197 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

So, I finally played Bring Down the Sky, and unusually for my spoiler-devouring self, the decision of whether or not to spare Balak to save the hostages was actually a tricky one, because I really didn't know if Balak could do anything later or not. Ultimately, I did choose to let him go in the end, which I was initially nervous about, but after a while, I realized I really didn't have to be.

Balak is not a terrorist mastermind. He's a slaver captain who got lucky. He just happened to land on X57 while it already had fusion torches shooting it towards Terra Nova, and decided on a whim to speed them up. The odds of any situation happening like this again, especially after this incident gets publicized, are astronomical. Not only that, Balak's personal resources are nil; he has about four crewmen left, all of whom hate him, and if he goes back to the Batarian Hegemony, they'll probably execute him for potentially starting an open war with the Alliance. Of course, he could flee to Omega or something, as many other batarians do, but he's just another slaver among thousands, with no reliable backup. He's almost certainly screwed no matter what he does.

And, of course, I saved the hostages, which was quite nice. So, yeah, I think I made a good decision.

[Dean_the_Young]

You assume he 'just happened' to land on X57, rather than look for and plan the opportunity?

You assume that the only resources he has are those he has on X57, with no means to gather resources in the same way he did for this case?

You forget that the Batarian Hegemony's support for pirates and terrorists is a matter of policy?

You even convinced yourself he's slaver, period?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 novembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

This is by far one of the most morally gray and philosophically heavy choices in the entirety of the Mass Effect trilogy so far.

All I can say is, I have multiple playthroughs where both decisions were taken rather confidently. It's odd how the results of the decisions turned out to be nothing short of a Citadel advertisement in ME2 (although Kate does send you an email if you've taken the Paragon route); I was expecting a lot more. I hope there is more to it in future content.

[Collider]

Balak hates humans enough to raise alarm.

I end up killing Balak or leaving him for the Alliance.

The death of the 3 hostages is unfortunate but if Balak's plan had succeeded 3 deaths would be nothing in comparison. Plus, it's hard for my Shepard to believe that Balak would actually stay true to his word and not kill the hostages. This guy would audacious enough to want billions of innocent people dead, what's 3 hostages to him? Should I believe that he would be honest to a human of all things? Of course as it so happens, he does end being honest, but Shepard doesn't know that ahead of time.

[Xilizhra]

For the first, his crew definitely wasn't in on it. And if he'd planned it, he'd have had to have a spy either on the asteroid or on the ground, and there was no evidence of either one.



I feel that his credibility has been vastly reduced and his ability to gather further resources severely compromised. And by that I mean he'll get killed if he shows his face in the Hegemony again.



Pirates, yes. There has, however, been no evidence that they sponsor planet-destroying terrorist acts. His crew certainly didn't act like this attack had any precedent; moreover, this is the kind of thing that starts major wars, and since the Hegemony didn't just attack the Alliance outright, I'm assuming they don't want one.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

For the first, his crew definitely wasn't in on it. And if he'd planned it, he'd have had to have a spy either on the asteroid or on the ground, and there was no evidence of either one.

Wow.

I feel that his credibility has been vastly reduced and his ability to gather further resources severely compromised. And by that I mean he'll get killed if he shows his face in the Hegemony again.

Wow again.

Pirates, yes. There has, however, been no evidence that they sponsor planet-destroying terrorist acts. His crew certainly didn't act like this attack had any precedent; moreover, this is the kind of thing that starts major wars, and since the Hegemony didn't just attack the Alliance outright, I'm assuming they don't want one.

Wow thrice.


It is very, very clear you're not involved in any national-security aparatus at all.

[Xilizhra]

Indeed I am not. I also believe that the narrative of the game is written to accommodate the reasoning of those who, like me, are not.

[Maestro975]

At the risk of sounding like Dennis Miller, Xil is starting to sound an awful lot like Jillian from Family Guy. If you interrogate Balak, he pretty much says he was acting under orders. BW would not have him escape if he was just going to be executed for gross incompetence, that would make the choice of letting him go fairly meaningless. The Hegemony has funded numerous terrorist attacks against the Alliance, possibly the Council itself. They make work with the likes of Vido Santiago, but that's business.

Balak was probably working for Jath'Amon. If Balak wasn't killed in BDTS, then I imagine he'll cause more trouble. The batarians do have the Leviathan of Dis, which will likely provide some key to defeating the Reapers (or at least Harbinger), but they're not just going to give it to Shepard. They're probably going to want to use it for an even bigger terrorist attack. If he isn't dead, Balak would probably be there.

[Xilizhra]

Balak... never said anything like that to me. He was blathering on about the horrible wrongs the humans inflicted upon the batarians, and something about how the batarians were weaker than the Alliance at this point in time, but he never said anything that made me think he was acting under orders.

[Asheer_Khan]

There are always two sides of the coin.



In case when original Council is still alive any attack made by Batarian at Alliance colonies within Council space will result in repeating of Torfan.



In case when humans hold power at Citadel (aka Human lead/all human council) Batarians will have green light from all major ex council civilizations to goes on full rampage and i can presume that Turians will even act under well known "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule and will support with weapons and tech everyone who show willingness to made humans life in Traverse really hard...



But those are consequences of taking Cortez (age of conquest history is bowing) approach to events when "Aztecs" still poses similar military capability.

[LorDC]

You can imagine anything you want but if you let Balak go, he wins. May be it is not a triumph he wanted but he still beats you. And if you kill him then you defeat him. Yes, price is high, but is is still victory.

[Xilizhra]

You can imagine anything you want but if you let Balak go, he wins.

Yes, I can look down and just see the smoldering wreckage of Terra Nova.

[LorDC]

Xilizhra wrote...

You can imagine anything you want but if you let Balak go, he wins.

Yes, I can look down and just see the smoldering wreckage of Terra Nova.

Don't pull quotes out of context, please.

[Xilizhra]

Utterly failing in your objective and getting your entire crew killed never felt much like victory to me.

[LorDC]

Balak is terrorist. Goal of terrorism is fear. Letting Balak go means he incited fear in you. Thus he won.

[Xilizhra]

Actually, letting him go implies that you don't fear his ability to do anything else of major danger.

[Asheer_Khan]

LorDC wrote...

Balak is terrorist. Goal of terrorism is fear. Letting Balak go means he incited fear in you. Thus he won.

Hmmm... following your line of toughts for example Coalition Forces in Afganistan should erase from the map every civilin settlement in area where they come under attack because it's well known tactic of Taliban to hide in such villages after each attack on convoys.

No, i let Balak go because galaxy political shape in my game chased him to the corner with very small area to acting without bringing at Hegemony problems with the Council.

He failed his goal and because of this he lost respect of his own people and perhaps this is much stonger punishment for him than than killing him and making him actually martyr of the cause for radical wings within  Hegemony.

[LorDC]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

LorDC wrote...

Balak is terrorist. Goal of terrorism is fear. Letting Balak go means he incited fear in you. Thus he won.

Hmmm... following your line of toughts for example Coalition Forces in Afganistan should erase from the map every civilin settlement in area where they come under attack because it's well known tactic of Taliban to hide in such villages after each attack on convoys.

No, i let Balak go because galaxy political shape in my game chased him to the corner with very small area to acting without bringing at Hegemony problems with the Council.

He failed his goal and because of this he lost respect of his own people and perhaps this is much stonger punishment for him than than killing him and making him actually martyr of the cause for radical wings within  Hegemony.

1) Erasing Afghanistan from the world map(with all its population of course) will be the most effective solution to the problem. Unfortunately it is not an option.
2) Political shape in your game exists only on your imagination.
3) He still escaped alive. Maybe it is punishment for him but for whole batarian race it is example of how you can attack Alliance and get away without punishment. It also shows that Alliance is so weak that it can be stopped with as little as three hostages.

[Louis_Cypher]

Shouldn't this be in the ME1 forum?



Anyway, I regarding the ongoing danger of letting him go:

If he's working alone, he's lost most of his resources and alienated his crew, so it will be much more difficult for him to execute another attack.

If he has the support of an organization, then killing him only eliminates one agent. Unless you think he's particularly talented, he's essentially replaceable.



Either way, you can argue that letting him going doesn't increase the risk of batarian terrorism significantly.



The opposite choice is also defensible. In addition to the risk of additional attacks, by allowing terrorists to use hostages to secure their escape, you're creating an incentive for future terrorist hostage taking.

[Xilizhra]

Shouldn't this be in the ME1 forum?

Whoops. I forgot that it existed.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Indeed I am not. I also believe that the narrative of the game is written to accommodate the reasoning of those who, like me, are not.

Scratch this: I'm going to respond properly.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Xilizhra]

Um, all right.

[pf17456]

LorDC wrote...

You can imagine anything you want but if you let Balak go, he wins. May be it is not a triumph he wanted but he still beats you. And if you kill him then you defeat him. Yes, price is high, but is is still victory.

I thought the price of total victory was too high. I let Balak go. Yes he did win and I let him. I could not forfeit the hostages for what might happen in the future, I was more concerned with now. Balak is on the back burner and is a question mark. Perhaps he'll turn up again, perhaps he won't. At least this time the planet and hostages were saved. I expect that had I sacrificed the hostages and killed Balak some other Batarian would take his place leaving my sense of victory somewhat fleeting.

Modifié par pf17456, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[Homebound]

I think we are all missing the point here.



Does it matter if Balak really is a mastermind?

It comes down to this: Would you sacrifice human lives to catch a criminal who might end up getting away anyways?

Thats the moral dilemma.



Oh, and on my first playthrough, I killed that Balak. XD I hate Batarians. :/

[Kronner]

I kill him, to show the other batarians what I am gonna do to them should they attack again.

Modifié par Kronner, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .