194 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

Shandepared wrote...

Barquiel wrote...


Renegade Shepard is accuser, judge and executioner at the same time(...)

A "Spectre", in other words.

The concept is problematic, no doubt.

I have to agree with Executor Pallin here^_^

[Dean_the_Young]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
It is true that high risk operations can result in high rewards and risks must be taken in times of war, but if you look at most of those high risk operations Cerberus has tried they have accomplished nothing but to blow up in Cerberus' face and get a lot of people killed. Either those experiments are too inherently risky or Cerberus isn't tough and smart enough to handle it and therefore has no business trying it.

Fall down seven times, stand...ah, you know what? To hell with it, you suck anyway.

I love subjective statements with no qualifications, you know that?  They are easy to throw out the door with the rest of the garbage.  And yes, I realize this is also a subjective statement.  Enter irony.  This would also be your cue to grow a thicker-skin and move on with your life.

I can reply with pithy paragraphs because I make no claims to maturity and wisdom, but what's you're defense?

Personally I think it's a self-evident valid point: people who give up after failing never go anywhere in life. We encourage, nearly demand that people pick themselves up and move on no matter how many times they fail. We have serious social stigma against people who never try again.

Falling down and getting up again and accidentally creating a VI capable of destroying all intelligent life do not even belong in the same sentence.  By this line of reasoning the US should invade some more random countries ruled by dictators because we might "get it right this time."  Or someone should try invading Russia by land in winter again because someone has to get it right eventually.  Trying again is all well and good, but some ideas are stupid from the beginning.  There is no honor in consistently doing something stupid.  2+2 can never be 5 no matter how many times you try.  Sometimes the better and wiser thing to do is admit that an idea is a dud and move on to something else.  Beating your head against a wall is neither smart nor admirable.

No one is using past failures as a justification for continuing: past failures are not a reason NOT to continue. The US, after all, made a great deal of spectacular failures in it's space program before it finally got it right, so much so that the Soveit Union publicly offered to send technical aid. People tried for centuries before flight was mastered. Let's not even get into the history of businesses with failed ideas that were spectacular successes later. And Russia already got invaded successfully by land twice. You know, the Mongols and the Russians.

Cerberus hasn't shown a tendency to fail in the same thing multiple times, and certainly on things as universal and basic as 2 and 2. They've shown to have failed in attempting very different highly complex ambitions that no one can know ahead of time, which is hardly unusual.

They looked to see if they could master the Rachni, and found the answer to be know. They looked to master the Thorian creepers, and the answer looked to be yes until Shepard helpfully exploded the Thorian. To argue that they were both identical failures (oh, controlling others can NEVER work!!1!1) is shortsighted: on Earth we have domesticated horses and dogs and cats for centuries, but never done so with giraffes or bears.

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Barquiel wrote...


Renegade Shepard is accuser, judge and executioner at the same time(...)

A "Spectre", in other words.

The concept is problematic, no doubt.

I have to agree with Executor Pallin here^_^

That humans are being spoiled by being treated as second-class citizens who should remain so for centuries more like the rest of the galaxy?

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Shiala's crime is joining Saren and Benezia, aiding and participating on their attacks on human colonies in leage with the geth, who have already attempted genocide on Eden Prime (the bombs you diffuse) and on Feros (wiping out every human they could find).

So yes, death sentence for willingly joining a rogue spectre in acts of treason, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Joining Benezia is no crime
Joining a spectre is no crime.

aiding and participating on their attacks on human colonies in leage with the geth
- you don't know if Shiala participated in any attacks; any evidence?
- she was indoctrinated = not accountable (of course, I don't know your country's judicial system)

We don't even know if Shiala was on Eden Prime (again: indoctrinated)
Feros: She was trapped inside a gooey plant thing for who knows how long...that's a crime?

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Shiala's crime is joining Saren and Benezia, aiding and participating on their attacks on human colonies in leage with the geth, who have already attempted genocide on Eden Prime (the bombs you diffuse) and on Feros (wiping out every human they could find).

So yes, death sentence for willingly joining a rogue spectre in acts of treason, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Joining Benezia is no crime
Joining a spectre is no crime.

Joining Benezia and a Spectre in a conspiracy against the
galaxy, however, is a crime.

aiding and participating on their attacks on human colonies in leage with the geth
- you don't know if Shiala participated in any attacks; any evidence?

At a minimum, she participated in the same sense that an Army paper-pusher participates in the War in Iraq: she assisted in whatever capacity she was deemed capable.  As a biotic commando, she was certainly prepared to do that and more when she joined them.

- she was indoctrinated = not accountable (of course, I don't know your country's judicial system)

What is this indoctrination you speak of? What proof of it do you have of it? What knowledge of it that does not come by the word of someone who conveniently claims to have been effected by it?

More relevantly, she joined before she was indoctrinated.

We don't even know if Shiala was on Eden Prime (again: indoctrinated)

Again, willingly joined the forces that did it.

You do know that international laws acknowledge joining an organization implicates you in that organization's crimes, yes? You might not be as harsly punished as others, but we convict people for being associates to great crimes, which Benezia certainly was. A Renegade Shepard's sentence is only an extension, not an innovation, of what already occurs.

Feros: She was trapped inside a gooey plant thing for who knows how long...that's a crime?

Being trapped? No. Getting trapped to aid Saren? Yes, unless you already believe in indoctrination (which you shouldn't at this point). Following Benezia to join Saren to be useful in such endeavors such as being put into a plant to aid Saren against the galaxy? Duh.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 juin 2010 - 07:42 .

[squigian]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...



[quote]squigian wrote...





Shiala might not be a danger at the moment, but that does not mean she is not a danger at all. If I arrested her and took her on my ship, she could go rampant and severely damage it with biotics before she was put down. If I left her behind at the colony, she could break out due to the war-weary colonists not being able to stop her. And if I left her alone entirely, she could go back to Saren and I would fight her again. And then there are all those pesky facts about aiding Saren in trying to destroy humanity, and this colony, and the appropriate punishment thereof.



Minor details, to be sure.

[/quote]



I see little reason why she would retain loyalty to Saren. As for the risks of arrest, I would think that biotics would be taken into account. If not, then how would it be possible to arrest any biotic individual in the galaxy?



[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Bargaining in her final minutes, hoping to make herself a sympathetic figure when remembered? Well, it worked well enough on you, so the concern is certainly justified. She wouldn't be the first criminal who, having failed, tried to go out on a noble note and improve their legacy.

[/quote]



I hold little sympathy for her. I just wish to rationalise why she would give in and then suddenly attack again in what must be the galaxy's worst attempt at an ambush. She could have attempted something whilst hadning over the data disk, or pretending to have a heartfelt chat with Liara. It's not exactly a calculated tactical move.



[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or maybe Rachni are suicidal by nature. Plenty of animals, including humans, will engage in what we consider suicidal behaviors: that's why we have wars in which people willingly risk life and limb for something, why we have suicide bombers and resistences that would sooner see the village destroyed than surrender.



Obstinant refusal to give up is hardly proof of mind control, nor does it link it to Sovereign.[/quote]



Suicidal by nature, as a species? That seems rather counterproductive to survival. As for linking it to Sovereign, it's weak circumstantial evidence, like most of what is said for and against the Rachni.



[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Depending on your interpretation on the role of genetics and memory, yes: the Queen has the genetics and natural inclination to be like the Rachni of old, ie territorial, aggressive, and it has the memories to help shape it's perceptions.



As a thought experiment, if indoctrination brainwashes someone to believe something is valid and true, and the inheritied memory of the Rachni would mean that their descendants hatched with a natural understanding of what and how their predecessors thought, why wouldn't those children who share the same memories start out indoctrinated as well?

[/quote]



Does indoctrination work at a genetic level? Evidence so far suggests it's based on soundwaves, that it is not inheritable. If she was indoctrinated, would she not also have willingly handed over the Mu Relay coordinates rather than had them ripped from her mind?



[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Most importantly, though, you can judge the Rachni Queen as an individual. Her species shapes her, gives her her inclinations, and she inherits so much. As an individual, looking forward is the Rachni Queen too dangerous to let free? Or not? You can easily condemn the Queen on the dangers she poses to the galaxy in the future, not what others did in the past.

[/quote]



Most sentient species are dangerous by nature, vicious and aggressive. Looking at the possible consequences of a Rachni resurgence, we must remember that what we bumped into 2000 years ago was a fully developed space-faring race who mounted a blitzkrieg against an unsuspecting galaxy.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]squigian wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]squigian wrote...


Shiala might not be a danger at the moment, but that does not mean she is not a danger at all. If I arrested her and took her on my ship, she could go rampant and severely damage it with biotics before she was put down. If I left her behind at the colony, she could break out due to the war-weary colonists not being able to stop her. And if I left her alone entirely, she could go back to Saren and I would fight her again. And then there are all those pesky facts about aiding Saren in trying to destroy humanity, and this colony, and the appropriate punishment thereof.

Minor details, to be sure.
[/quote]

I see little reason why she would retain loyalty to Saren. As for the risks of arrest, I would think that biotics would be taken into account. If not, then how would it be possible to arrest any biotic individual in the galaxy?[/quote]Oh, I certainly think biotics can be arrested... but I would not count on a virtually destroyed human colony to have the resources, nor would I risk the Normandy.


[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Bargaining in her final minutes, hoping to make herself a sympathetic figure when remembered? Well, it worked well enough on you, so the concern is certainly justified. She wouldn't be the first criminal who, having failed, tried to go out on a noble note and improve their legacy.
[/quote]

I hold little sympathy for her. I just wish to rationalise why she would give in and then suddenly attack again in what must be the galaxy's worst attempt at an ambush. She could have attempted something whilst hadning over the data disk, or pretending to have a heartfelt chat with Liara. It's not exactly a calculated tactical move.
[/quote]In the beginning, she thought she could win. Afterwards, she realized she had already lost and that nothing she could do would change that. Even if she took down Shepard, his team would kill her.

[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Or maybe Rachni are suicidal by nature. Plenty of animals, including humans, will engage in what we consider suicidal behaviors: that's why we have wars in which people willingly risk life and limb for something, why we have suicide bombers and resistences that would sooner see the village destroyed than surrender.

Obstinant refusal to give up is hardly proof of mind control, nor does it link it to Sovereign.[/quote]

Suicidal by nature, as a species? That seems rather counterproductive to survival. As for linking it to Sovereign, it's weak circumstantial evidence, like most of what is said for and against the Rachni.[/quote]Suicidal by context, as I explained.

Linking it to Sovereign at that time is not weak circumstantial evidence: it is no evidence at all. The Queen makes no allusion to Sovereign, or to any ship at all. Just a 'tone', which could mean anything and be projected by anything from anywhere. Sovereign, by everything we know, is a geth ship, and by everything we are told by potential liars indoctrinates people within it. Not entire species from space.

The history of Rachni behavior, however, is not weak circumstantial evidence. It is hard historical evidence. Rachni ability to inheret genetic memory is also scientific evidence.



[quote]
Does indoctrination work at a genetic level? Evidence so far suggests it's based on soundwaves, that it is not inheritable. If she was indoctrinated, would she not also have willingly handed over the Mu Relay coordinates rather than had them ripped from her mind?[/quote]It's not the genetic level that is of interest, but the psychological level. The pyschological level, imprint, that each child inherits. There are plenty of things you believe because your parents told you they were right.

Also, since indoctrination can transmit through vaccume of space, it isn't sound waves.

[quote]
Most sentient species are dangerous by nature, vicious and aggressive. Looking at the possible consequences of a Rachni resurgence, we must remember that what we bumped into 2000 years ago was a fully developed space-faring race who mounted a blitzkrieg against an unsuspecting galaxy.[/quote]There are shades and then there are degrees. The Rachni are far in excess of the aggressiveness of any species bar, perhaps, the Krogan. And we know what happened to the Krogan: no one would dream of letting a cured Krogan out to hide in the galaxy. One base alone with the Genophage cure threatened to allow Saren to overrun the galaxy.

We don't have to fear being overrun by the Rachni to deem them too great a threat to let free. If the Rachni return to war, can you really justify that the deaths that would result would not outweigh the life of a single Rachni Queen?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 juin 2010 - 07:53 .

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

[...]

again...
- Do you have any evidence that she (or Benezia) knew Sarens plans?

I see nothing that justifies a death sentence here
Your "army" commits a war crime, every single soldier is guilty?
Your "army" is a criminal organization, every single soldier deserves the death penalty? (the allies didn't execute every single member of the Waffen-SS)

- "What is this indoctrination you speak of?"
We could ask the surving colonists on Feros (if someone survived in your playthrough)
We could ask Rana Thanoptis, or the salarians on Virmire
We saw Benezia...and Saren

It's not Shepards decision. That's my point.
You have not enough informations to make a fair decision.
I would dare to say that no judge would condemn her...if the council legal system is similar to ours (europe/noth-america).

[squigian]

Dean_the_Young wrote...Oh, I certainly think biotics can be arrested... but I would not count on a virtually destroyed human colony to have the resources, nor would I risk the Normandy.

Fair enough, though I would question my superiors for failing to provide such facilities given the nature of my mission.  I fail to see, though, what would motivate her to rejoin Saren.

Dean_the_Young wrote...]In the beginning, she thought she could win. Afterwards, she realized she had already lost and that nothing she could do would change that. Even if she took down Shepard, his team would kill her.

This still does not explain her springing the attack at that point in time.  If she had already lost, then why would she not either:
a) surrender for real? suicidally attack Shepard at a better moment?

Dean_the_Young wrote...Suicidal by context, as I explained.
Linking it to Sovereign at that time is not weak circumstantial evidence: it is no evidence at all. The Queen makes no allusion to Sovereign, or to any ship at all. Just a 'tone', which could mean anything and be projected by anything from anywhere. Sovereign, by everything we know, is a geth ship, and by everything we are told by potential liars indoctrinates people within it. Not entire species from space.
The history of Rachni behavior, however, is not weak circumstantial evidence. It is hard historical evidence. Rachni ability to inheret genetic memory is also scientific evidence.

I'll grant you no link to Sovereign but I contend that their suicidal behaviour is a piece of evidence upon to interpretation.  The history of Rachni behaviour is also a window onto them, not an entireity.  What happened was we stumbled into their territory and they attacked back, with great success for a time; we have no idea about what they were like beforehand.  It would be rather like interpreting humans based solely on the behaviour of Japan during the Second World War; insufficient alone to form firmly grounded opinions.

Dean_the_Young wrote...It's not the genetic level that is of interest, but the psychological level. The pyschological level, imprint, that each child inherits. There are plenty of things you believe because your parents told you they were right.
Also, since indoctrination can transmit through vaccume of space, it isn't sound waves.

It is impossible to say whether indoctrination could be passed down at that stage of the game.  It just seems to work on a personal level.  Also, just because your parents tell you something and you agree with them does not mean that you do not question it at a later stage.  We do not know how indoctrination would look in genetic memory, whether it would seem normal or abnormal to the Queen.

Dean_the_Young wrote...There are shades and then there are degrees. The Rachni are far in excess of the aggressiveness of any species bar, perhaps, the Krogan. And we know what happened to the Krogan: no one would dream of letting a cured Krogan out to hide in the galaxy. One base alone with the Genophage cure threatened to allow Saren to overrun the galaxy.

The "cure" was actually cloning.  As for Rachni aggression, Tartakovsky tells you post-decision that they are a territorial species, not naturally aggressive.  Although this can't affect your decision at the time, it is woth bearing in mind.

Dean_the_Young wrote...We don't have to fear being overrun by the Rachni to deem them too great a threat to let free. If the Rachni return to war, can you really justify that the deaths that would result would not outweigh the life of a single Rachni Queen?

And if the Rachni Queen is innocent, have I not committed genocide?  As for the deaths that might result, I am indirectly responsible for them.  I would do my utmost to help rectify my error.  This is what the decision boils down to for me: a judgement call.  At what point genocide becomes justified, how much evidence you need before committing to that, is the issue here.

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

[...]

again...
- Do you have any evidence that she (or Benezia) knew Sarens plans?

The fact that Benezia knew that Saren was going to do great evil and joined him anyway. The fact that she told her disciples that they would take part in such evil, and she joined anyway.

They needed not to know what Saren's exact plans were to know that they were to be horrible (or else Benezia never would have felt the need to moderate him). Flowing from that is the idea of reasonable consequence, the understanding that certain actions are resonably likely to come to greater consequences. This is why robbers can be charged with murder in a robbery gone bad, even if they didn't intend for things to go so far out of hand.

I see nothing that justifies a death sentence here
Your "army" commits a war crime, every single soldier is guilty?

Every single involved party, yes. And Shiala involved herself: Shiala is not some lowly grunt, she is a personal attendant of Saren's number two and would have the responsibilities and knowledge thereof.

Your "army" is a criminal organization, every single soldier deserves the death penalty? (the allies didn't execute every single member of the Waffen-SS)

Nor was being in the Waffen-SS (nice Godwin, by the way) a capital offense post-war.

We certainly do try and convict people who join criminal organizations on grounds of having joined a criminal organization, and for applicable aspects that they were involved in. And as a Spectre, Shepard doesn't even need that much to do whatever he likes.

- "What is this indoctrination you speak of?"
We could ask the surving colonists on Feros (if someone survived in your playthrough)
We could ask Rana Thanoptis, or the salarians on Virmire
We saw Benezia...and Saren

The Thorian Creeper is not indoctrination, nor did the colonists know about Sovereign's indoctrination.

We can't ask Rana Thanoptis's opinion before we go to Virmire, now can we? We can only make decisions on what Shepard can know up to that point.

I've already said that the decision makes sense after Virmire, not before.Saren we saw on Virmire, at which the question becomes moot.

We saw Benezia, but much of the same problems (credibility) apply to her as to Shiala.

It's not Shepards decision. That's my point.
You have not enough informations to make a fair decision.
I would dare to say that no judge would condemn her...if the council legal system is similar to ours (europe/noth-america).

It is Shepard's decision. He's made into a Spectre to make those decisions without question, and as he sees fit. The entire legal authority of Citadel Space gives him that responsibility, ability, and purpose.

He certainly has enough information to know she was an active threat.

A European/American court would certainly convict her: we don't buy into magical mind control that fades away the moment you are defeated and captured, after all, and she makes no denying that she willingly helped Saren in his plans. While a court might not authorize the death penalty (in Europe? Heaven forbid.), a European/American system would also not enact the genophage or leave the Quairans to be genocided as 'punishment'.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]squigian wrote...

Fair enough, though I would question my superiors for failing to provide such facilities given the nature of my mission.  I fail to see, though, what would motivate her to rejoin Saren.[/quote]Her motives for joining Benezia in the first place. A desire to return and try and dissaude Benezia. Money. Revenge. It's easy to think of any number of motives for her to return is she had the choice, regardless of whether she was lying or not.


As for Shepard not having the facilities: the Normandy isn't a prison ship, and all the facilities on Feros were kinda, you know, destroyed.


[quote]
This still does not explain her springing the attack at that point in time.  If she had already lost, then why would she not either:
a) surrender for real? suicidally attack Shepard at a better moment?[/quote]
I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying. Are you saying when she springs her attack when you arrive, or after she gives her spiel right before you kill her for real?

If the second, (a) she could see a real surrender as worse than death, or ( because she realized that her gambit to win trust would not save her.

These are not things that can not have an answer, which is more important than if they are. Yes, in reality, we know Benezia was indoctrinated, because we know the truth of indoctrination. But at the time we do not, and so being able to supply possible 'why's' is important, and should (in the minds of a cautious person) disaude against absolute trust.



[quote]
I'll grant you no link to Sovereign but I contend that their suicidal behaviour is a piece of evidence upon to interpretation.  The history of Rachni behaviour is also a window onto them, not an entireity.  What happened was we stumbled into their territory and they attacked back, with great success for a time; we have no idea about what they were like beforehand.  It would be rather like interpreting humans based solely on the behaviour of Japan during the Second World War; insufficient alone to form firmly grounded opinions.[/quote]Better comparison: it would be like if we interpreted a previously hidden Japanese people who died in a apocolyptic WW2 by their history when we one day, decades later, found a lone Japanese soldier from that era.

You, ah, do know of the Japanese soldiers who fought on for decades after the war?

Granted, I know that doesn't quite fit your paradigm, but it is a closer analogy to ME.


[quote]
It is impossible to say whether indoctrination could be passed down at that stage of the game.  It just seems to work on a personal level.  Also, just because your parents tell you something and you agree with them does not mean that you do not question it at a later stage.  We do not know how indoctrination would look in genetic memory, whether it would seem normal or abnormal to the Queen.[/quote]Sound waves don't travel through space, so it can't be them. Just saying. Also, it's described as a field effect as well.

As I said, it was a thought experiment. I would be inclined to be more believing of my parents than not, especially if my genetic memory which shares their thoughts and memories tells me 'when I did this, I knew it was the right thing..."

[quote]
The "cure" was actually cloning.  As for Rachni aggression, Tartakovsky tells you post-decision that they are a territorial species, not naturally aggressive.  Although this can't affect your decision at the time, it is woth bearing in mind.[/quote]Hm? I'm fairly sure that in ME1 it's called a breeding facility and that it is a cure, not cloning.

Since we are on what Rachni would genetically remember as their territory, that territorial aspect isn't a plus.

[quote]
And if the Rachni Queen is innocent, have I not committed genocide? [/quote]Nope. Look at the queen as an individual, not a stand in for her species, remember? So the question of innocence is also irrelevant: no one is accusing the queen of having done anything wrong in the past.

You'd be a murderer, perhaps, but then Shepard kills a lot of individuals in the name of the greater good. Corrupt cops, bar security, entire merc bands... (well, actually, the UN definition of genocide is so vague that anything could really be counted.)

[quote]
 As for the deaths that might result, I am indirectly responsible for them.  I would do my utmost to help rectify my error.  This is what the decision boils down to for me: a judgement call.  At what point genocide becomes justified, how much evidence you need before committing to that, is the issue here.[quote]I'd call you directly responsible, since you were aware of the dangers, had the opportunity to stop it completely, and didn't. Indirect would be if you were only collorary to the decision that allowed it, or several degrees removed.

As for evidence, let's see.

Evidence that Rachni are threat to galaxy:
-All Rachni history prior to Mass Effect, including galaxy-shattering war.
-All Rachni happenings we see in Mass Effect 1.
-The word of party members stressing the danger of the Rachni.

Evidence that Rachni are not a threat to galaxy:
-The word of one Rachni Queen with a vested interest in not dying

[squigian]

 [quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Her motives for joining Benezia in the first place. A desire to return and try and dissaude Benezia. Money. Revenge. It's easy to think of any number of motives for her to return is she had the choice, regardless of whether she was lying or not.
As for Shepard not having the facilities: the Normandy isn't a prison ship, and all the facilities on Feros were kinda, you know, destroyed.[/quote]
She was betrayed by those very same people.  There are equal grounds for arguing that she would not return to them.  Beyond trying to rescue Benezia, the other motives are speculative at best.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying. Are you saying when she springs her attack when you arrive, or after she gives her spiel right before you kill her for real?
If the second, (a) she could see a real surrender as worse than death, or ( because she realized that her gambit to win trust would not save her.
These are not things that can not have an answer, which is more important than if they are. Yes, in reality, we know Benezia was indoctrinated, because we know the truth of indoctrination. But at the time we do not, and so being able to supply possible 'why's' is important, and should (in the minds of a cautious person) disaude against absolute trust.[/quote]
The second time.  What I'm saying (if you rewatch the cutscene) is that she could have picked a far better moment and less obvious way of attacking.  Indoctrination is not so outlandish for explaining her seemingly irrational behaviour,
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Better comparison: it would be like if we interpreted a previously hidden Japanese people who died in a apocolyptic WW2 by their history when we one day, decades later, found a lone Japanese soldier from that era.
You, ah, do know of the Japanese soldiers who fought on for decades after the war?
Granted, I know that doesn't quite fit your paradigm, but it is a closer analogy to ME.[/quote]
Yes, I do as a matter of fact, and how hard they were to dissuade from their last mission.  What I'm saying is that the historical record is rather limited when dealing with the Rachni as a race rather than as a threat.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Sound waves don't travel through space, so it can't be them. Just saying. Also, it's described as a field effect as well.
As I said, it was a thought experiment. I would be inclined to be more believing of my parents than not, especially if my genetic memory which shares their thoughts and memories tells me 'when I did this, I knew it was the right thing..."[/quote]
I see what you mean.  But by your thought experiment, why would the Queen see lying as the right thing to do if her parents practiced suicidal aggression?
[[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Hm? I'm fairly sure that in ME1 it's called a breeding facility and that it is a cure, not cloning. 
Since we are on what Rachni would genetically remember as their territory, that territorial aspect isn't a plus.[quote]
From what I recall, the Krogan we fight are tank-breds.  Saren didn't have a cure, just a very efficient cloning method and way of indoctrinating his troops.  As for genetic memory of territory, we cannot say if it works that way; is it rather like an extreme form of jingoism or does it just encompass their immediate claimed space?
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Nope. Look at the queen as an individual, not a stand in for her species, remember? So the question of innocence is also irrelevant: no one is accusing the queen of having done anything wrong in the past.
You'd be a murderer, perhaps, but then Shepard kills a lot of individuals in the name of the greater good. Corrupt cops, bar security, entire merc bands... (well, actually, the UN definition of genocide is so vague that anything could really be counted.)[/quote]
That's dodging the issue.  I judge her as an individual but a consequence of my actions is to save or eradicate a species.  Genocide was not my goal but it does become involved.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
]I'd call you directly responsible, since you were aware of the dangers, had the opportunity to stop it completely, and didn't. Indirect would be if you were only collorary to the decision that allowed it, or several degrees removed.
As for evidence, let's see.
Evidence that Rachni are threat to galaxy:-All Rachni history prior to Mass Effect, including galaxy-shattering war.-All Rachni happenings we see in Mass Effect 1. -The word of party members stressing the danger of the Rachni.
Evidence that Rachni are not a threat to galaxy:-The word of one Rachni Queen with a vested interest in not dying[/quote]
So I told the Queen to initiate the war?  I may have freed her, but I did not aid in getting her off-world, rebuilding a society, gearing up for war and so on.  I knew these were possible consequences but they were not set in stone by any means.  As for the evidence:
- History is written by the victors, victors with a very incomplete picture of the situation- As a reaction to how they are treated by the various researchers- With no personal experience, only knowledge passed down from biased sources- Indeed, another source that we cannot trust

[Comrade Bork]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Malsumis wrote...

Something good had to come out of that mess. Killing him, means all that death was for nothing.

I've seen people use that reason for a number of different choices (such as keeping the collector base, keeping the work on the genophage Maleon was working on) and I just cannot agree with it. It's not just what you learn but what you had to do to gain that knowledge. Successfully using technology that is gained from torture and murder will only inspire other people to do the exact same thing in the future with the excuse that:

"Hey, X killed so many people just so you could have [technology]. How can you disapprove of torture and yet still reap the benefits of its use without being a hypocrite?"

The answer? You can't. If you allow someone to continue torturing an innocent person (or people) simply because you might be able to benefit from the results, you are no better than the person doing the torturing. You become like The Illusve Man: someone that is willing to torture and murder (or tacitly approve of) the very people you're claiming to try to save in order to benefit yourself.

Look up where most of Man's Arctic Water survival rates came from. Oh that's right, live human tests conducted by sick freaks working for the SS developing gear for U-Boat crews. Now would it be smart to not use the knowledge gained from that, and ignore its existence? Now for the record I freed the man because he was still alive. Using research that benefited from the deaths of others is not wrong. It's a shame to not use that research for good, as you are essentially making their deaths worth nothing. That just my 2 cents.

[Barquiel]

Modifié par Barquiel, 20 juin 2010 - 11:02 .

[Barquiel]

double post

Modifié par Barquiel, 20 juin 2010 - 10:04 .

[JustValiant]

So joining a terrorist organization in order to stop its leader who is almost immune to any law enforcement shall be seen as a crime? Hardly believable. Maybe you can call Benezia and her followers naive but naivity can hardly be called a crime.Considering the simple fact that shortly after joining Saren Shiala like Benezia felt under his influence and lost her free will and in order to that she also lost her criminal liability. No court would convict someone who had no free will during the crime. Helping Shepard and feeling responsible for a crime she cannot be hold responsible for supports the impression that Shiala failed in a noble cause to follow her mentor to save the galaxy.
To kill her wouldn't be an act of justice. It's unnecessary, it's massively exaggerated and it's senseless. And giving the "dumb" justification Shiala would have had changed the sides on time too often only leaves only one explanation: Shepard action is brainless or maybe worse - he enjoys killing and that's the lowest level any individual can reach.

[Doctoglethorpe]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

I dislike doing Renegade playthroughs because renegade options don't make you a bad ass they make you a jerk.

i feel the same way.  usually i have no problem doing it.  in Fallout 3 being a baddy is fun cause its just so... silly.  i even kinda liked it ion the first mass effect game, cause again it was just silly jerkiness a lot of the time.  but in ME2 its less laughable and more "wow, what an ****."  trying to play as a full blown renegade in ME2 makes me ginuinely hate shepard, and i just dotn enjoy it much.

having only played through Overlord as paragon, i dont think i can possibly do the renegade side.  i felt seriously disgusted by the whole situation, borederline tears im talking here.  theres just no way i could turn a blind eye and let it ocntinue, even in a fictional video game with no real world repricussions.  i can flex my morals pretty far in video games usually, but not in mass effect 2.  its just too... idk... i cant even discribe it.  but whatever it is, bioware diserve a thumbs up for accomplishing it like no other games has before at least in my case. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 20 juin 2010 - 11:33 .

[Si-Shen]

I think the way they went with the Renegade choice was the right one personally, I did not approve of it but it was the right way to go. Renegade and Paragon are just replacements for Evil and Good in other games. If it disturbes you making the choice, then maybe you have been trying to play the wrong type of character, thats my opinion anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

StarMarine wrote...

So joining a terrorist organization in order to stop its leader who is almost immune to any law enforcement shall be seen as a crime? Hardly believable.Maybe you can call Benezia and her followers naive but naivity can hardly be called a crime.Considering the simple fact that shortly after joining Saren Shiala like Benezia felt under his influence and lost her free will and in order to that she also lost her criminal liability. No court would convict someone who had no free will during the crime. Helping Shepard and feeling responsible for a crime she cannot be hold responsible for supports the impression that Shiala failed in a noble cause to follow her mentor to save the galaxy.

First, space between periods and the next sentence. Common curtosy.

Second, yes. Joining a terrorist organization is a crime, regardless the motive. The only real grounds not to be tried and convicted are if you are sent undercover on behalf of the legal authorities, which the Matriarch most certainly was not. Helping a rogue leader almost immune to law enforcement break the law is also a crime on three grounds: no one is above the law entirely (Saren was knowingly crossing the Council's authority, from which his own freedom derives), you are not above the law yourself regardless of what someone else is, and you know that you are breaking a law regardless.

You do not lose criminal liability if you lose control after you initiated a criminal endeavor. This is old common law: someone who heads off with the intent to commit one crime can be found liable for even the unintentional results of something that comes from it. This is why, say, someone who's a party to a car-jacking can be charged with murder-related charges if in the pursuit a cop hits a bystander, even though the associate wasn't driving any car. It was a reasonable result of a known crime. In this case, Shiala joined Saren and Benezia knowing that she would be taking part in serious crimes regardless: she was not some reluctant actor forced to join.

To kill her wouldn't be an act of justice. It's unnecessary, it's massively exaggerated and it's senseless. And giving the "dumb" justification Shiala would have had changed the sides on time too often only leaves only one explanation: Shepard action is brainless or maybe worse - he enjoys killing and that's the lowest level any individual can reach.

I'd love to visit your planet, where betrayals are neatly resolved and former foes can be taken at their word compltely simply with an 'I'm sorry.'

[JKoopman]

StarMarine wrote...

So joining a terrorist organization in order to stop its leader who is almost immune to any law enforcement shall be seen as a crime? Hardly believable. Maybe you can call Benezia and her followers naive but naivity can hardly be called a crime.Considering the simple fact that shortly after joining Saren Shiala like Benezia felt under his influence and lost her free will and in order to that she also lost her criminal liability. No court would convict someone who had no free will during the crime. Helping Shepard and feeling responsible for a crime she cannot be hold responsible for supports the impression that Shiala failed in a noble cause to follow her mentor to save the galaxy.
To kill her wouldn't be an act of justice. It's unnecessary, it's massively exaggerated and it's senseless. And giving the "dumb" justification Shiala would have had changed the sides on time too often only leaves only one explanation: Shepard action is brainless or maybe worse - he enjoys killing and that's the lowest level any individual can reach.

Who said anything about justice? It's not hard to understand unless you're looking at it from a metagaming perspective. Shepard has audio logs of Benezia praising the attack on Eden Prime as a great victory and voicing her support of Saren and his ideals. Shiala is a personal attendant and soldier of Benezia who willingly volunteered to join her when she sided with Saren and personally helped him achieve his goals by giving him the Prothean cipher after she bonded with the Thorian. These are the things that Shepard knows as of the events on Feros. And now she suddenly decides to switch sides and conveniently concocts some wild (and unverifiable prior to Virmire) story about magical mind control to explain her involvement the instant she has a gun shoved in her face? It's not difficult to see how Renegade Shepard might find it a bit difficult to take her at her word.

The only reason my Renegade Shepard chose not to shoot her was that I found it implausible to justify distrusting her after my Shepard had just allowed her basically unrestricted access to his mind (well, that and she was just so dead sexy that I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger).

Si-Shen wrote...

I think the way they went with the
Renegade choice was the right one personally, I did not approve of it
but it was the right way to go. Renegade and Paragon are just
replacements for Evil and Good in other games. If it disturbes you
making the choice, then maybe you have been trying to play the wrong
type of character, thats my opinion anyway.

For the eleventy-bazillionth time, Paragon and Renegade =/= Good and Evil. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is still a hero on the side of good. The only difference is whether you're Johny Law or Dirty f-ing Harry.

[sumof all fear]

I don't play videogames to make realistic decisions, or be a nice person. I HAVE to do that in real life, where people have expectations, and those expectations can get you fired or arrested if you break them.



No, i play videogames to be a monster. I am cold, heartless, and pityless. I am here to destroy and decimate, kill as many as I can and ruin everyone who survived's day. If I end a mission with a feeling of ritousness or that I have been nice to someone other than one of the very VERY few NPCs who have managed to endear themselves to me, then something has gone very wrong.

[JustValiant]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

StarMarine wrote...

So joining a terrorist organization in order to stop its leader who is almost immune to any law enforcement shall be seen as a crime? Hardly believable.Maybe you can call Benezia and her followers naive but naivity can hardly be called a crime.Considering the simple fact that shortly after joining Saren Shiala like Benezia felt under his influence and lost her free will and in order to that she also lost her criminal liability. No court would convict someone who had no free will during the crime. Helping Shepard and feeling responsible for a crime she cannot be hold responsible for supports the impression that Shiala failed in a noble cause to follow her mentor to save the galaxy.

First, space between periods and the next sentence. Common curtosy.

Second, yes. Joining a terrorist organization is a crime, regardless the motive. The only real grounds not to be tried and convicted are if you are sent undercover on behalf of the legal authorities, which the Matriarch most certainly was not. Helping a rogue leader almost immune to law enforcement break the law is also a crime on three grounds: no one is above the law entirely (Saren was knowingly crossing the Council's authority, from which his own freedom derives), you are not above the law yourself regardless of what someone else is, and you know that you are breaking a law regardless.

You do not lose criminal liability if you lose control after you initiated a criminal endeavor. This is old common law: someone who heads off with the intent to commit one crime can be found liable for even the unintentional results of something that comes from it. This is why, say, someone who's a party to a car-jacking can be charged with murder-related charges if in the pursuit a cop hits a bystander, even though the associate wasn't driving any car. It was a reasonable result of a known crime. In this case, Shiala joined Saren and Benezia knowing that she would be taking part in serious crimes regardless: she was not some reluctant actor forced to join.

To kill her wouldn't be an act of justice. It's unnecessary, it's massively exaggerated and it's senseless. And giving the "dumb" justification Shiala would have had changed the sides on time too often only leaves only one explanation: Shepard action is brainless or maybe worse - he enjoys killing and that's the lowest level any individual can reach.

I'd love to visit your planet, where betrayals are neatly resolved and former foes can be taken at their word compltely simply with an 'I'm sorry.'

Sigh, okay I will try to pay the space its rightful attention. 

I'm pleased to see that you don't want to convict undercover agents. On the other hand I'm not quite sure wether it's wise to adapt earthly legal standards on an intergalactic community. Who says that in Asari law matriachs are not entitled to an Enterprise like the one Benezia did. Even if you consider the existence of something like the "justicar" you see that obviously the Asari society makes a huge difference between justice and law. 

Same goes for the guilt liability. Causation in law is limited or corrected by adequacy which means that the caused and triggered events must have been predictable. I guess becoming a mindless slave to Saren was hardly predictable for anyone. So the only adequate events were before Eden Prime, before the melding with the Thorian, before the Noveria incident.
Imagine a civilian who is crazy enough to infiltrate a terrorist organisation in order to stop it. On the first day he arrives he is beaten into coma and his credit card is used to buy more weapons which are used to kill innocents. Eventually the organisation is destroyed and the civilan awakes from his coma. Surely if he would not have joined the terror cell, they would not have had his credit card to buy more weapons, and with these weapons they would not have killed innocents - maybe with other weapons but not with these ones. Would you really sentence this cicilian for every dead person?

Even the so called "actio libera in causa" which punishes the intended or reckless causing of a lack of criminal responsibilty (by giving oneself liquid courage or using drugs knowing they lower one's inhibition level) is not applicable. Benezia and Shiala "joined" Saren to stop him. Maybe they even planned to kill him in case he should not listen to reason. They didn't plan to side with him.  As I said I think their  actions were shaped by a certain amount of naivete or imprudence but lacking any criminal energy  - an important fact imho. Rana Thanoptis had much more criminal energy.

Finally - I live on a planet on which most legal systems know the influence of remorse on a adjudication or a verdict. Shiala even tries to atone for the "crimes" of the Thorian she feels responsible for but isn't after all. So, yes,  to take the principle of remorse seriously you have to believe a remorseful defendant. 

[JustValiant]

sumof all fear wrote...

I don't play videogames to make realistic decisions, or be a nice person. I HAVE to do that in real life, where people have expectations, and those expectations can get you fired or arrested if you break them.

No, i play videogames to be a monster. I am cold, heartless, and pityless. I am here to destroy and decimate, kill as many as I can and ruin everyone who survived's day. If I end a mission with a feeling of ritousness or that I have been nice to someone other than one of the very VERY few NPCs who have managed to endear themselves to me, then something has gone very wrong.

Sure, that's a clear codex - it's not mine but that's okay. Tolerance rules! 

[Asheer_Khan]

Hmmm... then using Dean's own "definition" in ME 2 Shepard is criminal as well for "joining" organization labeled within Citadel Space as terrorist group... but something tells me that in this case double standards will have priority...