1035 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/CaseyDHudson/status/118115496695566336
"Will Ashley have actual armor in Mass Effect 3?”

"Yes, a fem. version of blue Alliance armor we've shown on Kaidan."

OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD

Hot damn thats awesome!

However I will contain my excitement until I see what "female" version means, otherwise I think I am ready to retract my compaints.

The only point of contention left is her hair, but that's fairly minor compared to the armor thing.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 26 septembre 2011 - 12:25 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Nashiktal wrote...

Hot damn thats awesome!

However I will contain my excitement until I see what "female" version means, otherwise I think I am ready to retract my compaints.

The only point of contention left is her hair, but that's fairly minor compared to the armor thing.

Well, since it's Spectre/Alliance issue, I don't think it's going to be "tarted up."  By "female version," they probably just mean "includes form-fitting chestplate."

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Hot damn thats awesome!

However I will contain my excitement until I see what "female" version means, otherwise I think I am ready to retract my compaints.

The only point of contention left is her hair, but that's fairly minor compared to the armor thing.

Well, since it's Spectre/Alliance issue, I don't think it's going to be "tarted up."  By "female version," they probably just mean "includes form-fitting chestplate."

 "Breastplate" I can handle.  As long as it resembles actual armor and not just an indication that she is in fact female;)

And I guess this shows that Ash is not in fact indoctrinated and is not sufffering from mental degradation.

[YouthCultureForever]

[quote] Knightnblu wrote...

That is the problem with inserting your viewpoints into a story. You create what isn't there to begin with. I read the events on Horizon as they were presented and at least try to stay true to type. By overlaying your wants, needs, etc. on the events, a person changes them to reflect his or her own view.[/quote]
I'm an English Major. We are taught to interpret the meaning behind words, actions, situations. We have debates in every class over the "true" meaning of the smallest detail in story. I'm not restructuring the scene. I'm giving you my interpretation. 

Romanced Ashley says, "How could you just turn your back on all of us? You betrayed the Alliance...Anderson. You betrayed me." 

Platonic Ashley says, "You turned your back on everything we stood for."

Those lines mean the same thing. The second statement is just more vague. Both accuse Shepard of personal betrayal alone. It's intimacy that spurs the more expressive response. The luxory status of the relationship emboldens her. You're more than just the old Skipper thus she's more willing to describe in dirty detail your offense. She's gonna let you have it.


[quote]What is salient here isn't whether Ashley could make the connections or not. It is whether she would stay true to the man that she admitted to having loved. She didn't. How is Shepard responsible for that? When you state that it was Shepard who had forgotten the past what do you mean? Where he put his keys before he went on a two year hiatus? I really have no idea what you are speaking about.[/quote]
Is Ashley not allowed to have expectations of Shepard? The breakdown in communication stems from Shepard not understanding Ashley and her expectations of him in this situation. Regardless of Shepard's reasoning she won't accept him working with Cerberus. He should know this about her. It was never going to happen. She would never view Cerberus as an acceptable alternative. Never. Not even worst case senario.

"I know where my loyalties lie. I'm an Alliance soldier. It's in my blood."

She doesn't trust Cerberus and it's Alliance or bust. She isn't going to give Shepard any support on this issue. She expects him stay commited to a system they both valued. That's what matters most to her. He neglects those expectations, lets her down in a big way, and she gets upset.

She can't agree with a comprimised Cerberus construct. She doesn't question Shepard's integrity because she thinks he's being duped. It's not a free pass though. She won't give him her blessing to potentially do Cerberus's bidding.

Romanced Kaiden says it well, "I want to believe you Shepard, but I don't trust Cerberus. They could be using the threat of a Reaper to manipulate you."


[quote]I thought I already had. She is a strong personality. An excellent soldier who is tortured by her family's past and the injustice done to her grandfather. She overcompensates with aggression her feelings of inadequacy and seeks to stand on her own two feet despite the odds or her failures. She cares deeply for her family and thinks of them constantly. She's tough, determined, and fierce in combat. I would go on to say that she is also fiercely loyal, but Horizon changed my mind.[/quote]
I needed to know we were working from the same definition.

I will assert that she is fiercely loyal. To her values and beliefs. She values the Alliance. You defined her yourself as foremost a soldier and it's not a fluke you first defined her by that role. When we think of Ashley, we think soldier. Alliance soldier. 

She has a confrontational personality so she'll attack anything that goes against her foundation. Shepard rejects a key principle of her identity and it's extremely upsetting because she never thought he of all people would. It was his foundation too after all. So she attacks him.

Romanced Kaidan says, "You've turned you back on everything we believed in. You betrayed the Alliance...You betrayed me."

It's the same idea. You turned your back on what we were. What I am. And what you are.
 
[quote]Really? You can't see the parallels between the events on Horizon and what happened to General Williams? The Alliance goes off half cocked and has a case of the ass at Gen. Williams regarding his failure to hold Shanxi. Worse, he surrendered to an alien species. He had no choice, civilians were dying, the Turians dropped rocks on anything that moved. His men were starving and he was out of options. Left with no other choice, he did what he had to do. Contrast that with Shepard.

*snip[/quote]
I won't get into the debate about General Williams because it's just an extension of the professional treason assumption.
 
[/quote][/quote]

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 26 septembre 2011 - 01:33 .

[Volus Warlord]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Hot damn thats awesome!

However I will contain my excitement until I see what "female" version means, otherwise I think I am ready to retract my compaints.

The only point of contention left is her hair, but that's fairly minor compared to the armor thing.

Well, since it's Spectre/Alliance issue, I don't think it's going to be "tarted up."  By "female version," they probably just mean "includes form-fitting chestplate."

"with some heavy duty cleavage exposed.":P

[DarkSpiral]

laecraft wrote...

VS created some emotional turmoil for my Shepard. He got over it, got himself together, moved on, and got back to fight.

He does NOT need to deal with all that crap all over again. He doesn't need old wounds reopened. He doesn't need those words about him being a traitor refreshed just as he's from the trial.

What, exactly, is so priceless about VS that Shepard needs to spend his own emotional reserves on accommodating her? Why not simply get rid of VS? It's a much faster and easier way to deal with the situation, and it doesn't endanger Shepard, who is only human.

You think Ashley isn't going to give Shepard an evil eye for blowing up a batarian system? You think she's going to be okay with that, if she turned her back on him before he did anything remotedly questionable - in fact, after he saved a colony before her very eyes? Think she's not going to throw accusations at him again? And that's after he'd just been judged by the Alliance - and possibly condemned? Think that her presence wouldn't create an potentially dangerous emotional situation?

If she's gone, it's done and over with. If she's constantly present, she's a constant source of emotional danger. She proved herself unreliable once. She can't be trusted again. And it's harder to put behind your ex when she's always before your eyes.

See, Shepard's not a soldier anymore. He's not in army. He's not simply a unit whose job to do what he's told, and suck it up, and just follow orders, and who can be easily replaced if he causes even the slighest bother, and nobody cares how he feels as long as he goes through the paces required of him.

The fate of the entire galaxy depends on Shepard's mental focus, on his emotional stability, on his sharpness, on his ability to properly assess the situation, on his ability to make right decisions on the battlefield at the right time in a fraction of a second. If he gets killed, the galaxy follows. If I can create for him a surroundings as comfortable as possible, and get rid of all the unpleasant distractions, I will.

Besides, Shepard doesn't have a Warrant Officer...he's the one in charge of decisions on his ship. His opinion is the one that matters. He decides who stays, and who goes. One of the perks of all that huge responsibility.

I don't think many of you truly realize what Shepard has been put through. Try to imagine the stress, and the hugeness of demands on his mental and emotional reserves. The stakes are IMMENSE.

He was dead, he came back to life, he was shunned by the entire galaxy, he got labeled and condemned, his former associate calls him a traitor and walks out, he saved humanity when everyone else abandoned them, then he had to blow up an entire system to save the galaxy again, then he got denounced by the Council for it, renounced by the Alliance - which is a lie, the Alliance was involved, then he got brought to the Earth to trial in irons, and now he's possibly facing execution to appease the species who (possibly) murdered his family and friends and nearly murdered him and who nearly destroyed the biggest human colony in space, and then he watched the Earth burn and could do nothing, and the he had to FLEE and leave humanity behind, and he hasn't the slightest idea how to save his own people and the entire galaxy, because the enemy is just too strong, and the enitre galaxy is falling apart in front of him, and things seem hopeless, and he feels completely helpless, but he must do something, and he must concentrate, and he must fight.

AND YOU'RE TELLING HIM TO SUCK IT UP AND DEAL WITH IT?

If I can give him a bath of rose petals every evening and provide him with the beautiful companions, I will do it. And if there's a single easily replaceable soldier on his crew who shows even the slightest disapproval of him and who can even potentially distress him and cause his concentration slip, I will get rid of them in an instant. Oh, and if I must sing Shepard a lullaby every night to make sure he sleeps without nightmares, I'll do it too. Everything to make sure he stays peaceful and calm.

The whole freaking galaxy is at stake! Don't you see how very wrong it is to risk even the slighest emotional turmoil to the only person who can save us all? You never saw hardened men survive the impossible fights and then fall apart because their beloved turned on them? A word kills more surely than a bullet does.

In fact, I'll do just about everything to keep Shepard happy and content in his little haven. He needs to draw strength from somewhere. He needs a place to take a breath, where he's not constantly on guard. Because he's walking the nightmare when he's awake, and he's waging a war against the impossible enemy. He needs every single bit of his mental and emotional reserves. He cannot afford to spend even the slightest amount on warring with his own people. If I can, I will surround him only with people who provide him comfort, support, positive emotions, and happiness.

Ashley is not one of those. And I simply don't care about how she feels anymore, after she pulled that stunt on Horizon. I don't care what she believes in. I don't care what her reasons are. I don't care if she's desperate, angry, or vindictive. I don't care what thoughts are going through her head. All I care about is getting her out of my way. The galaxy doesn't depend on her emotional stability. Shepard's emotions take priority to me. She doesn't matter for the survival of the trillions. And she's just one person who has no say, who refused to have a say when she was offered that chance. One person vs. trillions.

Simple math, guys.

EDIT: Consider me Shepard's Warrant Officer.

Wow.  Laecraft, with complete sincerity, I think you take this stuff to seriously.  It's just a video game.  NONE of the events in the Mass Effect series are serious, because none of them are real.

It's fanatastic that you put all this into such perspective, and your interpretation of the situation givee me interesting insights to chew on.  I'm just saying that you coudl take it down a notch.

Unless of course all that was supposed to be In Character.  In which case: Good for you!  That was awesome stuff.

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 26 septembre 2011 - 09:55 .

[knightnblu]

YouthCultureForeversaid - "I'm an English Major. We are taught to interpret the meaning behind words, actions, situations. We have debates in every class over the "true" meaning of the smallest detail in story. I'm not restructuring the scene. I'm giving you my interpretation."
 
Allow me to clarify my previous position. It is impossible to prevent the mingling of our perceptions with the outside world. What this means is that each of us, myself included, view the world, stories, games, etc. through the prism of our individual life experiences, education, and beliefs. As such, it is not uncommon for three people to read a story and have three different perspectives.
 
That having been said, it is also human nature to insert theses perspectives into what we interpret in order to reinforce our beliefs about it and ignore those points that disagree with our own. This process is known as subjective bias. This is what I was referencing when I spoke earlier. There are many examples of subjective bias in the literary world. For example, Kurt Vonnegut often complained about the varied interpretations of his work because most often they were incorrect. Not to be outdone by the creator of the work, the critics said that he had no idea what he was talking about.
 
That was my point.
 
 
"Is Ashley not allowed to have expectations of Shepard? The breakdown in communication stems from Shepard not understanding Ashley and her expectations of him in this situation. Regardless of Shepard's reasoning she won't accept him working with Cerberus. He should know this about her. It was never going to happen. She would never view Cerberus as an acceptable alternative. Never. Not even worst case senario.

"I know where my loyalties lie. I'm an Alliance soldier. It's in my blood."

She doesn't trust Cerberus and it's Alliance or bust. She isn't going to give Shepard any support on this issue. She expects him stay commited to a system they both valued. That's what matters most to her. He neglects those expectations, lets her down in a big way, and she gets upset."
 
Ah, we have arrived at my second favorite meme, the "let the bastards die" meme. While Williams is celebrated for her hard position on allowing the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, in order to remain true to the Alliance and her hatred of Cerberus, I see it as a flaw in her character.
 
I tend to see issues in black or white in relation to my morality. This means that a situation is either compliant or it is not. However, such a rigid moral perspective cannot cover all of the bases, so to speak. One prime example is Shepard's position in ME2. Essentially, he faces Hobson's Choice, help the colonists or allow them to die.
 
Ashley would have said "bye." Shepard, cannot. While many praise Williams for her tenacity in holding to her values, I find such judgments to be morally reprehensible. If the greater good is ignored then humanity as a whole suffers for it. Where Williams would gladly (theoretically at least) send innocent civilians to their deaths, Shepard is not willing to be so cold and he is criticized harshly for it.
 
You may object and offer Bahak as an example of Shepard taking a similar position as Williams, but you would be mistaken there as well. While it is certainly true that Shepard consigned more than 304,000 innocent men, women, and children to their deaths, he did so in service to the greater good. Had Shepard not destroyed the relay, it is conceivable that trillions may have perished in the Reaper assault on the galaxy.
 
This is not to say that people should be looked at in economic terms. The world has taken that path before and it is a deadly one. No, what I speak of is something far different. It is doing the best that you can in a totally fouled up situation. In such a circumstance, there are no "correct" answers. You simply do the best that you can and live with the consequences.
 
Shepard has the guts to do that even while Williams will not. As I have remarked before she is a decent NCO, but as a member of the officer corps she has a lot to learn. Further, because Williams no longer trusts Shepard and believes him to be radicalized then she will view the events on Bahak as confirmation of this belief. It is the only logical outcome because of the path that BioWare has taken. In effect, they have painted themselves into a corner.
 
This is why I and others have to believe that there is another shoe that is waiting to fall intentionally or not. What that will be and how it will transpire, is anybody's guess. I suspect that it will be integral to the ME3 story because no DLC was issued to rectify the rift created between Shepard and Williams.
 
If they take the "Ashley is always right because she is female" option and make all of this Shepard's fault just 'cause, I am going to puke and then take the renegade option and tell her to shove it where the sun doesn't shine followed by GTFOMS. I would rather fly on a garbage scow than aboard the Normandy with her on it under those circumstances. Hell, I would rather use public shuttles rather than to have her aboard my ship. On the other hand for those who prefer the milquetoast approach, I have no problem with the installation of that dialog option for them as long as it is clear what you are choosing.
 
 
"I won't get into the debate about General Williams because it's just an extension of the professional treason assumption."
 
 
Isn't that sort of saying that you reject that the sky is blue because you would rather call it yellow? Ignoring the facts does not make them disappear. I am aware of your argument and I find it to be shaky at best. From psychology, interrogation, deception detection, and from life experience perspectives, you mention what is first in your mind first. One can posit that 2+2=5, but that can never be true because one wills it so. Just as wishing for the sky to change it's color to yellow can never happen because of the laws of physics.
 
Opinion is a fine thing, but it will always get you into trouble regarding hard reasoning. Other posters have articulated arguments that have caused me to change my perspective and to modify my arguments. Granted, nobody has articulated an argument to make me abandon my main stance yet, but I don't discount that possibility. In essence I have an open mind, it just isn't so open that my brains fall out. Although, I admit that there are likely those who would argue that that has already happened.
 
Why not give it a shot under the premise of a hypothetical?

[Xilizhra]

Ashley would have said "bye." Shepard, cannot. While many praise Williams for her tenacity in holding to her values, I find such judgments to be morally reprehensible. If the greater good is ignored then humanity as a whole suffers for it. Where Williams would gladly (theoretically at least) send innocent civilians to their deaths, Shepard is not willing to be so cold and he is criticized harshly for it.

Actually, given that Ashley didn't share Shepard's experiences, we can't know this. Maybe she'd like to think it, but if she lived it, she may well see it differently. Realizing this is probably one of the reasons she apologizes.

If they take the "Ashley is always right because she is female" option

Given that Shepard can be female and the odds of Ashley revealing bisexuality in ME3 seem relatively high, I doubt it.

[knightnblu]

Xilizhra said - ""If they take the "Ashley is always right because she is female" option
Given that Shepard can be female and the odds of Ashley revealing bisexuality in ME3 seem relatively high, I doubt it."
 
Didn't think of it that way, but good point.

[alperez]

Knight

The problem i have with the position you take is that you look at horizon only from Shepard's perspective, you ignore Ash's reasoning and justifications because from Shepard's perspective they're wrong.

Basically rather than analyse the situation from both perspectives which would allow you to understand both povs, you place yourself completely in Shepards position which while it is roleplaying, it doesn't allow complete understanding of the encounter imo.

You take Ash's actions as a personal affront because your so wrapped up in how your Shepard would react that it doesn't allow you to judge the situation from any other position.

You say i and other continually harp on about Ash's emotional state and that we don't take Shepards into consideration, that we treat Shepard as if he's made of stone,

This is probably true in my case, simply because on horizon he may as well be, its the lack of emotional empathy that creates the rift i keep harping on about.

Shepard's meeting up with someone he loved who for 2 years has believed him to be dead, has grieved for him, tried to get over the loss etc, etc. Someone who's hurt by what she now see's as a betrayal of the relationship they shared, how does Shepard react to this, does he comfort her, does he show that he too cared about her, no he acts as if its just another person he's meeting.

He shows less emotion with the person he supposedly loves than he does when meeting Wrex, made of stone doesn't do him justice.

You see you refuse to accept Shepard being at fault because your roleplaying the role that strenously that this would mean you yourself are at fault, so if its not Shepard and definetly not you then it must mean that its Ash who's at fault.

Your second point regarding what i said about Ash being a woman scorned, again you completely disregard the perceived wrongness Ash feels about shepard's actions concerning her and instead concentrate on his actions concerning the universe.

The fact that Shepard is doing the right thing for the right reason doesn't or shouldnt enter into your understanding of Ash's position but because like i've said your so wrapped up in roleplaying your shepard, you completely ignore Ash's position and concentrate entirely on Shepard's.

We know what shepard is doing and why he's doing it, we know he's only recently awoke from his coma, we know that working with cerberus is the only option available to him and that he did try to find Ash once he awoke.

Ash does not, she believes he's been alive for 2 years, hid it from her, didn't care about her or their relationship and is now working with cerberus by choice of being duped into it.

From Ash's perspective her concerns and worries are completely justified, from Shepards they're not, but the problem is that Shepard's responses don't allay those worries and concerns, they inflame them which you refuse to see why this is the case, simply because your looking only through Shepard's perspective.

You say that because my perception that its shepard who betrays Ash (which is based completely on how Ash perceives Shepard's actions on horizon and not my own personal view of horizon btw) that this is where we must agree to disagree, to me proves entirely my contention that you refuse to accept Horizon from both perspectives, that your so wrapped up in roleplaying your shepard that you see horizon as a personal affront.

The only thing i'll say is this, there are 2 people involved in the events on horizon, both people are at fault for how the situation plays out, if you roleplay Shepard and completely dismiss the other person's perspective like i believe you do, then i can see why nothing anyone will say would change your opinion.

To me though thats like having an argument with someone, thinking your completely right therefore the other person must be wrong, then walking away from that argument convinced its you who's been slighted.

To do this initially i can understand, heat of the moment, feelings are hurt, but later on, once given time to replay that argument, even the most closed off person would concede that perhaps the other person had a point after all.

When horizon is re-examined, when Ash's state of mind, shepard's responses and how they inflame rather than Calm the situation is taken into account, then the situation isn't as clear cut as an initial understanding of it would be.

To me your so caught up in that intial understanding, so wrapped up in a perceived slight to your shepard that you refuse to revisit the situation in the cold light of day, nothing will change how you feel about horizon because your so upset about the intial encounter that no explanation will suffice.

You want Ash to grovel and apologise unreservedly for her actions because in your mind, your shepard is the only one who's been affronted, rather than accept the fault lies equally, you absolve Shepard because in roleplaying him you refuse to accept that he, you have any blame for how horizon plays out.

Again based on a gut feeling initial response to horizon i can understand and accept your stance, but in the cold light of day, when cooler heads should prevail to still be so sure that all fault lays with Ash to me is a stance i can't understand.

[Almostfaceman]

alperez wrote...

Knight

*snip*

Well I can't speak for Knight but I sorta agree with him. It's hard to put oneself in Ash's shoes and understand:

a) She just witnessed Shepard save tens of thousands of lives (including her own - again) yet still questions Shepard's character and motivations.
She's ignoring the white-wash that the Alliance has applied to Shepard - he dies they swoop in and deny the truth of the Reapers. Swooping is bad. Why is she so loyal to an Alliance that does that?
c) She's ignoring her own previous "mutiny" against the Alliance for the right reasons because she trusted Shepard. I mean c'mon, she committed treason in ME1 when they stole the Normandy. If she can trust him then she can trust him now.
d) He tells her that he's been on a slab being operated on for two years - and not one hint of concern for his health and well-being. Just straight to Cerberus. He's just saved the colony and she's straight to Cerberus.

It's just really hard to understand where she's coming from.

[knightnblu]

alperez - I must differ with you regarding your point that I do not take Ashley's POV in consideration, I do. I realize that she is swimming in a storm of emotions, but so is Shepard. I also realize that Shepard has access and understanding of information that Williams is ignorant of and cannot know without delving into them with Shepard. But I also know that Williams was tested by Horizon.
 
Her love of Shepard was tested, her faith in Shepard was tested, and her belief in Shepard was tested and she failed. What you argue are the reasons that she failed while you ignore the end result of her failure. She was hurt, of that I have no doubt. She was suspicious of the linkage between Shepard and Cerberus. But does she make any attempt at all to explore what she does not understand? Absolutely not.
 
As soon as Shepard mentions Cerberus, her mind slams shut and in so doing she shuts out Shepard. In essence, she makes the exact same mistake with Shepard that the Alliance made with her grandfather, General Williams, and it is to the same effect. Her actions and behavior on Horizon should bring her shame, but according to the tepid email apology that Shepard received, not so much. I'm sorry, but that email just doesn't cut the mustard.
 
Ashley is going to have to pony up a credible explanation for her behavior on Horizon if she wants Shepard back in my opinion. In the final analysis, I don't need her to accomplish my mission, as ME2 has already proven. I needed her for an emotional tie to the galaxy while I hunted the Collectors and she utterly failed me. Now, I can't trust her.
 
She never showed her ass like that in ME1. She never gave any indication of that sort of instability. Now, I don't know who she is or what she thinks anymore and that is a wild card that I do not need. Who's to say if she will have my back when the bullets start flying? I suppose that you could say, "Oh come on, it's Ashley. Of course, she has your back!" But what do you base that on?
 
If anything is obvious on Horizon, it's that Williams no longer trusts Shepard. She no longer believes in his integrity and she doubts his loyalty to the Alliance. She has destroyed the trust between them in my eyes. How does a tepid emailed note cure that? How does it fix the lack of trust that exists between them? I don't know who the hell she is anymore. In her email, she even admits that she has changed. The only question is how much did she change. There is no way that I am going to trust my personal existence to her if I don't know her. What amazes me is that there are people willing to do just that. The truth is there are graveyards full of people like that.
 
You say, "Ash does not, she believes he's been alive for 2 years, hid it from her, didn't care about her or their relationship and is now working with cerberus by choice of being duped into it." But if you are right, then Ashley's opinion of Shepard is even lower than I had thought. About the only thing lower would be whale feces. Shepard would have to have had a hand in the destruction of the SR1. That means that he is personally responsible for the deaths of 20 of his crew and of Navigator Pressley. That's a bit ghoulish when you consider him walking the wreckage collecting dog tags. It means that he is more than just a traitor, he is a mass murderer and Williams really fouled up when she had the opportunity to arrest him and haul him up before an Alliance tribunal on capital charges.
 
The issues between Shepard and Williams are larger than you admit. It is not a matter of who was right and who was wrong, but of who really betrayed who. If you have ever been betrayed, you would know of what I speak and I doubt that you would be as understanding. When Shepard needed Ashley, she wasn't there.
 
She wasn't there because she had her ass up on her shoulders. She wasn't there because she didn't have faith in the man that she claimed to have loved. She wasn't there because she had forgotten who he was and what he stood for. She once knew his character, now no more. To her, he's like any Joe off of the street. Truthfully, I don't believe that she ever loved Shepard. I think that she was in love with her fantasy of Shepard, hence the poetry.
 
She's a good grunt, but without trust I will never put my life in her hands again. Let somebody else take that risk. That's why I say hand her over to Hackett and let him deal with her. Maybe she can find it within herself to trust him. As long as he never has to count on her trusting him, he should be ok.
 
"You want Ash to grovel and apologise unreservedly for her actions because in your mind, your shepard is the only one who's been affronted, rather than accept the fault lies equally, you absolve Shepard because in roleplaying him you refuse to accept that he, you have any blame for how horizon plays out."
 
This is how I know that you don't read my posts entirely. You skim. V-rex asked me that question once before and I answered him that I do not want Williams to grovel, or be embarrassed. I said that we could have a private conversation in which she could fully explain her malfunction on Horizon and if credible and sincere, I would take her back.
 
I do not accept that fault lies equally, because it does not. Claiming such demonstrates a moral relativity that I do not agree with. Such things are societal caustics that destroy the fabric of society while those who tout them cheer at their destruction.
 
I absolve Shepard because he's right. There is no moral ambiguity here. The trouble with morality is that it is comprised of judgments. In today's world there are few who are willing to make them. I believe that this is why so many have trouble assigning blame to Williams despite her being richly deserving of it.
 
Had Shepard been cruel to Williams I would be on his case like white on rice. He wasn't, Williams was cruel to him. I have written that it would have been kinder if she had just shot him and I still stand by that position.
 
I believe you to be a thoughtful and fair minded person. On this however, I believe you to be mistaken in your assertions for the reasons articulated.
 
 
Almostfaceman said:
 
"a) She just witnessed Shepard save tens of thousands of lives (including her own - again) yet still questions Shepard's character and motivations.


She's ignoring the white-wash that the Alliance has applied to Shepard - he dies they swoop in and deny the truth of the Reapers. Swooping is bad. Why is she so loyal to an Alliance that does that?


c) She's ignoring her own previous "mutiny" against the Alliance for the right reasons because she trusted Shepard. I mean c'mon, she committed treason in ME1 when they stole the Normandy. If she can trust him then she can trust him now.


d) He tells her that he's been on a slab being operated on for two years - and not one hint of concern for his health and well-being. Just straight to Cerberus. He's just saved the colony and she's straight to Cerberus.

It's just really hard to understand where she's coming from."
 
 
Exactly 

[Xilizhra]

But what do you base that on?

Not being involved with Cerberus? Defeating the Collectors?

I have written that it would have been kinder if she had just shot him and I still stand by that position.

Please don't extend this to those of us who didn't romance her...

[alperez]

Almostfaceman wrote...



Well I can't speak for Knight but I sorta agree with him. It's hard to put oneself in Ash's shoes and understand:


a) She just witnessed Shepard save tens of thousands of lives (including her own - again) yet still questions Shepard's character and motivations.
She's ignoring the white-wash that the Alliance has applied to Shepard - he dies they swoop in and deny the truth of the Reapers. Swooping is bad. Why is she so loyal to an Alliance that does that?
c) She's ignoring her own previous "mutiny" against the Alliance for the right reasons because she trusted Shepard. I mean c'mon, she committed treason in ME1 when they stole the Normandy. If she can trust him then she can trust him now.
d) He tells her that he's been on a slab being operated on for two years - and not one hint of concern for his health and well-being. Just straight to Cerberus. He's just saved the colony and she's straight to Cerberus.

It's just really hard to understand where she's coming from.

A. The reason she questions shepard's character and motivations is because of how she perceives shepard's acted firstly in relation to their relationship, its because of that questions about his character and motivations come into the equation relating to who shepard really is.

Ash believed he was dead, she's heard rumours to the contrary and rumours he's working for cerberus, more than likely up to the meeting on horizon she's dismissed those rumours.

Shepard's arrival on horizon in someway proves in Ash's mind those rumours true, does she then believe he died and was ressurrected or that in someway he faked his death, let people he cared about believe it but in reality has been alive all the time?

She questions why he let her believe he was dead, not that he was actually dead which should give an insight into her mindset, she then questions why he didn't contact her, why he let her believe he was dead, how he could have put her through that.

She's questioning not just his actions but what those actions mean in relation to their relationship, she clearly now believes that because of those actions the relationship in some way was a sham, if she believes that personally Shepard never really cared for her, then that opens the door to what else she believed about Shepard was she wrong about.

B. This one i'm not too clear about, it could be argued that its because technically she's under Anderson's wing, that like Anderson yes she may not be happy about how the alliance acted but like Anderson first and foremost she's an alliance soldier, so duty comes first. There's also a case though that like her grandfather she figures the alliance will spin things how they wish, despite how they handled her grandfather and how they treated her and her father since then she still joined up and still wants to be an alliance soldier, so why should she feel less loyal to the alliance because of how shepard was handled, when she still feels loyalty to the alliance despite how they handled her family.

Or it could simply be the cerberus connection, she may consider what the alliance did was to sweep shepard under the carpet because he is now and has always been a cerberus operative.

C. The situation was completely different, she was there with shepard, she could see for herself the situation and make her mind up based on facts she personally knew, On horizon all she has to go on is what she knows and what Shepard is telling her, but because of A, what shepard tells her may not be enough.

She believes because of A. that she doesn't really know or can't trust Shepard, part of the reason for this is that 2 years have passed between meetings, her mutiny in me1 was based both on a trust of Shepard and an understanding of events that she personally had gone through with him, in me2 the situation is they've both gone through almost seperate events from 2 different persepectives, when you add A into the equation it's created not just a gap but a schism between them leading to a different stance from Ash.

In other words, in me1 she believed completely in shepard, she knew the exact circumstances behind what they were doing, in me2 she doesn't believe in shepard and has a different understanding of the circumstances forcing her to reach a different conclussion and therefore act in a different manner.

D. cerberus are a key element in the reason she acts how she does, again put yourself in her position, hell put yourself in the position of any paragon starting me2.

My Shepard is working with cerberus, my shepard would never work with cerberus, something must be wrong he must be doing so against his will, or being duped somehow.

Now think of it also with Ash's perspective and how she now feels regarding what their relationship meant to shepard, she's questioning whether or not shepard felt the same about her as she did about him, she's now also faced with questions about what shepard actually stands for.

Its because of A that she can't trust Shepard in terms of Shepard the man which forces her to also question Shepard the soldier, where previously Shepard would have complete benefit of doubt, doubt has in fact been created, shepard's responses raise that doubt which leads to how things play out.

Shepard claims to have been in  a coma for 2 years, on a slab unable to contact anyone, however rumours are he's been alive and working with cerberus, so does Ash accept basically the lazurus project without any info about it whatsoever or does she like most people would believe Shepard perhaps faked his death and has been working for the past 2 years with cerberus?

Yes Shepard has saved the colony, but perhaps its misdirection, Ash still questions whether or not cerberus and the collectors are working together, despite the evidence, which shows that because she distrusts cerberus and is aware of how they act she worries that things may not be as they seem, when added in her newfound distrust of Shepard also its logical to assume she may wonder just what exactly is cerberus up to.

You say its hard to understand where Ash is coming from and yes initially and putting yourself in shepards shoes that is entirely the case.

Like i said when arguing with someone in the heat of the moment, both parties believe they are right, later on when calmer and trying to understand the other persons position though you have to place yourself in their shoes.

A lot of people only see horizon from shepard's viewpoint, shepard's been slighted, ash must apologise, i believe like any argument it takes 2 to tango, when looked at from Ash's viewpoint i can see why she acts how she does.

[Complistic]

We've known for a while she'll have armor but it's so cool it's going to be a version like we've seen kaidan wear.

[alperez]

Knight

You misunderstand my point about not taking her view into consideration, its not so much that you don't understand or take it into account, its that you give it much less weight in your argument.

I don't argue that Ash makes a complete mess of things on horizon or that she's right to lose faith in Shepard, like you say i argue the reasons why, but where you take me completely wrong is you then assume i don't take into account the result of Ash's stance, i do.

Ash's stance on horizon from Shepards perspective is a betrayal, shepard practically says as much in the one piece of emotion he clearly shows on horizon, when he tells joker he's done with horizon.

You say i ignore the larger issues of who betrays who, when actually its you who ignore why it is that both parties can feel betrayed on horizon.

You bring up Ash's betrayal of shepard and her abandoning him when he needs her support but completely ignore the fact that from Ash's perspective shepard has already betrayed her.

She needed him and his support for the past 2 years, did she get it?

The answer is a resounding no, yes we know the ins and outs of why thats the case, Ash however does not, she is not aware of what we the players know, instead she's operating in a bubble where this info does not exist.

Shepard did not die on the normandy, he has not spent the last 2 years being rebuilt, somehow he survived and since that time has been working with/for cerberus, thats the position Ash is coming from because thats the only perception she can make from the info she has.

You say her faith, her love of shepard has been tested and she's in some way failed this test and in this regard i concur, but what you fail to take into account is that from Ash's perspective Shepard has already failed that test.

For 2 years he's let her believe he's been dead, he hasnt tried to contact her, he hasn't given her or their relationship a second thought and now he's returned and basically dismissed that relationship as being in the past, as being insignificant added to that he's now seeming also abandoned the alliance and is working with cerberus.

If thats not a betrayal then i don't know what is, the problem is we off course now certain relevant details that show it isn't, Ash doesn't have the same luxury as we do, she isn't aware of the reasoning behind it so she acts from a different position.

So while yes she does betray shepard by her actions, its because of Shepards perceived actions and his responses that sow the seeds for the betrayal to take place.

When i say you ignore perspective in this argument, your posts completely argue my point for me.

You absolve shepard because he's right because there is no moral ambiguity in him or his actions and therefore you completely ignore Ash's perspective in your judgement.

Ash is the only one who needs to explain her actions on horizon because you dismiss shepard of any fault simply because you know things that Ash does not.

The point you keep glossing over is that while you understand her perspective you allow it no creedance in her actions, instead you dismiss it as irrelevant when its the most relevant part of the whole equation.

Ash is at fault on horizon, her actions do need to be explained, but so does shepard's, simply put it takes 2 to create a rift and 2 to bridge that gap.

Do i expect Shepard to apologise for how he acted, yes i do simply because he like you never put himself in the other person's shoes, does this mean Ash gets off scot free, no it doesn't.

But where we differ is that you while understanding both povs, place no creedance in Ash's and full faith in Shepard's, something that Ash cannot do simply because of the info she has.

She cannot and does not know what Shepard's gone through, instead she knows only what she has and how Shepards perceived actions have changed the bond between them.

She needs to repair that bond indeed, but Shepard needs to explain why it is that her stance was incorrect, why her perception was flawed and both need to apologse if the relationship is to move forward.

[YouthCultureForever]

knightnblu wrote...

Ah, we have arrived at my second favorite meme, the "let the bastards die" meme. While Williams is celebrated for her hard position on allowing the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, in order to remain true to the Alliance and her hatred of Cerberus, I see it as a flaw in her character.
 
I tend to see issues in black or white in relation to my morality. This means that a situation is either compliant or it is not. However, such a rigid moral perspective cannot cover all of the bases, so to speak. One prime example is Shepard's position in ME2. Essentially, he faces Hobson's Choice, help the colonists or allow them to die.

*snip

Persistance in her beliefs does not mean she endorses colony abductions. Initially, she doesn't believe Cerberus is trying to save the colonies. Intel asserts they're actually involved in the disapperances. The Alliance is the only proactive organization in her assestment.

Again, "If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. If one truely wants to understand why people do the things they do, one must take into account not only what is going on in a particular situation but also what people think is going on." 

Ashley doesn't believe Cerberus is saving the colonies so there is no moral dilemma here. Ditching Cerberus shouldn't be a problem because they aren't what they're claiming. They always have been and will be capable of anything. The intel she recieves affirms her judgement.

Yes, Shepard faces a great moral dilemma, but in these circumstances it's only his problem.
  

Isn't that sort of saying that you reject that the sky is blue because you would rather call it yellow? Ignoring the facts does not make them disappear. I am aware of your argument and I find it to be shaky at best. From psychology, interrogation, deception detection, and from life experience perspectives, you mention what is first in your mind first. One can posit that 2+2=5, but that can never be true because one wills it so. Just as wishing for the sky to change it's color to yellow can never happen because of the laws of physics.

*snip

 
There is no substantial evidence to prove your interpretation of the scene is fact. There is plenty of evidence to disprove your assumption. 

The VS is essentially treated as the same person. The both take issue with Shepard working for Cerberus because of their distrust and because they're Alliance. Kaidan's lines articulate my understanding of the scene perfectly.

"You've turned you back on everything we believed in. You betrayed the Alliance...You betrayed me."

What did they believe in? He tells us, the Alliance. Shepard betrayed their beliefs, she betrayed him.

Ashley's reaction isn't radically different. This maintains the issue isn't professional treason.
 

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 26 septembre 2011 - 07:10 .

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Well I can't speak for Knight but I sorta agree with him. It's hard to put oneself in Ash's shoes and understand:

a) She just witnessed Shepard save tens of thousands of lives (including her own - again) yet still questions Shepard's character and motivations.
She's ignoring the white-wash that the Alliance has applied to Shepard - he dies they swoop in and deny the truth of the Reapers. Swooping is bad. Why is she so loyal to an Alliance that does that?
c) She's ignoring her own previous "mutiny" against the Alliance for the right reasons because she trusted Shepard. I mean c'mon, she committed treason in ME1 when they stole the Normandy. If she can trust him then she can trust him now.
d) He tells her that he's been on a slab being operated on for two years - and not one hint of concern for his health and well-being. Just straight to Cerberus. He's just saved the colony and she's straight to Cerberus.

It's just really hard to understand where she's coming from.

My thoughts are:

a) This is true, she doesn't seem to hit the berserk button until Cerberus is mentioned.  I have the theory that the rumors about Shepard and Cerberus are even more unsavory than Shep simply joining up.  And Cerberus certainly has the funds to start a quiet smear campaign.  Shepard showing up with Cerberus in tow on the very planet she got a tip Cerberus might hit next might make her wonder if such rumors are based in fact after all.  A far from perfect theory.  But it's something.

I don't think she's ignoring the whitewash.  She seems to be Anderson's new protege.  And even if Anderson doesn't fully trust Shepard anymore, he still acknowleges Shepard is a hero, and believes in the Reaper threat.  Ash may not care for politicians, but she is still a patriot and believes in the Alliance.  Heck she joined up while her family was still blacklisted!  I can easily see her and Anderson trying to work within the system to get the Alliance off their tails and doing something.  

c) No arguement here.  Taking that risk was an ultimate show of trust that really should have been brought up

d)  To be fair, she does float the possibility that Cerberus "did something" to Shepard.  Perhaps they messed with his head somehow.  But that doesn't really factor into betrayal.  Not a deliberate one

::sigh:: the dialogue is so unclear.

[knightnblu]

alperez said:
 
"A lot of people only see horizon from shepard's viewpoint, shepard's been slighted, ash must apologise, i believe like any argument it takes 2 to tango, when looked at from Ash's viewpoint i can see why she acts how she does."
 
You know I was going to go long road with this, but I won't expend the effort.
 
"You misunderstand my point about not taking her view into consideration, its not so much that you don't understand or take it into account, its that you give it much less weight in your argument."
 
Of course it is, because in the long run it really isn't important is it? I also give no weight to Shepard's knowledge over what Williams knows. That isn't important either. The crux of the matter as I see it, is trust. Ashley violated it and Shepard didn't. It is that simple.
 
All of the rest are just the trappings that go along with it. Either they are two people who trust and love one another or they are not. After Horizon, they are not. Simple.
The is no need for complexity or flourishes of thought. Where Williams was concerned there was a test of her loyalty and she failed.
 
From that everything else springs.
 
"She needed him and his support for the past 2 years, did she get it?"
 
Are you seriously arguing that death or being in a coma is not an excuse for not being there with her? Forgive me, but that is...wow...just wow.
 
"The answer is a resounding no, yes we know the ins and outs of why thats the case, Ash however does not, she is not aware of what we the players know, instead she's operating in a bubble where this info does not exist."
 
Could that be because Williams is allergic to questions? Did she fully explore why he never contacted her? Well, yes she did, but as soon as the word "Cerberus" left Shepard's lips she shut down. How is that Shepard's fault?
 
"Shepard did not die on the normandy, he has not spent the last 2 years being rebuilt, somehow he survived and since that time has been working with/for cerberus, thats the position Ash is coming from because thats the only perception she can make from the info she has."
 
Shepard was a floating corpscicle when the SB picked up his carcass. Said carcass was later stolen by Liara who wanted a decent burial for it. TIM said no and did the Dr. Frankenstein on it and voila! Shepard lives again. I fully realize that Williams has absolutely no knowledge of this, but neither does she even bother to ask. All she had to do was say, "Wait a minute, what do you mean "rebuilt?"” or "Shepard, you are going to have to do better than that." She doesn't. She just makes a snap judgment without all of the facts and goes with it.
 
"You absolve shepard because he's right because there is no moral ambiguity in him or his actions and therefore you completely ignore Ash's perspective in your judgement."
 
Ash's perspective is what caused her to fail the test of loyalty in the first place. Perspective is nothing more than the interpretation of what the five senses detect. They send these signals to the brain for processing and the end result is an interpretation of what we see, hear, smell, feel, and taste. That information is then processed further by overlaying experience, emotion, and judgment and processing it in those contexts. In the case of Williams, she processed out the wrong response and that is why she failed.
 
That has been my point all along. She should have known better and used better judgment, but she didn't. She takes the tack of this being a personal affront to her and she goes off on a petty tirade accusing Shepard of being a traitor and for being a bastard in general. I get it, but that's still no excuse.
 
You argue that such a perception is a mitigating factor and I hold that it is not. Not because I don't care about Ashley or her feelings, but because they are irrelevant to the larger issue of betrayal. If a man murders a child, do you really care what he was thinking about that caused him to do so or do you just punish a murderer? Me? I really don't care what his reasoning was because unless that reasoning allows him to fall under the 'not guilty by reason of insanity,' I really don't care, I just want to get on to the execution and be done with it.
 
"Ash is the only one who needs to explain her actions on horizon because you dismiss shepard of any fault simply because you know things that Ash does not."
 
You are mistaken. I expect Williams to explain her actions to me on Horizon because there is no longer any trust between us. She shredded it. She made a judgment without having the fact or even bothering to look for them. She did to Shepard exactly what the Alliance did the General Williams. I want to hear her justify that. I want to know how I can re-establish trust with her. I want to know how I can put my life back into her hands with confidence. Admittedly it is a tall order, but I didn't breach the trust between us, she did.
 
"The point you keep glossing over is that while you understand her perspective you allow it no creedance in her actions, instead you dismiss it as irrelevant when its the most relevant part of the whole equation."
 
That is because her feelings are irrelevant as I have explained before. Why should I assign any credence to that which has no bearing? As far as what is most relevant on Horizon, it is trust and not the feelings of either party. Ashley breached that trust and jettisoned Shepard. What more is there to understand?
 
"She needs to repair that bond indeed, but Shepard needs to explain why it is that her stance was incorrect, why her perception was flawed and both need to apologse if the relationship is to move forward."
 
I don't owe her anything and it will be a cold day in Hell before I apologize. I didn't do anything wrong. Ashley didn't ask any questions because Ash didn't give a rat's furry hind end about who, what, how, where, and why. Thumb back a few pages and you will run across a satire covering Williams debrief with Anderson. That describes her actions on Horizon perfectly in my eyes.
 
YouthCultureForever said "Yes, Shepard faces a great moral dilemma, but in these circumstances it's only his problem."
 
Now wait a minute, didn't you just get through praising Ashley for her hard stance against doing anything against the Alliance or working for Cerberus? To me, that means she would never have made Shepard's decision to help the colonists. She would have told TIM to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and consigned the colonists to oblivion. Or am I missing something?
 
If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize. However, you would not be the first to make such an assertion on this thread if I have not misunderstood.
 
"There is no substantial evidence to prove your interpretation of the scene is fact. There is plenty of evidence to disprove your assumption. The VS is essentially treated as the same person. The both take issue with Shepard working for Cerberus because of their distrust and because they're Alliance. Kaidan's lines articulate my understanding of the scene perfectly.

"You've turned you back on everything we believed in. You betrayed the Alliance...You betrayed me."

What did they believe in? He tells us, the Alliance. Shepard betrayed their beliefs, she betrayed him. Ashley's reaction isn't radically different. This maintains the issue isn't professional treason."
 
And how exactly do you construe that there is absolutely no professional treason going on here? Williams says that Shepard is working for the enemy. That Cerberus is a terrorist organization. That she never expected that Shepard could sink so low. Does all of that sound completely personal to you? Isn't she questioning his professional dedication? Questioning his loyalty to the Alliance? Does she not call him a traitor to his face? Seems that way to me.

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...
 
You say, "Ash does not, she believes he's been alive for 2 years, hid it from her, didn't care about her or their relationship and is now working with cerberus by choice of being duped into it." But if you are right, then Ashley's opinion of Shepard is even lower than I had thought. About the only thing lower would be whale feces. Shepard would have to have had a hand in the destruction of the SR1. That means that he is personally responsible for the deaths of 20 of his crew and of Navigator Pressley. That's a bit ghoulish when you consider him walking the wreckage collecting dog tags. It means that he is more than just a traitor, he is a mass murderer and Williams really fouled up when she had the opportunity to arrest him and haul him up before an Alliance tribunal on capital charges.

That depends.  She may not know that such a rumor is true.  But Shepard is working with Cerberus.  He admits as much.  There's a long stretch between "we have dismissed this claim" and falling for a story hook, line and sinker.  It may be that Shep working for Cerberus shakes Ash so much she no longer knows what to believe.  It's so hard to credit these allegations.  But reports said Shepard was alive, and it turns out to be true.  It's also true he's working with Cerberus.  Could other things be true as well?  It's so hard to believe, and yet...
 

The issues between Shepard and Williams are larger than you admit. It is not a matter of who was right and who was wrong, but of who really betrayed who. If you have ever been betrayed, you would know of what I speak and I doubt that you would be as understanding. When Shepard needed Ashley, she wasn't there. 

She wasn't there because she had her ass up on her shoulders. She wasn't there because she didn't have faith in the man that she claimed to have loved. She wasn't there because she had forgotten who he was and what he stood for. She once knew his character, now no more. To her, he's like any Joe off of the street. Truthfully, I don't believe that she ever loved Shepard. I think that she was in love with her fantasy of Shepard, hence the poetry.
 
She's a good grunt, but without trust I will never put my life in her hands again. Let somebody else take that risk. That's why I say hand her over to Hackett and let him deal with her. Maybe she can find it within herself to trust him. As long as he never has to count on her trusting him, he should be ok.

Reports said Shepard was still alive.  And working for Cerberus, and who knows what else.  Shepard's appearance on Horizon seems to confirm the first two.  Would it be wrong for Ash to harbor doubts, that maybe it was Shepard that betrayed her?  That she placed her trust in him and he betrayed her? 

And inthe end, Shepard is at least partly vindicated by her investigation.
 

I do not accept that fault lies equally, because it does not. Claiming such demonstrates a moral relativity that I do not agree with. Such things are societal caustics that destroy the fabric of society while those who tout them cheer at their destruction.
 
I absolve Shepard because he's right. There is no moral ambiguity here. The trouble with morality is that it is comprised of judgments. In today's world there are few who are willing to make them. I believe that this is why so many have trouble assigning blame to Williams despite her being richly deserving of it.
 
Had Shepard been cruel to Williams I would be on his case like white on rice. He wasn't, Williams was cruel to him. I have written that it would have been kinder if she had just shot him and I still stand by that position.

I think fault is mitigated by what the person knows.  We know what Shepard knows.  We are Shepard.  We do not know what Ash knows.  Or what exactly she's heard in the last two years.

 Let me ask, what if she was right?  What if Cerberus was behind the colony disppearances, and the Collectors were just a ruse?  What if Cerberus was controlling Shepard after all, thorough lies or a control chip?  Would Ash still be in the wrong on Horizon?  Should she still have had faith in Shepard?

[knightnblu]

iakus said " a) This is true, she doesn't seem to hit the berserk button until Cerberus is mentioned. I have the theory that the rumors about Shepard and Cerberus are even more unsavory than Shep simply joining up. And Cerberus certainly has the funds to start a quiet smear campaign. Shepard showing up with Cerberus in tow on the very planet she got a tip Cerberus might hit next might make her wonder if such rumors are based in fact after all. A far from perfect theory. But it's something."
 
Keep going down that road and you will find the truth my friend.

[Xilizhra]

I really don't care, I just want to get on to the execution and be done with it.

I have to interject here and say that not taking knowledge and reason from a situation like this is simply idiotic.

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...

iakus said " a) This is true, she doesn't seem to hit the berserk button until Cerberus is mentioned. I have the theory that the rumors about Shepard and Cerberus are even more unsavory than Shep simply joining up. And Cerberus certainly has the funds to start a quiet smear campaign. Shepard showing up with Cerberus in tow on the very planet she got a tip Cerberus might hit next might make her wonder if such rumors are based in fact after all. A far from perfect theory. But it's something."
 
Keep going down that road and you will find the truth my friend.

I think...

I think that Ash has been manipulated.  Just as the Illusive man has manipulated Shepard.  They have influence everywhere.  Falsifying data, even stuff through official channels shouldn't be a big deal.  They assasinate admirals, after all!

I think the Illusive Man tried to poison Ash's memory of Shepard.  To make it look like Shepard may not have been the man she knew.  To make it look like he was the one manipulating her.

I think the rumors, combined with seeing Shepard on Horizon with a Cerberus ship and crew shook her faith.  It looked like Shepard had betrayed her trust, and the Alliance's trust by taking up with terrorists.  Even if he thought it was for the right reasons.  Shepard's alive when he should be dad.  Working for Cerberus when he should be shooting at them.  What else might have been true that she denied?

I think after the initial meltdown, Ash conducted her own investigation on Horizon, and verified Shepard's story.  Well, all but the Reaper involvement.   In the end, she backed Shepard up even when she could have lied and no one would have known.  It couldn't have gone over well when she reported a supposedly dead Spectre and Cerberus saved a colony.  

I think the apology, while poorly done, was sincere.  We should have gotten more.  But that's a flaw in the writing, not the character.  But she now knows that Shepard is trying to save the colonies.  The rumors she's heard are not true.  Not entirely anyway.  TIM's poison has been at least in part counteracted.  .