483 réponses à ce sujet

[YuriMk.III]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

If she turns out to be SUPER IMPORTANT, I'll rage as once again the renegade choice will be punished.

Not that I wish to offend you or anything, but it's called 'replay value'.

[Xeranx]

You're right Yuri. Not that I want to bring the paragon/renegade debate here, but nothing stops you from making different choices in both games.

[WorpeX]

I thought pretty much everyone had a renegade and a paragon playthrough...

[Xeranx]

I can't bring myself to choose the renegade option on Shiala. Even if I had a Shepard that makes renegade decisions he/she is not a cold-blooded murderer or a murderer at all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder.

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder.

I suppose you don't believe in the right to a fair trial?

[Xeranx]

Dean we're not doing this again. =)

[Eurhetemec]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder.

She didn't do that, though. That is not what happened in ME1, so saying that it is, to not put too fine a point on it, intentionally misleading people. Though probably out of forgetting the plot of ME1 rather than malice.

What happened is the Benezia thought she could stop Saren from the inside, and let her followers who were willing to risk it stay with her. Shiala was one of those followers, and, of course, became indoctrinated.

This isn't up for debate, nor is your claim a viable interpretation of the facts:

http://masseffect.wi...triarch_Benezia

Saren was a thoroughly unpleasant individual before meeting Sovereign, but he wasn't a "genocidal madman", and is not meaningfully worse than a hard-Renegade Ruthless-origin Shepard in terms of his known actions (again, before meeting Sovereign). Wanting to "humble" humanity is not the same as wanting to commit genocide. hard-Renegade Shepard can express similar sentiments towards the other races, particularly in ME1.

Of course shooting Shiala might be the "right" option, but if so, it's not for the reasons you suggest, it's because no-one is recorded as having successfully fought off indoctrination permanently. Though I rather suspect the Thorian's spores might effectively reverse or counteract indoctrination, and this might be plot point in ME3. Certainly the Thorian itself is fascinating in that it lived through the Reapers coming for the Protheans, despite being on the same planet as Protheans who were destroyed by them. Presumably they either didn't realize what it was (as it has no technology, and sleeps much of the time), or thought it was no threat.

[Feanor_II]

Just 2 things:
- In ME1 she could die.
- In the "default" sotry for PS3 she is dead (I belive)

So I think that the most she will do is a cameo.

[Omega Torsk]

YuriMk.III wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...

If she turns out to be SUPER IMPORTANT, I'll rage as once again the renegade choice will be punished.

Not that I wish to offend you or anything, but it's called 'replay value'.

Yeah, just like all renegades didn't take into account that killing the rachni queen will come back to bite them in the arse (less allies in the Reaper War). Really, if you're heartless enough to gun someone down that just helped you, you deserve to get one less squadmate in the third game (or lose an important plot element).

Feanor_II wrote...

- In the "default" sotry for PS3 she is dead (I belive)

So I think that the most she will do is a cameo.

We don't know that. Bioware could re-write this for ME3 (just like they did for Garrus in ME2 if you never recruited him in ME1) for PS3 players exclusively. As to her fate, we don't know (since she doesn't even appear in the interactive comic). Conrad Verner doesn't appear in the ME2 file of one of my Femsheps (because I used a neutral response on him instead of paragon/renegade), that doesn't mean he's dead...

Modifié par Omega Torsk, 27 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[Siansonea]

Shooting Shiala is simply wrong. If you think she needs to "pay for her crimes" or whatever, arrest her. Hand her over to the Exogeni people until the Alliance can pick her up and take her into custody. Or hand her over to the Zhu's Hope colonists. Yes, keeping an asari commando in custody could be tricky, but it's not impossible. But killing her out of hand? Pure douchebag macho BS. She surrendered. Killing surrendering prisoners is pretty much wrong. Especially after they just gave you a valuable piece of intel that you may need to have verified by a third party. Someone like your own asari Prothean expert. Heck, Shepard could have put Shiala in the "brig" on the Normandy, and took her to the Citadel to have the Council decide her fate. But in no case should she have been killed simply for being indoctrinated.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 27 juin 2011 - 05:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder

I suppose you don't believe in the right to a fair trial?

We're talking about a setting in which the ruling government has
codified legal unaccountability and extrajudicial powers for its agents. Not to put too fine a point in in, but neither the Council nor the Alliance really cares about that.

Define 'fair trial' for someone who's caught red handed and admits to having volunteered to join in someone else's malevolent machinations.

[Siansonea]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder

I suppose you don't believe in the right to a fair trial?

We're talking about a setting in which the ruling government has
codified legal unaccountability and extrajudicial powers for its agents. Not to put too fine a point in in, but neither the Council nor the Alliance really cares about that.

Define 'fair trial' for someone who's caught red handed and admits to having volunteered to join in someone else's malevolent machinations.

So, killing an unarmed captive who has surrendered, that's okay? That's not in any way wrong? Really?

[Dean_the_Young]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder.

She didn't do that, though. That is not what happened in ME1, so saying that it is, to not put too fine a point on it, intentionally misleading people. Though probably out of forgetting the plot of ME1 rather than malice.

What happened is the Benezia thought she could stop Saren from the inside, and let her followers who were willing to risk it stay with her. Shiala was one of those followers, and, of course, became indoctrinated.

This isn't up for debate, nor is your claim a viable interpretation of the facts:

http://masseffect.wi...triarch_Benezia

Why thank you for providing a link which shows that they were indoctrinated after they willingly joined Saren, thus negating indoctrination as any defense for complicity.

There's a legal term that slips my mind at this moment: the principal that certain crimes have a reasonable chance of spiraling out of control into worse consequences even if those themselves weren't intended. It's the reason why, for example, someone who kills a bystander during an armed robbery is guilty of murder: they may not have had prior intent to kill that person in particular, but the consequence of such is reasonable enough to have deterred them in the first place.

Saren was a thoroughly unpleasant individual before meeting Sovereign, but he wasn't a "genocidal madman", and is not meaningfully worse than a hard-Renegade Ruthless-origin Shepard in terms of his known actions (again, before meeting Sovereign). Wanting to "humble" humanity is not the same as wanting to commit genocide. hard-Renegade Shepard can express similar sentiments towards the other races, particularly in ME1.

No, genocidal madman pretty much describes Saren to a T. He thought genocide was necessary to avoid a greater genocide, but genocide it remains.

If Shiala and Benezia misjudged him... that's their mistake, not a change of what Saren was.

Of course shooting Shiala might be the "right" option, but if so, it's not for the reasons you suggest, it's because no-one is recorded as having successfully fought off indoctrination permanently. Though I rather suspect the Thorian's spores might effectively reverse or counteract indoctrination, and this might be plot point in ME3. Certainly the Thorian itself is fascinating in that it lived through the Reapers coming for the Protheans, despite being on the same planet as Protheans who were destroyed by them. Presumably they either didn't realize what it was (as it has no technology, and sleeps much of the time), or thought it was no threat.

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

[Aloren]

Feanor_II wrote...

Just 2 things:
- In ME1 she could die.
- In the "default" sotry for PS3 she is dead (I belive)

So I think that the most she will do is a cameo.

Well, everyone except Liara could die in ME1 or 2... Shiala is probably as likely to be alive as Ash, Kaidan, or Wrex.
And she had no reason to be present in the PS3 version since she wasn't mentioned in the comic... It would be nice if she were a "reward" for those who played all 3 three games though (and don't tell me P3 players would have a lesser experience, they wouldn't even know who she is... and it's pretty common to have "exclusive content"...).

[Dean_the_Young]

Siansonea II wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder

I suppose you don't believe in the right to a fair trial?

We're talking about a setting in which the ruling government has
codified legal unaccountability and extrajudicial powers for its agents. Not to put too fine a point in in, but neither the Council nor the Alliance really cares about that.

Define 'fair trial' for someone who's caught red handed and admits to having volunteered to join in someone else's malevolent machinations.

So, killing an unarmed captive who has surrendered, that's okay? That's not in any way wrong? Really?

First, there is no obligation by the military to accept someone's offer of surrender. Common mistake.

Second, it always depends on the situation of the incident. The ability to keep and maintain a prisoner is, always, important: the mission and troops take priority.

To the Council and authorities of the Mass Effect, they don't care. Infact, they sometimes reward such behavior. So by the culture norms of the Mass Effect universe, the same cultural norms that accept Spectres and Justicars as admirable concepts, it's more or less okay.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xeranx wrote...

Dean we're not doing this again. =)

Apparently we are, since you're still making silly romanticizations of a sequence of events.

[Eurhetemec]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

First, there is no obligation by the military to accept someone's offer of surrender. Common mistake.

Like genocide, failing to accept surrender can quickly become a war-crime. Certainly what Shepard can do there is literally cold-blooded murder, whether you like that or not. It fits the definitions of cold-blooded and murder to a T.

As for your stuff about Benezia, you haven't demonstrated how she attempted to aid Saren in his genocide. All you've done is accept that she joined him in an attempt to stop his post-Sovereign genocide, which invalidates your entire argument.

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Define 'fair trial' for someone who's caught red handed and admits to having volunteered to join in someone else's malevolent machinations.

A trial by a neutral and fair court, conducted so as to accord each party the due process rights required by applicable law; of a criminal trial, that the defendant’s constitutional rights have been respected.

http://law.yourdicti....com/fair-trial

Spectres are allowed to arrest people.
Shiala poses no threat to Shepard.
She is unarmed.
= It is cold-blooded murder.


And caught red handed?

She was the captive of a mind-controlling sentient plant that had been around for 50000 years.

Modifié par Barquiel, 27 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder.

To try to stop him.  Of course, that went awry once Sovereign rearranged everyone's neurons.

I'd call it a case of bad judgment, but not worthy of a bullet to the back of the head.  If there is a judgment to be made on Shiala, it's not my call anyway.  Not sure if Asari have a "jury of your peers" sort of system or not, but whatever they have, that's the proper body to deal with any possible issues there.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

First, there is no obligation by the military to accept someone's offer of surrender. Common mistake.

Like genocide, failing to accept surrender can quickly become a war-crime.

So can killing people. As always, context is important.

Certainly what Shepard can do there is literally cold-blooded murder, whether you like that or not. It fits the definitions of cold-blooded and murder to a T.

Not really.

As for your stuff about Benezia, you haven't demonstrated how she attempted to aid Saren in his genocide. All you've done is accept that she joined him in an attempt to stop his post-Sovereign genocide, which invalidates your entire argument.

Perhaps you missed an entire relevant paragraph about established western legal standards.

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Define 'fair trial' for someone who's caught red handed and admits to having volunteered to join in someone else's malevolent machinations.

A trial by a neutral and fair court, conducted so as to accord each party the due process rights required by applicable law; of a criminal trial, that the defendant’s constitutional rights have been respected.

http://law.yourdicti....com/fair-trial

The Council doesn't have constitutional rights or due process. They have Spectres (you).

Moreover, 'neutral and fair' is quite often subjective: how unbiased a jourey of humans can be against an alien who helped attack a colony of humans is more than a fair question.

Spectres are allowed to arrest people.
Shiala poses no threat to Shepard.
She is unarmed.
= It is cold-blooded murder.

First, Spectres are allowed to do anything. There is no legal limit on what they are allowed to do: they have a license to rape, rob, pillage and burn.

Second, Shiala is a biotic: short of biotic-suppression drugs (which Shepard does not have), Shiala is always effectively armed, and always represents a potential threat, just like anyone holding a gun. They may not be good with a gun. You may have body armor. You may be able to kill them before they harm anyone else. But they are still armed, and they still have the means for exceptional violence.

Biotics are like Magic in dragon age: unless the powers are actively suppressed, there is no such thing as an unarmed biotic.

And caught red handed?

She was the captive of a mind-controlling sentient plant that had been around for 50000 years.

She was an agent in the unprovoked assault and invasion of a Human colony. She'll admit this hereself: that she was sacrificed to the Thorian does not change why she was t here.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 27 juin 2011 - 06:07 .

[General User]

Never, in the history of all military, law enforcement, or intelligence work has one human being been in more dire need of zip ties than our Commander Shepard.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes. Because shooting someone who willingly joined a madman's genocidal campaign is, at its heart, cold-blooded murder.

To try to stop him.  Of course, that went awry once Sovereign rearranged everyone's neurons.

Benezia and Shiala weren't trying to stop Saren. They weren't even trying to betray him if he did something bad.

Benezia's intent was to support Saren, and then use trust and influence she would earn in order to mitigate him later on. But that later influence was always going to be bought by supporting him now. The entire crux of Benezia's plan is that by enabling Saren to do more, she could convince him to do less: while the later is admirable in sentiment and tragic in failure, the first was never an accident.

I'd call it a case of bad judgment, but not worthy of a bullet to the back of the head.  If there is a judgment to be made on Shiala, it's not my call anyway.  Not sure if Asari have a "jury of your peers" sort of system or not, but whatever they have, that's the proper body to deal with any possible issues there.

As the Spectre on a mission, it is your call. Second to that, the Alliance has its own claim to her. Then the Asari.

[Dean_the_Young]

General User wrote...

Never, in the history of all military, law enforcement, or intelligence work has one human being been in more dire need of zip ties than our Commander Shepard.

Very true.

Alternatively, the Cerberus biotic-suppression drug (developed by a front company/supplied by the Alliance) would also have been very, very useful right about then. It would have changed the entire security dynamic from 'hope she doesn't decide to break anything with her mind' to 'disarmed enemy combatant'.