1035 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

Knight

Its not so much that i think Ash was thinking Shepard was in anyway like Saren, more that in showing that situation and how it inevitably turned out i was making a comparison to the possibility that Shepards position presents, if you get me.

We have an example in game of someone believing they were doing what's right, believing they alone knew what should be done and that to do this any alliance irrespective of who that's with is justified, so couldn't Shepards position have been the same?

Apart from Ash/Kaiden no one ever really questions Shepard over what the alliance with Cerberus could mean, when he is questioned about it his responses imo leave too much to be desired, so in the end it comes down to faith and trust in Shepard, something i believe because of the events of the past 2 years and because of his alliance with cerberus is asking for too much at that particular time.

In terms of whether or not Ash believes he is in fact a traitor and has betrayed both her personally and the alliance professionally, there are 2 ways to look at it.

His death and resurrection open up the possibility in the VS's mind that this was in fact some elaborate hoax or masterplan that Shepard did not bother to involve the VS in, that he survived and by choice decided not to contact the VS and let them know this, something they allude to in their statements, so they may feel personally betrayed because of this.

His working with cerberus, refusal to answer the points brought up regarding what this could mean can be construed as a proffessional betrayal of the alliance, simply because of how cerberus are perceived.

Although personally i like to think of it this way, its partly an accusation to get a response from Shepard, to jar him into some action that may prove he is still the same person he always was and partly its the emotional outburst of someone who feels hurt by Shepards perceived actions.

As for the evidence he had the vid from freedoms progress, he had Garrus and joker and chakwas and others that perhaps the VS may have listened too, he had the explanations of the Lazurus project to explain what happened to him plus some other stuff, whether or not this would have made the slighest bit of difference at that particular time though is open to question.

Personally i think no matter what Shepard had did or said on Horizon, the VS wouldn't have accepted it at that time, simply put emotions were too strained because of the situation and Shepards alliance with cerberus for clear headed analysis imo.

In terms of the 2 year thing and whether or not she should trust Shepard after those 2 years, imo if it was that simple then it would never have even been up for discussion. If it had been just Shepard returning after 2 years, asking for the VS's help and looking for them to trust him then imo there would have been no question that they would have trusted him implictly.

The problem is, Shepards death, his resurrection, the rumours spread about him while he was supposedly dead, his alliance with cerberus, how he responds to questions about these things all create a situation that makes it that much harder.

His reappearance after 2 years call into question just exactly what really happened both on the normandy and directly after it, not contacting the VS before he did calls into question the relationship they both shared and the rumours and his alliance with cerberus call into question both his motivations and his judgement.

Shepard doesn't and perhaps at that time couldn't because of the VS's emotional state provide answers that proove him to be who the VS believed him to be, answers that show he is still the man they followed and believed in.

Lastly the apology and Ash's emotions, while Ash doesn't always give in to her emotions, she is however a very emotional person, her reaction to Shepards burdgeoning relationship with Liara in me1 show that, her angry outburst to the terra nova speaker show that, she can and does most times keep her emotions bottled up, but she also at times can be extremely emotional also, one thing thats clear in me1 is that because of her relationship with Shepard emotionally she is much more open than previously she may have been.

As for the apology e-mail, imo your misinterpreting it, its simply a tentative first step made by somone who is still unsure not of Shepards motivations regarding his actions, but of Shepards feelings for her and their relationship.

She makes a first step to repair the relationship, to show Shepard that she believes in him and hopes for them, but because she is still unsure if Shepard feels the same way as she does, she cannot make the complete journey because she's unsure if the feelings are reciprocated, so she holds something back in case she is rejected.

[knightnblu]

alperez
 
The witnesses you state are also associated with Cerberus and are therefore tainted in Williams eyes. The video from Freedom's Progress would only prove what Williams already knows from personal observation and has no bearing on Shepard's character. Further, if she would not take his word about working for Cerberus, why would she do so regarding his resurrection?
 
It is evident that Williams no longer trusts Shepard due to the fact that his word is meaningless to her. Therefore, there is nothing that Shepard could say that would make a whit of difference. Williams has several competing sources of knowledge. First, is her personal experience with Shepard (all examples are drawn from the paragon perspective). First, Shepard saved her life on Eden Prime twice. The first save was when he and Alenko intervened to save her from the Geth. The second time was when Shepard prevented her from being...whatever the Prothean Comm relay did and taking the hit himself (I say this is the 2nd save because Liara clearly states that the relay should have killed Shepard aboard the SR1).
 
Further, Shepard stood for her with Anderson and made her feel welcome aboard the SR1. They cultivated a relationship, admittedly against regs, and Shepard commiserated with her regarding the mistreatment of her grandfather. Further, Shepard killed every Cerberus operative he came across. He acted with both honor and integrity.
 
Two months after the battle of the Citadel, the SR1 is attacked and destroyed and Shepard is spaced while risking his life to save Joker. From that point forward, Williams has no knowledge of what happens to Shep's carcass or his subsequent resurrection.
 
About one to one and a half years later, disturbing rumors begin circulating about Commander Shepard and Cerberus. The rumors state that Shepard is alive and working for Cerberus and that Cerberus is responsible for the disappearing human colonies. The presumption is that Shepard is assisting them in the abductions of said colonies. At first, Williams doesn't believe the rumors because she knows that he died.
 
But then Alliance Intel reports the same rumors and according to them, Shepard is partying on Omega. Williams does a WTF?!?! and nurses a growing resentment of the man she once loved. When she sees him on Horizon and Shepard states his connection to Cerberus (after saving her bacon for the third time), that is all she wrote.
 
I will grant you that two years is a long time. But if you hadn't seen your dad or mom for three years and then came across them in suspicious circumstances would you still have faith in who you knew them to be or proceed according the to dictates of the suspicious circumstances?
 
Frankly, I don't believe that there is a right or wrong answer to that question. If you proceed along the path of these are people that you know and you will reserve judgment on the suspicious circumstances, then what is wrong with that approach? On the other hand, you could say that people change and go with the suspicious circumstances and proceed from that perspective. However if you do that and you are later proven wrong, then you are left with egg all over your face. That is not to say that by going with the alternate choice you will be safe. It could very well turn out that you are wrong and are again left with egg all over your face.
 
From my perspective, loyalty is of paramount importance. I believe that if Williams did not catch Shepard red handed, it isn't beyond the pale to give him the benefit of the doubt. Other folks don't see it that way and that is fine. But if Williams cannot find it within herself to believe in Shepard at a crucial moment then when will she?
 
Belief in someone when you have all of the facts is cheap. Where is the risk? You already have all of the facts, you already know the score, and nothing is left to chance. It is only when you don't have all of the facts, have contradictory information, and are unsure of the circumstances that faith and belief in another becomes a precious commodity.
 
Ashley's failing isn't one of greed, or of apathy, but of abandoning Shepard when he needed her support the most because she lacked that faith and trust in him. I think that she knew enough about Shepard to make a judgment call to stand by him, but instead she folded. I have that belief because Williams freely admits that she had loved Shepard. Who have you loved, but didn't know very well? When push came to shove, Williams walked out leaving Shepard with his jaw on the ground.
 
While I also firmly believe that Williams was manipulated by TIM as well as the rest of the galaxy concerning Shepard (which is why I want to feed him to a wood chipper feet first), she relied on the lies and not the personal knowledge of the man that she possessed.
A knowledge that should have given her a shield against the lies of TIM. She folded either because she never truly knew Shepard or because she didn't have the guts to stand by him or a combination of the two. The emotional hurt she experienced came from her doubts about the man, not his actions.
 
From her perspective, she was jettisoning a traitor to the Council and the Alliance. She has zero trust in him and in her mind, she's the aggrieved party and he's a bastard. She took a stand for what she believed that let the cards fall where they may. But that choice has some serious consequences if she is in error, as we all know that she is.
 
That is a fact that is slowly dawning on Williams as Anderson verifies parts of Shepard's story to her and I believe that is why she sent the email apology. I can imagine Anderson verifying detail after detail and I can just picture Ashley's sinking heart as she's beginning to realize that she was way wrong on Horizon. She called Shepard a traitor to his face, she insulted his intelligence, and if she also has a modicum of introspection and intelligence she can also see that she treated Shepard as badly as her grandfather was treated by the Alliance and for essentially the same reasons. However, in view of what she did and the magnitude of her error the emailed apology was way too little and far too late.
 
Whether Williams will continue down that path or be horrified by the events of Arrival resetting her behavior to Horizon mode is anybody's guess. However, because she burned herself badly on Horizon before, she might just manage to keep her foot out of her mouth for a change.
 
One can only hope.

[alperez]

Knight

Again though you miss out on some key points in your analysis.

Whatever Shepard has previously done has to be weighed against the situation, the perception that situation creates and the fact he is now aligned with cerberus.

Its not just a simple case of Ash knew Shepard so should still know him because the situations changed and his alliance with cerberus raises questions both of who he is now and who he's always been.

The fact that in Ash's mind his death is now in question (her own words confirm this), brings up 3 big obstacles.

1. did he somehow fake his death and has all this time been alive

2. did he not trust/care enough about me to let me know he was alive or to contact me

3. if both of these are true is he now or was he ever who i really thought he was.

Then on top of that you add in the whole cerberus angle which creates other major obstacles.

1. Are cerberus controlling him, manipulating him, duping him

2. Has he abandoned everything he and i believed in

3. Is this the real Shepard and if so did the man i thought i knew actually ever exist or has he played me for a fool right from the beginning.

The problem then becomes that not only does Ash doubt Shepard but she doubts herself also, she can't rely on what she thought she knew about Shepard because a lot of what she thought she knew seems to have been blown out of the water.

This is even more significant in a romanced Ash because the feeling of betrayal is even more personal, she feels abandoned by the man she loves, the man she thought loved her.

We off course know the complete story, we have info that Ash doesn't have, so we can see her perception is completely off kilter, but since we as Shepard don't offer up anything at all to support our claims then we cannot at that time change the perception that Ash has.

Loyalty is a two way street, while we rightly should expect it from Ash, the problem we have is that Shepards perceived actions have already set the scene in motion, from Ash's perspective its Shepard who is disloyal, so how or why should be loyal to someone she feels has been disloyal to her?

You bring up not seeing a family member for 2 years, but thats a completely different situation imo family bonds are different.

But even using the father and mother paralell, if thought your father or mother had died, if you spent 2 years trying to come to terms with that, if you then heard rumours they were alive and they suddenly returned, you'd be extremely pissed at them because the perception you would have is that they abandoned you, they allowed you to believe they were dead, let you go through the emotional upheaval that brings only to then suddenly reappear, initially you'd be very unforgiving imo.

A large part of the problem on Horizon is Shepard's reappearance itself and what this potentially means, Ash not knowing about the Lazurus project or how it worked would like everyone else assume not that Shepard died and was ressurrected but that perhaps he didn't die at all.

Which opens up serious questions about both Shepard's character and the relationship between Ash and Shepard itself, questions that aren't answered on Horizon.

In terms of the evidence, i've said before i'm not sure even having categorical proof would have made a difference on horizon, at that particular time and place perhaps the only thing that would have convinced Ash would have been Anderson standing beside Shepard and even this may not have been enough.

One of my biggest problems with a romanced Horizon playthrough and also to a lesser extent a non romance one is Shepard doesn't ever really acknowledge the relationship between the 2 of them, he never gives her anything to cling to until its far too late in the proceedings.

In the romanced version, Ash basically pours her heart out to Shepard, she tells him she loved him, a simple i love you too may have swung things a little different, but Shepard barely even acknowledges what she's just said, to me this further reinforces Ash's view that he either now no longer cares about her or never really did, which is why the character of Shepard previously doesn't bring as much to bear as it should.

You say Ash abandoned Shepard when he needed her most and this is true, the problem though is that in Ash's mind Shepards actions, his words, seem to prove that he has already abandoned her.

In terms of the apology, again once clearer minds have prevailed, once the shock of seeing Shepard alive, once the worry over Shepard working with cerberus has subsided somewhat, then things can be examined and analysed that much easier.

Simply put once the emotional aspects have receded a little, then its easier for Ash to come to terms with everything and come to the correct conclussion based on facts and not because of emotions misinterpret those facts.

Again this is another reason i keep going back to how because of a unique set of circumstances Shepards arrival on Horizon forces an intial reaction, once these circumstances are removed then and only then can the full ramifications of Shepards return and Ash's intial reaction to it be re-examined, something i believe she does in the e-mail.

In terms of whether or not Arrival would force Ash back to her Horizon stance, in a simple answer i'd say no. Simply because the situation that occured on horizon wouldn't occur again because the elements that create it are long gone.

Shepard turning up on Horizon just after blowing the mass relay would have created another layer of problems (but since it doesn't actually happen or play a part in horizon itself then it cannot), instead arrival would be analysed from a different perspective.

It wouldn't be Shepard returning after being presumed dead for 2 years bringing all the potential problems that creates with him , rather it would be Shepard taking a course of action and like the previous ones (stealing the normandy etc) would imo be analysed the very same way.

Not to mention Hackett's involvement gives a seperate justification or explanation that is missing from horizon.

Personally i think you hit the nail on the head with your assesment of her realising she made a mistake, that she's realised the error of what she did on Horizon and that's the road she's now on.

However i disagree about the e-mail for the simple reason that imo its not supposed to be a be all and end all apology, it was never intended to be so, rather it was a tentative first step, a prelude to events to come.

If we were never to see Ash again then yes the apology e-mail is too little too late as you put it, but since we always were going to meet up again it doesn't fulfill the same purpose, instead its the first step in reconcilliation between Ash and Shepard.

[knightnblu]

alperez,
 
Don't look now, but I think you made my point for me. :-) I said that either Ashley no longer trusted Shepard or she was afraid to take the risk of standing by him or a combination of both. Hence, we get the abandonment of Shepard by Williams. In Shepard's mind it is not justified (evidenced by his angry reaction to the end of Horizon) and Williams reaction that Shepard got exactly what he had coming to him. Two very different perspectives and only one of them can be right in this context.
 
You provide some very good reasons for not trusting Shepard, but a faith that has never been tested or that has never been asked to stand on its own two feet is worthless. Consider the parable of the mustard seed. It was said that all one must do is to have the faith of a mustard seed and you will be alright. Most people take that to mean just a little bit of faith because the mustard seed is so small. But this is not the meaning of the parable.
 
A mustard seed has an unshakeable faith that it will one day be a mustard tree. Therefore, it isn't that you need a tiny amount of faith, but a large amount of faith. Such faith is never given easily. In a sense, it is Ashley's faith in Shepard that was being tested on Horizon. It was a test of how well she knew and trusted Shepard versus how much stock she put in the lies, innuendo, and rumors she had heard. Shepard didn't win.
 
To me, that speaks volumes about the relationship between them. While Ashley admitted that she loved Shepard, the word love was used in its past tense. She never uses the word love in the present tense with Shepard, why? Maybe she got over him, maybe she found somebody else, maybe the negative feelings she harbored against the man because of the rumors she chose to believe killed it, but we may never know the answer to that one.
 
You said that trust between family members was different, I disagree. If Shepard and Williams were in love at the beginning of ME2, then how would that be different between a husband and wife? Shepard saved Williams life three times, he and Anderson were the first Alliance officers to focus on her character and not on her family's history thus allowing her to stand on her own two feet without the baggage she had been previously forced to haul. She helped Shepard boost an Alliance warship that was bleeding edge technology and highly classified. She was in the loop and fully aware of what was going on.
 
Two years later she is out of the loop and has no idea what is going on and that has a major impact on the relationship between the two. For the first time her faith and trust in Shepard is tested and she didn't make the cut in my opinion. As you point out, there really isn't any evidence from any source that she would accept on Horizon.
 
Further, if Williams believes that Shepard faked his own death then she must also believe that he is a murderer as well as a traitor. More than 20 crewmen died in the wreck of the Normandy SR1. That would elevate the need to arrest Shepard and take him out of play. Therefore, I don't think that she actually believed that Shepard went that far.
 
Ashley was primed when she saw Shepard on Horizon. TIM expended a good deal of effort to engineer the galaxy's mistrust of Shepard. I don't believe that he focused a lot of attention on Ashley because he expected her to be taken by the Collectors, which was not an unreasonable assumption given that she would be in the thick of the fighting and likely one of the first abducted because the Collectors would be looking for her specifically. Unfortunately for TIM, Shepard proved better than he thought and actually managed to save her from a grisly fate. But I digress.
 
Regarding the email, Shepard has no way of knowing if he will ever see Ashley again or not. He is on a suicide mission where it is very likely he will not return. He is going against superior technology, fighting on an unknown battlefield, against a determined foe with a small force. The odds of actually surviving are very low, especially considering that he has to cross the Omega 4 relay from which no non-collector vessel has ever returned. Is it really any wonder given these circumstances that I criticize her apology?
 
In a sense, Horizon proves that I never really knew Ashley either. I expected her to stand by me and she didn't. Some things are just not meant to be, perhaps Williams is one of them. The same could be said on her part.
 
This is because once trust is breached it is damned difficult to repair. It's like coming home and catching your spouse in bed with another. How long would it be before you could re-establish trust with that person again? Would you even want to? This is why I say that Williams has become an unknown quantity.
 
I trust Miranda, I trust Tali, I trust Garrus, I trust Jack, I don't trust Williams. I don't know where her head is, I don't know if she will follow my orders, I don't know that she will watch my back in a firefight. When the stakes are literally everything and you are playing fast and loose, then trust is of paramount importance. Who the hell is Williams? I just don't know that anymore.
 
Williams could come up to me in ME3 and tell me she is wholly on my side and that she's ready to take my orders, but how do I know if its genuine? How can I trust her? What reasons do I base that trust on? How do I know that she won't leave me hanging again when I really need her? Admittedly, the same questions could be floating through her mind as well. Once trust is breached it takes time, effort, and dedication to revive. How much time are we going to have for that in ME3? Unless I am completely mistaken, we are going to be working against the clock.
 
The lack of trust is the chief reason I don't really want to work with her anymore. This is why I believe that Ashley needs to take the first step to own up to her behavior on Horizon and explain why it happened and why it won't happen again and that's aside from the personal aspect of what happened on Horizon. If she can't do that then any statements of rectification are meaningless in my estimation.

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...
 
Ashley was primed when she saw Shepard on Horizon. TIM expended a good deal of effort to engineer the galaxy's mistrust of Shepard. I don't believe that he focused a lot of attention on Ashley because he expected her to be taken by the Collectors, which was not an unreasonable assumption given that she would be in the thick of the fighting and likely one of the first abducted because the Collectors would be looking for her specifically. Unfortunately for TIM, Shepard proved better than he thought and actually managed to save her from a grisly fate. But I digress.

Actually, I would suspect TIM of specifically focusing on shaking Ash's faith in Shepard.  She would be one of his staunchest allies in the Alliance at a time when TIM specifically wants Shep isolated from any other group that could help him.  Whether the Collectors carry her off or not is immaterial, only that they don't ally.
 

Regarding the email, Shepard has no way of knowing if he will ever see Ashley again or not. He is on a suicide mission where it is very likely he will not return. He is going against superior technology, fighting on an unknown battlefield, against a determined foe with a small force. The odds of actually surviving are very low, especially considering that he has to cross the Omega 4 relay from which no non-collector vessel has ever returned. Is it really any wonder given these circumstances that I criticize her apology?

Given that Ash knows nothing of this...?
 

In a sense, Horizon proves that I never really knew Ashley either. I expected her to stand by me and she didn't. Some things are just not meant to be, perhaps Williams is one of them. The same could be said on her part.
 
This is because once trust is breached it is damned difficult to repair. It's like coming home and catching your spouse in bed with another. How long would it be before you could re-establish trust with that person again? Would you even want to? This is why I say that Williams has become an unknown quantity.

You mentioned the parable ofteh mustard seed.  How about the one about the Prodigal Son?  Ya know, the one Miranda's loyalty mission is named after.  The one where her oldest friend betrays her due to having incomplete and misleading knowledge of what's really going on 
 

Williams could come up to me in ME3 and tell me she is wholly on my side and that she's ready to take my orders, but how do I know if its genuine? How can I trust her? What reasons do I base that trust on? How do I know that she won't leave me hanging again when I really need her? Admittedly, the same questions could be floating through her mind as well. Once trust is breached it takes time, effort, and dedication to revive. How much time are we going to have for that in ME3? Unless I am completely mistaken, we are going to be working against the clock.

I'd trust her, even if she didn't trust me.  Because she will not betray her principles.  Even for Shepard.  She may need convincing that my Shepard hasn't betrayed his either, of course...

[GMagnum]

sure is novels n here

[paul165]

>>Actually, I would suspect TIM of specifically focusing on shaking Ash's faith in Shepard. She would be one of his staunchest allies in the Alliance at a time when TIM specifically wants Shep isolated from any other group that could help him. Whether the Collectors carry her off or not is immaterial, only that they don't ally.<<

Why would Tim care about a single grunt - the VS isn't a Spectre yet and wouldn't it be easier to put a bullet in the VS if it was that important to isolate Shepard. Also would have thought Tim would concentrate more effort on the important Hackett and Anderson than one former crew member -interesting theory though.

[Iakus]

paul165 wrote...

>>Actually, I would suspect TIM of specifically focusing on shaking Ash's faith in Shepard. She would be one of his staunchest allies in the Alliance at a time when TIM specifically wants Shep isolated from any other group that could help him. Whether the Collectors carry her off or not is immaterial, only that they don't ally.<<

Why would Tim care about a single grunt - the VS isn't a Spectre yet and wouldn't it be easier to put a bullet in the VS if it was that important to isolate Shepard. Also would have thought Tim would concentrate more effort on the important Hackett and Anderson than one former crew member -interesting theory though.

Because Hackett and Anderson have the pull to keep the Alliance off Shepard's back.  Ash, though not so high a rank, is still a potential source of information and perhaps indirect support.  She's Anderson's new protege, possibly already being groomed for Spectrehood. 

In addition, Shepard could feed Cerberus information to her, potentially.

[alperez]

Knight

We seem to agree on part of the discussion, like i said i'm not sure anything Shepard could have done on Horizon would have worked at that particular time, where we seem to disagree though is in why this is the case and what that actually means.

While playing up the loyalty and trust you expect Ash to provide, you fail to recognise that in the situation Ash believes that Shepard has already betrayed that loyalty and trust so therefore is unlikely or unable at that point to do what you want her to.

The situation creates a unique set of circumstances that create a flawed perspective that Ash follows through on, without those circumstances this perspective wouldn't exist and the situation would be more akin to a simple trust issue.

1. Shepard reappearing after being presumed dead for 2 years combined with the rumors that he's been alive for some time create the perspective that Ash has imo that he did not die, that the death was part of some elaborate hoax or misdirection that he decided not to tell her about.

Her own words confirm this imo (i thought you were dead shepard, we all did, i spent the past 2 years believing you were dead, how could you put me through that, why didn't you try to contact me. why didn't you let me know you were alive)

Its clear here that Shepards perceived actions are the first betrayal of trust and loyalty, in Ash's mind at least.

2. The rumours that Shepard was working with cerberus combined with the arrival of Shepard with cerberus combined with Ash's own knowledge of cerberus and the lengths they go to, create the perspective that either Shepard is being duped,manipulated or controlled by cerberus or that something has changed in him turning him from the man she once knew into a man she's now unsure of.

Once again her own words confirm this (your with cerberus now, i can't believe the reports were true) followed by (do you really believe that or is that just what cerberus want you to think, i'd like to believe you Shepard but i don't trust cerberus and it worries me that you do, what did they do to you, what if they're behind it)

Again its clear here that in Ash's mind Shepard has already betrayed her and the alliance, he's shown no loyalty to either of them and so its impossible or certainly improbable for her to be loyal to someone she already believes is disloyal.

You expect the loyalty and trust of a person who feels you have been disloyal and untrustworthy towards them already and i'm sorry but that wouldn't happen in real life so why should it be any different in this situation?

See while you say of the 2 perspectives only one can be right, the problem is that the reasons the other is wrong have to also be taken into account, since imo the reasons are justifiable (given Ash's understanding of the situation at hand) then the issue of trust isn't actually a valid one imo.

If on the other hand Ash was completely aware of all the facts, had the exact same understanding of the events since Shepard's death as we the players do and then came to the same conclussions as she did on Horizon, then your position would be completely valid, but this isn't the case is it.

In my view your not taking into account enough Ash's perspective, why she has that perspective and is it a vaild perspective to have with the info she has available to her at the time.

Instead your concentrating on the outcome of Horizon which leads you to conclude Ash is untrustworthy and Shepard's knowledge of events which show that Ash is wrong.

Ash makes a mistake on Horizon, a mistake thats created by a unique set of circumstances that post Horizon are practically impossible to happen again, so Horizon can't be taken as an example of how trustworthy she is.

Now you can if you wish decide you don't trust her, that's your perogative, but i'm sorry if you can't see the difference between a mistake based on flawed perception and unique circumstances and someone betraying you based on pure judgement then your completely misreading the situation and characters imo.

Lastly in terms of Ash arresting Shepard, seriously she is alone on Horizon with no backup facing arguably the greatest military man she's ever known, who just happens to be backed up by an entire squad and ship full of people, Ash is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.

Modifié par alperez, 18 octobre 2011 - 11:47 .

[knightnblu]

iakus wrote...

paul165 wrote...

>>Actually, I would suspect TIM of specifically focusing on shaking Ash's faith in Shepard. She would be one of his staunchest allies in the Alliance at a time when TIM specifically wants Shep isolated from any other group that could help him. Whether the Collectors carry her off or not is immaterial, only that they don't ally.<<

Why would Tim care about a single grunt - the VS isn't a Spectre yet and wouldn't it be easier to put a bullet in the VS if it was that important to isolate Shepard. Also would have thought Tim would concentrate more effort on the important Hackett and Anderson than one former crew member -interesting theory though.

Because Hackett and Anderson have the pull to keep the Alliance off Shepard's back.  Ash, though not so high a rank, is still a potential source of information and perhaps indirect support.  She's Anderson's new protege, possibly already being groomed for Spectrehood. 

In addition, Shepard could feed Cerberus information to her, potentially.

Williams is important for several reasons. First, she could potentially subvert Cerberus' control of Shepard because of her influence. Second, she can be, and was, used for the bait in a trap for the Collectors. Third, she is persistent and thorough in her investigation of Cerberus and was likely a thorn in TIM's side. While it is certainly true that TIM could just kill her, he is rather fond of killing two birds with a single stone.
 
An example of this is when he captured Grayson on Omega. He specifically ordered the assassin to capture and not to kill him so that he could be used as a guinea pig in a Cerberus experiment on Reaper technology. TIM therefore scored two triumphs with a single effort. He got revenge against Grayson and he found a suitable candidate for his experiment.
 
Essentially, Ashley was used in a similar manner. He used her to bait the trap on Horizon, to motivate Shepard, and was reasonably certain that she wouldn't survive Horizon thus ending her threat to Cerberus operations. Unfortunately, he only accomplished his first and second objectives. However, the poisoning of the galactic well insured that she wouldn't compromise Shepard's loyalty to Cerberus because she would be antagonistic towards him if they met.
 
Never the less, Horizon was a test case. TIM wanted to insure that he had an effective means of avoiding detection by the Collector swarms, that Shepard could indeed fight the Collectors, and that stopping them from carrying out their attacks was possible. One target, multiple objectives. That's TIM's style. As such, TIM is ruthless, efficient in both effort and planning, and highly methodical.

[knightnblu]

alperez
 
But what exactly does Ashley know? She has no hard evidence of anything. She has suspicions, innuendo, and rumor. What she lacks is hard evidence. Just as she witnessed Shepard working with Cerberus, by Shepard's own admission, she also witnessed the piles of dead Collectors she had to step over to get to him. She heard the small weapons fire. She heard the GARDIAN lasers she couldn't fix, fire on the Collector vessel. Unless she is having one hell of a hallucination, that pretty much means that Shepard is fighting the things that are taking the colonists. She also had to realize that she was slated for a gruesome end as well and Shepard kept her from meeting that fate. On the balance of reason, what is Williams left with?
 
Shepard is a traitor, Shepard is stupid, Shepard is mind controlled, Shepard is (insert nonsensical descriptor here). You even admit yourself that there is no evidence that she would accept that was contrary to her skewed perceptions on Horizon because she was emotionally disconnected from reality. Here in the real world we call that a psychotic break.
 
Regarding her knowledge of the man she once loved, that information is backed up by her experience of it. In other words, it is fact. Contrast that with the rumors, innuendo, and her own fears and place them on the balance of reason and the facts will win every time because it is only there that we find substance. The rest is as vapor.
 
This is what gets my hackles up regarding Williams. She believed the rumors and innuendo over her factual knowledge of Shepard. As a direct result of that she no longer trusts or loves the man she once knew. For without trust, how can there be love? Without trust, how can one command another? Without trust, how can one be a friend?
 
As you have pointed out, it has been two years since Shepard last saw Ashley. From his perspective it has only been a couple weeks and so Horizon took him by surprise. However, what you see as a mistake could be the sign of something more. There is no way to know until the release of ME3. How do you know that she is still loyal? What evidence do you have that she will accept your command? How do you know that you can still trust her when the chips are down? Because the last time you looked for that trust, it was gone.
 
Ashley says that she's changed. Does that mean that she has a new hair color? Did she gain a few pounds? Get a tattoo? What? I think that it means something deeper and I don't think that Ashley fans are going to like the answer to that question. Everybody believes that come ME3, Ash is going to swoon for Shepard as soon as she sees him. That didn't happen on Horizon and I don't believe that is going to happen in ME3. There is a lot more going on behind the scenes that we don't know regarding Williams.
 
Is it because she is the mother of Shepard's child? Is it because she is with someone else? Many questions and few answers. Both could point to serious changes in Ashley and could have heightened her emotions on Horizon. As I have said, she is an unknown quantity now.
 
 
iakus - Prodigal son, you had to go there didn't you...lol. But my point still remains. Faith that is untested is worthless. When one has all of the facts it is easy to have faith in another, but that's cheap. The true test of faith comes when darkness is swirling all around you and you don't know which way is up. If you can have faith in such a circumstance, then you have something.
 
Williams admits to believing in God. That means that she is a person of faith by default, for what evidence is there for a Divine creator? While her faith in God may be solid, her faith in Shepard is in tatters and it shows on Horizon.
 
As for the apology, true she didn't know what Shepard was doing and she didn't care. But the truth of the matter is that there are no guarantees in life. None of us are guaranteed one second. It is best to keep that fact in mind in our daily lives.

[alperez]

Knight

I'm sorry but your misunderstanding the point, continually you bring up that she should know Shepard because 2 years previously she worked alongside him and therefore knows what he stands for.

The situation though is that whatever Shepard previously stood for is in question because of the perception his actions are now presented in, its the fact that he's alive and working with cerberus 2 years after supposedly dying that call his character into question.

Its because she has no knowledge of what Shepard has gone through in the past 2 years that call every action he takes questionable, so while she steps over the bodies of the collectors and sees certain things on Horizon, the problem is are these things just part of Cerberus's and by default Shepards master plan.

Are they misdirection, just like Shepards death now seems to be.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept that because Shepard is alive and working with cerberus that everything previously known is now questioned, instead you continually paint the situation like its taking place in a bubble where the outside elements are less important than the fact that they worked together 2 years previously, when in fact its the outside elements that cause the problem to begin with.

Not having any knowledge of the Lazurus project or how it worked and how long its taken, creates what can be the only logical explanation for Shepard's reappearance, that he did not in fact die, that somehow he survived.

Which then leads to the second big issue, if that's true then for 2 years he's let Ash believe he was dead, he's let her go through that alone, never trying to contact her and let her know he was alive, this is as clear an example of a betrayal of someone you supposedly care about as there could be.

Now of course we know different, but again thats partly the point, our knowledge clouds our assessment because once we've gained that knowledge its impossible to forget it, but in analysis of Ash's stance on Horizon, forget it we must.

Shepards perceived actions have caused the rift from Ash's perspective, the fact that we know the reality of those actions doesn't actually enter the equation simply because Ash doesn't have the same knowledge we do.

Simply put, if you saw a loved one die, then 2 years later they reappeared right in front of you, your first reaction wouldn't be Wow they rebuilt him but it would be to question if they had indeed died or had somehow faked their death, finding out later that they were rebuilt as part of some secret experimental project may clear things up, but it wouldn't change your intial perception.

The lazurus project is completely unknown, Shepard's the first and thus far only person to have ever gone through it, its not as if its commonplace for dead people to be resurrected even in mass effect, so why would Ash believe that's what occured with Shepard when she has no knowledge or experience that its even possible?

So 1. Shepards reappearance creates a unique circumstance that brings into question just exactly what kind of a person Shepard really is.

Rumours being spread that Shepard was alive and well and working with cerberus added to Shepard arriving on Horizon working with cereberus call into question more things regarding Shepard's character.

The shepard that Ash knew would never have willingly worked with Cerberus so that means either he's being controlled,duped or manipulated by them or the shepard Ash knew was never actually real, the things she believed he stood for are not actually the things he stands for.

If it wasn't for the perception that Shepard being alive gives, the second part working with cereberus may have been examined differently, it may have been examined along the lines of taking the normandy etc, an ends justify the means approach, unfortunately its the combination of both these elements which create the problems in trusting Shepard initially.

Or to put it simply.

A. Shepard being alive 2 years after he supposedly died, calls into question whether or not he did in fact die, since Ash has no knowledge about the lazurus project or what Shepard's gone through, she instead believes he did not die which means for 2 years he let her believe a lie, he let her grieve for him, let her go through it without once trying to contact her or letting her know he was alive, which of course means what kind of a person she thought he was is not in fact true.

B. Rumours suggesting Shepard being alive and working with cerberus added to Shepard showing up working with cerberus, added to Ash's own knowledge just exactly what lengths cerberus will go to all combine to create a doubt that Shepard is making the right choices, either because he's unaware he's wrong due to something cerberus are doing, have done to him, or because he believes
in cerberus themselves.

In essence what he once stood for he no longer does or he never really did.

Which of course leads to C. the breakdown of the trust between them.

A leads to B which leads to C, if there was no A then perhaps B would have led to a different outcome, if there was no B then perhaps A could have led to a different outcome, but since both A and B are present it leads to unfortunately to C.

The problem though is since we know A and B to be false, we feel wronged by C, but this doesn't take into account enough that in Ash's position with the knowledge that she possesses C is a logical and justifiable step and one we would most likely take ourselves in the same situation.

Lastly i never said she was emotionally disconnected from reality, what i said was that the situation makes her emotionally compromised, its a complete different thing, so not a psychotic break but more someone acting under emotional duress.

If you thought someone you loved had died and 2 years later they were standing in front of you, you'd be emotionally compromised, if you thought someone you loved had abandoned you and let you believe they were dead for 2 years only to suddenly reappear it would place you under emotional duress.

Modifié par alperez, 19 octobre 2011 - 02:33 .

[alperez]

Knight

In terms of loyalty and how i know she'll be loyal in me3 and what seems to be some undertone in your assessment that there's more than meets the eye or something else going on in relation to Ash.

Firstly i think you way off, i think your overthinking things and trying to come up with some almost deus ex machina like element to explain her behaviour.

That she only reacted how she did on Horizon because of x, therefore you were right she's untrustworthy, that there's some outside force which created the way she reacted, be it a new love or any other possible explanation other than the simplest one, that she mistakenly believed Shepard's actions to be the opposite of what they actually were.

I'm sorry but i'd be willing to bet you any amount right now, that come me3 she will indeed swoon and fall straight back into Shepard's arms, that there was no ulterior motive in her actions, no new love waiting in the wings.

As for how trustworthy she will be and why i believe her trust is not even in question, simply put re-read the e-mail, its a clear indication that she knows she was wrong about Shepard, she knows why he's doing what he's doing and that its for the best reasons, it is in fact as clear as an example of someone who once Shepard's actions were looked at with a clearer head and with the relevant info came to the conclussion that you wished she had on horizon.

She knows Shepard is not being controlled or working for Cerberus, that he didn't abandon her or let her believe he had died, that what she always believed about him and who he was is true and that Horizon was a mistake on her part.

Yes its not a grovelling apology or a clear cut reconcilliation attempt, simply because she couldn't do that in an e-mail, she can't take the risk that in declaring how she truly feels she's opening herself up to be hurt if Shepard feels differently.

It is what it is a first step, the second will happen in me3, simply because if it had happened in the e-mail then it would remove so much of the drama of the reconcilliation itself.

Her statement that she's changed, that Shepard's changed is almost word for word how Liara speaks in LOSB, it doesn't mean what you think it does, that she's changed but rather its a concern that Shepard may not feel the same way about her, it is in fact a simple safety blanket to allow Shepard to make his move and show he still loves her, rather than for Ash to make her move and find out he doesn't feel the same, They did it with Liara in LOSB, its almost standard operating procedure for them now.

As i said i believe she is completely trustworthy, simply because the situation on Horizon cannot occur again, the specifics cannot be repeated therefore the outcome will always be different.

[knightnblu]

alperez
 
You do not argue fact, you argue opinion. Nowhere in your counterargument do you cite facts that Williams relies on in order to make a judgment of Shepard. I specifically asked what facts Ashley had access to in order to make the judgment that Shepard was bad, you provide nothing, but opinion and circumstance.
 
Williams' life with Shepard is a fact. Her knowledge of the man is a fact. She knows his character because she has witnessed it under a variety of circumstances and therefore made it factual. What she knows of his views is factual. Her admission that she loved him means that she knew him well enough to engender the emotion of love.
 
You claim that disappearing for two years and showing up wearing Cerberus colors resets everything that Williams knows about Shepard. How exactly? You go into great detail, but you never explain how the rumors, innuendo, and suspicions override her factual knowledge of the man. How does being absent for two years and admitting that Cerberus rebuilt him as an explanation of why he never contacted her trump her factual knowledge of Shepard exactly?
 
Williams asks Shepard a point blank question, Shepard gives a point blank answer and *poof!* Ash goes ballistic. You say that She was emotionally compromised, I agree. But that still doesn't explain how the rumor trumped the facts.
 
Just as your conclusions are drawn on judgment, Ashley's support of Shepard could equally have been made as a judgment call. Anderson was capable of appropriately judging Shepard's character as was Tali, who had a far more serious reasons for hating Cerberus than Williams, yet she fully trusted Shepard. What's more, both of them had not seen Shepard or knew his actions over the past two years the same as Williams.
 
In fact, it could be argued that Anderson, being a member of the Citadel Council, would have been bombarded by far more serious accusations than Williams was exposed to and would therefore be less likely to extend Shepard the benefit of the doubt. As an example of what I am speaking of, when Shepard arrives to the Council meeting the Asari Councilor wants to charge Shepard with a capital offense. Anderson prevents the Council from going down that road. Yet Williams jettisons her factual knowledge and goes on pure anger and suspicion. Don't look now, but I believe that we have uncovered a character flaw in Williams.
 
In contrast to Anderson and Tali Zorah, Williams will not yield to reason and extend the benefit of the doubt to Shepard. That is a bridge too far, so to speak. Yet you support her decision to do so. Do you also condemn Anderson and Tali for extending their trust to Shepard I wonder? Was not their actions based upon a judgment of Shepard's character using their personal knowledge of the man in contrast to rumors and innuendo?
 
Had Williams only known Shepard for a brief period, not been lovers, Shepard played renegade, I might see it your way because the facts would be scant. But given her deep personal knowledge of Shepard, I believe that she made the wrong call and not because I have the knowledge of the player, but because she had a factual basis to make the call and didn't.
 
While the evidence of Shepard's betrayal were mostly vaporous rumors (per Williams own admission), Williams completely ignores her factual knowledge of Shepard and goes with them. That is idiotic. In my opinion, she would have made a far more solid judgment had she extended Shepard the benefit of the doubt as had Anderson and Tali, but remained guarded as Anderson did. She didn't.
 
Therefore, when I call into question Williams loyalty, professionalism, and judgment, I have a factual basis for doing so. I don't do so out of anger, but out of a cool assessment of the presented facts.
 
Fact: Williams no longer trusts Shepard. She instead trusts rumors.
Fact: She abandoned reason in favor of anger and innuendo.
Fact: She sunk so low that she called Shepard a traitor to his face and also accused him of treason to the Council implying that he had abandoned his duties as a Spectre.
Fact: Williams ignored the piles of Collector bodies, the small arms fire she heard indicating resistance, and the activation of the GARDIAN defense turrets that engaged the Collector ship forcing it to retreat abandoning its objective of abducting the colony.
Fact: Williams completely ignores the previous information, data collected with her own senses, in order to blame Shepard and Cerberus for the attacks.
 
Does that sound rational to you? If I were her CO, I would be ordering a psych eval on her not promoting her to the officer corps. In the case of Williams, 2+2 does not equal 4. That's why I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.
 
Regarding ME3, I'll lay you 10 quatloos to 1 that she doesn't swoon for you as soon as she lays eyes on you. If you want her back you are going to have to pursue her and win it again. Just 'cause it's never easy and because there is a heck of a lot more to what is going on with Williams. She traded her baggage for a cargo ship I'll bet.

[alperez]

Knight

People are not computers, they're not machines, they don't rely on only facts in order to form an opinion about someone, Ash is not legion, she's not building a consensus.

You completely dismiss the emotional aspect as if its secondary and instead you concentrate on the facts as if all Ash does is weigh these up against her known facts and comes to a conclussion.

When faced with an situation that is emotional its our emotions that define how we respond to that situation, its precisely because of this that we as people sometimes make bad choices, otherwise we'd be machines relying on simple logic to define our every move.

Now in terms of me not providing facts as you put it, is it not a fact that shepard has returned from the dead, or that he is now working with cerberus, is it not a fact that since he supposedly died rumours have been spread saying he's alive and working with cerberus?

What i've offered continously is how Ash has assessed those facts, the reasons why she has assessed them this way and what her emotional state would be in the precise situation on Horizon.

You instead concentrate entirely on the facts as you perceive them, ignore any emotional input whatsoever and then criticise Ash for not putting aside those emotions and analysing the facts in a non emotional robotic way.

The problem is though Ash being human is unable to do this as would any of us be when faced with the same situation, whether we like to admit it or not we're slaves to our emotions.

Now onto the rest of your post.

For some reason you can't seem to accept that people change, that what you know about people or what you think you know about people is written in stone, simply because you used to know someone they are forever stuck with the same ideals and goals as they always were.

People change, time, events, circumstances forced people to change, someone who's idealistic as a young man can be worn down over time and become a cynic, someone who was once happy go lucky can end up depressed.

In the mass effect universe we also have outside interests that force people to change from Indoctrination to being controlled by a thorian, these outside interests have forced significant character changes in people.

So what do we have as an outside interest on Horizon, we have cerberus and what knowledge does Ash possess about cerberus, that they killed an admiral, carried out inhuman experiments to create something they had control over and many other things.

So why should she just accept that Shepard is still Shepard because she knew him 2 years previously when she can see him now seemingly abandoning everything he believed in and throwing his lot in with cerberus?

Is it possible that because of something cerberus have done to him that Shepard is no longer who he used to be, of course it is and this is what she brings up to him, Shepard dismissess it but then if he was being controlled by them he would wouldn't he?

Secondly we get on to Shepards percieved actions regarding his death and re-appearance, i've suggested she no longer believes he died on the normandy, that his death was a hoax or misdirection and he's been alive but decided not to tell her this, not to let her in on this little facet of info, that instead he simply let her believe he was dead, let her grieve for him for 2 years without letting her know he was alive or trying to contact her.

What evidence do i have of this, Ash's own words, she says point blank "i thought you were dead, we all did" "i spent the past 2 years believing you were dead" "we had something something real, i loved you" "I thought you were dead, i almost, how could you put me through that, Why didn't you try to contact me, why didn't you let me know you were alive".

Those aren't the words of someone who believes Shepard has just been resurrected and come back from the dead, those are the words of someone who clearly believes the death itself didn't occur.

Which again bring us back to your assertion that she has factual knowledge of Shepard based on her previous association with him and that should be what she bases her assessment on.

The problem is that Shepard of 2 years ago would never do what she now believes he has done, he would never have let her believe he was dead, let her go through that without telling her he was alive, without contacting her, so if thats the case then the only obvious conclussion she can make is that Shepard is different, that either by choice or because of outside interference something has changed him.

So once again i ask how can she rely on her past knowledge when her present knowledge seems to completely contradict it?

You present these as facts so i'll deal with them.

Fact: Williams no longer trusts Shepard. She instead trusts rumors.

Working with cerberus on the face of it is a confirmation of those rumours, but its because of this and her perception of Shepards actions that she no longer trust Shepard.

Fact: She abandoned reason in favor of anger and innuendo.

The situation she faces is an emotional one which of course creates certain emotional reactions, however her assessment of the situation is based on the perception that Shepard's return working with cerberus has created.

Fact: She sunk so low that she called Shepard a traitor to his face and also accused him of treason to the Council implying that he had abandoned his duties as a Spectre.

Shepard working with cereberus is basically a traitorous act, they are considered enemies by both the council and the alliance, its practically the same as Saren working with the geth.

Fact: Williams ignored the piles of Collector bodies, the small arms fire she heard indicating resistance, and the activation of the GARDIAN defense turrets that engaged the Collector ship forcing it to retreat abandoning its objective of abducting the colony.

Misdirection is cerberus's middle name, what better way to ensure an investigation into your activities results in your name being cleared than to create a situation that seems to prove your innocent thereby stalling or stopping that investigation before it finds out the truth.

Cerberus working with the collectors is still on the table as far as Ash is concerned, when you consider that the collectors managed to take a lot of the colonists and get away basically achieving their objective, it still at that point isn't certain that what you see is evidence of what it looks like.

Fact: Williams completely ignores the previous information, data collected with her own senses, in order to blame Shepard and Cerberus for the attacks.

Ash knows cerberus, knows what they are capable of, what lengths they'd go to in order to complete their goals, so what evidence does she actually have that this isn't part of a larger plan between cerberus and the collectors.

A few collector bodies, the gun working, the collector ship gone, none of these things initially prove that cerbeus and the collectors are not working together.

Your assessment of these facts fails to recognise that you have knowledge that Ash does not, you know cerberus is not working with the collectors, Shepard died and was brought back to life by the lazurus project and has only recently awoke for his coma, all Ash has to go on is Shepard's word, which at this point is questionable.

Simply put if Shepard is being controlled by cerberus then he is untrustworthy, if he's being duped or manipulated by cerberus then he is untrustworthy, if he's thrown his lot in with cerberus because he now believes in them he's untrustworthy.

So how does Shepard prove he's trustworthy at this point, he offers a you know me defense, a defense that at that point in time cannot be accepted because the question is does she?

I've used the Al Qaeda paralell before, but it still stands, if an american soldier presumed dead for 2 years suddenly re-appeared working with Al Qaeda after rumours were spread he was alive and working with Al Qaeda then a simple you knew me 2 years previously defence would not be accepted, he would be debriefed, questioned, forced to produce evidence to back up his claims before he would be trusted by his former comrades, its that simple.

Thats in a world where Indoctrination doesn't exist, where people can't be controlled by plants (unless its really good weed) and where Al Qaeda don't have the technology that cerberus do in mass effect.

Yet your whole argument boils down to Shepard should be treated differently because 2 years previously he was known to stand for something, that in those 2 years he could not have changed, no one could believe he had changed or that something was forcing him to change against his will.

I'm sorry thats not just naive but it borders on ridiculousness, instead of assessing the situation from Ash's perspective you continually assess it from Shepards and expect Ash to do likewise, then because she does not you act like she's personally affronted you somehow.

Your so pissed in the outcome and so hurt by her actions that you've convinced yourself, she's completely wrong, she's completely at fault, she's untrustworthy, that i seriously doubt anything i or anyone else could say anything to change your mind.

Which is an attitude i don't understand at all since your basically taking the same position Ash did in relation to Shepard, the position you have so much difficulty in understanding or accepting.

The only difference is off course that in Ash's case the circumstances create the position, in yours you create your own circumstances to fit your position.

People make mistakes, based on misinformation, misunderstanding of information and heightened emotions because of situations, do you when this happens, lay complete blame on the person and ignore everything else, do you cut that person from your life because you feel they've wronged you, if so i can understand your position, if not then why do you feel that you should in Ash's case?

Lastly, in terms of restarting the relationship, off course your going to have to win her back, simply because in Mass Effect its Shepard who's the instigator of every relationship, in LOSB it was Shepard who had to make the move, not Liara, it was Shepard who had to convince her that he still wanted to pursue the relationship, it will be no different in relation to Ash in me3.

As for there being more going on with Ash, i'm sorry but again you'll find your way off, there won't be any other obstacle placed other than Horizon, its a one issue situation the same as it was with Liara, for them to create other reasons at this time would make no sense whatsoever, its wishful thinking on your part, your looking for a deus ex machina reason why Ash acted how she did when the reason is much simpler than that.

The baggage you think she's carrying is all related to Horizon, be it thinking Shepard didn't feel the same way about her or not believing in him at the time, that's all it will be and i'll take any bet you wish to place that says otherwise.

Modifié par alperez, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:53 .

[Ryuzetsu]

Ash is definitely my girl. Unless she gets stupid and trys to cop an attitude. I mean lets face it, I saved that butt not once but twice, Check. If it hadn't been for my decisions she would have either been, A. a cloud of atoms somewhere over Virmire or B. The reaper equivilent of a V8 from Horizon. Either way she owes me her life, so she has to have at least a little gratitude. Not to mention my Shepard got the E-mail after defeating the collectors about how she remembered "our night"... and so on. I'm still hoping that she will see through to what we had. But if not, I hooked up with Jack and well.. just saying somebody's got to get dropped. Am I screwed, yeah, but its either a trigger happy crack shot Ex., or an emotionally scarred uber-Biotic. I don't know what's going to happen when those two find out that I have feelings for both but I can honestly say I'm worried more about that then fighting the Reapers. That being said, Miranda, Tali, Samara, And the Green Asari I saved from the Thorian, all made overtures so... the odds are in my favor.

[knightnblu]

alperez
 
Do you want to know how I know your arguments are weak? Because you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of standing by your reasoning. In a previous post you insulted my intelligence, now you label me as being an angry and unreasonable crank who is out of touch with reality. I wonder, do you have a PhD in psychology? If not, I would appreciate it if you desisted from psychoanalyzing me. In fact, even if you do possess a PhD in psychology, I would appreciate it if you desisted. I take umbrage because you continually state that you are sensitive to the psychological needs of others, but you also consistently seek to attack me personally. That seems to be an incongruity.
 
First, the fact that you do not respond to my query regarding Anderson and Tali is telling. They are in the same circumstances as is Williams, they possess nearly the same knowledge about Shepard and yet, they trust him where she does not. Glossing over this detail does not aid you in reinforcing your argument.
 
Your analogy regarding Al Qaeda is also flawed. A soldier would not have been given the leeway to violate any and all laws, would not have been given the responsibility of protecting any and all citizens and would not have been in such a close and loving relationship with his fellows. His responsibility is to his unit commander in the performance of their mission and to the soldiers assigned to that unit. As a Spectre, Shepard did indeed have these responsibilities and privileges and he was in a romantic relationship with Williams. Unless I am very much mistaken, all one could say of the relationship between combat soldiers is that they are friends, not lovers. At least not since the time of the Janissaries in most armies, DADT notwithstanding. Therefore your comparison is apples and oranges. If you seek to use an analogy, then I would greatly appreciate it if it were on point.
 
Regarding you assertion that my entire argument boils down to him being treated as if he were unchanged after two years is in and of itself an unworthy assertion. You completely ignore Shepard's responsibilities as a Spectre and view him only as an Alliance soldier. His duties as a Spectre effectively removes him from the Alliance's control because his responsibilities have expanded exponentially. Therefore, command and control cannot come from the Alliance because its focus is far too narrow to encompass Shepard's new responsibilities. This is why Shepard answers to the Council and not to the Alliance for his actions.
 
If the Alliance has it's collective rear end hoisted up on its shoulders, its because as a member of the Alliance, Shepard's actions reflect upon all of humanity and the Alliance in particular. That is the sole reason that Shepard is being brought back to Earth for taking out an entire solar system.
 
"The only difference is off course that in Ash's case the circumstances create the position, in yours you create your own circumstances to fit your position."
 
If you would give my arguments a fair trial instead of merely dismissing them out of hand because they don't agree with your position, then perhaps you would be able to see that I am indeed using the circumstances as they are presented rather than "creating my own." If I were creating my own, then Horizon would never have happened, Ashley would not have had a psychotic break, and everything would be fine. I mean, if I am going to create game circumstances as I desire instead of taking them as they are presented, why stop there? I can use my imagination to conjure up all kinds of special things. Trouble is, I didn't.
 
While people are not computers, they are also not slaves to their emotions. If reason were divorced from the world regarding humanity as you seem to advocate, then what would be the likely outcome of that do you think? Would not the negative emotions evoke horrors heretofore unseen since the Third Reich? Would not the Soviet gulags still be in operation? Would Chairman Mao's social purges have stopped at 80 million dead? Would not eugenics still be a viable scientific concern? The problem with emotions is that they tend to get out of control and it is only reason that can rein them in. I have witnessed man's inhumanity to his fellow man and if you have never seen this, then thank your lucky stars because it is ugly and it is wholly fueled by emotions.
 
Additionally, there were more than a "few" Collector corpses laying around on Horizon. While the combat on Horizon is not definitive proof, it certainly gives a strong and valid reason to doubt that Shepard is on the side of the Collectors. Up until that point, no colony attacked has survived to any extent. Horizon was the first. From Williams perspective, the glaring question is why? If it is misdirection, then Cerberus could have done other more effective things and at a lesser expense. They have spread rumors that has disassociated the galactic community from Shepard. Going further down that road is not in Cerberus' interests and from Williams perspective she would be ignorant of Cerberus' operating procedures. Further, why would they expend so much effort to mislead Williams when they were fully aware that she was not likely to survive the Collector attack? It makes no sense.
 
"People make mistakes, based on misinformation, misunderstanding of information and heightened emotions because of situations, do you when this happens, lay complete blame on the person and ignore everything else, do you cut that person from your life because you feel they've wronged you, if so i can understand your position, if not then why do you feel that you should in Ash's case?"
 
Try walking in to your CO's office and pulling an Ashley on him and see what happens. If he gets upset, just tell him it was just an experiment and you meant nothing by it and just wanted to test his reaction. See if he let's you off the hook. Better yet, walk into the CG's office and do it. There is nothing a flag officer likes more than a good jest and what could be more fun than calling him a traitor to his face and with venom in your tone? If the world works as you say, they should be just fine with it and you all can have a good laugh when the truth is revealed. Good times! Personally, I think you will be headed for some serious trouble, but what do I know?
 
This isn't a case of who took the last beer, what Ashley did is very serious in a military context (weren't you arguing context a few posts ago?). Regardless of their relationship, she is a noncom and he is a senior commissioned officer and former ship's captain. She calls him a traitor to the Alliance, the Council, to Anderson, and to herself. That's serious.
 
I have been out for a long time and maybe the military is no longer the stuck on tradition, spit and polish organization it used to be. Maybe it has more in common with the girl scouts than with killing foreign enemies and destroying infrastructure and equipment. Maybe it's the new Peace Corps and warriors and aggression have no place in it. Maybe you really can pull an Ashley on the CG and get away with it. But I doubt it. As a person that has led troops in combat, I would have expected you to understand that. But maybe I'm an anachronism and times really have changed and the chain of command and military courtesy isn't what it once was.
 
No matter how you slice it, the chief arguments against my position come down to accepting supposition and rumor for facts known to have been true about Shepard two years ago. Anderson stuck by Shepard, Tali stuck by Shepard, and Garrus stuck by Shepard. The only one who didn't stick by Shepard was the woman who was in love with him. Funny how that works out isn't it? The one Shepard trusted the most, trusts him the least.
 
What I can't get over, is that this is somehow acceptable to people.

[Mr. Brainheart]

knightnblu wrote...

 
No matter how you slice it, the chief arguments against my position come down to accepting supposition and rumor for facts known to have been true about Shepard two years ago. Anderson stuck by Shepard, Tali stuck by Shepard, and Garrus stuck by Shepard. The only one who didn't stick by Shepard was the woman who was in love with him. Funny how that works out isn't it? The one Shepard trusted the most, trusts him the least.
 
What I can't get over, is that this is somehow acceptable to people.

This is something that stems from Shepard's so called untouchable-ness, or so I believe. Everybody blindly trusts Shepard because of who he was, not because of who he is. Ashley calls him out on who he is now and she has as much right to distrust Shepard as the others have to trust him. Even back in ME1, it was often Ashley who second-guessed Shepard, to make him rethink his choices, that's something I admire in her. It's good that she reminds Shepard that you can't just waltz back into someone's life like nothing has happened, like it'll be good ol' times, without giving any evidence that you are the person you were. AShley has always been precautious and just because she knew doesn't mean she should trust you when you return to her from the dead, in a cerberus vessel, after 2 years.

[Xilizhra]

This isn't a case of who took the last beer, what Ashley did is very serious in a military context (weren't you arguing context a few posts ago?). Regardless of their relationship, she is a noncom and he is a senior commissioned officer and former ship's captain. She calls him a traitor to the Alliance, the Council, to Anderson, and to herself. That's serious.

Wait, doesn't Shepard at one point say that she's not really in the Alliance military anymore?

[knightnblu]

Xilizhra wrote...

This isn't a case of who took the last beer, what Ashley did is very serious in a military context (weren't you arguing context a few posts ago?). Regardless of their relationship, she is a noncom and he is a senior commissioned officer and former ship's captain. She calls him a traitor to the Alliance, the Council, to Anderson, and to herself. That's serious.

Wait, doesn't Shepard at one point say that she's not really in the Alliance military anymore?

I have always held that since Shepard was never discharged from the Alliance he was therefore still in it. Most militaries would insist on that point until the release is official. Admittedly, being a Spectre and being an Alliance officer should be mutually exclusive in my opinion. However, it would appear that his obligations still extend to both the Citadel and the Alliance. If Shepard did not become a Spectre, then his obligation is solely to the Alliance and would therefore fall under all Alliance regulations and human and Council law like any other member of the military.
 
Shepard has said to the Quarian Captain on the flotilla that technically he was no longer a member of the Alliance, but I disagree. Until he has been officially discharged he will be a member of the Alliance and he cannot really argue that death released him because he is no longer dead. Since we have no idea what the position is of the Alliance military, it has become a subject of much debate.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

This isn't a case of who took the last beer, what Ashley did is very serious in a military context (weren't you arguing context a few posts ago?). Regardless of their relationship, she is a noncom and he is a senior commissioned officer and former ship's captain. She calls him a traitor to the Alliance, the Council, to Anderson, and to herself. That's serious.

Wait, doesn't Shepard at one point say that she's not really in the Alliance military anymore?

That's in Tali's LM when he's referred to as "Captain Shepard"

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...
 
While people are not computers, they are also not slaves to their emotions.

This is true.  But also consider:  The Illusive Man has had two years and virtually unlimited funds.  And the ruthlessness to manipulate people into advancing his goals unwillingly or even unknowingly.   The fact that Ash faltered under that pressure must be a mitigating factor, right?
 

Additionally, there were more than a "few" Collector corpses laying around on Horizon. While the combat on Horizon is not definitive proof, it certainly gives a strong and valid reason to doubt that Shepard is on the side of the Collectors. Up until that point, no colony attacked has survived to any extent. Horizon was the first. From Williams perspective, the glaring question is why? If it is misdirection, then Cerberus could have done other more effective things and at a lesser expense. They have spread rumors that has disassociated the galactic community from Shepard. Going further down that road is not in Cerberus' interests and from Williams perspective she would be ignorant of Cerberus' operating procedures. Further, why would they expend so much effort to mislead Williams when they were fully aware that she was not likely to survive the Collector attack? It makes no sense.

The deception may not have been about Ash at all, save as bait.  It could have been a show put on for Shepard's benefit.  Another layer of deception made to keep him thinking Cerberus was one of the "good guys"  Ash living or dying was immaterial.

Plus, if the attack on Horizon was for show, it may have been for the benefit of the 2/3 of the colony that were not taken.  They already had no love for the Alliance, maybe it was a recruiting drive?

[Xilizhra]

knightnblu wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This isn't a case of who took the last beer, what Ashley did is very serious in a military context (weren't you arguing context a few posts ago?). Regardless of their relationship, she is a noncom and he is a senior commissioned officer and former ship's captain. She calls him a traitor to the Alliance, the Council, to Anderson, and to herself. That's serious.

Wait, doesn't Shepard at one point say that she's not really in the Alliance military anymore?

I have always held that since Shepard was never discharged from the Alliance he was therefore still in it. Most militaries would insist on that point until the release is official. Admittedly, being a Spectre and being an Alliance officer should be mutually exclusive in my opinion. However, it would appear that his obligations still extend to both the Citadel and the Alliance. If Shepard did not become a Spectre, then his obligation is solely to the Alliance and would therefore fall under all Alliance regulations and human and Council law like any other member of the military.
 
Shepard has said to the Quarian Captain on the flotilla that technically he was no longer a member of the Alliance, but I disagree. Until he has been officially discharged he will be a member of the Alliance and he cannot really argue that death released him because he is no longer dead. Since we have no idea what the position is of the Alliance military, it has become a subject of much debate.

Hackett, at one point in ME1, explicitly says that Shepard doesn't answer to him anymore, which is why all of the UNC missions are requests and not orders. "Spectre" seems to override any Alliance title, and people refer to Shepard as Commander either out of habit or because it's at least some kind of rank, instead of just saying "Spectre" or "Shepard" all the time.

[Meldwyn301]

Ash is worth it! Stay true to Ash in ME2!