1035 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

The fact that nobody but VS did is telling, no?

Much else of the Alliance is too, it's just that Hackett is stalling any attempts to capture Shepard. But even if Hackett doesn't want Shepard arrested (which the VS doesn't either), he doesn't bother to make formal contact with Shepard at any time.

[knightnblu]

iakus said "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?"
 
I agree. That is the only reason I will give her a chance to explain herself in ME3. I will listen with an open mind and I will give her a fair hearing. But I am not about to let her slide with an "oh, well," and off we go. I want to know why she chose rumors over what she knew to be true.
 
I realize that for many players, they are cool with what she did on Horizon. For me, it left a seriously bad taste in my mouth. I do want the situation with Ashley fixed, but if Williams just tries to blow Horizon off as some non-event, she is gone. That is, if I can actually make her gone. Otherwise, she will be routinely ignored and left aboard the Normandy on missions.
 
Frankly, I don't need her to complete my team. ME2 proved that point and I did just fine without her. If BioWare can do that, then they sure as heck can give me the option of booting her behind off of my ship.
 
Xilizhra said "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."
 
Actually it was ME2 on the Arrival DLC. How I took it was that Shepard was no longer under his command. If that was because of his MIA period or because Hackett believes he is no longer a member of the Alliance is the question. Again, canon is about as clear as mud on the issue.

[Xilizhra]

I'm pretty sure he says it before one of the ME1 UNC missions as well, I just don't remember which one.

[Iakus]

laecraft wrote...

The fact that nobody but VS did is telling, no?

Honestly, you're making it sound like TIM spent all these two years and all his money on manipulating VS. They all just thought that Shepard was dead for these two years, there was no pressure. And afterwards, what "pressure" did TIM apply to VS? Rumors that Shepard's with Cerberus? That's not "manipulation," that's truth.

It's not truth until Shepard agreed to it.  

There were also rumors that Shepard was not in fact dead.  

It's in the Illusive Man's best interest to isolate Shepard from his old support structure.  Including the Alliance and any friends he had in it.  Thus, in a sense, yes, TIM would want to drive a wedge between Shep and Ash.  And runmors that Shep was working for Cerberus, along with some other "disturbing" details, would certainly do the trick.  And with enough care and funding, some pretty convincing rumors could gain a sense of plausibility, even to someone as close to Shep as Ash.  I'm not saying it's what happened, I'm just saying it's a definite possibility

TIM's not omnipotent, guys. Although he does work on his image to appear so. I know you want to see him like some kind of Galactic Evil on whom everything bad in this world can be blamed, but this is getting ridiculous. He's just a man, and his organization is small and has limited resources. He doesn't have mind-controlling powers or anything. He doesn't have unlimited funds either, his income is limited with that the Earth can muster, and we aren't the most affluent nation in the galaxy - far from it, and he spent it all on Shepard.

He has the power and resources to build a duplicate of one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

He has the power and resources to bring back the dead.

He has the power and the resources to create someone like Jack, and Project Overlord, 

He has the power and resources to disappear Alliance admirals, covertly run experiments with thresher maws and alliance marines, and smuggle rachni off Noveria.

The list goes on.

So no TIM is not omnipotent or omnicient.  But he is very smart, very wealthy, and very dangerous.  He's just not flashy about it.

Ashley and Kaidan in ME1 were good characters (and I have fond memories of them both), but things have changed. VS isn't worth it. Faith isn't faith, loyalty isn't loyalty, and trust isn't trust if they don't hold under pressure.

“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the
unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.”

And VS apologists are not very consistent. One moment, they praise VS for being strong and independent from Shepard - and in the same breath, they appeal to human weakness, inability to handle emotions, and insist that VS should not be responsible for their actions. Someone else - TIM, Shepard, Anderson, the Universe - must take responsibility.

One way or another, please. Either VS is strong and knows their path - which is very different from the path of the traitor of humanity. Or VS is weak, broke under pressure, is unfit to command and follow orders, and cannot be held responsible for whatever they're doing.

Blame lies with the writers for creating such an awful, awful scene.  But I do not blame Ash for doubting Shepard any more than I blame Anderson.  The writers royally screwed up in the presentation. 

[knightnblu]

laecraft said "And VS apologists are not very consistent. One moment, they praise VS for being strong and independent from Shepard - and in the same breath, they appeal to human weakness, inability to handle emotions, and insist that VS should not be responsible for their actions. Someone else - TIM, Shepard, Anderson, the Universe - must take responsibility."
 
Amen. That is like saying the light is both on and off simultaneously. You can't have it both ways. It either is or it isn't. Williams is either emotionally compromised or she isn't.
 
 
Xilizhra - You're right, when Hackett sends Shepard to the Earth's moon or something he states that. However, he also tells Shepard that he's still Alliance and that the Alliance needs him for that mission. This keeps Shepard from backing out of the assignment and forces him to acquiesce to Hackett's request in order to honor his commitment to the Alliance.

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...
Amen. That is like saying the light is both on and off simultaneously. You can't have it both ways. It either is or it isn't. Williams is either emotionally compromised or she isn't.
 

I'd say we don't have enough information to say if the light is on or off.  Either is possible.  

Ash's reaction on Horizon is much like what you see in a movie or TV show, where the protagonist is seen doing something totally uncharactaristic.  Then you cut to a message "48 hours earlier..." and you go through the routine that put the antagonist in that position to begin with.  At that point it all makes sense.

Except in our case, we got no "48 hours earlier"

[Estelindis]

laecraft wrote...

VS apologists are not very consistent. One moment, they praise VS for being strong and independent from Shepard - and in the same breath, they appeal to human weakness, inability to handle emotions, and insist that VS should not be responsible for their actions. Someone else - TIM, Shepard, Anderson, the Universe - must take responsibility.

One way or another, please. Either VS is strong and knows their path - which is very different from the path of the traitor of humanity. Or VS is weak, broke under pressure, is unfit to command and follow orders, and cannot be held responsible for whatever they're doing.

There's no consistency problem that shouldn't be there.  It's more a question of the complexity of human nature being interesting.  You recently referred some of us in another thread to a book on storytelling.  I've been listening to the audiobook and tonight's chapter commented on how the most interesting stories have the protagonist at odds with himself about his true desires.  On the surface, he wants one thing.  Deep inside, however, he may want another.  The conflict between these layers of motivation makes for compelling drama.

On Horizon, Ashley and Kaidan come into conflict between their feelings towards Shepard and their loyalty to the Alliance.  Shepard meant a great deal to both of them (though I wish it had been shown in a way that gave very different dialogue to them both!).  When Shepard returns, they go through wariness and relief and back.  In the moment when the VS searches Shepard's eyes, you can actually see the instant where something they were missing for a long time is restored to them.  They're a little wary at first (is this really Shepard?) but wariness gives way to relief (yes, this is Shepard, who I missed and grieved over for so long).  But they can't allow themselves to stay in this moment of relief.  They have to confront the circumstances with which they are faced.  They demand that of themselves.  Accordingly, wariness returns.  Their experience with Cerberus does not allow them to excuse or whitewash that organisation.  They can't join a Shepard who is with Cerberus, no matter how much they want to be with Shepard.  These dual loyalties are pulling them apart.  It's a credit to them that they are strong enough to choose the path of their duty to the Alliance in spite of the pressure and emotional turmoil they are experiencing.  The two aren't somehow mutually exclusive.  I think they lend themselves to a richer combined experience than the VS just being aloof in their refusal to join Shepard or joining Shepard without even thinking about their loyalty to the Alliance simply due to being so glad to see Shepard again.

That said, I think Horizon was, in many ways, terribly written.  It just wasn't a total loss.

Modifié par Estelindis, 20 octobre 2011 - 10:49 .

[ADLegend21]

Wow this thread is still here? There's a 300+ page thread to dicuss Ashley in.

[Iakus]

 The debate in this thread would... not go over well there...

[knightnblu]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Wow this thread is still here? There's a 300+ page thread to dicuss Ashley in.

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with iakus on this one. That isn't to say that Ash is hated on this thread, but that thread is intended for Ashley supporters and posting opinions contrary to that goal would likely be seen as trolling. The last think that I wish to do is to rain on someone's parade and so I don't post there.
 
If however someone over there would like to post an opinion on this thread, they are most certainly welcome to do so.
 
iakus - Would have been nice if they filled in a few blanks before we got blind sided that's for sure.

Modifié par knightnblu, 20 octobre 2011 - 11:06 .

[Bran187]

knightnblu wrote...

iakus said "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?"
 
I agree. That is the only reason I will give her a chance to explain herself in ME3. I will listen with an open mind and I will give her a fair hearing. But I am not about to let her slide with an "oh, well," and off we go. I want to know why she chose rumors over what she knew to be true.
 
I realize that for many players, they are cool with what she did on Horizon. For me, it left a seriously bad taste in my mouth. I do want the situation with Ashley fixed, but if Williams just tries to blow Horizon off as some non-event, she is gone. That is, if I can actually make her gone. Otherwise, she will be routinely ignored and left aboard the Normandy on missions.
 
Frankly, I don't need her to complete my team. ME2 proved that point and I did just fine without her. If BioWare can do that, then they sure as heck can give me the option of booting her behind off of my ship.
 

I never really even 'romanced' her and Horizon pissed me off. She was a good squad mate and a good friend, and even though i had no 'romantic intentions' with her, horizon really got to me.

After all that she goes thru with shepard, friend or romance, you would think she would be at least willing to listen to and then maybe trust shepards judgement. Horizon made ash lose alot of points in my book. 

I'll give her a chance again in ME3 but she had better have a good explanation. Her little 'im sorry' letter with poetry didn't cut it for me. She has a chance but its gonna be damn hard for her to redeem herself in ME3.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

knightnblu wrote...
Amen. That is like saying the light is both on and off simultaneously. You can't have it both ways. It either is or it isn't. Williams is either emotionally compromised or she isn't.
 

I'd say we don't have enough information to say if the light is on or off.  Either is possible.  

Ash's reaction on Horizon is much like what you see in a movie or TV show, where the protagonist is seen doing something totally uncharactaristic.  Then you cut to a message "48 hours earlier..." and you go through the routine that put the antagonist in that position to begin with.  At that point it all makes sense.

Except in our case, we got no "48 hours earlier"

Um, yes, spot on.

[Xilizhra]

Xilizhra - You're right, when Hackett sends Shepard to the Earth's moon or something he states that. However, he also tells Shepard that he's still Alliance and that the Alliance needs him for that mission. This keeps Shepard from backing out of the assignment and forces him to acquiesce to Hackett's request in order to honor his commitment to the Alliance.

Shepard's Alliance in spirit, but no longer within that chain of command. And upon Shepard joining Cerberus, I feel it's safe to say that she's not even that anymore; I would say that command issues with Ashley distrusting Shepard don't really exist. Their affiliations are now totally different.

[mudshep]

Ash is something I see in chell from portal: brave stuborn, never gives up, and according to glados that why my character loved her....

Geez mass effect 3 better include other stuff from ME1 because it almost like so many things are returning to my story and thecharacter ash is one of them

[knightnblu]

Xilizhra wrote...

Xilizhra - You're right, when Hackett sends Shepard to the Earth's moon or something he states that. However, he also tells Shepard that he's still Alliance and that the Alliance needs him for that mission. This keeps Shepard from backing out of the assignment and forces him to acquiesce to Hackett's request in order to honor his commitment to the Alliance.

Shepard's Alliance in spirit, but no longer within that chain of command. And upon Shepard joining Cerberus, I feel it's safe to say that she's not even that anymore; I would say that command issues with Ashley distrusting Shepard don't really exist. Their affiliations are now totally different.

I have to disagree. Shepard was never discharged from the Alliance and the Alliance won't let him go until the matter of the destruction of the SR-1 is concluded and he gives an account of why he was AWOL. Hackett and Anderson have been covering for him and keeping the Alliance off of his back, but that is going to end very soon as events come to a head. In fact, Admiral Hackett tells Shepard to be ready to show up in his dress blues to explain his actions at the end of Arrival. Frankly, I am expecting a Court Martial for Shepard as the result of the destruction of the Batarian star system and the deaths of more than 304,000 people.
 
Williams is still Alliance and likely always will be. Even if she's a Specter she will always see herself as Alliance first and foremost. While it is true that they have had a relationship (if romanced), there is still the matter of a subordinate addressing a superior officer. In fact, Admiral Anderson reinstates Shepard to active duty in ME3. How could he do that if Shepard were truly separated from the service?
 
I would guess that Shepard's official status is akin to some sort of inactive reserve status. He's not active, but he's also not separated from his obligation to the Alliance and can be called back to active duty. Williams is a senior NCO and would likely play it safe and treat him like an Alliance Commander from a purely military perspective.
 
However, from a personal perspective I am inclined to give her a little more leeway due to the relationship Shepard and Williams had in ME1. But the act of calling Shepard a traitor outright is way over the line even in that context.

[Bran187]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

[If you didn't romance her, how did you get an "I'm sorry" letter? I know I've never gotten one.

I have 'romanced' her but not in the sense that i was actually trying to. Do a playthru where you just tap the space bar a bunch of times during the dialogue, its amazing where you end up. lol

EDIT: Also its very hard to keep all of my playthru's from merging into one giant playthru in my mind. lol I cant keep them all straight.

Modifié par Bran187, 21 octobre 2011 - 03:39 .

[Xilizhra]

Frankly, I am expecting a Court Martial for Shepard as the result of the destruction of the Batarian star system and the deaths of more than 304,000 people.

That's strictly a publicity stunt to deter war with the batarians. In fact, if Shepard is a Spectre, the Alliance doesn't really have the authority to do that, Shepard just goes along with it because, she's not fond of the idea of that war.

In fact, Admiral Anderson reinstates Shepard to active duty in ME3. How could he do that if Shepard were truly separated from the service?

It's a vague situation with no IRL equivalent because we don't have anything like Spectres or resurrection.

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...

iakus - Would have been nice if they filled in a few blanks before we got blind sided that's for sure.

Agreed. That's a large part of what makes the scene so terrible.  We have no context.  

[alperez]

knightnblu

Firstly, i did not launch into a personal attack on you, i disputed the position you took and said i couldn't understand it, that in my mind the position and therefore the attitude the position reflects is unreasonable imo.

Secondly if you took this as a personal attack then i apologise because that was not my intention at all.

Thirdly, the reason i did not answer directly to Anderson and Tali is that i had done so already in a previous post and i assumed that post was to you, however if it wasn't then just ask me again and i'll respond to that specifically.

Now in terms of my analogy regarding Al qaeda, its the closest similar situation that is possible in relation to Shepard's position on Horizon, while he is indeed a spectre, in relation to Ash he is and always will be viewed as an alliance soldier.

Spectres have as far as i'm aware no rights or control over alliance personell, the council didn't put Shepard in command of the normandy, the alliance did, he is first and foremost to the people who served under him an alliance soldier and since Ash is still a serving alliance soldier it is that role which causes friction, not his role as a spectre, since spectres are beyond control of the alliance.

Now onto your assertion that i ignore Shepard's position as a spectre, indeed i do simply because this position has nothing to do with Horizon whatsoever, it is irrelevant.

Its not Shepard's duties as a spectre that causes friction between him and Ash, its the perception of both his actions working with cerberus and his actions since the normandy blew up that create the problem. His position as Spectre doesn't even factor into the equation, which is why i ignore it.

His role as a spectre, his duties to the galaxy are only called into question by how his actions are perceived and it is those actions themselves that call his character into question.

As for me not giving your arguments fair weight, well i completely disagree, i understand and accept why Shepard's positon is completely valid which is what you continually put across, the problem however is since i'm explaining Ash's position i have to continually show why Shepard's is untenable.

Shepard's position is not in doubt, we know what it is, however as i've put across countless times, we have information that Ash does not, so continually explaining why Shepard is right using this information completely misses the point since this info is only available to one half of the pair.

Emotions: While people don't have to be slaves to their emotions, certain situations do force an emotional response and don't allow us to logically and clear headedly analyse and come to a reasoned conclussion of them.

Horizon is one of those situations, its the return of a person presumed dead for 2 years, someone now working with people considered to be terrorists, that situation does not allow someone who cared for that person to logically analyse and put emotions to one side, which is the point i've continually tried to put across.

The encounter is then made even more emotional by the fact that Ash and Shepard may have had a romantic relationship, but rather than accept that emotion would play a large part in this, continually you suggest that Ash would be able to emotionally distance herself completely and analyse the facts only, which is something i completely and utterly disagree with you on.

No matter how level headed or logically based we think we are when it comes to making choices, the fact is that emotions play a key part in most of the choices we make, when those choices are made in emotion filled situations often we make choices we later regret, something for some reason you refuse to accept.

Collector corpses: The number of bodies lying around or the fact that the colony wasn't completely taken still don't removed the problem that is cerberus possibly working with the collectors from the equation, As i said misdirection is part of their M/O so why not make it look good.

Secondly, if cerberus are working with the collectors then wouldn't they be able to make sure Ash survived, so your point about it making no sense doesn't actually stand.

The CO's office analogy.

The analogy you put forward here is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Horizon is not a simple case of insubordination which is what you describe in your analogy.

Ash does not just waltz up to Shepard and call him a traitor, she does not just throw out the words and accusations she makes on Horizon without there being some merit in what she does, she responds to a specific set of circumstances in relation to a specific situation, its as different as what you try to portray here as chalk and cheese.

I'm not sure if your trying to cloud the issue of just misinterpreting it, but a better analogy would be, hearing a rumour that your CO was supplying info to the enemy, walking into a room and seeing that CO in a deep discussion with the enemy and then walking up to that CO and accusing him of being a traitor, even that though doesn't begin to compare with the situation on Horizon.

As for military procedure, i've served and am still serving in the military, so i know all about it, i know how serious the charge Ash labels Shepard with, however you do miss out on key points.

1. It is a much lesser offense saying it to someone in person than it is to accuse them officially.

2. Once the charge is made offically, that is when repurcussions become severe.

So Ash making the charge to Shepard on Horizon, while being somewhat insubordinate is much more acceptable than Ash making the charge offically.

In terms of the others, Garrus, Tali and Anderson as i've said i've answered these in a previous post, if you wish though i will create a seperate one and answer them once again.

As for your claim that the arguments against you come down to accepting rumour and supposition of Shepard's position now against facts regarding his position 2 years previously, once again i'll point out that its his position now that is in question.

What he was, what he stood for, what he believed in 2 years ago has no relevance to who he is, what he now stands for and what he may believe in now, simply because his actions call his position into question.

Shepard of 2 years ago would not be working with cerberus, he would not have let Ash believe he had died, he would not for 2 years have not told her he was alive or tried to contact her.

Shepard on Horizon, in Ash's mind has done exactly that, which is why his position at that time is untenable and why his actions 2 years previously don't carry the weight they should.

[knightnblu]

alperez
 
First, what offended me was your assertion that I had been overcome with anger and that overshadowed my reasoning. Such was not, nor has it ever been the case regarding my assessment of Williams behavior on Horizon. Apology accepted.
 
You did respond to the Tali, Garrus, Anderson examples, but I find your counter to be unconvincing. Your position as I understand it, is that they are not comparable given that they were not in love with Shepard. But if anything, Ashley's feelings should have been at least a partial motivator to see it Shepard's way or at least to hear him out. It wasn't.
 
She essentially slams the door in his face because he mentioned the word "Cerberus" in a context that associated himself with the organization. True he was in a comma, but that apparently is no excuse for Ashley who likely believes that he should have had tattoos on his body in bold face type declaring, "If you are Cerberus or have sympathies along those lines, leave me to die. Also, please do not experiment upon my corpse. Signed, Commander Shepard." She had her bold face, 42 point, Times New Roman anti-Cerberus tats placed...oh, never mind.
 
She doesn't react to Shepard being in a coma, she doesn't ask how long he was comatose, she doesn't even seem to care about the nature of his injuries, all Williams hears is "Cerberus" and she's done. It's like she was primed for it and essentially she was.
 
She gave ear to the Cerberus lies and innuendo when she knew that the truth was vastly different. TIM is a master manipulator and exploited each and every character flaw that Ash had in order to break her self confidence, trash her self esteem, and to poison the well regarding Shepard.
 
She completely ignored what she knew to be true about the man in order to yield to the rumors and in doing so, she betrayed the man that she once loved. Worse, she treated Shepard identically to how her grandfather was treated by the Alliance at the recovery of Shanxi. As the Alliance went on rumor and innuendo on General Williams, she did the same to Shepard creating a bitter irony. An irony that is apparently lost on her and to the BioWare community it would seem.
 
As far as Shepard's Spectre status is concerned, the Alliance now falls under Council jurisdiction and must respect Shepard's status as a Spectre. This is because humanity is the fourth Council race. As such, all of humanity falls under the aegis of the Council. This means that the Alliance must respect and abide by any and all Council laws regarding Spectres. This also means that Shepard is exempt from prosecution for any and all laws, including military laws provided that the breach of such law was in the performance of his duty as a Spectre and his status as a Spectre has not been revoked as a result of the actions in question. In this sense, Shepard's Spectre status is similar to diplomatic immunity and can be revoked for essentially the same reasons or to allow for prosecution on criminal charges. Therefore, the Alliance's proposed plan to seize Shepard on Omega is illegal, in my opinion. This is because the Alliance is unaware if Shepard's Spectre status is responsible for his being AWOL.
 
Regarding the events of Arrival, I have always thought that since Shepard was never discharged from the Alliance, the Batarians could make the argument that Shepard's actions were at the behest of the Alliance and therefore an act of war. The only defense to this would be to declare Shepard rogue, have him stripped of his Spectre status and tried as a mass murderer. This is why I believed that Shepard would be in solitary awaiting execution and released only because the Reapers had arrived at long last. But I digress.
 
"Its not Shepard's duties as a spectre that causes friction between him and Ash, its the perception of both his actions working with cerberus and his actions since the normandy blew up that create the problem. His position as Spectre doesn't even factor into the equation, which is why i ignore it."
 
You're metagaming. How does Ashley know that Shepard isn't acting as a Spectre? She doesn't even explore this possibility. For all she knows, Shepard could in fact be acting to destroy Cerberus. We know that he isn't, at least not in ME2, but she does not know that. She states specifically that she sought information from Anderson, but couldn't get him to reveal anything. She never stops to wonder why.
 
I believe that Shepard's Spectre status is extremely relevant in this situation. This is because Williams has no way to know what Shepard's mission objectives are or even if he is on a mission. She never even bothers to ask. She just assumes that she knows and believes that Shepard has gone bad. She has direct evidence to the contrary, but ignores it completely. Why? Because she's hurt? I don't buy it.
 
Don't misunderstand me, I do believe that Ashley is very hurt. However, she is also a combat vet and senior NCO performing an active investigation and Shepard's involvement on Horizon now makes him an integral part of that investigation. Unfortunately, Williams abandons her investigation and never asks the important questions of Shepard. Questions like, how did he know Horizon would be hit? Does he know if Cerberus is linked to the Colony abductions? What does he know about the alien race taking the colonists? How did he manage to avoid being frozen by the attackers? She doesn't explore any of it or even attempt to clarify if Shepard can cast any light on her investigation. Hurt doesn't make somebody do that, only anger and fear does.
 
Have you ever tried to reason with someone when they are angry or afraid? You don't get very far. My assertion is that Williams was barely keeping her anger hidden. When she reluctantly embraced Shepard, he could tell that she was fuming. Her anger erupted with Shepard and then she departed, ignoring her duties. This is the woman that claims to have loved him. This is the woman that fought side by side with him, this is the woman that boosted an Alliance warship for him. What changed?
 
You assert that two years is enough time to seed doubt. I don't believe that is enough. I think that TIM has a lot more to do with this than most people realize. He exploited her character flaws and he attacked her self worth and self confidence and led her to believe that if Shepard were alive he certainly wouldn't be interested in her anymore. While Ashley is a strong personality and she is an excellent combat soldier, her main weakness is her self confidence and her lack of self esteem. That was what led her to abandon Shepard on Horizon and why she ignored her duties as an investigator. Can we blame Williams for being a human being? Not really, but her weakness led her to abandon the man that she once loved on Horizon when Shepard needed her the most. Further, it is entirely possible that TIM may have set her up with another lover specifically designed to mesh with her personality and thereby increasing the strain upon her and heightening her emotions.
 
What will the events of Arrival do to her? Where is she at emotionally? What is going on in her head? It will take time to assess these things and time is going to be a grand luxury in ME3. We are going to be working against the clock with some pretty severe deadlines and failure is not an option because the galaxy is all in. With stakes that high, you have damned little room for doubt and I don't know if I can still trust Williams.
 
Shepard needed her and she let him down. What happens if she let's him down in ME3? It may mean that a race goes extinct or it might mean the end of it all. Every battle has lynchpins. If one of them doesn't hold in the favor of the defender, there are going to be catastrophic results. While I realize that I cannot win all battles, I still intend to try and by doing so I may end up with more than I could otherwise. Doubt about team members is not going to help me achieve wins. It undermines morale and it leads to unpredictable results while it creates headaches for Shepard. With the galaxy burning, Shepard does not need doubt on his team. A solid team is the one thing that he needs if he is to do his job and do it well.
 
That said, I will give Ash just one chance to make this right in ME3. Your arguments and the arguments of iakus and others have softened my position somewhat on Williams. But she had better make a good case because there won't be any second chances if she fails.

[alperez]

Knight

I'll respond specifically to the reasons why Anderson, Tali and Garrus's positions are different and why their actions i believe aren't comparable to Ash's in a seperate post, its not just the romance arc although that does play a part.

I disagree in your assessment though that because Ash and Shepard are romantically involved this should mean she gives more weight to Shepard's position, simply because i believe your assessment misses out on a key reason why that may not be the case.

Believing that Shepard did not die and has in fact been alive and working with cereberus for sometime is what drives the feeling that Shepard has abandoned the VS thereby betraying the relationship and the VS themselves, its this more than anything else imo which decides the fate of the encounter.

Simply put its this mistaken belief which gives rise to everything else not being looked at clearly and un-emotionally, without this aspect things would have been handled much differently, but because this is how things start its what leads to the breakdown of trust and then when other aspects are added the breakdown of the relationship itself.

The vs. believes that Shepard didn't care enough about them to let them know he was alive, that their belief he had died was wrong and that all the grief and upset they've gone through over the past 2 years is down to Shepard either not caring about them or not trusting them enough to let them in on whatever it was he was working on.

It's because of this mistaken belief, that the rumours which when first heard and were more than likely dismissed are now seemingly proved real and why Shepard working with cerberus becomes something they cannot accept on faith alone.

I keep referring to Shepard's perceived actions being what causes the problem, this is the action i mean, Shepard being alive creates a serious re-evaluation of Shepard's death, so how do you rationalise both these things, simply put imo both of these things can't be true, so if Shepard's standing in front of you then it must mean he did not die, which then leads to the mistaken belief and perception of Shepard's actions.

Before the lazurus project no one had ever been brought back from the dead so its not a common occurrence even in the mass effect universe, so having no knowledge about the project and knowing no one has ever ressurrected what logical conclussion could someone come up with?

When you listen to Ash's words to Shepard imo you can clearly see this is the line they begin with, its not your alive how is that possible, its i believed you were dead, we all did.

This belief forces her to re-examine her own opinion about Shepard, if Shepard can do this to me someone he supposedly cared about then what does that say about him, what does it say about what i believed him to be.

So the rumours which as i said were probably originally dismissed suddenly get re-evaluated, the fact that Shepard is working with cerberus gets looked at in a completely different light than it would have been.

If Shepard is willing to let Ash believe he's dead, if he's willing to let her spend 2 years with that belief, not try to contact her or let her know he is alive, then the relationship they shared was a sham, the man she thought she knew has either changed or never existed in the first place, if she was so wrong about how much she mean't to him, then what else about him was she wrong about.

The rumours of Shepard working with cerberus and whatever the details of those rumours suddenly look more likely to be true, the fact that Shepard is now working with cerberus is even more proof of this, the fact that Shepard doesn't see any wrong in working with cerberus also seems to prove even more that he is changed or that Ash didn't really know him.

Its a combination of elements that when added up force Ash to act how she does, the fact that it all stems from a mistaken belief though is the catalyst for everything to go to hell, without this mistaken belief or facing other circumstances things would play out differently imo, but the problem is that once the dye's been cast it can't be uncast.

Its why i believe the situation cannot occur again, why when you bring up whether or not Ash could be trusted after horizon i feel your misinterpreting things, shepard's death, resurrection, the 2 year gap and how its all wrongly perceived because of lack of info lead to everything about Shepard's character being up in the air.

Without this element, the trust in Shepard that should be there would be, the loyalty that Ash would have to Shepard would be without question, the acceptance that Shepard as always was taking the right course of action would be forthcoming and the belief in Shepard that was always there wouldn't be challenged.

Unfortunately with this element everything changes.

I'll respond to your other points in a seperate post, otherwise the wall of text i've just created would end up like the wall in china and become visible from outer space.