44 réponses à ce sujet

[xzxzxz701]

ElectricZ wrote...

Didn't Samara effectively give herself a pass when joining Shepard, telling him until the mission was done that "his code was her code?"

Not sure what that means for Shepards who did Arrival after the Collector Base mission, but it seems like he's got a green light to do pretty much anything as long as she's bound to him.

Be one helluva "decision" point in ME3, though, if you have to face down a pissed off Justicar who used to be your friend as a result... That's the kind of no-win decision I know Bioware can pull off when they put their minds to it...

She said your morals are her morals, until the mission is over, and that if you make her do anything unjust or if she sees you do anything unjust, she will have to kill you after the mission. Even if Shep did do it to stop the Reapers, the code would tell Samara to kill Shep because he killed innocents. Now, since Shep can ba an honorable Paragon and Shep and Samara can be friends/almost romance, I would like to see if her emotions about what you did stop her from killing to in ME3.

[Raven_26]

Or she may let Shepard be, if s/he tells Hackett that s/he will stand trail after the reapers / collector threat is over. Or was it just the mission s/he is on now?

[xzxzxz701]

thurmanator692 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

She's killed innocents to get to Morinth because they helped her, because her code compelled her. Shepard was compelled to blow up the relay to stop the reaper menace which Samara knows about so She's got nothing to worry about in terms of Samara.

Incorrect. Samara killed murderers to get to Morinth. When she's telling the story about her trying to kill Nylis she says that he got away but puting an innocent life in danger and she could either catch him or save the innocent her code forced her to save the innocent.

Shepard allowed hundreds of thousands of innocents to die to try and stop his enemy... if I'm not completely wrong he might have done the exact opposite of what her code would tell her to do.

She told a story of how she had to destroy a village and all the inhabitans because Morinth had used them to cover her escape. Killing 300,500 to save several trillion is something she would do in that very situation.

No, its not. Those people worrshiped Morinth, and sacraficed Asari children to her. When Samara arrived, the people attacked her so she was forced to kill them to defend herself. If Samara was not bound by a code to Shep, she would be forced to try to kill him.

[Firewolf99]

It seems to be a moot point about what Samara can do pre end of ME3, as her mission appears to not be over untill then, and she cannot harm Shepard untill then, whatever her code says.

More interesting is the idea of her turning on you post reaper death because of your actions. Now that could make for an interesting ending.

[xzxzxz701]

thurmanator692 wrote...

xzxzxz701 wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

She's killed innocents to get to Morinth because they helped her, because her code compelled her. Shepard was compelled to blow up the relay to stop the reaper menace which Samara knows about so She's got nothing to worry about in terms of Samara.

Incorrect. Samara killed murderers to get to Morinth. When she's telling the story about her trying to kill Nylis she says that he got away but puting an innocent life in danger and she could either catch him or save the innocent her code forced her to save the innocent.

Shepard allowed hundreds of thousands of innocents to die to try and stop his enemy... if I'm not completely wrong he might have done the exact opposite of what her code would tell her to do.

She told a story of how she had to destroy a village and all the inhabitans because Morinth had used them to cover her escape. Killing 300,500 to save several trillion is something she would do in that very situation.

No, its not. Those people worrshiped Morinth, and sacraficed Asari children to her. When Samara arrived, the people attacked her so she was forced to kill them to defend herself. If Samara was not bound by a code to Shep, she would be forced to try to kill him.

He/she did nothing unjust. especially if shepard tried to warn the colonists

Even if Shep did try to warn the colonists, he still caused the death of 300,000 innocents, and in Samaras eyes that is unjust, and Shep must die for it.

[Thompson family]

Just curious, but have any of us read -- much less memorized -- the more than 5,000 sutras of the Justicar code?

None of us in this discussion know what we're talking about. Just throwing that out there.

[xzxzxz701]

Thompson family wrote...

Just curious, but have any of us read -- much less memorized -- the more than 5,000 sutras of the Justicar code?

None of us in this discussion know what we're talking about. Just throwing that out there.

True, but its not rocket science to know that killing 300,000 innocent people, even if it was to stop a greater threat, will be seen as bad to somebody who follows a black and white code thats sole purpose of being there is to protect the innocent and punish the unjust.

[Dominus]

[quote]Just curious, but have any of us read -- much less memorized -- the more than 5,000 sutras of the Justicar code?[/quote]

None of us in this discussion know what we're talking about. Just throwing that out there.[/quote]
Well, I memorized the kama sutra, that helped in the romance scene.

But yes, saying we know the exact moral structure of a fictional character created by Bioware's writing team is a bit much.

Modifié par DominusVita, 30 mars 2011 - 09:59 .

[Werrf]

xzxzxz701 wrote...
True, but its not rocket science to know that killing 300,000 innocent people, even if it was to stop a greater threat, will be seen as bad to somebody who follows a black and white code thats sole purpose of being there is to protect the innocent and punish the unjust.

No, it's an assumption.

Unless we know the Justicar code, we can't say what the code would say about this.  This wasn't an act of murder, it was an act of war; does the Justicar code cover unavoidable collateral damage in warfare?  It seems likely that it would, but of course we can't know for sure because we don't know the Code.

[jamesp81]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

She's killed innocents to get to Morinth because they helped her, because her code compelled her. Shepard was compelled to blow up the relay to stop the reaper menace which Samara knows about so She's got nothing to worry about in terms of Samara.

Incorrect. Samara killed murderers to get to Morinth. When she's telling the story about her trying to kill Nylis she says that he got away but puting an innocent life in danger and she could either catch him or save the innocent her code forced her to save the innocent.

Shepard allowed hundreds of thousands of innocents to die to try and stop his enemy... if I'm not completely wrong he might have done the exact opposite of what her code would tell her to do.

Those 300,000 batarians were dead either way.

The Code compels Samara to protect innocents.  Letting the Reapers into the system is not protecting innocents, Batarian or otherwise.  Destroying the relay kills some innocents but saves trillions more.  Her Code probably compels her to destroy the relay.

[jamesp81]

Werrf wrote...

xzxzxz701 wrote...
True, but its not rocket science to know that killing 300,000 innocent people, even if it was to stop a greater threat, will be seen as bad to somebody who follows a black and white code thats sole purpose of being there is to protect the innocent and punish the unjust.

No, it's an assumption.

Unless we know the Justicar code, we can't say what the code would say about this.  This wasn't an act of murder, it was an act of war; does the Justicar code cover unavoidable collateral damage in warfare?  It seems likely that it would, but of course we can't know for sure because we don't know the Code.

That actually might be one of the issues with the Code.  The Code is a body of law and functions like a legal code, with the Justicar being the person who enforces the Code.  The problem is, legal mechanisms are ill-equipped to deal with issues of open warfare.

[AquamanOS]

We don't know how the code would view an unwinnable situation like that. There was no black and white solution, those colonists were dead either way. Allowing the Reapers to invade just to give the colonists a few more hours of life isn't particularly just either.

Best guess is the paragon option is how the code would best handle that. Blow the relay, try to get the colonists to safety too. Shepard failed to do that but Shepard tried anyway, which is probably enough. I don't think the code blames innocent deaths if you try to prevent them but fail anyway. If that were true Samara would have failed the code repeatedly due to all the death Morinth caused because she was able to keep escaping for 400 years. Only intent.

[Aelia]

jamesp81 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

She's killed innocents to get to Morinth because they helped her, because her code compelled her. Shepard was compelled to blow up the relay to stop the reaper menace which Samara knows about so She's got nothing to worry about in terms of Samara.

Incorrect. Samara killed murderers to get to Morinth. When she's telling the story about her trying to kill Nylis she says that he got away but puting an innocent life in danger and she could either catch him or save the innocent her code forced her to save the innocent.

Shepard allowed hundreds of thousands of innocents to die to try and stop his enemy... if I'm not completely wrong he might have done the exact opposite of what her code would tell her to do.

Those 300,000 batarians were dead either way.

The Code compels Samara to protect innocents.  Letting the Reapers into the system is not protecting innocents, Batarian or otherwise.  Destroying the relay kills some innocents but saves trillions more.  Her Code probably compels her to destroy the relay.

^ This.  Black and white logic means Shepard didn't kill anyone in this instance.  Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that Shepard did not "kill" 300,000 Batarians.  S(he) crashed an asteroid into the relay.  The deaths were an unfortunate INDIRECT consequence, but it's not like s(he) crashed the asteroid into the planet, which would have been a direct act. 

In fact, I could argue that Samara's code would required the action, if indeed it requires affirmative action to protect innocents regardless of war time considerations. 

The 300,000 are already a loss because there is no way to stop the Reapers from arriving in that system, but additional innocents are at risk if the relay remains functional.  Additionally, prior to the actual collision it was not a certainty that a supernova would result as no one had ever tried to destroy one before.  So there was still the slim chance that the collision could cause the relay to stop functioning properly without it's complete destruction and resulting supernova.  It was the best calculated risk Shepard could take, and the ONLY one that protects additional loss of life.

[sg1fan75]

You had no real choice in the Arrival DLC as to the outcome so it would not and should not have repercussions with Samara, I still tried to warn them about the danger but that again was blocked. I generally try to take the Paragon story path most of the time.

[game-zerox]

Whatever people think, I'm hoping for a Samara boss fight. I'm not really gonna discuss it, but I'll just point out that Samara seem to not care about details of why anyone did action. She didn't seem to care why Nihlus shot an unarmed civilian.

Sure I don't know the code, sure it sounds stupid because these batarians were doomed, but unless warning them is actually a way out of this, I'm for a duel to the death because she won't care for reasoning.

Modifié par game-zerox, 11 octobre 2011 - 01:59 .

[Rifneno]

The justicar code is extremely long and detailed, and Samara says it covers "every possible situation."  We know like 4 sentences of it.  Us saying she should have to do this or that is like picking up an illiterate homeless person in a third world country and questioning them on technicalities of US tax law.  Just... no.