305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

If the fact that governments can be held accountable by others doesn't make sense to you, think harder. Even the most rogue governments on Earth can be forced to suffer consequences for their actions.

[General User]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

Because, as I see it, if not by Providence or the forces of history, than only by other sovereign nations can any state, rogue or otherwise be brought to heel. As Justicars enjoy a significant degree of sovereignty unto themselves their actions and judgments are at least equal in validity to those of any state or government. In other words, Samara has more of a right to conduct her investigation than any Illium police department has to stop her.

Modifié par General User, 09 novembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If the fact that governments can be held accountable by others doesn't make sense to you, think harder. Even the most rogue governments on Earth can be forced to suffer consequences for their actions.

This isn't Earth. The Asari have a pure democracy. Pretty much everything is voted on, which presumably includes the rights of Justicars.

Illium is not considered an Asari world (and therefore also not a Council world), so precisely who does it answer to and how is it governed? From the information we have, it sounds like a much larger scale Noveria.

Regardless, detaining Samara because she 'might' be trouble for an unspecified length of time is not something that would be considered 'good' by modern civil rights standards.

[Getorex]

Of course, all this is totally apart from the game itself. The developers/writers aren't working at this detail of philosophy (and the characters are simply not real, remember, and the Justicar stuff is just a take on the MYTH of knights and knighthood in the West - and it IS a myth).



They are (or were) sitting around in brainstorming sessions going, "Hey, what if we make an Asari character who is monkish or kinda like knights - of MYTHOLOGY rather than reality - and have her do this or believe that!?"



"Yeah! Then maybe she could do this or follow <a code borrowed from any of a gazillion sword/castle/knight/mage/witch game or stories> THIS. What about how this fits with the Asari history?"



"blah blah, etc, etc".



It is not a coherent philosophy devised from Spinoza, Aristotle, etc.



It's an entertaining discussion but completely aside and unrelated to the game and its characters.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If the fact that governments can be held accountable by others doesn't make sense to you, think harder. Even the most rogue governments on Earth can be forced to suffer consequences for their actions.

This isn't Earth. The Asari have a pure democracy. Pretty much everything is voted on, which presumably includes the rights of Justicars.

If the Asari gave the Justicars the right to enforce Asari law outside of Asari space, that is certainly a diplomatic incident waiting to happen. The Asari jurisdiction ends at Asari space. We know Samara does not consider her jurisdiction limited to there.

Illium is not considered an Asari world (and therefore also not a Council world), so precisely who does it answer to and how is it governed? From the information we have, it sounds like a much larger scale Noveria.

Even Illium can be made accountable for actions of its policies.

Regardless, detaining Samara because she 'might' be trouble for an unspecified length of time is not something that would be considered 'good' by modern civil rights standards.

Only if the 'might' was unjustified and without merit.

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

Because, as I see it, if not by Providence or the forces of history, than only by other sovereign nations can any state, rogue or otherwise be brought to heel. As Justicars enjoy a significant degree of sovereignty unto themselves their actions and judgments are at least equal in validity to those of any state or government. In other words, Samara has more of a right to conduct her investigation than any Illium police department has to stop her.

Nations can be held accountable because they have interests that can be affected. Even the most rogue nations who don't accept the UN, international courts, or treaties can be affected by others. This is an established and proven factor of sanctions as punishment for misbehavior.

Justicar sovereignty is only recognized by the Asari as far as the Asari wish to recognize. It exists nowhere else. No government is obliged to accept it. There is no treaty ever referenced giving them a right to supercede the Asari justice system.

If you wish to claim Samara has more of a right, you're going to have to support that claim.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If the Asari gave the Justicars the right to enforce Asari law outside of Asari space, that is certainly a diplomatic incident waiting to happen. The Asari jurisdiction ends at Asari space. We know Samara does not consider her jurisdiction limited to there.

Back to arguing in circles, sigh.

Paragon isn't about obeying every law everywhere, regardless of how just or unjust it is, nor about only staying within your legal jurisdiction. The 'diplomatic incident' suggested was between Illium and some non-Asari, so jurisdictional issues had nothing to do with it. The Illium police recognize her as a Justicar and their issue isn't with her acting as one per se. If they are worried about the Asari empire ending up in trouble over her actions, then they obviously have much stronger ties to said empire than advertized.

Even Illium can be made accountable for actions of its policies.

Yes, in this case by a Justicar. But for some reason, you seem to consider that immoral.

Only if the 'might' was unjustified and without merit.

And you have not shown any justifcation other than simply stating that it must be a fact since they threatened to detain her. Note that during her 'detention' she isn't actually incarcerated, she is merely sitting with the officer. which implies strongly that the officer really doesn't want to actually detain her. Is the officer disobeying orders? Perhaps she knows the orders are unlawful or at least unjust? Samara has agreed to cooperate, so it isn't a question of avoiding a threat....

Modifié par Moiaussi, 09 novembre 2010 - 08:08 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nations can be held accountable because they have interests that can be affected. Even the most rogue nations who don't accept the UN, international courts, or treaties can be affected by others. This is an established and proven factor of sanctions as punishment for misbehavior.

Justicar sovereignty is only recognized by the Asari as far as the Asari wish to recognize. It exists nowhere else. No government is obliged to accept it. There is no treaty ever referenced giving them a right to supercede the Asari justice system.

If you wish to claim Samara has more of a right, you're going to have to support that claim.

While that is technically true, who actually policed Noveria, other than Shepard? They were reluctant even to allow a spectre to inspect, and wanted assurances that Shep wasn't going to cause them trouble.

Policing other nations isn't anywhere near as easy as you seem to claim, and interstellar just makes it worse.

Regardless, Illium does obviously recognize Justicar authority, since they were not worried about her actually killing anyone, merely about her giving them bad press. They also were willing to accept her word as validating evidence.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If the Asari gave the Justicars the right to enforce Asari law outside of Asari space, that is certainly a diplomatic incident waiting to happen. The Asari jurisdiction ends at Asari space. We know Samara does not consider her jurisdiction limited to there.

Back to arguing in circles, sigh.

Paragon isn't about obeying every law everywhere, regardless of how just or unjust it is, nor about only staying within your legal jurisdiction. The 'diplomatic incident' suggested was between Illium and some non-Asari, so jurisdictional issues had nothing to do with it. The Illium police recognize her as a Justicar and their issue isn't with her acting as one per se. If they are worried about the Asari empire ending up in trouble over her actions, then they obviously have much stronger ties to said empire than advertized.

Samara is about following the law. Her law.

Half of the defense people have been providing for Samara and the Code is that 'well, the Asari accept it.' That only goes as far as Asari boundaries, which very much is a jurisdiction issue.

Your last sentance isn't inherent at all. Illium is a trade world based on legalizing otherwise forbidden things. A Justicar showing up and creating an incident is bad for business regardless of ties to the Asari City States.

Even Illium can be made accountable for actions of its policies.

Yes, in this case by a Justicar. But for some reason, you seem to consider that immoral.

Don't you still have to prove Illium didn't have a right to detain Samara for longer than a day before taking quotations out of context in a response to someone else?

And you have not shown any justifcation other than simply stating that it must be a fact since they threatened to detain her. Note that during her 'detention' she isn't actually incarcerated, she is merely sitting with the officer. which implies strongly that the officer really doesn't want to actually detain her. Is the officer disobeying orders? Perhaps she knows the orders are unlawful or at least unjust? Samara has agreed to cooperate, so it isn't a question of avoiding a threat....

Samara's code, and the history of the Justicars and their code as recognized by Asari authorities, are justification for concern.

You know what else indicates that the officer really doesn't want to detain her? The fact that the officer says she doesn't want to. Not wanting to does not mean she does not have a right.

[Dean_the_Young]

yorkj86 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nations can be held accountable because they have interests that can be affected. Even the most rogue nations who don't accept the UN, international courts, or treaties can be affected by others. This is an established and proven factor of sanctions as punishment for misbehavior.

Justicar sovereignty is only recognized by the Asari as far as the Asari wish to recognize. It exists nowhere else. No government is obliged to accept it. There is no treaty ever referenced giving them a right to supercede the Asari justice system.

If you wish to claim Samara has more of a right, you're going to have to support that claim.

How can you claim to know things about the asari justice system, if you know anything about the asari justice system?  All we know is that it exists.  We know that a power of the Justicars is to render a legal judgment about a case if a Justicar is implorred to settle the matter.

We do know things about the Asari Justice system.

We know that the Justicars are extra-judicial. We know that Justicars have an oath of subsummision in which they base themselves under Asari law. We know the Justicars are a non-government order. We know the Justicars not a Sovereign nation (a requirement for treaties). We know that Asari law does not go beyond Asari space. We know that Asari law on Illium would detain Samara, and Samara's conflict with it was grounded on nothing but her code, not an illegality of the action or any claim that the police had no right on it. 

From the Oaths of Subsumation, one being that a Justicar shall not otherthrow government, we know that the continued existence of the Justicar Order hinges upon limitations of their powers.  They are granted their powers by some kind of social contract.

Their Oaths are self-imposed, not externally imposed. No indication of any sort of civil contract is ever mentioned. No sign they have been granted anything, nor that they even asked: Asari compliance and acceptance of the Justicars is regularly depicted as cultural awe and admiration, not a legal arrangement of an integrated system.

You keep making these claims about the Justicar Order's relationship with the asari justice system, when you don't know anything about the latter.

I am highly charmed how you quibbled a minor issue and completely skipped the main point which the quibble did not disqualify at all: that Asari laws and basis for action do not extend beyond Asari Space, no matter what the nature of any alleged compact.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Samara is about following the law. Her law.

Half of the defense people have been providing for Samara and the Code is that 'well, the Asari accept it.' That only goes as far as Asari boundaries, which very much is a jurisdiction issue.

Your last sentance isn't inherent at all. Illium is a trade world based on legalizing otherwise forbidden things. A Justicar showing up and creating an incident is bad for business regardless of ties to the Asari City States.

Not 'her' law, but a code that has evolved over a period far longer than any human code of law and remains accepted. You keep writing it off as simplistic, but without evidence and ignoring contrary evidence (such as the fact she doesn't shoot Pitne For, and she let Nihlus go rather than risk a village of innocents).

You also keep acting like sovereignty somehow justifies all actions of that sovereign nation.

Don't you still have to prove Illium didn't have a right to detain Samara for longer than a day before taking quotations out of context in a response to someone else?

Right in what context? Legal or moral? Asari law or Illium law? I don't think it is that hard to make the case that indefinite detention with no actual charge is morally wrong. As for it being against Asari law, my evidence is Asari opinion that even signed labour contracts are some form of slavery. If it is considered slavery to enter a fixed term labour contract, why would detaining an individual against their will, without due process or otherwise proving a real and present danger to society be considered 'good?' or legal?

Samara's code, and the history of the Justicars and their code as recognized by Asari authorities, are justification for concern.

You know what else indicates that the officer really doesn't want to detain her? The fact that the officer says she doesn't want to. Not wanting to does not mean she does not have a right.

Of course they are reason for concern, just as Shepard being on Noveria as a Spectre was reason for concern there, even though the companies there were all based in Council space, giving Shepard at least some form of jurisdiction. The police on Noveria wanted to disarm or otherwise detain Shepard too. That didn't mean their concern was 'for the good of all.' In fact it turned out that desire was primarily for the good of a corrupt administrator.

Shepard reacted to the order to surrender weapons about like Samara did to the police officer. Shep does the same paragon (politely and diplomaticly) or renegade (threatening).

Why the automatic assumption that it is different with Samara? And note, it is appearantly ok for Shepard to carry out exactly the same actions, so appearantly human or council investigation is 'ok.' It is only the more legitimate intervention of a Justicar that is seen as dangerous.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We do know things about the Asari Justice system.

We know that the Justicars are extra-judicial. We know that Justicars have an oath of subsummision in which they base themselves under Asari law. We know the Justicars are a non-government order. We know the Justicars not a Sovereign nation (a requirement for treaties). We know that Asari law does not go beyond Asari space. We know that Asari law on Illium would detain Samara, and Samara's conflict with it was grounded on nothing but her code, not an illegality of the action or any claim that the police had no right on it. 

How is that any different from N7, Spectres, the STG, or whatever the Turians call their special forces, all of which operate outside their empires? How does jurisdiction, which involves arbitrary lines on maps (and doesn't even neccessarily apply to Illium, since Illium doesn't object to Samara killing per se, and accepts her word as vouching for evidence) determine whether an action is paragon or renegade?

Their Oaths are self-imposed, not externally imposed. No indication of any sort of civil contract is ever mentioned. No sign they have been granted anything, nor that they even asked: Asari compliance and acceptance of the Justicars is regularly depicted as cultural awe and admiration, not a legal arrangement of an integrated system.

And you know that their vows are only self imposed, how? Are you claiming that each Justicar makes up their own vows or writes their own code? Your evidence for this is what, exactly? Also, since some Asari have precog abilities, it is quite possible they are watched over, whether you see that or not.

I am highly charmed how you quibbled a minor issue and completely skipped the main point which the quibble did not disqualify at all: that Asari laws and basis for action do not extend beyond Asari Space, no matter what the nature of any alleged compact.

Which is completely irrelevant to whether an action is paragon or renegade. One can oppose an unjust law and be paragon, regardless of where that law is. Furthermore, Illium does seem to accept Justicar authority. They just find it inconvenient to have one there (likely for the same reasons Noveria objected to the prescence of a spectre).

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

General User wrote...

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

Because, as I see it, if not by Providence or the forces of history, than only by other sovereign nations can any state, rogue or otherwise be brought to heel. As Justicars enjoy a significant degree of sovereignty unto themselves their actions and judgments are at least equal in validity to those of any state or government. In other words, Samara has more of a right to conduct her investigation than any Illium police department has to stop her.

Nations can be held accountable because they have interests that can be affected. Even the most rogue nations who don't accept the UN, international courts, or treaties can be affected by others. This is an established and proven factor of sanctions as punishment for misbehavior.

Justicar sovereignty is only recognized by the Asari as far as the Asari wish to recognize. It exists nowhere else. No government is obliged to accept it. There is no treaty ever referenced giving them a right to supercede the Asari justice system.

If you wish to claim Samara has more of a right, you're going to have to support that claim.

 
No treaty is needed.  Members of the Justicar Order are not a nation or a State, they do enjoy a significant degree of sovereignty within asari society, by which I mean "supreme authority."  In other words, without being a government themselves, they enjoy an authority superior to that of a government.

You rightly point out that Justicar sovereignty or authority only goes so far as the local asari choose to recognize it, but the same is also true of the sovereignty or authority of the government of Illium (any government really). The ultimate authority of any organization (whether it claims the title of “government” or not) to exercise power over their fellow persons lies in, as the Americans say, “the just consent of the governed.” And the asari of Illium and the UAR have justly consented to be governed (in criminal and legal matters) in part by the Justicar Order.  


The main source of Justicar supremacy (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) must be precedent (social in this case, not neccessarily legal). Justicars are supreme over other justice systems because Justicars have always been supreme over other justice systems in the past. 


I reasoned that, in the umpteen thousand years of asari history, Samara’s case on Illium, CANNOT represent the first time local government has come into conflict with a Justicar. Given the fact that the Justicars continue to enjoy very real and extensive judicial power, asari society must have collectively decided at least the better part (if not all) of past conflicts in the Justicars’ favor.  Logically, precedent must be on Samara's side, thus her supremacy is established.

Is this the heart of the matter: that the position/role/authority our society vests in many should be vested by another society in a single person?  Is it the idea that "the State", which many humans see as the supreme institution in their own society, might not be so supreme in others? 

On a slightly different topic:  As for Samara’s future plans to “justicate” on planets outside asari territory… since I contend that the Justicars are a sovereign authority unto themselves; I guess I have to say that what Samara does after the war on, for instance Tuchanka, is between her and Wrex (I have a rather sneaking suspicion they might actually get along quite well).

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Regarding the OP:



Yup, she'd have issues with both Paragon and Renegade Shep.



Amusingly enough, she'd most likely get along with.Canon "every bad guy must DIE!" Shepard.

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

 
No treaty is needed.  Members of the Justicar Order are not a nation or a State, they do enjoy a significant degree of sovereignty within asari society, by which I mean "supreme authority."  In other words, without being a government themselves, they enjoy an authority superior to that of a government.

Besides an advising that you refrain from using the term sovereignty, which specifically refers to ruling and is restricted to governments (and, in certain systems, persons of government: kings and queens).

The Justicars have a de facto role, but we have yet to see a de jure basis for authority in Asari society. The Asari don't question because they choose to, not because they can't because they are unable. It's the concept of how, say, the Pope can have influence in a catholic country without having actual power.

You rightly point out that Justicar sovereignty or authority only goes so far as the local asari choose to recognize it, but the same is also true of the sovereignty or authority of the government of Illium (any government really). The ultimate authority of any organization (whether it claims the title of “government” or not) to exercise power over their fellow persons lies in, as the Americans say, “the just consent of the governed.” And the asari of Illium and the UAR have justly consented to be governed (in criminal and legal matters) in part by the Justicar Order.  

The Justicar Order is not a government entity. The Justicar Order has no presented social contract with anyone.

The main source of Justicar supremacy (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) must be precedent (social in this case, not neccessarily legal). Justicars are supreme over other justice systems because Justicars have always been supreme over other justice systems in the past. 

Precedent is meaningless without judicial underpinnings. You should know that.

Besides the proof of action that Justicars are not supreme over justice systems (Samara can be detained in the first place, and not simply released at the command of her on behalf of the supposedly supreme order), the entire point of the Oaths of Subsumation is contrary to the claim of supremacy. The very word Subsumation means to bring oneself under an existing rule.

I reasoned that, in the umpteen thousand years of asari history, Samara’s case on Illium, CANNOT represent the first time local government has come into conflict with a Justicar. Given the fact that the Justicars continue to enjoy very real and extensive judicial power, asari society must have collectively decided at least the better part (if not all) of past conflicts in the Justicars’ favor.  Logically, precedent must be on Samara's side, thus her supremacy is established.

The Justicars don't enjoy judicial power: they enjoy privalege only because the Asari allow it. It isn't a right. To re-raise the batman analogy from before, it's the difference between Gotham indulging and lauding Batman's actions, and him actually having the right to beat up people.

Neither Samara or anyone else contested the authority or right of the police to detain Samara. Neither Samara or anyone else claimed Samara had a legal right on any grounds to leave.  Not even did Samara once claimed her code obligated her to leave once the obligated 24 hour cooperationwas over . Samara simply said she would.

On a slightly different topic:  As for Samara’s future plans to “justicate” on planets outside asari territory… since I contend that the Justicars are a sovereign authority unto themselves; I guess I have to say that what Samara does after the war on, for instance Tuchanka, is between her and Wrex (I have a rather sneaking suspicion they might actually get along quite well).

She would be killing Wrex's clan and allies. Whether they might get along like Samara and a Renegade, it wouldn't because they wouldn't be trying to kill eachother.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 novembre 2010 - 10:15 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Justicar Order is not a government entity. The Justicar Order has no presented social contract with anyone.

The Asari are a pure democracy. They have no separate government per se. For the Justicars to have recognized authority, they had to have been voted that right by the majority of Asari. Since she is recognized as a Justicar on Illium, never challenged on the suggestion that killing anyone there would be treated as murder (rather than a potential diplomatic incident), and her word carries weight in the Illium justice system, it follows that the majority of Illium citizens voted for such recognition to extend to Illium.

The police officer never once says 'you are out of your jurisdiction, Justicar, leave this to us.' Instead she says 'your attempts to enforce the law could be embarrasing, therefore my bosses want you 'detained.' That is a pretty major difference.

Precedent is meaningless without judicial underpinnings. You should know that.

Besides the proof of action that Justicars are not supreme over justice systems (Samara can be detained in the first place, and not simply released at the command of her on behalf of the supposedly supreme order), the entire point of the Oaths of Subsumation is contrary to the claim of supremacy. The very word Subsumation means to bring oneself under an existing rule.

Besides the fact that you are arguing morality (paragon vs renegade) as if it is a court of law issue, Samara could be detained by anyone if she lets them. She could be detained by the mercs, she could be detained by a little old lady who invites her in for tea and makes it socially awkward for her to leave.

None of that proves legal authority.

The Justicars don't enjoy judicial power: they enjoy privalege only because the Asari allow it. It isn't a right. To re-raise the batman analogy from before, it's the difference between Gotham indulging and lauding Batman's actions, and him actually having the right to beat up people.

ROFL! You are going back to Batman? You realize that pretty much everything Batman does would come under 'reasonable force' and/or 'self defence' (since he often says 'boo' first to give them a chance to surrender)? Stop using examples you don't really understand. Now the fact he doesn't have to defend his actions in court is a separate matter, but all academic.

Neither Samara or anyone else contested the authority or right of the police to detain Samara. Neither Samara or anyone else claimed Samara had a legal right on any grounds to leave.  Not even did Samara once claimed her code obligated her to leave once the obligated 24 hour cooperationwas over . Samara simply said she would.

Pardon, but the officer didn't question Samara's right to act as a Justicar on Illium either. Again, it isn't the risk of her committing murder they are worried about. Arguably Samara questioned the right to detain her by stating she would object, forcefully if neccessary, and legal right does not equate to moral right regardless.

She would be killing Wrex's clan and allies. Whether they might get along like Samara and a Renegade, it wouldn't because they wouldn't be trying to kill eachother.

WOW! So you have details of Samara's exact plans for the Krogan too? Please link them so we can all share!

You have this tendancy to claim to know rather a lot that is merely your opinion. I don't think I have seen you back up anything with hard fact.

[Hoki]

Samara was legally detained. This is a fact. This isn't even open to debate.
She would have murdered the police force.
If you reject either of these, you are wrong. And if you think that you aren't wrong, you're still wrong.

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides an advising that you refrain from using the term sovereignty, which specifically refers to ruling and is restricted to governments (and, in certain systems, persons of government: kings and queens).

The Justicars have a de facto role, but we have yet to see a de jure basis for authority in Asari society. The Asari don't question because they choose to, not because they can't because they are unable. It's the concept of how, say, the Pope can have influence in a catholic country without having actual power.

So be it! In the interest of avoiding confusion I shall henceforth only use the term “sovereignty” with an accompanying explanation of in which sense I mean the term.
 
As for the Pope…  no, the situations are not at analogous. Samara is taking direct action, not exercising influence.  If an agent of the Catholic Church showed up in a modern city and started executing criminals on their own authority…

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Justicar Order is not a government entity. The Justicar Order has no presented social contract with anyone.

That the Justicar Orders is not a government or agency thereof is largely my point. Yet its members enjoy the supreme (though not exclusive) prerogative to dispense justice nonetheless.

Social contracts need not be presented or explicit in order to be valid. As you say the Justicar’s role, as presented so far, is a de facto one. As I say, logically that de facto status arises from ancient precedent.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Precedent is meaningless without judicial underpinnings. You should know that.

Besides the proof of action that Justicars are not supreme over justice systems (Samara can be detained in the first place, and not simply released at the command of her on behalf of the supposedly supreme order), the entire point of the Oaths of Subsumation is contrary to the claim of supremacy. The very word Subsumation means to bring oneself under an existing rule.

Legal precedent may be largely meaningless w/o judicial underpinnings. Social precedent, not so much. In many societies, cultural aspects, long in practice, obtain the status of laws, even without codification or even judicial enforcement (“we do this because, this is what we do” so to speak).

 We have no explicit knowledge of how asari collectively decide such things as the role Justicars should play. Given that they are governed by an open democracy it is possible, nay probable, that such issues are not addressed judicially at all, but legislatively! Or even in the forum of an academic debate!


The Justicar Code is 17 bagillion sutras long! In those instances where the orders of law enforcement coincide with the Code, Samara dost comply, in those were the Code conflicts Samara treats police officers like any other hindrance to her investigation. 

Samara didn’t go with Detective Anaya because she recognized the detective’s superior authority. She went because that was what the Code instructed her to do!  The Code was supreme in that situation, and Samara is the agent of the Code.

Besides, as you said in response to another post, the Oaths of Subsumation are self-imposed.  I am interested in learning more about this, is there a website I could visit where I can read more?

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Justicars don't enjoy judicial power: they enjoy privalege only because the Asari allow it. It isn't a right. To re-raise the batman analogy from before, it's the difference between Gotham indulging and lauding Batman's actions, and him actually having the right to beat up people.

Neither Samara or anyone else contested the authority or right of the police to detain Samara. Neither Samara or anyone else claimed Samara had a legal right on any grounds to leave.  Not even did Samara once claimed her code obligated her to leave once the obligated 24 hour cooperationwas over . Samara simply said she would.

I’m not really familiar with Batman, can you do me a Star Wars analogy? There’s gotta be a way to work Jedi Order vs. Justicar Order into this, let’s put our heads together!

But, as I said, Samara didn’t contest her detention because the Code instructed her not to. If her detention had been too much longer, she certainly would have contested it, by killing everyone who tried to stop her from leaving that police station!

I contend that when someone, by their own judgement, executes people and can proclaim guilt or innocence by mere word, that their power in that society is very, very real. 

Dean_the_Young wrote...
She would be killing Wrex's clan and allies. Whether they might get along like Samara and a Renegade, it wouldn't because they wouldn't be trying to kill eachother.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I got the distinct impression Wrex had more than a few butts he’d like to see kicked, even inside Clan Urdnot, and, say what you will about her, Samara is a galaxy-class butt kicker…

[Moiaussi]

Hoki wrote...

Samara was legally detained. This is a fact. This isn't even open to debate.
She would have murdered the police force.
If you reject either of these, you are wrong. And if you think that you aren't wrong, you're still wrong.

And your proof of such 'facts' is?

[StarcloudSWG]

Samara was legally detained. The police on Illium have the right to detain people for a short period of time.

Samara said "After twenty four hours, I shall resume my hunt." That doesn't necessarily mean that she would kill every police officer in the station. If the police said "Okay, go on your way" then there would be no need to fight and the situation would be resolved peacefully.



The problem only comes in because the police captain said she would, under her orders, have to try to continue to detain Samara. That would lead to Samara killing her way free.

[TuringPoint]

Samara has a code, so do the police. The police might not always follow their code so precisely, and not always for good reasons. Why can't the police break their code to protect themselves?  As if Samara should break her code to protect them? 

So governmental bodies, are powerful and deserving - not because might makes right, exactly - because the have coercion power. So does Samara. She also has laws that she follows.

Paragons follow more closely to the law; if not the law then the spirit of the law, and a more orderly and "decent" society.  So does Samara, albeit in a somewhat barbaric or harsh way.  Military and Police can be barbaric and harsh though, and arguably punishment is generally somewhat barbaric, or its not effective.

This makes Samara the enemy of a political body, but Paragon Shepard can do that too.  (in fact there is relatively little difference between paragon/renegade shepard.)  Although from that direction I can see how Samara might be more Renegade.  Isn't that a much simpler argument than all this crap about whats better and whats worse?  Isn't that beside the point with Renegade vs Paragon choices, most of the time?

Modifié par Alocormin, 10 novembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[casedawgz]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Samara was legally detained. The police on Illium have the right to detain people for a short period of time.
Samara said "After twenty four hours, I shall resume my hunt." That doesn't necessarily mean that she would kill every police officer in the station. If the police said "Okay, go on your way" then there would be no need to fight and the situation would be resolved peacefully.

The problem only comes in because the police captain said she would, under her orders, have to try to continue to detain Samara. That would lead to Samara killing her way free.

Its a Catch-22. If the police continue to try to detain her, she'll kill them. If they let her go, they're found guilty according to the code, and she kills them anyway. That's why it was so imperative that you got Samara out of that station quickly.

[TuringPoint]

I wonder if she would kill them for letting her go. That actually makes absolutely no sense, and I can't remember anything to indicate why you would decide she would do that.

To add to the argument I was making, Asari government seems to be more individual-choice driven than any other race, especially the Turians.  It wasn't the Asari that founded C-sec, despite being there "first."

So to say the rule of individual choice, the code an individual asari may choose and which is culturally considered valid (because after all the Justicars are still considered heroes, despite whatever terribleness they must have done throughout the ages - not unlike police and military forces, which have also committed atrocities however minor, throughout history) is very close to saying a police force or government with "sovereignty" or right to power is invalid.

Technically it is, if it invades the rights of an individual, minority, or majority.

Modifié par Alocormin, 10 novembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[casedawgz]

Alocormin wrote...

I wonder if she would kill them for letting her go. That actually makes absolutely no sense, and I can't remember anything to indicate why you would decide she would do that.

The cop on Illium wasn't terribly straight laced; if it was as easy as letting Samara go she wouldn't be in such a bind, as she'd simply let her go. The implication is that doing so would be a betrayal of the code of justice by which police are bound, and thus a breach in Samara's code.