79 réponses à ce sujet

[Sshodan]

It actually bothered me in ME1. While I woun't call in amoral, it is clearly not a good judgment call form Shep to get involved with an alliance subordinate. It is funny how the fall off on Horizon is actually logical - you get emotions involved in the chain of command and instead of a debriefing you get what you got...
As for Liara - it is not encouraged to have relationships with civilians that work for the military for the time being, but not excessively forbidden either as far as I know. Probably because in a field civilian has to be treated differently and protected anyway.
In ME2 the situation is a bit different thou - it's not a military operation, does not have the same command structure and is not run the same way, so I'm ok with romances there

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

[Weltea]

For me it made the Ash/Kaidan romances a bit awkward because I felt that Shepard as a Alliance Officer should keep to their rules.
Ashley's romance isn't so bad in that aspect because she's the one sexually harrasing you,but Kaidans has a few moments in it that are really awkward...
And even though in ME2 it's basically a civillian ship,hearing FemShep talk to Jacob for the first time I was basically waiting for him to pull out his rape whistle,and even with Garrus it's basically "I'm not interested in humans,I'm not interested in you at all but if you really want this...".
Jack is in an emotionally vulnerable state that Shepard essentially takes advantage of and a Shepard romancing Tali is pretty much just being selfish and willingly endangering one of his crew...

None of these Shepards are acting particulary professional or responsible but I think it really depends on the LIs characters and your Shepards to make having them "under your command morally wrong" (or even just questionable)

[mineralica]

Morally wrong? If both parts fully understand what they're doing and willingly agree on that, it's not.
It's definitely tactically wrong because might cause bias - "save X or save LI". Even if resulting decision will be tactically correct, the time passed while deciding may cause catastrophe. The talks about captain favoring one of subordinates may compromise the performance of both crew and LI, too. And I'm even not touching the topic "sacrificed something vital because can't lose LI".

[Goneaviking]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

*snip*

In your example it's morally wrong because one party isn't believed to have the experience or maturity level to make informed decisions, they aren't even legally accountable for any criminal actions they take.

The potential for abuse and exploitation is one reason that fraternisation is banned in the military, but the relationship is only immoral if the authority is abused to force the relationship or to coerce desired behaviour. It's also immoral for the subordinate party to take advantage of a lover's position to advance themselves obviously but again it isn't the relationship that is at fault, only the behaviour of the people involved.

[Goneaviking]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

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.

Aside from Tali's preparations and research, the ship's lead scientist also provides relevant information to minimise risk of someone getting hurt and to maximise mutual enjoyment. Additionally Quarians dating outside their species is hardly unprecedented in the ME universe, at Ilium you can listen in on a Quarian talking about her human ex-boyfriend and her Turian would-be boyfriend talks about a movie which had good reviews for portraying Quarian-Turian relationships.

Thus we know that Quarians have been known to date, and almost certainly have intercourse, outside their own community however infrequently it happens.

We also know from talking to Tali, and from her discussion with one of the admirals at her trial that Quarians are even allergic to each other. They expose themselves to each other, get sick and develop a resistance to the allergic reaction. From Tali's perspective that's an expected part of any relationship she might have, it's only the circumstances of their relationship that makes morality and ethics a point of contention.

[Flamewielder]

Frat rules, at least in the canadian military, typically apply between coms and non-coms, and is not a blanket rule. It's perfectly acceptable for an armor unit commander to date or marry a nurse or an aircraft mechanic (i.e. one is never under the direct command of the other); it's not morally "right" or "wrong", it's just a practical matter to eliminate the potential for gross abuse of power and to prevent emotional involvement from interfeering with sound tactical judgement.

The choice on Virmire is the perfect illustration of your choice of love interest potentially interfering with your tactical judgement. If you chose to pursue a romance with either Kaidan or Ashley, chances are this romantic involvement will weigh the most on your decision.

With romantic involvement not being an issue, it becomes a tactical decision:

a) return to the bomb to reinforce the position and prevent Saren's troops from potentially tampering with it by extracting at the last possible moment (at additional risk to everyone), or

head to the AA tower and extract the maximum number of people out of the battle zone.

That being said, my canon Shep was involved with Ash, who happened to be guarding the bomb. I selected option "a"; being a paragon war hero, my Shep would have made the same decision had it been Kaidan.

[mopotter]

I'm not military, I work for a college.

I dated my professor for 6 years when I was a student, but I was 30 and he was 32. Where I work, we have rules about dating students. Those rules get broken and sometimes end in a marriage that works. If the two people are adults and both willing participants I have no problem with it in the military or any where else and I never had a problem with either Ash or Kaidan romance options.

Playing Shepard, like someone else mentioned Ash started flirting first and playing Fem Shepard, I felt she was as surprised about her feelings for Kaidan as he was and when he spent the night with her, like she said, that night was going to be at the lower end of the things the crew could be court martialed for and while I refute the alliances authority over Shepard, she did steel their ship.

As far as the VS survivor goes, I have done it all. Kaidan is my favorite ME character but I've romanced and left Kaidan or Ash, romanced and saved them, didn't romance either and choose one then the other. And the reasons for both choices are good ones.

[KenKenpachi]

Given the Alliance seems to be heavily based on more modern Western Civilization, I'ld say it is a bad thing, given the importance placed on emotion and pleasure, given the nature of humans using dyes, intoxication, etc, etc. I'ld think its a horrible idea for them. But in more restrained cultures its not really an issue. Examples of the Roman Empire come to mind. As well as Russia, and Imperial Japan in both of those it wasn't unheard of for Fathers to send Son's off to there deaths, or for sons to be captured and exchange to be refused by the father. In fact I question the ability and willingness of the alliance to engage in a frontal assualt. Though my examples are not the same as a lover, keep in mind in those cultures, the man carries the family and has far greater importance, than a woman. Many Leaders from various times across that spectrum in history and the modern Era had no problem changing (or even murding) there way to a new wife. A son was another issue.

For Shepard I really wnder if he could let his love be killed by the reapers if they were taken hostage. I mean the player could, but given the nature of Shepard, be it Paragon or Renegade, I can see it happening, but leaving him an emotional wreck.

[l DryIce l]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

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.

Are you reading what I'm writing, or are you just trying to respond in the most witty way possible? I'll write it again, even though I've stated it multiple times, bolded it, and yet you haven't made a decent case against it. 

There's nothing inherently renegade about persuing a relationship. Renegage (or Paragon) points should not be given out when doing something that may or may not affect one's decision making. People could have very well sacrificed their love interest on Virmire; it was their choice. So what sense would it have made to give them renegade points for pursuing a relationship? There's just no way of knowing. 

It's as silly as giving out renegade points for recruiting people that may cause problems with the mission (Jack, Legion, Grunt, etc.)

[l DryIce l]

mineralica wrote...

Morally wrong? If both parts fully understand what they're doing and willingly agree on that, it's not.
It's definitely tactically wrong because might cause bias - "save X or save LI". Even if resulting decision will be tactically correct, the time passed while deciding may cause catastrophe. The talks about captain favoring one of subordinates may compromise the performance of both crew and LI, too. And I'm even not touching the topic "sacrificed something vital because can't lose LI".

That's a good point, and definitely helps the case for the rule existing in real-life. But for Shepard...

the relationship could improve focus, resolve, morale. There's a huge amount of "could be" or "may" type results of a relationship. For some Shepards, a relationship could do absolutely nothing towards him/her making good decisions. It may help, and it may hurt. Shepard may make decisions without hesitation, and he may take a longer time due to a LI. No way of knowing, and again (not directed at you, specifically), the renegade points should not be given until an actual renegade decision is made. 

[Fhaileas]

Although I love Kaidan, I have always denied his physical overtures in all of my playthroughs because I do consider it unprofessional. Shore leave however is a different story... but alas ME never explores that scenario... where Kaidan and Shephard can stop being soldiers for a while... and simply be a boy and girl in love with each other giving vent to their passion (rank, duty and hierarchy forgotten in that brief interlude).

EDIT: I don't get how people can even desire Garrus as a love interest, irrespective of the the fact that he is of a completely different species, for me it would be like dating a younger brother. Ewwwww. I care for Garrus but not in "that" way.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:16 .

[Fhaileas]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

Yes. Also everyone know true romance is between Shepard and gun.

LOL! mmmmmm... kinky,,, I approve!

[l DryIce l]

Fhaileas wrote...

EDIT: I don't get how people can even desire Garrus as a love interest, irrespective of the the fact that he is of a completely different species, for me it would be like dating a younger brother. Ewwwww. I care for Garrus but not in "that" way.

Some people don't see him as a "youger brother". Some people see Tali as a 
younger sister. Some don't. 

[Eddo36]

l DryIce l wrote...

That's a good point, and definitely helps the case for the rule existing in real-life. But for Shepard...

the relationship could improve focus, resolve, morale. There's a huge amount of "could be" or "may" type results of a relationship. For some Shepards, a relationship could do absolutely nothing towards him/her making good decisions. It may help, and it may hurt. Shepard may make decisions without hesitation, and he may take a longer time due to a LI. No way of knowing, and again (not directed at you, specifically), the renegade points should not be given until an actual renegade decision is made. 

Basically you're just saying a relationship with a squadmate can help the mission by giving Shep a morale boost, even for all s/he knows Shep risks that LI's life everyday in battle and can potentially order that LI to his/her death or more likely choose someone else's death over LI (in the case of Ash/Kai as LI)?

Modifié par Eddo36, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:26 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Shepard in no way coerces Ashly/Liara/Kaiden/etc into his/her bed. Thus there is no sexual harassment.

Also in most places having an intimate relation in the workplace isn't strictly prohibited. People just frown on it. But Shepard doesn't seem the kind of person who cares what others think.

[l DryIce l]

Eddo36 wrote...

l DryIce l wrote...

That's a good point, and definitely helps the case for the rule existing in real-life. But for Shepard...

the relationship could improve focus, resolve, morale. There's a huge amount of "could be" or "may" type results of a relationship. For some Shepards, a relationship could do absolutely nothing towards him/her making good decisions. It may help, and it may hurt. Shepard may make decisions without hesitation, and he may take a longer time due to a LI. No way of knowing, and again (not directed at you, specifically), the renegade points should not be given until an actual renegade decision is made. 

Basically you're just saying a relationship with a squadmate can help the mission by giving Shep a morale boost, even for all s/he knows Shep risks that LI's life everyday in battle and can potentially order that LI to his/her death or more likely choose someone else's death over LI (in the case of Ash/Kai as LI)?

Yes, like I said, it's up to the player. The key words we are both using are "can" and "could". You can't claim that Shepard would act any certain way with having an LI when Shepard's decisions are ours to make. For some Shepards, having an LI may help, while for others, it may turn out to be more of a liability. Thus, there's no reason to give renegade points (or any points, period), if the result of having a relationship is decided by the player. 

[Eddo36]

Shep is in a spot where it is more likely a liability than not. Hence military lawmaker didn't make fraternization rule just for kicks and giggles.

[l DryIce l]

Whether or not it is a liability completely depends on the person playing Shepard. Rules are made because it's impossible to look at each case individually and make a unique decision for each one. I don't see why rules like that should apply to Shepard. You're assuming people would choose their LI over the mission. And hell, that's probably true for most people, even me. But it's not true for all, which is why renegade points can't be given out until it's shown that the relationship has interfered.

[Eddo36]

Good point and that's the thing, Shep is above the law. Which brings another controversy I made a new topic about.

However, I'm not talking purely legal terms, but moral as well. Why does Shep get special treatment in that regard over everyone else?

Modifié par Eddo36, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:43 .

[l DryIce l]

Spectres get special treatment over everyone else. They are above the law. Is it right that there are Spectres to begin with...I don't know. In ME1, Spectres seemed to have the potential to cause a huge amount of trouble (Saren), yet they also proved to get the job done in the most efficient way possible (Shepard). Ignoring the "cause it's a game" reason, the Council believes that Spectres are needed. That's why.

The issue of whether or not it's worth it to give that much power to an individual is a complicated one.

Modifié par l DryIce l, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:02 .

[Eddo36]

Spectres can do anything with no legal repercussions, that's a taken.

But it's moral repercussions I'm talking about. No special treatment in this regard.

[l DryIce l]

Eddo36 wrote...

Spectres can do anything with no legal repercussions, that's a taken.

But it's moral repercussions I'm talking about. No special treatment in this regard.

Oh, err...I'm not sure what you mean by "moral repercussions". 

[Eddo36]

l DryIce l wrote...

Eddo36 wrote...

Spectres can do anything with no legal repercussions, that's a taken.

But it's moral repercussions I'm talking about. No special treatment in this regard.

Oh, err...I'm not sure what you mean by "moral repercussions". 

Karma and guilt. Pretty much being a dirtbag.