yorkj86 wrote...
@Kyrene,
You've only restated the problem.
That's a little bit dismissive, don't you think?
Jack says "No," and because she doesn't respond violently to him insisting, that makes his advances alright? Implications unpleasant.
The level of violence of her response is immaterial (granted, I used hyperbole in my argument) and should not be used as a straw man. Reduced it comes down to him respecting her saying "No," right?
Where does Shepard get off, treating this as a game, and Jack as someone to be poked and prodded until she yields a positive response?
Does he really? Let's try an analogy: where does a GP get off, poking and prodding and making you say "Aaaah"? Yes, he's no psychologist, but at the very least he's entitled to prodding her as a friend/concerned individual at that point. It's very definately not a game to him.
Even if he does help Jack, he's not entitled to a positive response.
It's not because of the response that he's doing it. The prodding is just more helping. Risky helping, but does one avoid the risk entirley and just let a broken/hurt person like Jack be, hoping she'll eventually 'snap out of it' by herself? Shepard is Jack's best therapist, and if he loves her/is interested in her at that point, he's the best protection against her past she could ever hope for. He won't allow her to wallow.
This is why I think the friendship path (if we can even call it that) is superior to, or, at the least, less creepy than, the romance path.
Where does the distinction come in? Only choosing neutral options in dialogue? Or only choosing it in that specific dialogue?
Glad we can agree that the whole thing is creepy.
No we don't. I think it's good creepy and you think it's bad.