ever. That is what we have laws for, this has nothing to do with capital punishment. (Due process)

The hell he made for himself?? Please explain this one?  He had gotten Harkin(Fade) to help him vanish off the grid.   Telling Garrus he'll make it up to him isnt good enough. It isnt Garrus anything needs to be made up to.  Its the families of those 10 dead men and their memory.  Making it up to Garrus isnt good enough and a cop out excuse.   Plus he probably knew turning himself into C-Sec would amount to zip.  It happened on Omega. The Council has no jurisdiction there. 

[Zulu_DFA]

Persephone wrote...

Like Shaw said, "murder breeds murder".

So?

The mercs murdered the innocent. (Innocent of what? But it's a different question.)

Then came Garrus, built a team and started murdering mercs.

The mercs bought Sidonis and murdered Garrus's team.

Then came Shepard & Co and murdered the mercs.

Now the only one person to murder left is Sidonis. And that's it. This particular spree of murder is over. If you don't murder Sidonis, who's murder will be bred by all the previous murder?

[GodWood]

In my canon I choose what I believe is right (story wise and logic wise).

I turn out mainly renegade.

[Persephone]

GothamLord wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It's actually more sadistic to let Sidonis live in the hell he himself created. I never kill him. Like Shaw said, "murder breeds murder". One murder does not extinguish another and I'd never help a friend assassinate somebody. Ever. That is what we have laws for, this has nothing to do with capital punishment. (Due process)

The hell he made for himself?? Please explain this one?  He had gotten Harkin(Fade) to help him vanish off the grid.   Telling Garrus he'll make it up to him isnt good enough. It isnt Garrus anything needs to be made up to.  Its the families of those 10 dead men and their memory.  Making it up to Garrus isnt good enough and a cop out excuse.   Plus he probably knew turning himself into C-Sec would amount to zip.  It happened on Omega. The Council has no jurisdiction there. 

Have you ever listened to Sidonis when you let him live? He has nightmares, he is haunted by his squadmates
and his guilt, food has no taste, he has no friends, no purpose,
nothing. Like Shep says, nothing left to kill. How does committing a
murder "honor" these poor men who died? This is nothing but vengeance, not honoring the dead
and vengeance is always selfish in the end.

@Zulu

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

[EffectedByTheMasses]

1. I'm pretty iffy about the whole genophage topic. Not sure which side to take, although i always keep the genophage data anyways. Keeping it for now and destroying later is always a good idea.

2. I rewrite the heretics, because the heretics were brainwashed by Sovereign. Therefore all I am doing is curing them of their insanity.

3. I let Sidonis live, because I think it's pretty good poetic justice, and later on it says that he hands himself in for the killings.

4. I NEVER go against Tali in her trial. It just seems wrong.

5. I really wish there had been a choice to keep the Collector base but give it to the council or something like that, rather than just destroy it.

[Ieldra]

In answer to the original question:



Yes, I sometimes make decisions that conflict with my RL views:



(1) The Collector base. In RL I would never, ever advocate destroying knowledge, regardless of the source and the risks. In ME2, I have one Shepard who destroys the base, because I'd like to see the consequences in ME3, especially regarding Miranda. That Shepard does it not for any moral considerations (which I think are crap as presented in the game) but because he doesn't trust TIM.



(2) The Genophage cure. In RL I would always keep the data, just in case - as I said, I'd never destroy knowledge. In ME2 I sometimes destroy it.



(3) ME1 - Balak. In RL I would *probably* not let him get away, at the cost of the lives of the hostages. One of my Shepard's fallen in love with Kate Bowman, though....which is my reasoning for letting him go in that playthrough.



As for the question about Sidonis: As a rule I'm against capital punishment, but if the alternative, as here, is no punishment at all I'd consider it. None of the decisions you make here really conflicts with my views, I can see arguments for both and don't know how I would decide if put into that position. A lot of decisions are like that - rewriting the Heretic faction, saving the Council, Telling the truth about Tali's father. I like it if I have no strong personal preference for one side, that makes roleplaying easier. The Collector base is the only situation where have views strong enough that I'm constantly tempted to replay my "destroy it" decision.

[Kaiser Shepard]

EffectedByTheMasses wrote...

2. I rewrite the heretics, because the heretics were brainwashed by Sovereign. Therefore all I am doing is curing them of their insanity.

The Heretics were never brainwashed or indoctrinated, they joined ol' Sovvie out oftheir own free will. From my point of view, that makes it justified to destroy/kill them: they started a war, it's only right that we get to finish it. Then there's the fact that rewriting them could lead to all geth to come to the conclusion of following Sovereign...

[GothamLord]

Persephone wrote...

GothamLord wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It's actually more sadistic to let Sidonis live in the hell he himself created. I never kill him. Like Shaw said, "murder breeds murder". One murder does not extinguish another and I'd never help a friend assassinate somebody. Ever. That is what we have laws for, this has nothing to do with capital punishment. (Due process)

The hell he made for himself?? Please explain this one?  He had gotten Harkin(Fade) to help him vanish off the grid.   Telling Garrus he'll make it up to him isnt good enough. It isnt Garrus anything needs to be made up to.  Its the families of those 10 dead men and their memory.  Making it up to Garrus isnt good enough and a cop out excuse.   Plus he probably knew turning himself into C-Sec would amount to zip.  It happened on Omega. The Council has no jurisdiction there. 

Have you ever listened to Sidonis when you let him live? He has nightmares, he is haunted by his squadmates
and his guilt, food has no taste, he has no friends, no purpose,
nothing. Like Shep says, nothing left to kill. How does committing a
murder "honor" these poor men who died? This is nothing but vengeance, not honoring the dead
and vengeance is always selfish in the end.

@Zulu

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

Of course he has no purpose or friends.  He erased who he was coming to Fade. He has a blank slate to try and start with. Hard to get a job when you cant use a resume.  And he has guilt, as he should. He betrayed everyones trust. Saying he'll make it up to Garrus means nothing.   If Sidonis said he'd make it up to *them*, as in the squad, and their families I'd be more apt to care.  Say that he'd give their deaths a purpose. Turning himself into CSec does nothing with Omegas lack of law.  If Omega doesnt want to charge him, C-Sec cant do anything except make him leave Citadel space as a cautionary means to prevent further murders.

[Annie_Dear]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In answer to the original question:

Yes, I sometimes make decisions that conflict with my RL views:

(1) The Collector base. In RL I would never, ever advocate destroying knowledge, regardless of the source and the risks. In ME2, I have one Shepard who destroys the base, because I'd like to see the consequences in ME3, especially regarding Miranda. That Shepard does it not for any moral considerations (which I think are crap as presented in the game) but because he doesn't trust TIM.

Pretty much this.

[Zulu_DFA]

Persephone wrote...
@Zulu

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

It's a good principle for Bernard Shaw. Excuse me my ignorance, was he a writer?

Commander Shepard is a military man. Not a conscript soldier, but a professional warfighter. An ranking officer. He was murdered himself once. It's about 15 years late for him to chose that principle for guidance.

[Beholderess]

Speaking of Garrus and Sidonis, I see completely nothing wrong in vengeance itself. However, more often than not it ends up being misguided or disproportionate, when either the guilty receives much more harm than s/he caused, or innocents get hurt. The latter is completely unacceptable.

That's why I always let Garrus have his vengeance and do not let Zaeed let his. In Zaeed's case, innocents are going to be burned alive, and no revenge is worth this. In Garrus', no innocents or bystanders are in danger, and Sidonis is clearly getting less harm than he caused.

[KOKitten]

Tali's loyalty mission always bothers me. She's asking you to withhold evidence and commit perjury to save the good name of her father who is now dead.

I know the trial is a farce. However, the deaths of the crewmembers of the Alerei are not. Don't the families of those crewmembers deserve to know the truth? On the Alerei you hear a quarian mother tell her child that she's sorry. Doesn't that child deserve to know? Isn't that child always going to wonder what really happened on the Alerei? Isn't that the kind of question that winds up haunting people?

Suppose Garrus's father, who was a C-Sec agent, died and while investigating his death we found out that he had been planting evidence in order to get convictions. Would we cover that up too just because he's dead?

Tali states that her father would be considered a war criminal. If I found evidence linking my father to war crimes, in the name of everything decent, I could not withhold that evidence.

As for the quarians being divided over the evidence...well...they're already divided. If anything this evidence should serve as their wake-up call as to how far some of them will go.

On Tali's requst I do withhold the evidence but it makes me feel dirty.

[spacehamsterZH]

On my first playthrough I went along with Zaeed's request on his loyalty mission, but I did a second run with my canon Shep where I told him where to stick it. I really thought there was something genuinely wrong with my canon character having done this. Well, and finding out that you can still get his loyalty helped. *cough*

[Steingrimur Steingrimsson]

Sparing the council. If an element able to bring doom to every intelligent being in the galaxy was trying to do just that, I would focus on that element, instead of risking everything for an easily replaceable council. But since I know it makes no difference, I always save them...

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

KOKitten wrote...

Tali's loyalty mission always bothers me. She's asking you to withhold evidence and commit perjury to save the good name of her father who is now dead.
I know the trial is a farce. However, the deaths of the crewmembers of the Alerei are not. Don't the families of those crewmembers deserve to know the truth? On the Alerei you hear a quarian mother tell her child that she's sorry. Doesn't that child deserve to know? Isn't that child always going to wonder what really happened on the Alerei? Isn't that the kind of question that winds up haunting people?

My line of reasoning was this: that kind of information coming forward during the trial would only serve to hurt the Quarian people given their situation and might further split them down faction lines. This is readily apparent during the trial when you are talking to the different admirals. Suffice to say, I don't think they are quite ready to hear the truth about what happened on the Alerei at the moment of trial, but later on when cooler heads have prevailed I think it would be alright.

[Madman123456]

Maelons Genophage Work has been done by research i find ethically wrong. Research like this should not be used, even if the subjects are long dead. It would encourage some Scientist to do ethically wrong Research to benefit the greater good. Therefore, any Research that came to be through horrifying experiments should not be used at all. In my Opinion, Maelons work should be purged completely and this should be the Paragon Option.



Regarding the Collector Base. I would have kept it, even though the things done here qualify as "ethically wrong", but this has been done indirectly by a Species that doesn't even remotely has the same Motivations as any life i know. Except Survival i guess. To combat this Species, and i'd have to do so because otherwise i won't survive, i must deny them their Way of Survival.



So i would have kept the Collector Base for the Knowledge inside. If it weren't for Cerberus. Knowledge like that can not be allowed to fall into the Hands of TIM, as Shepard said in one Dialogue Otion: "You're completely Ruthless. Before we know it you'll want to grow your own Reaper!".

And i fully expect him to do so. TIM would melt millions of Humans into Paste for the Chance to save all the others.

With the Security Precautions Cerberus is known for, which are next to nothing, Cerberus would be directly responsible for the Extinction of all life.

Cerberus are the Guys who had this big Station overrun by their own Security mechs at the beginning of the Game. I would not trust them the Collector Base. To everyone else, Krogan maybe, but not to Cerberus.



Zaeeds Mission: I would have loved to tell the Guy who ran out of the Complex yelling for Help that he should go in and save his Colleagues.

Since i can't do that, i have to go in and save everyone. I would have love to say a few things to whoever designed that Facility and the Security precautions there.

Oh well. Vido is on the Run now and knows that Zaeed will eventually get to him.



Talis Loyalty mission. This one bugged me a bit. From my Point of View, Evidence should not be withheld from a trial. But that is my Point of view, influenced of course by my Species. Quarians see things a bit different. Their House, Their Rules, so i try to convince them Paragon way and serve a feint.

[Persephone]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Persephone wrote...
@Zulu

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

It's a good principle for Bernard Shaw. Excuse me my ignorance, was he a writer?

Commander Shepard is a military man. Not a conscript soldier, but a professional warfighter. An ranking officer. He was murdered himself once. It's about 15 years late for him to chose that principle for guidance.

And a ranking officer usually follows the law, no? Lets hope so, anyway.

[Pacifien]

I hadn't thought of Tali's trial, but now that I think about it, it is definitely the one decision that I make in the game contrary to what I would have done in real life. Because in real life I am a very crappy friend, so if they begged and pleaded not to ruin the name of their father when I find out he was conducting questionable research, I probably wouldn't listen. The truth must be known, even if it hurts!

I'm just... a crappy friend.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Persephone wrote...

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

Due process =/= Justice. Law =/= Justice You don't need a trial or have something written down in a penal code to do the right thing. You'll become a better person once you understand that concept.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 17 mai 2010 - 08:57 .

[Persephone]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

Due process =/= Justice. You don't need a trial to do the right thing.

Oh, really? I guess people may then take the law into their own hands and kill freely in vengeance's name? That leads only to chaos. The laws are there for a reason!

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Persephone wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It isn't just about this spree. It's a principle. Sniping down a traitor/murderer is NOT due process. It is against the law and helps nobody. Garrus himself agrees that black/white is easy but he doesn't know what to do with grey. Something to ponder, no?

Due process =/= Justice. You don't need a trial to do the right thing.

Oh, really? I guess people may then take the law into their own hands and kill freely in vengeance's name? That leads only to chaos. The laws are there for a reason!

You are making a logical leap from laws ------> justice. Not all laws are centered around the principle of justice.

And what is wrong in killing in the name of vengeance if it's being perpetrated against evil? You're equating it with senseless killing, which is true chaos, however this is not the case.There are some things in which there are no atonement for, and killing good men, Garrus' men, is one of them.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 17 mai 2010 - 09:03 .