502 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Sajuro wrote...

Anderson saved the galaxy also and risked a great deal to do it.

Nah, not really. If Anderson hadn't been so incompetent back in 2165, Saren would have never gone ahead with his genocidal plans. The truth about Sovereign would have been promptly uncovered and the Galaxy would have been preparing to repel the Reapers once and for all long ago.

And in 2183, Saren would have never made it to the Council Chambers if Shepard hadn't left the Citadel in the first place!

[Dean_the_Young]

Sajuro wrote...

There's a big difference between "She wants to murder the shadow broker and desecrate his rotting corpse" and "she is working for the shadow broker"
Given that TIM says information is his weapon (I think) if he can get something that drastically different that wrong, he might just want to get a new weapon.

And just who is Liara telling that she wants to kill the Shadow Broker? Shepard, perhapse, but Shepard's clearly an exceptional case. Since Liara openly broadcasting and telling her intent would be stupid, for obvious reasons on many levels, her true motivation does have reason not to be known.

On the other hand, what could be known is that Liara's information network is compromised by the Shadow Broker, and at the highest levels. Liara's own right-hand assistent was more or less provided by the Shadow Broker, and while one possibility is that Liara is ignorrant of that fact (which wouldn't speak well of her own in-house management abilities, when your top secretary is another person's agent), another possibility is that she has a Shadow Broker assistent because she's been co-opted, willingly or unwillingly, by the Shadow Broker.

Which, in a sense, she was.


TIM mentions he received a report Liara might be working for the Shadow Broker. Whether this is a bad thing at all is left to the player, while the report itself is not completely correct, it also is not completely wrong either.

[Dean_the_Young]

Bailyn242 wrote...


"My source tell me she's working for the Shadow Broker."

Blatant lie in the very first conversation with him. Factually inaccurate from beginning to end.

What's a lie about it?

That TIM has a source?

That TIM's source tells him that she's working for the Shadow Broker?

Because those are the only two claims TIM, himself, is making. TIM isn't the one making a claim that Liara is working for the Shadow Broker: TIM is relaying someone else's claim, a claim which wasn't completely wrong either.

The only reason it would even be 'manipulative' of Shepard is if Shepard thought the relationship was a problem at all. Shepard doesn't know what the Shadow Broker tried to do with his body. Shepard could see it as a good boon.

Shepard gives a fact (a source's claim), imperfect as it may be, and let's Shepard make his own opinion judgement on it.

[Gnoster]

As I see it both Anderson and TIM wants to get rid of the Reaper threat; they both believe in the existence of the Reapers and acknowledge them as "the ultimate threat to civilization as we know it".

On a personal level my main Shepard has a huge ethical problem with some of the experiments done by Cerberus as they are revealed in ME1, just like he has a huge problem with the way TIM handles certain situations in ME2 (e.g. not telling him about the trap). However when a bigger threat arises he will put those differences aside and acknowledge Cerberus as an ally.

Regarding Anderson my Shepard has always seen him as an ally, and he will continue to see him as an ally and hopefully be able to negotiate a temporary peace between the Alliance/Council and Cerberus in order to combat to bigger threat. This is what freedom fighting is all about in my little world .

If ME3 reveals the events discussed from the novels, then my Shepard will still try to go toward a temporary peace if at all possible. If that is not possible, then given the desperate sitaution, he will side with the one, who in the game will seem to provide him with the best odds of defeating the Reapers.

[Vaenier]

Sajuro wrote...

Does that mean the Turians also helped in saving the galaxy since the Normandy was a joint project? Anderson saved the galaxy also and risked a great deal to do it. So why would you be so protective of TIM when both the Turians and Anderson are also partially responsible for the Normandy's construction and you are willing to let them die. What if you found out that Velarn advocated for the building of the SR-1, would you still make the 'dismiss this' jokes?

Never said the Turians did not help. Why am I willing to let them die? I think you are jumping to wild conclusions based merely on a color.

Also, I have no idea who Velarn is and you are the only one dismissing Cerberus. Anderson had little/nothing to do with its planning and construction.

[Undertone]

Anderson is a tool. All I gotta say. Hopefully I won't be railed against Cerberus in ME3 since my goals are more or less the same. 

Modifié par Undertone, 17 février 2011 - 12:07 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Velam is famous "Ah Yes" Turian Councilor (just for the reference).

I am sure RED ME 3 will go in deeper relations with failberus when BLUE ME 3 will have perhaps something like Cold War between Shepard and tim - not open hostilites but VERY limited "diplomatic" relationship (but perhaps i expect too much from someone like Walters/CHudson<_<). 

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 17 février 2011 - 01:44 .

[Maestro975]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

they nearly perfectly fit the profile of the Ku Klux Klan, which for me makes them an evil organization.  And they have done some very illegal things that I talked about in my previous post.  Oh, I forgot to add that they assassinated a political candidate.  

Get a haircut, hippie. They're not out to exterminate other races. Their goal of human dominance may be somewhat arrogant, but no more arrogant than the GOP agenda of American dominance. And sometimes assassination is neccesary. If you're trying to prevent a en economy-crippling strike, secure a land permit that will enable you to build more houses (or roads that provide better access to said houses), or pass legislation that will create new jobs, and someone is standing in your way for asinine reaons, sometimes the best course of action is to just whack the MF.

Only Mary Sue Goody two-shoe types see Cerberus and Section 31 as "abominations that need to be taken down."

You gotta operate in the gray, the only people who fail to realize this are fools, who are either too sensitive for their own damn good, or foolishly clinging to antiquated religions, mores and folkways.

[Wulfram]

The GOP agenda doesn't include the murder of US soldiers.

[Zulu_DFA]

Maestro975 wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

they nearly perfectly fit the profile of the Ku Klux Klan, which for me makes them an evil organization.  And they have done some very illegal things that I talked about in my previous post.  Oh, I forgot to add that they assassinated a political candidate.  

Get a haircut, hippie. They're not out to exterminate other races. Their goal of human dominance may be somewhat arrogant, but no more arrogant than the GOP agenda of American dominance. And sometimes assassination is neccesary. If you're trying to prevent a en economy-crippling strike, secure a land permit that will enable you to build more houses (or roads that provide better access to said houses), or pass legislation that will create new jobs, and someone is standing in your way for asinine reaons, sometimes the best course of action is to just whack the MF.

Only Mary Sue Goody two-shoe types see Cerberus and Section 31 as "abominations that need to be taken down."

You gotta operate in the gray, the only people who fail to realize this are fools, who are either too sensitive for their own damn good, or foolishly clinging to antiquated religions, mores and folkways.

Lol.

This pretty much sums it all up.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

The GOP agenda doesn't include the murder of US soldiers.

[arguments pointing towards needless wars and pointless American deaths]Really?[/arguments pointing towards needless wars and pointless American deaths]

[Arijharn]

It would so save time if that actually did work as valid html code.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maestro975 wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

they nearly perfectly fit the profile of the Ku Klux Klan, which for me makes them an evil organization.  And they have done some very illegal things that I talked about in my previous post.  Oh, I forgot to add that they assassinated a political candidate.  

Get a haircut, hippie. They're not out to exterminate other races. Their goal of human dominance may be somewhat arrogant, but no more arrogant than the GOP agenda of American dominance. And sometimes assassination is neccesary. If you're trying to prevent a en economy-crippling strike, secure a land permit that will enable you to build more houses (or roads that provide better access to said houses), or pass legislation that will create new jobs, and someone is standing in your way for asinine reaons, sometimes the best course of action is to just whack the MF.

Only Mary Sue Goody two-shoe types see Cerberus and Section 31 as "abominations that need to be taken down."

You gotta operate in the gray, the only people who fail to realize this are fools, who are either too sensitive for their own damn good, or foolishly clinging to antiquated religions, mores and folkways.

There's certainly plenty of validity in an argument that Cerberus should be brought to heel, however.

It's a movement as much as an organization: you could kill every current Cerberus supporter, and the environment and beliefs that birthed it would still exist. It will exist in some form regardless, but while that may be rational not to fixate about it, it certainly doesn't mean it should be allowed to act freely.

Now, however, is not the right time.

[Arijharn]

How exactly are you going to bring Cerberus to 'heel' though? Change who the illusive man is?



If it's because they perform unethical studies, then Isn't the fact that they perform unethical studies one of the main reasons they have an edge? I mean, the Lazarus Project itself could be considered as unethical, if the studies on Pragia (including Jack's own custom bio-amp) actually provided a noticeable increase in human potential for example, isn't that still an edge that couldn't necessarily be bought else wise?

[DPSSOC]

Wulfram wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
They let you run amok in a sector of space they don't care about to chase figments of your imagination.  That's not trust that's getting you the hell away from them.  As long as you're in the Terminus you can't cause trouble for them.  To use a geek reference, that's like saying the US Army trusts the Hulk because they dropped him behind enemy lines.  What they're doing is not a sign of trust, it's them counting on you, in your insanity. causing a lot of damage among people they don't like.  Notice that, for all their supposed trust, they don't give you anything.  No intel gathered on the colonies, no leads, not even as little as access to Spectre requisitions.  All they offer is something you never lost.

They don't seize the Cerberus frigate you just flew into their Citadel, or send the entire crew off for interrogation.  That's a pretty huge concession to start off with.

I suppose I do have to give you that one; though it is possible it falls in line with getting you the hell away from them.

Wulfram wrote...
A Spectre operating in the Terminus systems can cause considerable problems for them.  In ME1 they're concerned that one ship could start a war.

A Spectre openly working for a criminal organization.  Now to many that wouldn't make a difference but the ones the Council needs to be concerned about would probably view Shepard as a rogue (admittedly pure supposition on my part).

Wulfram wrote...
Plus you get a discount at Citadel Souvenirs!  I don't know about you, but my Shepard could never have defeated the collectors without his hamster.

I don't know that that's something we can give to the Council.  I acknowledge the value of the hamster; just don't know if we can credit the Council with getting you the discount.

Wulfram wrote...

Cerberus trusts you with a sizeable investment (the Normandy), one of their top operatives, valuable intel, and even trusts you with recovering info they know can hurt them.  You can chose to throw these things back in their face, but that doesn't change the fact that these are gestures of trust and good faith.

They don't trust you with one of their operatives - they set one of their operatives to watch you.  The Normandy SR2 is riddled with bugs, crewed by people loyal to Cerberus and designed to announce to the world that Shepard is working for Cerberus.

On the operative you're ignoring that they put her in a position where you could get her killed.  If they just wanted her to watch you they wouldn't have made her part of the ground team.  It'd actually make more sense for her to have Kelly's job; unless Kelly is the true top operative sent to watch you but that sends us spiralling into a pit of paranoia that really counter-productive.  It's a compromise; they trust you with the power of life and death over one of their best operatives, but you have to put up with being watched.  Same with the ship, they trust you with the investment, you accept being watched.

I'm not saying it's absolute or blind trust the Cerberus gives you but they still do.

[Casuist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...


"My source tell me she's working for the Shadow Broker."

Blatant lie in the very first conversation with him. Factually inaccurate from beginning to end.

What's a lie about it?

That TIM has a source?

That TIM's source tells him that she's working for the Shadow Broker?

Because those are the only two claims TIM, himself, is making. TIM isn't the one making a claim that Liara is working for the Shadow Broker: TIM is relaying someone else's claim, a claim which wasn't completely wrong either.

The only reason it would even be 'manipulative' of Shepard is if Shepard thought the relationship was a problem at all. Shepard doesn't know what the Shadow Broker tried to do with his body. Shepard could see it as a good boon.

Shepard gives a fact (a source's claim), imperfect as it may be, and let's Shepard make his own opinion judgement on it.

You have, once again, hit upon the very definition of a lie of omission.

[Casuist]

Monochrome Wench wrote...

She was working for the Shadow Broker!

...no she wasn't, and if you actually believe that to be the case, please replay the game or seek out considerable gameplay footage on youtube which will disabuse you of the notion.

[Casuist]

Arijharn wrote...

How exactly are you going to bring Cerberus to 'heel' though? Change who the illusive man is?

If it's because they perform unethical studies, then Isn't the fact that they perform unethical studies one of the main reasons they have an edge? I mean, the Lazarus Project itself could be considered as unethical, if the studies on Pragia (including Jack's own custom bio-amp) actually provided a noticeable increase in human potential for example, isn't that still an edge that couldn't necessarily be bought else wise?

...research subjects are more valuable when they're alive.

Research facilities are more valuable when the inmates don't destroy them.

[jbblue05]

Liara is a Cerberus agent.
no matter how much you hate Cerberus you still can't escape them from helping you stop the Reapers

Modifié par jbblue05, 17 février 2011 - 05:15 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Casuist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...


"My source tell me she's working for the Shadow Broker."

Blatant lie in the very first conversation with him. Factually inaccurate from beginning to end.

What's a lie about it?

That TIM has a source?

That TIM's source tells him that she's working for the Shadow Broker?

Because those are the only two claims TIM, himself, is making. TIM isn't the one making a claim that Liara is working for the Shadow Broker: TIM is relaying someone else's claim, a claim which wasn't completely wrong either.

The only reason it would even be 'manipulative' of Shepard is if Shepard thought the relationship was a problem at all. Shepard doesn't know what the Shadow Broker tried to do with his body. Shepard could see it as a good boon.

Shepard gives a fact (a source's claim), imperfect as it may be, and let's Shepard make his own opinion judgement on it.

You have, once again, hit upon the very definition of a lie of omission.

Except we have nothing to suggest there was an ommission on his part at all, let alone that his alleged selective admission of facts was intended to keep us from contacting Liara (which, should be pointed out, Cerberus soon encourages us to do anyway, thus undermining the claim).

In this case, 'the very definition of a lie of omission' is now so broad as to be useless. Imperfect knowledge is now no longer considered a defense against lying. Nor is anything short of absolute, immediate, and fully accurate disclosure of everything, which no one in the world, let alone in Mass Effect, practices. Pretty much our entire team lies to us 'by omission': Liara until you do some sidequests, Mordin until the Loyalty Mission comes around, Jack about her past, Garrus about what happened and his stealing Collector tissue to send for his mother, Tali about her human-fetish, Samara about Morinth, Kasumi about her relationship with her former partner, Zaeed about his intents for the loyalty mission, Thane about his past. We cam also throw in Hackett (for not letting us know the Alliance was considering abducting us), the Council (for not telling us Spectre status was meaningless symbolism), Wrex (for not telling us about his initial working for Saren), Ash (for not telling us about her Grandfather), and so on. People who, while not lying, didn't necessarily tell us everything that would be relevant or useful for us to know.

Certainly no one on this board abides by your standard of honesty: all arguments are made by presenting facts as one can find them in the most persuasive way possible, and lessening attention to the counter-facts. Like, for example, the list of all the other liars listed above, which you weren't providing. (Or, alternatively, how my post isn't a definition of a lie of omission in any dictionary you'll find. Liar!)

You've established a definition so broad and universal that it's become effectively meaningless.

The thing is, Mass Effect is pretty open about countering lies, of any sort,  and openly. When Anderson lies to us about the Virmire Survivor, he can be confronted. When TIM gives a domonstrated lie of omission about the Collector trap, it's an entire plot point. Hidden truths come out, whether in loyalty missions, character exposition, Shadow Broker files, etc.

Mass Effect is an honest narrative. And TIM is an honest informer: his lies of ommission are the exception, not the norm, as is indicated by the narrative theme of TIM: you can trust what he says, but don't fall into believing implications he doesn't say.

[Zulu_DFA]

jbblue05 wrote...

Liara is a Cerberus agent.

This.

[Casuist]

Except we have nothing to suggest there was an ommission on his part at all, let alone that his alleged selective admission of facts was intended to keep us from contacting Liara (which, should be pointed out, Cerberus soon encourages us to do anyway, thus undermining the claim).

ME: Redemption is pertinent knowledge of which TIM is completely aware.

Hence:
"Liara was fighting with us against the Shadow Broker to recover your body." would be "honesty."

That honesty would directly contradict this "source" (a source which never appears in-game or presents any further evidence of existing beyond TIM's word).

Dean, I have a source that states your computer has a malicious virus. If that's the case, you should really wipe your hard drive and stop abusing the limits of the english language on bioware forums.

When Anderson lies to us about the Virmire Survivor, he can be confronted.

right..... this is a "lie" now? Anderson states flat-out that he can't tell shepard about the Virmire survivor's activities. You've established definitions that have no relationship to common parlance.

Modifié par Casuist, 17 février 2011 - 05:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Casuist wrote...

Except we have nothing to suggest there was an ommission on his part at all, let alone that his alleged selective admission of facts was intended to keep us from contacting Liara (which, should be pointed out, Cerberus soon encourages us to do anyway, thus undermining the claim).

ME: Redemption is pertinent knowledge of which TIM is completely aware.

Hence:
"Liara was fighting with us against the Shadow Broker to recover your body." would be "honesty."

That honesty would directly contradict this "source" (a source which never appears in-game or presents any further evidence of existing beyond TIM's word).

And yet, by ME2, she had a Shadow Broker agent as her top aid. Since relationships do change over time, prior conflict doesn't entail sustained conflict, especially in a field as ever-changing as the espionage field. A lot of people bet on this, even: that Liara will help them take down Cerberus, even though Liara's previous two interactions with Cerberus have been greatly beneficial to her goals.

After ME1, Shepard would become allies with Cerberus. Before ME1, the Humans and Turians fought a war, and yet soon become (uneasy) allies. During ME1 itself, you go from trying to kill Shiala to letting her dig around your head and then take over supervising the colony she helped attack in under five minutes.

Relationships change. Liara fought with Cerberus to help recover the body, but that doesn't mean she couldn't work with him later regardless.

Dean, I have a source that states your computer has a malicious virus. If that's the case, you should really wipe your hard drive and stop abusing the limits of the english language on bioware forums.

Good attempt: now why should I believe you?

That's the question you need to ask. Of course, Mass Effect doesn't always give us the questions to ask such questions. On the other hand, it makes a strong habit of not needing to, and when it would be relevant revealing it directly later.

right..... this is a "lie" now? Anderson states flat-out that he can't tell shepard about the Virmire survivor's activities. You've established definitions that have no relationship to common parlance.

Lie of Omission, of course. That's what classification systems amount to, especially when Anderson will outright admit 'even if I could, I wouldn't have anyway.'

You've already established honesty as admitting to full truth of context: that standard can only be applied to everyone else as well, including Anderson.

[Casuist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And yet, by ME2, she had a Shadow Broker agent as her top aid.

...a fact of which no one is aware until Liara uncovers it with Shepard's assistance.

Since relationships do change over time, prior conflict doesn't entail sustained conflict, especially in a field as ever-changing as the espionage field. A lot of people bet on this, even: that Liara will help them take down Cerberus, even though Liara's previous two interactions with Cerberus have been greatly beneficial to her goals.

...which, even if it were the case, would STILL be relevant information and its omission is still misleading. As it happens, no evidence is ever given of Liara's goals shifting in the least. Invoking a just-so story with no in-game justification is not a compelling defense.

right..... this is a "lie" now? Anderson states flat-out that he can't tell shepard about the Virmire survivor's activities. You've established definitions that have no relationship to common parlance.

Lie of Omission, of course. That's what classification systems amount to, especially when Anderson will outright admit 'even if I could, I wouldn't have anyway.'

A lie of omission, as Mordin exemplifies most admirably, is encountered when the recipient is misled by omission of pertinent facts (e.g. simply studying the genophage vs. altering it). Anderson does not lead Shepard into any false understanding of the VS' activity. There is no lie...

...now, if Anderson had said "he/she is on non-combat duty performing some colonial outreach" - that's a lie of omission... the pertinent information being:

1) mission is in the Terminus
2) mission has to do with the abductions

[Dean_the_Young]

Casuist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And yet, by ME2, she had a Shadow Broker agent as her top aid.

...a fact of which no one is aware until Liara uncovers it with Shepard's assistance.

Correction: a fact Liara and Shepard were not aware. And we aren't even aware Liara isn't aware until we discover her true views and do the quest:.

Cerberus, with its own agents and sources, might have known. We can't say they didn't.

...which, even if it were the case, would STILL be relevant information and its omission is still misleading. As it happens, no evidence is ever given of Liara's goals shifting in the least. Invoking a just-so story with no in-game justification is not a compelling defense.

Sure they did: for monthes until Lair of the Shadow Broker, players were insulted and furious that Liara's goals had shifted from 'helping Shepard' to 'REVENGE', and decried the character change and shift in priorities. Certainly Liara's life and goals shifted significantly between ME1 and ME2.

A lie of omission, as Mordin exemplifies most admirably, is encountered when the recipient is misled by omission of pertinent facts (e.g. simply studying the genophage vs. altering it). Anderson does not lead Shepard into any false understanding of the VS' activity. There is no lie...

...now, if Anderson had said "he/she is on non-combat duty performing some colonial outreach" - that's a lie of omission... the pertinent information being:

1) mission is in the Terminus
2) mission has to do with the abductions

I certainly would have found the investigation into Cerberus, and me, relevant, especially after just having a high-level discussion with Anderson and the Council about those exact concerns.

Since, you know, Shepard is sort of working with Cerberus.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 février 2011 - 06:38 .