1104 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No they haven't.

Why?

Because the situation hasn't gone beyond the scope of your priorly established duties and responsibilities, that's why.

Would you consider saving the Council to be treason?

[D.Kain]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ask me again when that moment happens. I don't do species favoritism and I can't decide this here and now. Though I may lean slightly towards asari because I feel they keep a culture that's better for the galaxy as a whole than the earth-based human culture.

And this is it - your answer to the topic question! Which is basically: more likely yes. No debates required. 

[Warlocomotf]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Your reason for having the job is because you are an Alliance soldier who is willing to your duty to the Alliance and your species.

That is assumed, I don't believe it is ever stated in game that you do it for that reason.

They never do away with that, even in the most paragon moral choices: interpretations of what duty to the Alliance entails is up for dispute, but that's the sort of thing that always is. No canonical Shepard ever repudiates their ties to the Alliance, no matter how many players wish to project that.

I do not deny the ties to alliance.

The closest that comes is the Al-Jilani interview, which Shepard can go 'there is no conflict of interest: what's good for the galaxy is good for the Alliance' to 'the Council knows better.'

What's far less is that Shepard is an established symbol of the Alliance and Humanity, as viewed by just about everyone else. When the Council thinks Shepard is crazy, it's not the Council that suffers costs... it's the Alliance. When Shepard's actions earn the Council's favor, it's the Alliance that stands up and receives membership. Shepard doesn't stop being a de-facto Alliance representative until ME2, but Arrival makes clear that both the Alliance and Shepard consider Shepard answerable to the Alliance still.

That's a place the Alliance put him in, not one he's asked to be placed in. I find it reasonable that if you're making a decision of galactic importance, that you consider that a decision that you make on behalf of the council / spectres.

WIth that said, I really do enjoy the tone of your argument. You provide solid arguments, and do not start name calling or ignoring the parts of an argument you have no answer to.

[D.Kain]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No they haven't.

Why?

Because the situation hasn't gone beyond the scope of your priorly established duties and responsibilities, that's why.

Would you consider saving the Council to be treason?

Saving the council was just not rational, that's my opinion.

[Legbiter]

No.

[SandTrout]

Xilizhra wrote...

Would you consider saving the Council to be treason?

That depends on motivations. It certainly may be interpreted as such, though. If you saved the Council because you estimated that the political colateral could be used to humanity's ends, then it is not treason. If you saved the Council because you consider them 'superior' to humanity, for whatever reason, then it is treson.

Even as a pargon, I let the Council die, though, because I had to prioritize threats. Sending in ships prematurely to save 3 politicians and a dreadnaught that is allready out of the fight seems foolish and poorly thought-out when Sovereign is about to phone-home if it isn't stopped.

Edit: Also, a related topic is for people to recognize Cultural Cringe.

Modifié par SandTrout, 22 août 2011 - 07:34 .

[Barquiel]

Xilizhra wrote...

Would you consider saving the Council to be treason?

Admiral Hackett could always overrule my (Shepards) suggestion to save the council -> it's not treason.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Protecting you're allies from being killed by sacrificing some of your soilders is not treason.

[Aaleel]

In my canon games I saved the council.

Your choices were help the council, or just wait and watch that dreadnought and everyone aboard it get massacred. You couldn't get to Sovereign at that moment anyway.

Also if you listened to Vigil he said that the last time the reapers came in killed the leadership and while everything was in disarray they picked them off.

They may not show the specifics, but the council have a hand in the day to day running of everything. Also the alliance ships were not the only ones who were waiting to attack sovereign. They were just reinforcements, so I thought it logical to send in some ships to preserve leadership in the event the final assault once it began was not successful.

[Volus Warlord]

Xilizhra wrote...
Would you consider saving the Council to be treason?

I would slaughter the Council with my bare hands and creepy smile if their incompetance and inaction became a serious inhibtion to the Reaper's destruction.

[Nashiktal]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Your choices were help the council, or just wait and watch that dreadnought and everyone aboard it get massacred. You couldn't get to Sovereign at that moment anyway.

Oh yeah, it was totally justified to risk the survival of all sentient life in the galaxy to save a bunch of useless politicians.

I was hoping at the time that the ascension would join the fight. :/

Ah well, at least if got the geth out of the way.

[Aaleel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Your choices were help the council, or just wait and watch that dreadnought and everyone aboard it get massacred. You couldn't get to Sovereign at that moment anyway.

Oh yeah, it was totally justified to risk the survival of all sentient life in the galaxy to save a bunch of useless politicians.

Because an extra 2 or 3 ships was guaranteed to turn the tide of the fight later on <_< 

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Your choices were help the council, or just wait and watch that dreadnought and everyone aboard it get massacred. You couldn't get to Sovereign at that moment anyway.

Oh yeah, it was totally justified to risk the survival of all sentient life in the galaxy to save a bunch of useless politicians.

It makes sense to save the Accension because in doing it you take out the Geth fleet that is supporting Sovvy. If you drive right past them than as soon as the Geth are done with the Council they're going to go for you and you'll be fighting a battle on two fronts. I also was hoping that the strongest dreadnaught in the galaxy could shrug off a few hits and help in the fight.

[Zkyire]

And out of the ruins of the Reaper Invasion, the God Emperor rises, forms the Imperium and thus begins galactic conquest and slaughter of all the filthy Xenos and Heretics.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Your choices were help the council, or just wait and watch that dreadnought and everyone aboard it get massacred. You couldn't get to Sovereign at that moment anyway.

Oh yeah, it was totally justified to risk the survival of all sentient life in the galaxy to save a bunch of useless politicians.

Except it was an utterly insignificant risk, as I'd already ruined one of the necessary halves to Sovereign's plan by killing Saren and undoing his override.

[Medhia Nox]

Concerning saving the Council - throughout history military campaigns have been forced to devote significant numbers to protecting military and civilian leadership. This is not unheard of or irrational. Protecting the Council is - to me - the sign of a commander with longer term range of thought.

Also - hundreds, perhaps thousands - of players really need to replay the Battle for the Citadel. It was the Geth fleet - not Sovereign - that was the danger. So it isn't some: "OMG - I'm fighting Galactus Devourer of Worlds!! Everyone save themselves!" Sovereign's biggest threat is his performance of fellatio on the Citadel Tower.

And it would be less about saving my own species - and more about saving the biosphere of Earth. If I were forced to choose between the Earth biosphere or Thessia (asari homeworld yes?) - then yes, it would be Earth.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2011 - 07:52 .

[SandTrout]

@Aaleel,

You are expressing an opinion that does not reflect tactical understanding. Once you engage an enemy, it is not as simple to shift to engage a different target. Once reinforcements have been committed to a target, they must continue to engage that target until it is completed, or else retreat before attacking the next objective.

The Citadel Fleet was engaging the Geth, and could not easily shift their fire onto Sovereign without the Geth slaughtering them in turn. The Alliance's 5th fleet was the only uncommitted asset that was available to attack Sovereign, unless you dedicate it to saving the DA, loosing several ships in the process, further limiting assets available to engage Sovereign.

Modifié par SandTrout, 22 août 2011 - 07:52 .

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

It makes sense to save the Accension because in doing it you take out the Geth fleet that is supporting Sovvy.

There are a few geth around the DA, the same geth who are battling the DA's defenders. The rest of the geth are spread around the nebula.

Destroying those geth does not gain you anything. You lose ships and gain no additional help.

It is a stupid move to make. Make up as many variables to defend your illogical, reckless choice as you want. The game made it clear what the tactical choice was and it was to abandon the DA.

If it's that dumb, why does it work so well?

[Aaleel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Because an extra 2 or 3 ships was guaranteed to turn the tide of the fight later on <_< 

It just might have for all you knew. That was a horrible risk to take and you're a horrible person for it.

No what I knew was that a big ship, stock full of people were going to die while help was just sitting on their hands.  

And the horrible person part lol is all I can say.  If that's the level of rebuttal.

[Barquiel]

As I have said, Admiral Hackett (who undoubtedly outranks Shepard) has no objections to save the Destiny Ascension. The decision is not dumb.