228 réponses à ce sujet

[-Skorpious-]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

. It's also not especially morally reprehensible to defend yourself. As Legion put it, they chose a path that made co-existence possible.

Are you trying to say that defending yourself from a race that seeks genocide against you and their own kind is not deserving of hostile action? That is completely and utterly insane.

You quote me explicitly saying I do not find it morally reprehensible to defend yourself.

Then you ask me if I have some issue with fighting the Heretics, who are trying to kill you.


There is a serious language comprehension barrier here, and I'm not convinced it's on my side. But in case it is, I'll simplify it for you.

IT IS NOT BAD TO KILL IN DEFENCE OF YOURSELF .
THE HERETICS ARE FORCING YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
KILLING/REWRITING THE HERETICS IS STILL GENOCIDE OF THE HERETICS.
THAT IS OKAY.

I accidentally skipped over a word in your sentence that I, in my rush to reply to your comment, failed to initally notice. My mistake.

For future reference though - can you please be less of a **** when correcting a fellow forumite's mishap? Thanks.

Don't repeatedly mistake or mis-state my position several times in a row, and I won't see my patience run out.

When were the other times if I may ask? The only other time I've responded to one of your posts (outside this topic) was some thread about Morinth a week or so ago.  Besides, the matter with Morinth was not a misunderstanding, but a difference between the definition of "evil".

One mistake is harly worth a verbal assault.

[Arijharn]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Not comparable.  I find it amusing that people continue to try and draw parallels to modern-day terrorists.  Level of technology and security and all that.  It likely won't be just as easy as getting a fake ID.  Balak was only able to attempt  a Colony Drop in the first place because of X-57 being there.  What could he have possibly done otherwise?  Now the Alliance will have tighter patrols and more security in at-risk colonies.  Not to mention you can't compare modern-day terrorists to the Batarians.  Mindsets and motivations are completely different.

I  think the comparison is viable after all, I doubt that every colony out there has the same sort of custom controls/security as the Citadel and I doubt all security is foolproof (hell; Kasumi can break into Hock's vault). Just because Balak may not be able to do another asteroid drop on another colony doesn't mean he can't do other stuff. Are you even bothering to think this through any more? 

If you and I are in a sword fight; and you disarm me, are you willing to bank that I don't have a knife too?

Also note that most of his men weren't even aware of his true mission in the first place.  Once they were, most of them didn't even want to be there, evidenced by Char.  They're just looking for a quick slave grab, not a Colony Drop.  Only reason they stick around is out of fear.  Balak's going to have a hard time convincing folks to join him if people know he's not exactly upfront with mission parameters or that there's no guarantee they'll ever get paid at all.

What if... Balak pulls the ole switcharoo tactic again? They go out to be slavers (and is that any more palatable than being terrorists anyway? Aren't slavers basically terrorists? Because I sure as hell would be frightened by the prospect) and become terrorists because Balak decides to be tricky again?

Also, I don't think people would generally be more aware of what Balak is capable of anyway because presumably Balak isn't the only one named Balak out there; Batarians may view the whole Balak denouncement thing as a hideous 'sith trick' anyway or perhaps... they want to be terrorists?

I really find this "let's compare the futuristic society and cultures of ME to real-life and draw parallels despite them being weak at best" silly.

I'm not sure if people really care if you find it to be silly to be honest. I don't, because ME obviously draws inspiration from real life events, therefore I think it's appropriate when arguing points in the ME universe because it generally wants to be fairly realistic.

[Xilizhra]

Giving Veetor means that you're friends with Tali. I doesn't mean you aren't tied with Cerberus. It isn't even an anti-Cerberus act: Cerberus and the Migrant Fleet forge ties if you do, which can just as well mean enlightened self-interest for the sake of Cerberus.

True, but it does mean that you're not opposed to the Migrant Fleet. After this, I suppose it's just a matter of how well Shepard can trust Tali to help her on this matter.

And losing sight of the Politician and abandoning his son to this path was Thane's own failing. Not finding Morinth in the club despite knowing she was there, having an obsession over this in the first place, is Samara's own failing. You can just as well argue that either of them should 'get over it' with a proper stirring, intimidating, motivational speach.

For Thane, his initial failing with his son didn't affect the mission you're on right now, and keeping the politician in sight is explicitly Shepard's job. And Samara could never have caught Morinth on her own; she'd bolt, and she's rather better at running than Samara is at catching. Finally, why can't this be explained by them all being different people?

[Temaperacl]

Manic Sheep wrote...

Temaperacl wrote...

No, Legion was a paragon renegade choice. You could choose to reactivate him or hand him over to Cerberus, and you get +15 paragon for reactivating him and +15 renegade for giving him to Cerberus. Also, I was simply addressing the challenge that paragons never get left off the hook, which they clearly do; I'm making no argument about whether renegades get let off the hook or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this between keeping Legion and handing Legion over instead of activating Legion or not? those were two seperate decisions.

Yes but if you hand Legion over to over you can't activate him so what difference does this make?

It makes quite a bit of difference in regards to discussing the potential blowback from paragon vs. renegade decisions since activating it is not itself a paragon or renegade decision. That is, turning Legion over means you cannot activate. Keeping Legion does force you to activate - you can always choose to keep Legion and never activate it.

The fundamental post leading to the post i replied to was

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...
Legion doesn't turn on you when you activate him (even though all the other Geth you ever run into are hostile).

When discussing paragon vs. renegade, the discussion would have to be on the relative costs vs. risks of keeping Legion vs. turning it over to Cerberus (including, if desired, the risks of unintentional activation in both cases) as opposed to the merits/dangers of intentional activation of it which is, in and of itself, not a paragon or renegade decision.