305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We could, I suppose, count bodies. We could count which one is more likely to start a galactic incident. We can certainly go with which one so far is more likely to come after you before the Reapers do.

How many bodies does she actually take down?

The nature of her job, her reference to constant work, and the stories she does tell rather support 'many', whereas the nature of Morinth's crimes, Samara's references to her need to lay low and not make waves for decades at a time, and a lack of similar work and obligations make that a reasonable 'less.'

 How many galactic incidents does she actually start?

So far? No more than Morinth, that we know of. Nearly? Well, she tried to kill a Spectre (big news, remember), was in a high-danger environment on Illium, and then openlymuses

 Stop talking about everyone's blind fears as if they are reality.

How is any of those concerns blind?

The concerns are a reality.

Compare Batman's reputation with his actual conduct (at least in the mainstream comics.. the dark knight stuff he tends to be more willing to use lethal force). He cultivates a scary persona because it is useful to him to have criminals fear him. It throws them off and makes them more likely to cooperate out of fear. But he isn't really like that.

Yes, he is. Batman terrorizes the criminals through fear and violence. Batman also enacts great violence on thecriminals to make them fear. He really is very violent.

It is likely similar with the code. Not only do Justicar actions get exaggerated, but it is useful to the Justicars to encourage that to convince people to stay honest and to cooperate with them, or at least to get sloppy out of fear when facing them.

You're really going to have to specify which act or fear you think is merely exagerated, unfounded fears.

Regardless, she does nothing she is accused of on Illium.

She doesn't warn that she will break out of the police block? She doesn't kill a helpless criminal in cold blood?

Hm, I like your ME2. I must have gotten a poor copy.

[TuringPoint]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The kids i can't really blame her for. She was kept in a cage, only ever brought out to fight them. She escapes, whacked out on drugs, in one hell of a mental state from all her years of torture. And sees them. Why would she consider anytging but attacking?

And Samara cares about mitigating circumstances... since when?

Morinth is the only squaddie who attempts to kill you, and she does so both before and after recruitment.

Because you sought it out.

Morinth never tracked down Shepard, tricked him, or try to do death by snusnu. Shepard, knowing exactly what she is, goes to seduce her.

That isn't simple murder on Morinth's part. That's attempted suicide on Shepard's as well.

Morinth is still the only one who can kill you.  It might not be pre-meditated, but neither does a flu kill someone with pre-meditation.  It just follows nature.  It has no principle of respecting the larger, greater organism, and neither does Morinth have any such concept.  Morinth is just a killer.  

Samara's Code we don't actually know that much about.  Samara actually does care about mitigating circumstances, as she doesn't ask so many questions that her code requires her to act. Her code also has mitigating circumstances described, which we get a small taste of at the police station on Ilium. If you can say Morinth isn't entirely to blame for killing Shepard, if that were to happen, why then do you turn your own logic around to apply it to Samara, and say she is solely responsible for killing cops if they don't let her out of the police station?

Her code at least respects greater principles, even if it demands a calculated sacrifice. 

Not unlike TIM, not unlike Morinth.  TIM respects the entity of Cerberus, Morinth respects her own entity and possibly nothing else.

She is not paragon, but she does seem more accepting of Paragons.  There is some affinity there in her code because the primary principles aren't about killing cops any more than Morinth's "code" of self-preservation demands that she subjugate all in her path to her self-preservation and pleasure.  What Morinth kills for will die with her; what Samara kills for will continue to exist long after her death.  That is basically an attitude more similar to Paragon than Renegade, unless you presume to think Paragon choices a

Renegade Shepard isn't necessarily a killer like Morinth, although Shepard can be roleplayed that way.  In which case, Shepard would be a lot more likely to be suicidal and snusnu with Morinth.  Because there is no altruistic principle there;  but there is a selfish principle.  

But then again, there are selfish principles which encourage long term gain, right?  Just not those selfish principles.  Morinth doesn't have such principle to guide her actions, neither does a shepard that decides to snusnu with her.

Any way, all I'm trying to do is illustrate how it may be that Samara is closer to Paragon than Renegade.

Modifié par Alocormin, 08 novembre 2010 - 12:55 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Alocormin wrote...
Morinth is still the only one who can kill you.  It might not be pre-meditated, but neither does a flu kill someone with pre-meditation.  It just follows nature.  It has no principle of respecting the larger, greater organism, and neither does Morinth have any such concept.  Morinth is just a killer. 

What does Morinth have to do with Samara's status? What Morinth is and is not does not change what Samara is and is not.

Samara's Code we don't actually know that much about.  Samara actually does care about mitigating circumstances, as she doesn't ask so many questions that her code requires her to act. Her code also has mitigating circumstances described, which we get a small taste of at the police station on Ilium.

Illium and the police station weren't mitigating circumstances of a crime, and it's bizaar you would claim they were unless you think detaining her was a crime in thefirst place... in which case, Samara's described obligation to bring down any dirty cop was conveniently forgotten, or hypocritical even.

If you can say Morinth isn't entirely to blame for killing Shepard, if that were to happen, why then do you turn your own logic around to apply it to Samara, and say she is solely responsible for killing cops if they don't let her out of the police station?

Because Morinth doesn't instigate or mandate the danger, where as Samara does. Shepard does not have to mate with Morinth: his choice to do so puts responsibility on him as well. Samara does not have to break out of a police station.

Are you seriously going to posit that Samara isn't responsible if she kills the cops in a bid to leave?

Her code at least respects greater principles, even if it demands a calculated sacrifice. 

Not unlike TIM, not unlike Morinth.  TIM respects the entity of Cerberus, Morinth respects her own entity and possibly nothing else.

She is not paragon, but she does seem more accepting of Paragons.  There is some affinity there in her code because the primary principles aren't about killing cops any more than Morinth's "code" of self-preservation demands that she subjugate all in her path to her self-preservation and pleasure.  What Morinth kills for will die with her; what Samara kills for will continue to exist long after her death.  That is basically an attitude more similar to Paragon than Renegade, unless you presume to think Paragon choices a

A what? I don't think I deleted anything, but it isn't clear what your point is.

Paragons have no exclusive claim to fighting for something higher or greater than themselves. What Morinth is or is not doesn't make Samara Paragon by default.

Any way, all I'm trying to do is illustrate how it may be that Samara is closer to Paragon than Renegade.

Closer than what? Morinth? Five is closer to infinity than zero, but that doesn't mean five is a large number. Relativity isn't a qualification.

Samara doesn't need to be either paragon or renegade.

[OBakaSama]

Having just read all previous posts I'm still confused. So if anyone can clarify my confusion it would be much appreciated.

Reading through I can't see much made of the distinction between whether the player thinks Samara is a Paragon and the issue of whether Samara is a Paragon within the ME universe constraints (ignoring whether or not we should be using 'Paragon' in association with NPCs). The two are different issues and discussion seems to move from one to the other quite frequently hence my confusion.

The Paragon/Renegade usage is fraught with difficulties as another poster mentioned (but subsequently ignored), mainly because as players we may play our Paragons and Renegades differently. This alignment then feeds back into this particular discussion. (Basically it's a need to clarify some rather vague terms that are used frequently.) My playthrough as a Renegade Shepard suggests that there's quite a marked difference between ME1 Renegade Shepard and ME2 Renegade Shepard. Having played a xenophobic trigger happy ME1 Renegade Shepard I found that this Shepard was no longer in ME2 (he mellowed out in his old age). I'd think Samara would kill ME1 Renegade Shepard without much further thought personally.

As for Samara's apparent acceptance of Paragons...well....perhaps we should consider a distinction between her accepting a Paragon Shepard and the Justicar Code's permitting the Justicar to accepting a Paragon Shepard? My thought also turns to a piece of dialogue when recruiting her (I think) that while she has sworn an oath to follow Shepard's orders, she may have to kill Shepard if made to act in a way which contradicts the Justicar Code. I would tentatively suggest that perhaps Renegade options are more likely to transgress the Justicar Code than Paragon options. (Rejection of Renegades does not equate to acceptance of Paragons though.)

Just my simplistic thoughts.

[Dean_the_Young]

To answer at least part of your confusion:



I, the op, do not think Samara is Paragon (see thread title: it boggles me that anyone would consider her a Paragon).

[Jagri]

Let's make this simple... Does this definition define Samara?

1. One who rejects a religion, cause, allegiance, or group for another; a deserter.
2. An outlaw; a rebel.

or this one?

1. A model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example: a paragon of virtue.

Modifié par Jagri, 08 novembre 2010 - 03:05 .

[AntiChri5]

[quote]Jack on Illium: 'soft targets.'

You don't rob the people with guns. You rob the ones who can't defend themselves.[/quote]

Except that the ones without guns have already been robbed by the ones with guns. People don't get a lot of money in the Terminus Systems by being nice. I am questioning. the existence of an "innocent" worth robbing to someone of Jack's capabilities in the Terminus Systems

[quote]And Samara cares about mitigating circumstances... since when?[/quote]

Huh? Wasn't talking about whether or not Samara would have stopped her, just whether or not that action was understandable or reprehensible.

[quote]And, again, her proof against them was...?[/quote]

They were ripping her off. They are criminals, when a business deal between criminals goes south violence always ensues. Hollywood has been quite clear on this point. Of course she doesn't have any evidence that would convict them of conspiracy to commit murder in a court, but they aren't in a court. How often do criminals betray each other and simply walk away?

[quote]You aren't even denying she's a criminal at this point.[/quote]

I never was. Anyone with an even semi functional brain knows Jack is a criminal.

[quote]That isn't even a defense.[/quote]

How isn't it? We were talking about times Jack has killed and whether or not it was justifiable. There is no mention of her killing anyone in that incident.

[quote]That doesn't change that she hijacked a freighter with innocents on board.[/quote]

Of course it doesn't. Why would it? My point is, she did not kill when it would have been better for her if she had.

[quote]You realize that carjacking turns into kidnapping if there's someone stuck in the rearseat when you drive off, yes?[/quote]

As that is exactly what i said slightly reworded, yes i do realize that.

[quote]Enough that Garrus and Samara see point about fighting a crusade there.[/quote]

And why do they see it? Because these people are powerless. Powerless people do not hold onto money on Omega.

[quote]But then, Jack didn't spend her life on Omega either.[/quote]

No, just in the Terminus Systems, which Omega is the capital of.

[qoute]Because you sought it out.

Morinth never tracked down Shepard, tricked him, or try to do death by snusnu. Shepard, knowing exactly what she is, goes to seduce her.



That isn't simple murder on Morinth's part. That's attempted suicide on Shepard's as well. [/quote]

The cops on Ilium sought Samara out. She never tricked them. The cops, knowing exactly what Samara is go to arrest her. That isn't muder on Samaras part, it is attempted suicide by the Ilium cops.

You maintain Samaras guilt in the Ilium cop incident, yet attempt to absolve Morinth. If Morinth is innocent because she was simply acting according to her nature, which the person approachimg her knew of, then so is Samara.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The nature of her job, her reference to constant work, and the stories she does tell rather support 'many', whereas the nature of Morinth's crimes, Samara's references to her need to lay low and not make waves for decades at a time, and a lack of similar work and obligations make that a reasonable 'less.'

Wow, you are comparing lifetime careers? So then all soldiers should be executed, including shepard? You are ignoring the reasons Samara has taken down any given individual, yet accuse her of not taking into account circumstance?

So far? No more than Morinth, that we know of. Nearly? Well, she tried to kill a Spectre (big news, remember), was in a high-danger environment on Illium, and then openlymuses

And yet she let that Spectre go and didn't pursue. Even if she had killed Nihilus, though, how would that have started any wars? The same accusations were made against Shepard: "Nooooo, not the traverse! You'll start a war for sure!" Shep didn't start one either.

The concerns are a reality.

And yet she hasn't started any wars. Your delusions are not reality.

Yes, he is. Batman terrorizes the criminals through fear and violence. Batman also enacts great violence on thecriminals to make them fear. He really is very violent.

Ok , so you don't really follow batman... he uses non-lethal means, and prefers if the criminals simply surrender so that violence isn't needed. He is quite happy to scare them into running to the police and surrendering.

You're really going to have to specify which act or fear you think is merely exagerated, unfounded fears.

I have specified a few: the risk of starting wars, the theory that they use extreme force in all cases no matter how small the crime, that they never take into account extenuating circumstances... all of which is legend with no actual evidence. None of the people telling you those things have actually met Justicars before. Compare it with the descriptions of Spectres you initially get in ME1, which get corrected. by those who know better.

She doesn't warn that she will break out of the police block? She doesn't kill a helpless criminal in cold blood?

Hm, I like your ME2. I must have gotten a poor copy.

Which helpless crimnal does she kill in cold blood? And how do you define helpless? And why isn't she under arrest for that rather than detained 'just in case?'

Warning that if the police vilolate her rights that she might resist does not make her a criminal.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
The nature of her job, her reference to constant work, and the stories she does tell rather support 'many', whereas the nature of Morinth's crimes, Samara's references to her need to lay low and not make waves for decades at a time, and a lack of similar work and obligations make that a reasonable 'less.'[/quote]

Wow, you are comparing lifetime careers? So then all soldiers should be executed, including shepard? You are ignoring the reasons Samara has taken down any given individual, yet accuse her of not taking into account circumstance?
[/quote]As I mentioned several posts ago on the piece by which this rail of argument started, by some standards of morality.

Yes, there are people who consider all lives equal. Even criminals. And they think that soldiers are psychopaths who join the military to kill without consequences.

Samara's reasons for killing any given indivual is that they are unjust, which is a horrible standard without a full system of checks and balances to base and mitigate such a wide brush. Unjust people do not deserve to be shot out of hand on the basis of crimes.

[quote]
And yet she let that Spectre go and didn't pursue.[/quote]She also didn't have the opportunity once she acted by her Code. Once she met her Code's requirements, she couldn't get him afterwards.


 [quote]
Even if she had killed Nihilus, though, how would that have started any wars?[/quote]I didn't say Nihlus would have started a war. It would have caused an incident, very easily could have serious consequences, and Samara's Code makes an unnecessary incident all the more likely because she 'has' to do so.

[quote]The same accusations were made against Shepard: "Nooooo, not the traverse! You'll start a war for sure!" Shep didn't start one either. [/quote]That doesn't mean he couldn't have if he had gotten his way, or that his actions were without reasonable consequence.

[quote]
And yet she hasn't started any wars. Your delusions are not reality.[/quote]As I did not claim she had started a war, please reconsider who is delusional.

[quote]Ok , so you don't really follow batman... he uses non-lethal means, and prefers if the criminals simply surrender so that violence isn't needed. He is quite happy to scare them into running to the police and surrendering.[/quote]Non-lethal is not the same as peaceful. Batman is very violent, and that doesn't change because he doesn't kill. To deny that is to deny the heart of the Batman character.

The man fantasizes about inflicting punishment and fear into criminals.


Hm, if only there was a word for someone who uses terror on a population to get them to do what the terrorizer wants them to do...

[quote]
I have specified a few: the risk of starting wars,[/quote]To date, who's made that claim? 

Not that you've really said she wouldn't, only that she hasn't so far. Which is a rather poor defense for any behavior in general.
 [quote]
the theory that they use extreme force in all cases no matter how small the crime,[/quote]You really haven't provided cases where she's used gentle force when some other authority isn't already present and taking care of the criminal. (Pitne, for example).
 [quote]
that they never take into account extenuating circumstances... all of which is legend with no actual evidence.
[/quote]Nihlus, her definition of 'dishonorable acts' are the support.

[quote] 
None of the people telling you those things have actually met Justicars before. Compare it with the descriptions of Spectres you initially get in ME1, which get corrected. by those who know better.[/quote]Most descriptions of the Spectres we got in ME1 were completely square. They aren't bound by the rules, rogue spectres who go to far do have their status revoked and another spectre sent after them.

And, as you said, corrected later. There is no 'correction' about the lengths Samara will go. That's her own admission.


[quote]Which helpless crimnal does she kill in cold blood?[/quote]The eclipse merc she crushes when you first see her. 
[quote]
And how do you define helpless?[/quote]'Unable to harm' is a very good start. 
[quote]
And why isn't she under arrest for that rather than detained 'just in case?'[/quote]Because Asari are a bit nutty about Justicars, who've carved out a place in Asari acceptance. The Asari accept the Justicars, but they recognize that other races won't.
[quote]
Warning that if the police vilolate her rights that she might resist does not make her a criminal.
[/quote]Killing indefinite numbers of police for a detention not even called a violation of her rights, would.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]AntiChri5 wrote...

[quote]Jack on Illium: 'soft targets.'
You don't rob the people with guns. You rob the ones who can't defend themselves.[/quote]
Except that the ones without guns have already been robbed by the ones with guns. People don't get a lot of money in the Terminus Systems by being nice. I am questioning. the existence of an "innocent" worth robbing to someone of Jack's capabilities in the Terminus Systems[/quote]We can see 'innocent' civilians being looted in Mordin's mission, and Omega is regularly identified as a place of squalor but also potential.


[quote]They were ripping her off. They are criminals, when a business deal between criminals goes south violence always ensues. Hollywood has been quite clear on this point. Of course she doesn't have any evidence that would convict them of conspiracy to commit murder in a court, but they aren't in a court. How often do criminals betray each other and simply walk away?[/quote]Ripping off someone isn't proof you intend to kill them.

Criminals don't often betray eachother, because it's the sort of thing that quickly bites them in the ass soon after.


[quote] [/quote]
[quote][quote]
Of course it doesn't. Why would it? My point is, she did not kill when it would have been better for her if she had.[/quote]

By what standard would killing them have been better for her?
[/quote]
[quote]
 [/quote][quote]And why do they see it? Because these people are powerless. Powerless people do not hold onto money on Omega.[/quote]Except they do: they pay the protection fees, after all, and buy the drugs and make the artwork and have jobs.
[quote]No, just in the Terminus Systems, which Omega is the capital of.[/quote]The Terminus in incredibly varried. Omega is in the Terminus, but so is Horizon.

It would be equivalent to judging India by the slums of Mumbai.[quote]The cops on Ilium sought Samara out. She never tricked them. The cops, knowing exactly what Samara is go to arrest her. That isn't muder on Samaras part, it is attempted suicide by the Ilium cops.[/quote]Illium cops have a good reason to detain Samara, and is a proper use of their powers. Killing cops on the basis they don't let you go immediately past a point is not a good reason.

[quote]
You maintain Samaras guilt in the Ilium cop incident, yet attempt to absolve Morinth. If Morinth is innocent because she was simply acting according to her nature, which the person approachimg her knew of, then so is Samara.[/quote]I don't absolve Morinth. I spread responsibility to Shepard as well, where many people simply lay it on Morinth and act as if Shepard were entirely uninvolved except as a near-victim.

[Getorex]

yorkj86 wrote...

Samara's just that important, AntiChri5!

Not really. Her character could have been dispensed with entirely and it wouldn't have affected gameplay in the slightest. Her character simply served to provide some pointless Asari cultural history (Ardat Yakshi stuff and Justicar stuff). Simply dropping Liara into her place, using LotSB as Liara's recruitment mission (she wouldn't have needed a loyalty mission, already BEING loyal) would have worked perfectly and provided a nice bit of continuity from ME1.

[Getorex]

Moiaussi wrote...

Hoki wrote...

Idk I thought it was pretty clear that the police chief would have to prevent Samara from leaving the station so soon, and that Samara would thus have to kill the chief because she was getting in the way of the code.

So basically The Code's authority supercedes any particular civilization's authority when they butt heads.

Why she'll swear an oath to an individual force commander and not a government authority, I don't know, it doesn't make any sense.

All I know is if (in my first playthrough) she didn't swear the oath I'd have her off my ship. People that do not recognize authority when its staring them in the face are dangerous.

But why would Samara be prevented? On what grounds would she be detained? Does 'civilization's authority' extend to arbitrary detainment of anyone they choose? If he same threat was made at Shepard, how would you react as Shep?

Police forces have the power to detain, persuant to a crimnal investigation, anyone who is suspected of playing some role in a crime. Pretty standard (and necessary). The Asari cop wasn't doing normal US police procedure of tasering the crap out of her, cuffing her, tasering her again for good measure, and then tasering her yet again for giggles. She was being a prim and proper cop from the old fashioned ideal. And her "reward" for following normal procedure is to be threatened with death because no law applies to a Justicar?

Meh. I hate the very idea of SPECTERS for the very same reason.

[AntiChri5]

[quote]We can see 'innocent' civilians being looted in Mordin's mission, and Omega is regularly identified as a place of squalor but also potential.[/quoted]

By others as poor as they are. That doesn't mean they are worth robbing to someone who can singlehandedly destroy a space station

[quote]Ripping off someone isn't proof you intend to kill them.

Criminals don't often betray eachother, because it's the sort of thing that quickly bites them in the ass soon after.[/quote]

I already said that it wasn't acceptable proof that they were planning to kill her, but when criminals turn on each other they do not trade insults. I am not at the least surprised that a disagreement between criminals ended in violence. It was either have a fight, or let then rip her off.

[quote]By what standard would killing them have been better for her?[/quote]

By her own. She says it would have been easier to simple kill them.

[quote]Except they do: they pay the protection fees, after all, and buy the drugs and make the artwork and have jobs.[/quote]

None of that means they have anywhere near enough to draw the attention of someone like Jack. They are relatively powerless. If they weren't they wouldn't have to pay protection.

[quote]The Terminus in incredibly varried. Omega is in the Terminus, but so is Horizon.

It would be equivalent to judging India by the slums of Mumbai.[/quote]

There being the occasional colony doesn't change the fact that the Terminus is considered the criminal hub. The "lawless Terminus" didn't get that reputation by accident.

[quote]Illium cops have a good reason to detain Samara, and is a proper use of their powers. Killing cops on the basis they don't let you go immediately past a point is not a good reason.[/quote]

No, they do not. You cannot hold someone without charge for an undetermined period of time. There is a reason it is illegal here.

[quote]I don't absolve Morinth. I spread responsibility to Shepard as well, where many people simply lay it on Morinth and act as if Shepard were entirely uninvolved except as a near-victim.[/quote]

Morinth is responsible for her own actions, just because Shepard made it easy doesn't make any less so.

[Getorex]

Mr. Man wrote...

She fights for those who can't protect themselves, and for justice. Those seem like Paragon options to me.

Justice without mercy (or no room for mercy) is not actually justice.

[General User]

Justice without punishment is also not justice.

[Getorex]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Renegade Shepard wipes out the Feros colony, among other things. And lets Pitne For go after extracting a bribe, and lets Niftu Cal get himself killed...

And he killed them... how?

Samara's no stranger to mass casualties either. Remember the village Morinth bewitched, in which she killed every man and woman within? Not the only settlement, either, by her claim 'I have destroyed villages and saved cities.'

Ah, but they weren't innocent. Never mind.

I daresay that Samara, and perhaps renegade Shepard, would be totally cool with "We have to burn down the village in order to save it."

Wasn't acceptable at the time, isn't acceptable now, wont be acceptable in the 23rd century.

[Getorex]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Conceptually accepted.

Applying it whole cloth to philosophy, as you introduced it, stretches both the application of the word 'religion' and (intentionally?) invites misunderstanding of your point. As I first recall your name regarding a back-and-forth of posters using 'Reaper technology' to mean 'Reaper devices' and you refusing to accept the argument until they used a different word, I'd think a certain amount of linguistic precision was a priority of yours.

I disputed their use of 'Reaper technology' because they were continually inconsistent about it whenever their own descriptions of it didn't meet their arguments.

Secular religion is an already established term that's been in use for years. If you didn't know it, it was only a google search away.

And I contend we know too little about the Code to specify if it counts. It is certainly a philosophy with proscribed rules of behaviour, but not all philosophies are religions. Even secular ones.

Given that the Codes is indsiputably a dogma, the Justicar Order does have a system of indoctrination, is based around the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, has designated enemies, and other such characteristics of religions...

We can qualify the Code as a secular religion for Samara.

If google finds someone on the web saying it or blogging it, then it MUST be true.

Secular and religion cannot go together. Round peg, square hole.

There is no such thing as a "secular religion" except to religionists who are trying to justify forcing their particular religious viewpoint upon the masses (ie, claiming Evolution is something akin to "secular religion" as an argument to justify teaching of "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" as co-equal with Evolution...nuh uh!).

[Getorex]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No, it kind of is the Justicar Code to enforce the laws and force others to abide by them.

The law, not the thousands of sutras in the Code itself. The Code has huge numbers of rules that aren't law for normal people.

Since this was never asserted, I'm confused as to why you brought it up.

By simply not caring. Shooting through Tela's hostage, letting Vido's workers burn to death...

Tela's hostage I'll give you, but I was under the impression someone else put Vido's prisoners in danger. Someone who, say, committed a crime and took them hostage in the first place.

...nah, it can't be Vido's fault for setting up that situation.

"I didn't cause there death (even though I was perfectly placed to save them)! It was VIDO who did it. I just looked at them, didn't even CONSIDER doing what was needed to save them, and went for Vido. Hostages smostages."

One cannot escape moral culpability (or criminal prosecution) THAT easily. That also has the same smell as "I was just following orders" by the way.

[Getorex]

yorkj86 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

Samara's just that important, AntiChri5!

Not really. Her character could have been dispensed with entirely and it wouldn't have affected gameplay in the slightest. Her character simply served to provide some pointless Asari cultural history (Ardat Yakshi stuff and Justicar stuff). Simply dropping Liara into her place, using LotSB as Liara's recruitment mission (she wouldn't have needed a loyalty mission, already BEING loyal) would have worked perfectly and provided a nice bit of continuity from ME1.

Gee, I know it's the internet, but I was just joking, in response to the peculiar way the single largest award of Paragon/Renegade points is tied to the Samara/Renegade decision.

Additionally, there several characters who could be removed without it affecting the game, but, given lemons...

Couldn't tell from words alone what your take was on the Samara character.

[Getorex]

yorkj86 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

She fights for those who can't protect themselves, and for justice. Those seem like Paragon options to me.

Justice without mercy (or no room for mercy) is not actually justice.

You seem to think that the Justicars are the same thing as regular cops.  They are not.  Justicars are extra-judicial.  They are sent to resolve situations that have defied resolution through all other means.  Humans have similar authorities, but not as simple as a single individual. 

At least you think to hate the game, and not the player.

Hate the game? Not at all, just certain ideas presented in it (officially accepted or sanctioned extra judicial ANYTHING, people who are above the law or who are permitted to act without any concern at all for the law, etc...HATE the idea with a passion). I can understand and "get" a bit of vigilante justice. THAT occurs right there, street level, near to the source of the crime and usually by the victim (direct or indirect). I can even applaud it if it actually nails a person or persons actually guilty of the crime in question. Officially sanctioned groups or individuals who do this from a cold, hard remove I cannot "get".

I would be OK with a person shooting the murderer/rapist who raped and murdered their daughter, for instance (so long as they actually got the right guy) but am not cool with the state doing it years and years down the line in cold, dispassionate, unemotional remove from what was actually a HUMAN crime against a HUMAN victim. The official sanction and remove takes all the humanness out of it.

Modifié par Getorex, 08 novembre 2010 - 09:38 .

[General User]

Samara is not above the law. She is a person fully empowered by her order in accordance with ancient precedent, and sanctioned and abetted by the lawful government of the United Asari Republics, to resolve disputes, decide matters of criminal guilt or innocence, and pass and execute sentence for all of the above.

Modifié par General User, 08 novembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[AntiChri5]

@Getoorex: I think you misinterpreted "hate the game, not the player".

I believe it was meant to say you hate the code raher then Samara, not that you hate ME 2.

I have heard it used as an expression to basically say to blame the system in place, not the person who is a part of or manipulating it.