352 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

By friend, I mean "not enemy".

Tali is a friend (my definition of), but the Admiralty Board is also. At least they aren't enemy. You have no right to lie about something to them, for they are not your enemy.

Your definitions prove very fluid indeed. 

Regardless, even on a sliding scale of "more friend than not," I think it stands to reason that as far as where Shepard's loyalties lie, Tali should take precedence over the Admiralty. She provided Shepard with crucial information in Mass Effect 1 that implicated Saren's crimes, and served on the Normandy. Shepard has no such ties at all to the Admiralty. By your own definitions and principles it's still defensible to omit information in Tali's favor to prevent the Admiralty from inflicting emotional harm on her by exiling her from the flotilla.

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:29 .

[Pacifien]

Eddo36 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
It is always your right to judge governments.

Judging foreign government one thing, acting on it in their jurisdiction another.

Actually, I view the revealing of evidence as judging the government considering you are revealing a secret experiment beind conducted by a member of the Admiralty Board to the public.

[Nightwriter]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I always tell Rael the truth, however, which is a nice way of saving Rael's name and also letting the right people know what really happened.

You mean Han'Gerrol, the admiral that Rael specifically mentions him wanting you to tell about the experiments? Not to mention being a good friend who has every reason to overlook Rael's mistake as you have?

I don't see anything coming of that really. I would have told Qwib Qwib.

I mean Han'Gerrel, the only one I can tell without risking scandals.

[CROAT_56]

Lotsb was in the terminus yet the police on illium followed the orders of that asari Spectre. Spectres have galactic authority and i believe the fleet was in Citadel space.



O.T sorry cant quote on my cellphone

[Cra5y Pineapple]

I'll tell you why, Renegade rant FTW that's why.

And if you don't cover up the fleet becomes really divided and opinionated. Talk to Tali about it afterwards.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:32 .

[Eddo36]

marshalleck wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

By friend, I mean "not enemy".

Tali is a friend (my definition of), but the Admiralty Board is also. At least they aren't enemy. You have no right to lie about something to them, for they are not your enemy.

Your definitions prove very fluid indeed. 

Regardless, even on a sliding scale of "more friend than not," I think it stands to reason that as far as where Shepard's loyalties lie, Tali should take precedence over the Admiralty. She provided Shepard with crucial information in Mass Effect 1 that implicated Saren's crimes, and served on the Normandy. Shepard has no such ties at all to the Admiralty. By your own definitions and principles it's still defensible to omit information in Tali's favor to prevent the Admiralty from inflicting emotional harm on her by exiling her from the flotilla.

That is a long way to just write "ends justify means". Bad methods done for good outcome. Renegade.

And I'm not talking about loyalty, but integrity.

[slxiii]

Eddo36 wrote...

slxiii wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...
2. Friends are people you don't lie to or do anything harmful against.

And here is the paradox.
You can....
1. Lie.
2. Tell the truth, doing harm to tali's name, reputation, feelings etc.

No harm against Tali but her unjust feelings.

And her family name.
And her psyche.
And her people's future.
Your convictions about friendship waver easily, so whatever absolutist code you appear to favor is not applicable in this situation, as it causes a paradox.
The only objective way to measure the decision becomes the end result. Which is more favorable?

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
I mean Han'Gerrel, the only one I can tell without risking scandals.

Why tell him? If you leave it to Tali, she wouldn't.

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

By friend, I mean "not enemy".

Tali is a friend (my definition of), but the Admiralty Board is also. At least they aren't enemy. You have no right to lie about something to them, for they are not your enemy.

Your definitions prove very fluid indeed. 

Regardless, even on a sliding scale of "more friend than not," I think it stands to reason that as far as where Shepard's loyalties lie, Tali should take precedence over the Admiralty. She provided Shepard with crucial information in Mass Effect 1 that implicated Saren's crimes, and served on the Normandy. Shepard has no such ties at all to the Admiralty. By your own definitions and principles it's still defensible to omit information in Tali's favor to prevent the Admiralty from inflicting emotional harm on her by exiling her from the flotilla.

That is a long way to just write "ends justify means". Bad methods done for good outcome. Renegade.

And yet, it's the Paragon option in game. 

And you are indeed talking about loyalty, or you would not have repeatedly invoked "enemy status" as a defense against justifiably lying to someone. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:34 .

[Eddo36]

Pacifien wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
It is always your right to judge governments.

Judging foreign government one thing, acting on it in their jurisdiction another.

Actually, I view the revealing of evidence as judging the government considering you are revealing a secret experiment beind conducted by a member of the Admiralty Board to the public.

I was just stating that you can judge (just for example scenario purposes) China is bad because it's communist
and suppress free speech (won't get into real debate here, just example). You can judge them all you want in your own head. But when you go to their country, you follow their rules. That is all.

[snfonseka]

Eddo36 wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming...

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter...

Even if friend's need is unjust.

Justice is a variable, different view points/ different opinions. Ones justice is others not. Ones hero is others villain. 

Basically we all are acting upon our feeling that ...

Not variable in this case. Hiding the truth from the official authority. Pretty black and white.

May be for you but not for me. For me it is gray. For me revealing the truth doesn’t generate any positive outcomes. There is nothing good to gain from revealing the truth. So my Shep didn’t see any reason to comply with Talis’ request.

Modifié par snfonseka, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:35 .

[Pacifien]

CROAT_56 wrote...
Lotsb was in the terminus yet the police on illium followed the orders of that asari Spectre. Spectres have galactic authority and i believe the fleet was in Citadel space.

Illium is on the edge of the Terminus, but considered to be in Citadel Space. Thus the following of Spectre orders. As for the Quarian Fleet, they are not a Citadel race and under no obligation to uphold Citadel law.

Modifié par Pacifien, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:35 .

[Eddo36]

slxiii wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

slxiii wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...
2. Friends are people you don't lie to or do anything harmful against.

And here is the paradox.
You can....
1. Lie.
2. Tell the truth, doing harm to tali's name, reputation, feelings etc.

No harm against Tali but her unjust feelings.

And her family name.
And her psyche.
And her people's future.
Your convictions about friendship waver easily, so whatever absolutist code you appear to favor is not applicable in this situation, as it causes a paradox.
The only objective way to measure the decision becomes the end result. Which is more favorable?

Even if those harm was done (unlikely), it's not the truth that cause harm but how those Quarians handle the truth. If they can't handle the truth, they got bigger problems with their government/culture.

Integrity goes to higher authority of the land. Those who aren't your enemy. And by enemy, you can't just point and say "You're my enemy." when they haven't done anything hostile towards you. It's about revealing the truth, not just the good but the bad news too. That's how integrity differs from loyalty.

Modifié par Eddo36, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:39 .

[marshalleck]

Is this thread an example of Lawful Stupid?

[Pacifien]

marshalleck wrote...
Is this thread an example of Lawful Stupid?

Thanks.

[Eddo36]

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I also consider condeming...

Theres what you know. and what you can prove. This is your justice,therefor justice was served at Tali's trail.

Condemning his life is up to the Quarians. The truth is said and nothing false stated. As I said, what they do with the truth is up to them. They will be the ones unjust. Just the truth be told, that is my justice.

It’s your justice but that doesn’t mean others’ actions are wrong in this matter...

Even if friend's need is unjust.

Justice is a variable, different view points/ different opinions. Ones justice is others not. Ones hero is others villain. 

Basically we all are acting upon our feeling that ...

Not variable in this case. Hiding the truth from the official authority. Pretty black and white.

May be for you but not for me. For me it is gray. For me revealing the truth doesn’t generate any positive outcomes. There is nothing good to gain from revealing the truth. So my Shep didn’t see any reason to comply with Talis’ request.

I've stated what there is to be gain near beginning of thread.

There is nothing to lose but Tali's unjust feelings.

[Eddo36]

marshalleck wrote...

Is this thread an example of Lawful Stupid?

Lawful Neutral.

[Nightwriter]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I mean Han'Gerrel, the only one I can tell without risking scandals.

Why tell him? If you leave it to Tali, she wouldn't.

I suppose because I want someone there who could at least potentially act against Xen if she tries to use Rael's research, which we know she will. I don't want Xen to be the only one who knows the truth.

Really, if there was a way to reveal the truth without Rael becoming an absolute disgraced monster in the eyes of the people, I'd reveal the truth. For the people to say "okay Rael made a serious mistake, not cool" is good. For them to say "he is the worst criminal in quarian history and his name shall live on in disgrace forever" is a bit much.

[Pacifien]

Yeah, so I don't like having to moderate threads for which I am actively participating, so consider this a suggestion from a fellow forumite that you trim your quotes. Because I'm reading the same thread as you, I don't need five posts quoted back at me.

[Eddo36]

Yes, Xen is going to do something nasty about it by ME3. I've seen the email.

[Eddo36]

Pacifien wrote...

Yeah, so I don't like having to moderate threads for which I am actively participating, so consider this a suggestion from a fellow forumite that you trim your quotes. Because I'm reading the same thread as you, I don't need five posts quoted back at me.

Understood.

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Is this thread an example of Lawful Stupid?

Lawful Neutral.

Nah, I think I've got it pegged. 

By the way, I meant to ask earlier but I forgot. Going back to the comment about Jews hiding in an attic and your response: why would a Gestapo sypmathizer, or someone who allies themselves with Gestapo, knowingly harbor Jews in their attic? 

You make no sense. 

[CROAT_56]

They say multiple times that theyre in the terminus which doest follow council law so they can have red sand, indentured servitude, and other relaxed laws. Just because they are not a council race doesnt mean they dont have to follow the rules when ther fleet is in or near council space. Thats like saying a batarian flagged ship can capture slaves in council space because there not a counil race.

[Eddo36]

marshalleck wrote...

Nah, I think I've got it pegged. 

By the way, I meant to ask earlier but I forgot. Going back to the comment about Jews hiding in an attic and your response: why would a Gestapo sypmathizer, or someone who allies themselves with Gestapo, knowingly harbor Jews in their attic? 

You make no sense. 

I missed "Gestapo". That is all.

Modifié par Eddo36, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:47 .

[marshalleck]

Eddo36 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Nah, I think I've got it pegged. 

By the way, I meant to ask earlier but I forgot. Going back to the comment about Jews hiding in an attic and your response: why would a Gestapo sypmathizer, or someone who allies themselves with Gestapo, knowingly harbor Jews in their attic? 

You make no sense. 

I missed "Gestapo". That is all.

But regardless you had to understand the context and implication of the question in order to answer it. Why would someone who views an arguably corrupt and immoral state as a legitimate authority, surreptitiously act against its interests in the first place?

See, what makes this premise Lawful Stupid is that you immediately defer to whomever is claiming authority, regardless of their merit, intent, or legitimacy. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:54 .