79 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

Shepard is specter so he/she can their LI under their command and also Garrus has a love interest its called the Thanix cannon

[l DryIce l]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

l DryIce l wrote...

it's ultimately up to the writers to decide how the characters interact with Shepard and each other. 

People in Mass Effect should act like real people. When they do not, is bad writing. Not too complex.

l DryIce l wrote...

And as for Tali: it was clear that a lot of preparation taken before the
romance took place. There was no risk of her dying, and it's not an
abuse of authority if Tali wants the relationship as well (she clearly did). There was a risk of her getting sick, but it was nothing that affected her performance or the mission. I see no need for renegade points there. 

And Shepard know this how? I get that Bioware writers think herbal tea is cure for lore, but there is no good excuse for screw woman who might die from it, or get sick when need to be in peak condition to survive.

Bad writing? Because you think they should act differently? 

1) Jack and Miranda have a fight. It's a fight that Shepard has to settle. Is this not what you think should have happened. Or do you think that after Shepard settles the fight, there should be another fight because Jack finds out Shepard is in a relationship with the cheerleader? That's not realistic to me. 

2) Shepard knows this because Tali tells him, simple as that. Or do you think Tali's research wasn't thorough enough and we should have been able to review it for accuracy? There's no good reason? Well, if I'm being honest, I could say that about any of the romances. There's no good reason for any of them. Look, the romance with Tali wasn't deadly and it didn't affect her performance. That's what matters. (And from the perspective of fan-service, it would have been unfair for one single romance to have negative consequences, while the others didn't). 

[MeAndMySandvich]

l DryIce l wrote...

I could say that about any of the romances. There's no good reason for any of them.

Yes.

[Massadonious1]

nm

Modifié par Massadonious1, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:28 .

[l DryIce l]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

l DryIce l wrote...

I could say that about any of the romances. There's no good reason for any of them.

Yes.

Yet they still happen, because it's a game where your choices are your own and the consequences are determined by the writers. The original point of the thread wasn't about whether or not the relationships should happen, but rather if renegade points should be given for them. And I still say that doesn't make any sense, because there's nothing inherently renegade about persuing a relationship. 

[Eddo36]

jeweledleah wrote...

its not morally wrong, unless you superior officer forces a relationship by dangling promotion... or refusing it, or something of that nature - in other words sexual harassment. relationship between consenting adults cannot be morally wrong.

as for work ethic and effectiveness? Both Shepard and whichever LI know better then that. and since its a game? you don't even get an option to tell them secrets that aren't Shepard's to tell (like confidential information, orders, etc)

The only way you can keep the VS as LI is to save the one you're romancing over the other you aren't. Yay for Kai/Ash LI fans.

Modifié par Eddo36, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:31 .

[Ruinmaker]

Rather its military or civilian it's often not a brilliant idea to get intimate with someone above or below your station simply because it MAY cause too many problems. Yet, it happens everywhere anyway. Rules are meant to be broken, if everybody was intent on following them why would we need the police or military? Are rules useless? No, but anyone who wants to can break the rules at any given time. Simply making a rule or a law does not in anyway guarantee that it will be followed.

Is it moraly wrong however? That is left to the point of view of the people viewing it. Wrong or right is determined by the individual. Though communities often do agree on the same subject, it is still just agreeing/disagreeing with a point of view. Both sides have merits and flaws.

[Ieldra]

There are grounds to see a relationship between Shepard and someone under his/her command as morally wrong: we usually see it as morally wrong if there is a relationship between persons with an intrinsic power difference, like, say, an adult and a 12-year-old, even if the relationship itself doesn't do any immediate harm to anyone. Fraternization may be less compelling, but it leads to the same kind of potential problem: exploitation. Add the potential for favoritism and the argument gets even stronger.

I am not saying that such a relationship can't work, only there are grounds to look with suspicion at it. As for Renegade points: Renegade does not equal "morally wrong", so it being morally wrong isn't a reason to give Renegade points, but the Renegade is partly defined by flaunting rules, so it would be appropriate for Shepard to score Renegade points for romancing Kaidan or Ashley in ME1. Not for the others, since he's breaking no rules there. It may still be morally wrong, but not Renegade.

[MeAndMySandvich]

l DryIce l wrote...

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

l DryIce l wrote...

I could say that about any of the romances. There's no good reason for any of them.

Yes.

Yet they still happen, because it's a game where your choices are your own and the consequences are determined by the writers. The original point of the thread wasn't about whether or not the relationships should happen, but rather if renegade points should be given for them. And I still say that doesn't make any sense, because there's nothing inherently renegade about persuing a relationship. 

Yeah, if only the game had a mechanic to track decisions you made where you don't play by the rules, for whatever reason. Oh, wait, it does: renegade points.

[fenix8081]

@Ruinmaker

Exactly. It seemed like everyone above this was implying that the rules of fraternization are always followed in the military, which is just not the case. In an intense situation like the one we're put in every game, it's not unlikely that those rules are going to get tossed out the window. Whether it's due to true feelings that develop while seeing a squadmate in action or whether it's a fling to blow off steam, fraternization rules are going to be broken.

The morality comes in to the picture in how it effects the mission, and that really will be left up to the player. My Shepard that romances Tali is devoted to her, but if the quarians try to take their homeworld from the geth and she wants my full support, she's not going to get it. After meeting Legion and getting a clearer picture of what the geth are and how much the quarians are to blame for that, I won't be able to support them in trying to retake their homeworld by force. Will I try to negotiate between the two for a peaceful solution? Yes. Will I side with the quarians fully just to keep Tali? No.

Fraternization would be happening on the Normandy, no question about it. However, Shepard is a born leader who is the best chance for stopping the destruction of all space faring species in the galaxy. In the end, Shepard's going to serve the big picture over there LI (at least in my playthroughs) and there is nothing renegade about that.

Modifié par fenix8081, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:19 .

[jeweledleah]

the game cannot track your motivations or reasons. it doesn't track your justifications. in case of Kaidan and Ashley, it doesn't even track the roles you assigned to either one of them. the game has limitations so deciding what's morally wrong or right is quite a bit more difficult then in real life.

me, I'm going by more general terms. I view it the same way I view guns. its what you do with it, what motivates you, how you handle it. by itself, fraternization is not "evil" or "immoral"

[mauro2222]

Ruinmaker wrote...

Rules are meant to be broken, if everybody was intent on following them why would we need the police or military?.

Police
Because it´s easier to make a police station instead of educating the people, and by educating the people (you as someone who relies on money and power to mantain your status and "superiority") you run the risk of having the people be waken up, and they start working together as one, and then you loose your power over them?
Military
To oppress those who defy your position?

[knightnblu]

Cerberus has no rules regarding fraternization. But if something fouls up because of it, they may kill you. The Alliance on the other hand...well, if the VS is a Spectre then all bets are off.

[Homebound]

Shepard's a spectre. hes above the law.

[Golden Owl]

fenix8081 wrote...

@Ruinmaker

Exactly. It seemed like everyone above this was implying that the rules of fraternization are always followed in the military, which is just not the case. In an intense situation like the one we're put in every game, it's not unlikely that those rules are going to get tossed out the window. Whether it's due to true feelings that develop while seeing a squadmate in action or whether it's a fling to blow off steam, fraternization rules are going to be broken.

The morality comes in to the picture in how it effects the mission, and that really will be left up to the player. My Shepard that romances Tali is devoted to her, but if the quarians try to take their homeworld from the geth and she wants my full support, she's not going to get it. After meeting Legion and getting a clearer picture of what the geth are and how much the quarians are to blame for that, I won't be able to support them in trying to retake their homeworld by force. Will I try to negotiate between the two for a peaceful solution? Yes. Will I side with the quarians fully just to keep Tali? No.

Fraternization would be happening on the Normandy, no question about it. However, Shepard is a born leader who is the best chance for stopping the destruction of all space faring species in the galaxy. In the end, Shepard's going to serve the big picture over there LI (at least in my playthroughs) and there is nothing renegade about that.

Is my post invisable?

[TexasToast712]

Eddo36 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

Shepard follows his own rules

Rules are made for a reason. Otherwise, who needs rules? Will you be happy if your manager is married to your co-worker rival?

I bet if the President told you to jump off the Empire state building you would do it. Rules are made to be broken.

[Ruinmaker]

mauro2222 wrote...

Ruinmaker wrote...

Rules are meant to be broken, if everybody was intent on following them why would we need the police or military?.

Police
Because it´s easier to make a police station instead of educating the people, and by educating the people (you as someone who relies on money and power to mantain your status and "superiority") you run the risk of having the people be waken up, and they start working together as one, and then you loose your power over them?
Military
To oppress those who defy your position?

Im not sure what you're getting at in your post. Do you mean that is the reason they exist?

Police and Military exist to enforce the laws. Mostly it is to stop the two most comitted crimes, theft and murder.

People will always steal and kill it is in our nature. Happens all the time in the wild with animals as well. Though Police and Military can be abused ( like everything else ) one must weigh the pros and cons to having them. The trick to rules and laws is to make the cons outweigh the pros, thus placing high risks involved in breaking said rules. Thats why you got all the jails and stuff.

Doesn't stop everyone, but it stops the majority from committing crimes.

How this relates to the current topic I am unsure, but there you go.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I'm going to take a stand and say "no" to the OP's question.

*when it comes to ME at least*

[seirhart]

When it comes to ME the rules are meant to be broken

[Eddo36]

seirhart wrote...

When it comes to renegade the rules are meant to be broken

Corrected.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Eddo36 wrote...

seirhart wrote...

When it comes to renegade the rules are meant to be broken

Corrected.

Paragons break plenty of rules as well.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah I wish the power imbalance was brought up a little more.

[mauro2222]

Ruinmaker wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Ruinmaker wrote...

Rules are meant to be broken, if everybody was intent on following them why would we need the police or military?.

Police
Because it´s easier to make a police station instead of educating the people, and by educating the people (you as someone who relies on money and power to mantain your status and "superiority") you run the risk of having the people be waken up, and they start working together as one, and then you loose your power over them?
Military
To oppress those who defy your position?

Im not sure what you're getting at in your post. Do you mean that is the reason they exist?

Police and Military exist to enforce the laws. Mostly it is to stop the two most comitted crimes, theft and murder.

People will always steal and kill it is in our nature. Happens all the time in the wild with animals as well. Though Police and Military can be abused ( like everything else ) one must weigh the pros and cons to having them. The trick to rules and laws is to make the cons outweigh the pros, thus placing high risks involved in breaking said rules. Thats why you got all the jails and stuff.

Doesn't stop everyone, but it stops the majority from committing crimes.

How this relates to the current topic I am unsure, but there you go.

Ah yes! Human nature, the justification to continue with wars and allow poverty, people continue to believe that claim... You are telling me that you, someday and somehow, will go out in a killing spree because your genes will tell you to do so, don´t you? People steal for survival, this survival is conditioned by the enviroment, if this people has his needs fullfilled they do not steal , just like me, just like you. But since we live in a monetary system, that needs greed for class division and the system working... well you have poor people stealing for survival.

It is called human behavior, not human nature. And if human nature exists at all, is defined as curiosity and will to learn. You are an animal too, if you hit your dog, don´t feed him, don´t give it care, well your dog will probably be scared of everything that is front of him and, it will kill you or attack you.

You don´t fight theft and murder with opression and with reprimands, you fight it with education, laws are patches, they don´t solve the problem they are the cheap way of telling you what you can´t do instead of telling you what can you do and how. Example: you have a slippery road in the route.

Stupid solution (worst, gives a .... on lifes): you reunite a group of technicians to discuss the matter but you don´t want to spend money on that so they choose the cheaper patch, all routes with high curves must have a sign of "Beware slippery road ahead".
Smart solution (best, solves the problem): You actually care for the people in the car so life is not mesurable, you reunite a group of technicians to discuss the matter, and they decide to install pendulum system in the car or apply abrasive material on the road.

As long as people is uneducated and keeped in ignorance, the world will be always like is it now. People fear the unknown, so if you want to get the resources of other people, you start a war, you spread lies about those foreigns (your mindless ignorants will eat that info like breackfast) and with fear and false data, they hate... done you have your war, so you win the war, you have the resources and then you create laws, "Do not steal" (ironic, isn´t it).

Doesn't stop everyone, but it stops the majority from committing crimes. Again, doesn't solve the problem, is a patch, a cheap way to keep happy the population and turn the head around.

I could go on and go on but is much info off-topic, so inform you about the venus project and let´s make the change

Modifié par mauro2222, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:57 .