194 réponses à ce sujet

[Kronner]

I am mostly Paragon, had full paragon bar in all but one pure Renegade playthorugh, but I always leave the guy there, one guy is suffering, so what, it will most likely save many more lives.

[Dean_the_Young]

StarMarine wrote...
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.

Then why have you done so repeatedly in such claims as 'no court would ever convict' or other such claims? You do so again with your track of limited liability in this very post.

Make your choice and pick it. Either we should accept Earthly standards, in which we make no imaginary exceptions for Asari law, or we take galactic standards, in which case your arguments about limited liability, based on Earth law, have no validation.

Or we simply accept that, yes, as a Spectre Shepard is authorized, even obligated, to do whatever he wants to punish people and deal with potential threats.

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.

Apparently the Asari and the Council, since Benezia is marked a traitor immediately. Benezia never claims a legal right to do what she did, and no one else does either. You have no basis to suggest she is legally right.

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.

So, conspiracy to aid, abet, and commit genocide, and conspiracy for other such crimes. We've hung people for less.

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?

Your analogy is flawed. The Asari did not join Saren to stop him from acting. They joined with the intent to aid him and try and counsel him to lesser extremes, and to help him however long they needed to do that.

This is not a civilian who was mugged the first day on the job before he could betray them. This was a civilian who joined with the intent to murder, terroize, and do whatever was needed to get in the leader's good graces before he was slowly drugged to be compliant. He joined with the intention to do great harm to others, and so would be convicted.

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.

Of course they planned to side with him. Their entire plan was to help him enough to get in his good graces where they could divert his actions to something less bad. This is not some conspiracy group to betray Saren at the last minute, no one in the game ever suggested it was.

Naivete and imprudence are not defenses for intentional conspiracy against the public, nor can they credibly be aimed at an Asari Matriarch who is considered one of the wisest (and oldest) figures in the galaxy.

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. 

Your disgrace to the dead disgusts me.

(Is he being hyperbolic? Is he not? Perhaps the world should never know...)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 juin 2010 - 10:53 .

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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'.

Actually now that I think about this, the council has Shepards reports about Feros. I am quite sure that Shiala (and her "crimes") are mentioned.
She is free in ME2 and the council doesn't believe in indoctrination ("or magical mind control").

[Dean_the_Young]

How often does the Council cross it's own Spectre's decisions? That would set a bad precedent in a number of ways.



Most of the Spectre's mythos is that they are allowed to solve problems however they want, and that the Council will let it be.

[JustValiant]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

StarMarine wrote...
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.

Then why have you done so repeatedly in such claims as 'no court would ever convict' or other such claims? You do so again with your track of limited liability in this very post.

Make your choice and pick it. Either we should accept Earthly standards, in which we make no imaginary exceptions for Asari law, or we take galactic standards, in which case your arguments about limited liability, based on Earth law, have no validation.

Or we simply accept that, yes, as a Spectre Shepard is authorized, even obligated, to do whatever he wants to punish people and deal with potential threats.

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.

Apparently the Asari and the Council, since Benezia is marked a traitor immediately. Benezia never claims a legal right to do what she did, and no one else does either. You have no basis to suggest she is legally right.

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.

So, conspiracy to aid, abet, and commit genocide, and conspiracy for other such crimes. We've hung people for less.

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?

Your analogy is flawed. The Asari did not join Saren to stop him from acting. They joined with the intent to aid him and try and counsel him to lesser extremes, and to help him however long they needed to do that.

This is not a civilian who was mugged the first day on the job before he could betray them. This was a civilian who joined with the intent to murder, terroize, and do whatever was needed to get in the leader's good graces before he was slowly drugged to be compliant. He joined with the intention to do great harm to others, and so would be convicted.

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.

Of course they planned to side with him. Their entire plan was to help him enough to get in his good graces where they could divert his actions to something less bad. This is not some conspiracy group to betray Saren at the last minute, no one in the game ever suggested it was.

Naivete and imprudence are not defenses for intentional conspiracy against the public, nor can they credibly be aimed at an Asari Matriarch who is considered one of the wisest (and oldest) figures in the galaxy.

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. 

Your disgrace to the dead disgusts me.

(Is he being hyperbolic? Is he not? Perhaps the world should never know...)

Lol, allright your crusade against Benezia and Shiala has an amusing side - as well as an annoying one. For some crimes you simply need intent for others wilful neglgence is sufficient. For conspiracy crimes as well as geno- or any other -cides you have to have the direct intention. And you have no proof - no matter how often you claim it -  that either Benezia or Shiala joined Saren in the direct intention to commit genocide or start a galactic war or whatever you claim. And we also have no proof of either crime or conspiracy at all before the attack on Eden Prime to which point Benezia and probably Shiala were allready fully indoctrinated.

Assuming earthly legal standards was an accommodation by me since you insisted on them.

Benezia was marked a traitor because no one knew about the indoctrination. The signs surely spoke against her. And if Shiala was truly a criminal how do you explain the development of the paragon way in ME2? A known asari criminal as an respected member of a mostly human colony even in position of an official representative for that colony? Free? Not behind bars or executed years ago? Obviously the galactic community is more forgiving or maybe a little bit wiser and openminded than some of us. 
Or some guys have apparently such a bad conscience for shooting an unarmed woman in the back that they try to talk her into some kind of supervillain. (I'm surely hyperbolic, am I not!?)  

[Dean_the_Young]

StarMarine wrote...
Lol, allright your crusade against Benezia and Shiala has an amusing side - as well as an annoying one. For some crimes you simply need intent for others wilful neglgence is sufficient. For conspiracy crimes as well as geno- or any other -cides you have to have the direct intention. And you have no proof - no matter how often you claim it -  that either Benezia or Shiala joined Saren in the direct intention to commit genocide or start a galactic war or whatever you claim. And we also have no proof of either crime or conspiracy at all before the attack on Eden Prime to which point Benezia and probably Shiala were allready fully indoctrinated.

Willful negligence is enough to be a crime, since it is willful. Benezia and her troupe were more than negligent.

Benezia knew enough about Saren's intended crimes to think he needed to be gradually convinced to stop, despite years (decades?) of ignorring Saren's Spectre-derived atrocities. She and her people willingly joined Saren's efforts for that hope. In their own defense, Benezia and Shiala admit to this. Even without knowing what exactly the knew, we know they knew enough to make a moral decision of 'take part or not' in Saren's schemes.

And that's assuming they were honest. If they were lying, they have no defense at all.

Assuming earthly legal standards was an accommodation by me since you insisted on them.

So do you intend to stand by them or not? Kindly make your choice clear. If we aren't, then 'Spectre status trumps all' is the legal right to execute Shiala for her past crimes.

Benezia was marked a traitor because no one knew about the indoctrination. The signs surely spoke against her. And if Shiala was truly a criminal how do you explain the development of the paragon way in ME2? A known asari criminal as an respected member of a mostly human colony even in position of an official representative for that colony? Free? Not behind bars or executed years ago? Obviously the galactic community is more forgiving or maybe a little bit wiser and openminded than some of us. 

And since no one knows about indoctrination, you can't use it as a defense. Besides the point I already made (the Council stands by Spectre decisions,), you've long since passed metagaming if you're looking to ME2 to weigh in on your decision in ME1. Your choice can only be justified by what you know up to that point in the game.

Or some guys have apparently such a bad conscience for shooting an unarmed woman in the back that they try to talk her into some kind of supervillain. (I'm surely hyperbolic, am I not!?)  

And quite possibly mistaken about the gender.

[Dean_the_Young]

StarMarine wrote...
Lol, allright your crusade against Benezia and Shiala has an amusing side - as well as an annoying one. For some crimes you simply need intent for others wilful neglgence is sufficient. For conspiracy crimes as well as geno- or any other -cides you have to have the direct intention. And you have no proof - no matter how often you claim it -  that either Benezia or Shiala joined Saren in the direct intention to commit genocide or start a galactic war or whatever you claim. And we also have no proof of either crime or conspiracy at all before the attack on Eden Prime to which point Benezia and probably Shiala were allready fully indoctrinated.

Willful negligence is enough to be a crime, since it is willful. Benezia and her troupe were more than negligent.

Benezia knew enough about Saren's intended crimes to think he needed to be gradually convinced to stop, despite years (decades?) of ignorring Saren's Spectre-derived atrocities. She and her people willingly joined Saren's efforts for that hope. In their own defense, Benezia and Shiala admit to this. Even without knowing what exactly the knew, we know they knew enough to make a moral decision of 'take part or not' in Saren's schemes.

And that's assuming they were honest. If they were lying, they have no defense at all.

Assuming earthly legal standards was an accommodation by me since you insisted on them.

So do you intend to stand by them or not? Kindly make your choice clear. If we aren't, then 'Spectre status trumps all' is the legal right to execute Shiala for her past crimes.

Benezia was marked a traitor because no one knew about the indoctrination. The signs surely spoke against her. And if Shiala was truly a criminal how do you explain the development of the paragon way in ME2? A known asari criminal as an respected member of a mostly human colony even in position of an official representative for that colony? Free? Not behind bars or executed years ago? Obviously the galactic community is more forgiving or maybe a little bit wiser and openminded than some of us. 

And since no one knows about indoctrination, you can't use it as a defense. Besides the point I already made (the Council stands by Spectre decisions,), you've long since passed metagaming if you're looking to ME2 to weigh in on your decision in ME1. Your choice can only be justified by what you know up to that point in the game.

Or some guys have apparently such a bad conscience for shooting an unarmed woman in the back that they try to talk her into some kind of supervillain. (I'm surely hyperbolic, am I not!?)  

And quite possibly mistaken about the gender.

[Christmas Ape]

Benezia knew enough about Saren's intended crimes to think he needed to be gradually convinced to stop, despite years (decades?) of ignorring Saren's Spectre-derived atrocities. She and her people willingly joined Saren's efforts for that hope. In their own defense, Benezia and Shiala admit to this. Even without knowing what exactly the knew, we know they knew enough to make a moral decision of 'take part or not' in Saren's schemes.

Hang on a second.

When did Benezia get access to classified Council files? Garrus is specifically assigned to investigate the accusation that Saren's a traitor and he can't get access to that information. How exactly does someone whose status sits between 'state governor' and 'guru' get access to files denied a government special investigator tasked with that exact case?

[Asheer_Khan]

By the way Dean... pretty nice derailment of this thread from main subject regarding another failed Cerberus project to debate about certain ME 1 events... TiM would be proud of you.

[MaaZeus]

Kronner wrote...

I am mostly Paragon, had full paragon bar in all but one pure Renegade playthorugh, but I always leave the guy there, one guy is suffering, so what, it will most likely save many more lives.

One severely autistic person who is unable to comprehend what is happening and is terribly frightened about it. Its no better than leaving a child to some madman scientist from my POV.

[JustValiant]

MaaZeus wrote...

Kronner wrote...

I am mostly Paragon, had full paragon bar in all but one pure Renegade playthorugh, but I always leave the guy there, one guy is suffering, so what, it will most likely save many more lives.

One severely autistic person who is unable to comprehend what is happening and is terribly frightened about it. Its no better than leaving a child to some madman scientist from my POV.

I agree and for me that seems to be the major problem with some of the renegade choices. They lack this certain necessity and by that only appear cruel, sadistic and life-despising. In the case of Overlord at least Shepard seems to feel some kind of reluctance.

[JustValiant]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or some guys have apparently such a bad conscience for shooting an unarmed woman in the back that they try to talk her into some kind of supervillain. (I'm surely hyperbolic, am I not!?)  

And quite possibly mistaken about the gender.

Lol, gosh, aren't we picky today! But of course you are right.(sarcasm on) So maybe it's easier to shoot an unarmed surrendering asari in the back! Are we feelig better? (sarcasm off)

[Indoctrination]

primero holodon wrote...

leaving him with Cerberus probably won't bring any good seeing as how Cerberus "Reaserch" has a rather alarming tendency to result in everyone in the reserch base dying.

Yeah, Cerberus Scientists seem to have the lifespan of a red shirt ensign from Star Trek.

[DOYOURLABS]

StarMarine wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or some guys have apparently such a bad conscience for shooting an unarmed woman in the back that they try to talk her into some kind of supervillain. (I'm surely hyperbolic, am I not!?)  

And quite possibly mistaken about the gender.

Lol, gosh, aren't we picky today! But of course you are right.(sarcasm on) So maybe it's easier to shoot an unarmed surrendering asari in the back! Are we feelig better? (sarcasm off)

You mean shiala? Everytime someone shoots her, a puppy gets kicked. It's a known fact. Why would anyone want to shoot her?

[Yakko77]

If you lose your humanity to save it then what's the point?

That's not to say being humane is a suicide pact and that tough and sometimes harsh choices shouldn't be made to ensure survival but it can be a somewhat slippery slope if one descends too far.

Modifié par Yakko77, 21 juin 2010 - 05:55 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Hardly. I'd say that executing Shiala is the low point for a Renegade, which even I generally won't do unless I'm in a roleplaying mood.



Here, RenShep, as has been discussed, appears disgusted by what's been going on, and is only allowing it to continue because of the "ends justify the means" creed. Moreover, Archer seems to have a genuine epiphany there at the end, and it's my hope he'll find some way to get this to work without having to strap David into some H.R. Giger-esque techno-Jesus machine.

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How often does the Council cross it's own Spectre's decisions? That would set a bad precedent in a number of ways.

Most of the Spectre's mythos is that they are allowed to solve problems however they want, and that the Council will let it be.

I don't know, we only know 3 spectres. They don't trust Spectres blindly (ME1: grounded Normandy).
Paragon/Neutral Shepard didn't execute Shiala, that's all. The council could still arrest her.

But if you insist...
Udina's "council"
He had access to Shepard's reports as well
He doesn't care about some spectre mythos.
Shiala is the only high-ranking "conspirator" who survived.
She lives on a human colony.
She's still free.

[Thesuperdevil]

Some of you are acting as if Renegade Shepard gave a Archer a high-five and then pointed and cackled at David in a display reminiscent of Snidely Whiplash while twirling his moustache - in other words, needlessly and almost comically cruel. What people are forgetting is that Paragon and Renegade Shepard are both disgusted by the situation; the difference here is whether Shepard chooses to follow the big picture or not. Renegades are not emotionless and sadistic robots.



The Paragon Shepard's primary goal is to immediately limit or end the suffering of those which he or she perceives as being innocent or downtrodden, often ignoring the big picture and potential long-term reprocussions. In the case of Project Overlord, the Paragon Shepard that sends David to the Grissom Academy fails at noticing the big picture in the workings of Cerberus and in that TIM will simply find more candidates similar to David, putting MORE people through torture or even death for many additional years. Indeed, many (not all) Paragon choices offer quite gratifying immediate results, but have the potential to become MUCH less so in the long-term. A few are outright ridiculous in their naivete and lack of foresight.



The Renegade Shepard believes in the ends justify the means, most of the time adopting a big picture view. He or she will take the actions necessary to improve the situation in the future - short-term consequences be damned! The Renegade will sacrifice 1,000 to save 100,000, and in this situation, the Rengade sacrifices David for the sake of sparing others from his torture and for the benefit of research gained, which could save millions. Many (not all) Renegade decisions initially appear pretty nasty, but have the potential to greatly improve the future. A few are outright ridiculous in their cruelty and nastiness.

[Ghurshog]

 The fact is Shepard is not just responsible for an individual or just human race. Shepard is trying to save an entire galaxy worth of life large, small, sentient, non sentient from utter destruction. 

Every sentient race/culture in the setting has its own set of 'ethics'.

The fact is the only ethics that matter are the hero's. 

To get the job done the hero does what needs to get done. If one or a hundred to save the galaxy wouldn't an real 'hero' make that sacrifice. 

Maybe you and I see it as wrong, maybe not, but our opinions don't matter because we aren't the ones who have to carry the fate of the galaxy on our decisions.

In the end the devil is in the details.

[TheSixthghoul]

Shandepared wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

If you lose your humanity to save it then what's the point?

The loss of merely your humanity to save the lives and humanity of the everyone else is a small price to pay.

How can one lose there humanity? Inhumanity is humanity, you can't have one without other.

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How often does the Council cross it's own Spectre's decisions? That would set a bad precedent in a number of ways.

Most of the Spectre's mythos is that they are allowed to solve problems however they want, and that the Council will let it be.

I don't know, we only know 3 spectres. They don't trust Spectres blindly (ME1: grounded Normandy).
Paragon/Neutral Shepard didn't execute Shiala, that's all. The council could still arrest her.

The Alliance, not the Council, grounded the Normandy. Not trusting blindly is not the same as going counter to an uncompromised Spectre's decisions.

But if you insist...
Udina's "council"
He had access to Shepard's reports as well
He doesn't care about some spectre mythos.
Shiala is the only high-ranking "conspirator" who survived.
She lives on a human colony.
She's still free.

Indoctrination was discovered and understood at that point, so her story has validity. What's your point? They never discounted indoctrination, to my recal: only
the Reapers as a extinction threat.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 juin 2010 - 10:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Yakko77 wrote...

If you lose your humanity to save it then what's the point?

That's not to say being humane is a suicide pact and that tough and sometimes harsh choices shouldn't be made to ensure survival but it can be a somewhat slippery slope if one descends too far.

You can regain lost pride, compromised morals, power and glory, and everything else if you are alive. That is the point.

If you are dead, you have nothing but the memories of those who are alive. If everyone is dead and no one remembers, you may well have not even existed.

[Dean_the_Young]

StarMarine wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or some guys have apparently such a bad conscience for shooting an unarmed woman in the back that they try to talk her into some kind of supervillain. (I'm surely hyperbolic, am I not!?)  

And quite possibly mistaken about the gender.

Lol, gosh, aren't we picky today! But of course you are right.(sarcasm on) So maybe it's easier to shoot an unarmed surrendering asari in the back! Are we feelig better? (sarcasm off)

Should I give her back her gun, since her biotics apparently aren't enough to make her dangerous?