401 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Heretic19 wrote...

Yeah the Jack haters still don't have a point to me. So you don't think her childhood had anything to do with how she grew up? 

Everyone has choices and free will. I was physically and sexually abused from the time I was 2 until I was 14. I made choices to be a good person and not let the past control me. My brother ended up a lot like Jack. I love him but I do not condone his behavior. He has made his choices to be mean and angry. I tried to give Jack a chance. I felt bad for her and wanted to be kind to her and help. Shep shows up to save the academy and Jack punches her. That just ruined everything for me. I felt it was completely unnecessary. I just don't buy having a horrible childhood as an excuse to be rude and mean.

So wait a minute. You think abuse is not an acceptable excuse for being a bad person/killing people, but when Jack punches you, you go back to ME2 and kill off the teacher who's a positive difference in the life of these biotic students yourself??

[PorcelynDoll]

mechalynx wrote...

Anderson. No spine, boozes it up instead of nagging on the rest of the Council, useless as it may be, stonewalling Shepard, forced friend/mentor, tried to steal the Normandy from Shepard and turn it into his personal pleasure yacht before the Reapers rolled in. Probably the one who sold all my gear and ship models from ME2, the greedy bastard, and let Boo out of its cage to fend for itself.

Also forced Ashley on my team, the "super useful" soldier that never got out of the cargohold save for that nuke guarding duty on Virmire. And no renegade option to tell him to suck a fat one in ANY of the games.

Would gladly shoot him of my own free will, TIM doesn't really HAVE to make me.

Love Keith David, though.

Now that I think about it, scratch the Ashley part. Good thing I had someone to leave behind. It'd tear me up to waste someone I really liked.

lol I thought that was crazy too. I thought "was this going to be his pimp base of operations?".

[Zix13]

InsaneAzrael wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

But the motives are all about the concequences. Shep has never killed anyone who hasn't either
 a) they are a very real threat to him
  posed a very real threat to others.
 c) protected someone who posed a threat to others
 d) prevented Shepard from completing his objective of saving the galaxy. 

Ok. So you seem to be thinking on the paragon route then. Think for a second of how much you are emphasising your Shepard plays.

I can think of one simple dilemma to undermine the "motives" you noted:

The lone merc on Illium.
Renegade option includes pushing him out the window and killing him. How does the list play out in that scenario?

a) No real threat to him - 3:1, advantage shepard.
Could incapacitate the merc without lethal force.
c) Protecting no-one
d) Was no real obstacle to shepard completing his objective.

Then there are other nuggets:
Killing the vorcha to recruit the blood pack.
Its not really necessary to kill them when he is armed with a pistol and surprise.. Take em down, sure, no need to take em out all together.

Balak (DLC back up).
Yeah, threatened at first (pistol pointed at your back).
Shepard quickly disarms him (not really threatened then) and can go ahead and kill him.

So yeah, there are ways in which Shepard violates those maxims.

Seeing as the genophage thing is an option.. The points you made aren't exactly cut-n-dry.
Jack is simply a character that emphasises the jerky "renegade" options in the extreme. So yeah, I get you dislike the character, but she is not an objectively vacuous scumbag.

Guess the fact that the character is somehow "redeemed" means nought to ya.

As for what I was saying earlier. The motives of Shepard as you see em are actually consequences of the choice to act in a particular manner based on the conditions of the player's personality. As for Jack, its a mixture of backstory and genuine survival instincts gone awry.

HYR made some good points about the other characters, which could apply to jack's actual backstories. Seems a bit short of you to assume that it was all done for shets and giggles as you put it. Based on the charcter's facade when telling you about it, and how the inmates react to her. Damn son, she's in a prison. She is going to bark loud to get people off her back.

First off: I should add
e) Because certain people are beyond redemption(always an option not to) and your Shep's ideas of justice might demand that murderers die. 

Merc on illum. That group of mercs just murdered a whole crapload of civilian workers. He is a threat to others if left alive and has likely killed innocents in the last couple hours. 

Vorcha plans on killing you. Whether he is capable of it at the time, he is a threat to Shepard and obviously violent enough to be a threat to others. 

Balak. Killed >100 innocent humans. Threatens you with a weapon. He is a danger to innocents, has killed many innocents, and is a threat to Shepard when you click the button. 

However, all of those are optional. 

You're right, her actions IN prison are fine. However, the actions that landed her in that prison... well. Not so much. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Vexille wrote...


she was described vividly as a pychotic serial killer. Name a serial killer who was reformed into a school teacher and ill concede that Jacks "character progression" wasnt laughable hand waving by bioware

What constitues serial-killer? Because said neo-Nazi-turned-peace-activist killed lots of people, for both prejudice and pleasure. Probably about as many as one would expect of Jack.

See your criteria sucks because you know there's no way I can produce an example specifically of a serial killer becoming a teacher, allowing you to ignore any other type of redemption story that proves the concept anyway.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 16 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[InsaneAzrael]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Heretic19 wrote...

Yeah the Jack haters still don't have a point to me. So you don't think her childhood had anything to do with how she grew up? 

Everyone has choices and free will. I was physically and sexually abused from the time I was 2 until I was 14. I made choices to be a good person and not let the past control me. My brother ended up a lot like Jack. I love him but I do not condone his behavior. He has made his choices to be mean and angry. I tried to give Jack a chance. I felt bad for her and wanted to be kind to her and help. Shep shows up to save the academy and Jack punches her. That just ruined everything for me. I felt it was completely unnecessary. I just don't buy having a horrible childhood as an excuse to be rude and mean.

Its all we can do.. I can sympathise with you btw. Had a similar past too. Eerily so. What is a damn sight worse for a person who suffered abuse is continual exposure to an environment that condones abusive behaviour. This is what I find to be the issue with hating on characters like this. Its not just the childhood that causes the problems. Its the intermittent periods.

In terms of this discussion. It is not just that Jack magically changed overnight that causes issues. Not even that it was Jack's past responsible for the character. Rather that the change had to be gradual. SO that scene in Grissom, well, it was only ~6 months after the suicide mission. So there was a change, but it was hardly going to overcome years of behavioural conditioning in such a short term. Even in the magic of narratives that does not fly.
Still not as bad as the end of the game though.

[PorcelynDoll]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Heretic19 wrote...

Yeah the Jack haters still don't have a point to me. So you don't think her childhood had anything to do with how she grew up? 

Everyone has choices and free will. I was physically and sexually abused from the time I was 2 until I was 14. I made choices to be a good person and not let the past control me. My brother ended up a lot like Jack. I love him but I do not condone his behavior. He has made his choices to be mean and angry. I tried to give Jack a chance. I felt bad for her and wanted to be kind to her and help. Shep shows up to save the academy and Jack punches her. That just ruined everything for me. I felt it was completely unnecessary. I just don't buy having a horrible childhood as an excuse to be rude and mean.

So wait a minute. You think abuse is not an acceptable excuse for being a bad person/killing people, but when Jack punches you, you go back to ME2 and kill off the teacher who's a positive difference in the life of these biotic students yourself??

Yeah. I went into the save editor and unchecked a box. I prefer it without her there. It gives the situation a more serious tone. The whole teacher situation was really strange to me. I'm not sure how you equate me being hypocrtical doing something with a fictional character in a video game.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Heretic19 wrote...

Yeah the Jack haters still don't have a point to me. So you don't think her childhood had anything to do with how she grew up? 

Everyone has choices and free will. I was physically and sexually abused from the time I was 2 until I was 14. I made choices to be a good person and not let the past control me. My brother ended up a lot like Jack. I love him but I do not condone his behavior. He has made his choices to be mean and angry. I tried to give Jack a chance. I felt bad for her and wanted to be kind to her and help. Shep shows up to save the academy and Jack punches her. That just ruined everything for me. I felt it was completely unnecessary. I just don't buy having a horrible childhood as an excuse to be rude and mean.

So wait a minute. You think abuse is not an acceptable excuse for being a bad person/killing people, but when Jack punches you, you go back to ME2 and kill off the teacher who's a positive difference in the life of these biotic students yourself??

Yeah. I went into the save editor and unchecked a box. I prefer it without her there. It gives the situation a more serious tone. The whole teacher situation was really strange to me. I'm not sure how you equate me being hypocrtical doing something with a fictional character in a video game.

So basically, her jab compelled you to kill her off then.

[Zix13]

Except it actually wasn't easy at all, as she questions it a few times before actually doing it (IF she's encouraged to do it).

If you telling her to kill the guy convinces her to kill the guy, it's pretty easy. She still kills him because you say "go ahead". He's innocent. He hasn't done anything. He has suffered more than her. You'd think she'd be sypathetic. But her first instinct is "KILLLLLLLLLLLLLL"

What she described as piracy wasn't really even piracy at all. It was only piracy because she chose not to kill the passengers (chose not to kill... there it is again! )

How about after the mission when Jack is free to do whatever the hell she pleases, and chooses she'd rather teach biotic students than hunt down Miranda and get revenge. Based on empirical evidenced, you'd have obviously guessed she'd do the latter if you didn't know better.

I don't have an issue with her character in me3, only her character in me2. The problem is that they're entirely different. D&D alignment scale (chaotic evil ----> chaotic good). It doesn't happen. 

Redeeming quality: conscience. She displays a moral compass in spite of having zero guidance of right-and-wrong in her life and living only on the basis of survival by any means necessary. She displays conscience by admitting that "killing him won't fix my head."

Really? Choosing not to kill someone unless some other guy says "kill him" is hardly a redeeming quality. 

Redeeming quality: respect. She is not a soldier but adapts to being a squadmate very quickly. She gives Shepard little trouble outside of one catfight, and even if you ****** her off by taking Miranda's side, all she'll do is sulk. And taking Miranda's side in the fight has 0 consequences later. That shows maturity.

Yes a catfight where she's throwing **** around the office and issuing a line of threats that would make... someone proud. Saying she had a catfight and that anything related to it shows maturity is.... ironic. 

Because she's a savior of the galaxy who's turning her life around, like many people have done. Having a criminal record is not the end-all-be-all in life.

They locked Shep up, and he's a hero. Jack is still a pyschopath. 

Sorry, I thought you'd embrace attacks since you thought it was OK to use a crude/crass comment like "sleeping with her clowded your judgement!"

Hardly. That was not a personal attack. You obviously are only seeing the "good"( or rather just ignoring the bad, since there really isn't any good) in her character, which seems to be the case with most who bother romancing her. I tried in one of playthroughs, but couldn't do it. 

[PorcelynDoll]

InsaneAzrael wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Heretic19 wrote...

Yeah the Jack haters still don't have a point to me. So you don't think her childhood had anything to do with how she grew up? 

Everyone has choices and free will. I was physically and sexually abused from the time I was 2 until I was 14. I made choices to be a good person and not let the past control me. My brother ended up a lot like Jack. I love him but I do not condone his behavior. He has made his choices to be mean and angry. I tried to give Jack a chance. I felt bad for her and wanted to be kind to her and help. Shep shows up to save the academy and Jack punches her. That just ruined everything for me. I felt it was completely unnecessary. I just don't buy having a horrible childhood as an excuse to be rude and mean.

Its all we can do.. I can sympathise with you btw. Had a similar past too. Eerily so. What is a damn sight worse for a person who suffered abuse is continual exposure to an environment that condones abusive behaviour. This is what I find to be the issue with hating on characters like this. Its not just the childhood that causes the problems. Its the intermittent periods.

In terms of this discussion. It is not just that Jack magically changed overnight that causes issues. Not even that it was Jack's past responsible for the character. Rather that the change had to be gradual. SO that scene in Grissom, well, it was only ~6 months after the suicide mission. So there was a change, but it was hardly going to overcome years of behavioural conditioning in such a short term. Even in the magic of narratives that does not fly.
Still not as bad as the end of the game though.

True but it really upset me that my shep was kind and caring towards her in ME2 and she comes up and punches Shep first thing. That seemed really out of character. Who goes up to someone who shows love and support for them and punches them? I guess maybe it's not so much Jack I have problems with but the writing. I had to remove her from the game after that. I found it upsetting. Maybe I project myself onto my shep too much but it really hurt me. I would have liked a paragon interupt where you could hug her instead of her punching shep.

[InsaneAzrael]

Zix13 wrote...

First off: I should add
e) Because certain people are beyond redemption(always an option not to) and your Shep's ideas of justice might demand that murderers die. 

Merc on illum. That group of mercs just murdered a whole crapload of civilian workers. He is a threat to others if left alive and has likely killed innocents in the last couple hours. 

Vorcha plans on killing you. Whether he is capable of it at the time, he is a threat to Shepard and obviously violent enough to be a threat to others. 

Balak. Killed >100 innocent humans. Threatens you with a weapon. He is a danger to innocents, has killed many innocents, and is a threat to Shepard when you click the button. 

However, all of those are optional. 

You're right, her actions IN prison are fine. However, the actions that landed her in that prison... well. Not so much. 

Merc on Illium is a faceless singular.. Being associated with the other mercs should not sign his death-sentence.

Vorcha still can be detained or incapacitated. The uncertainty of the situation also does not warrant an imminent death sentence. Like you said, shepard is a soldier. He also has unprecedented military experience. That was not an "imminent threat" scenario. Hell it would have been even better in that case to be a non-lethal badass.

Balak killed >100 (less than a hundred?), fair enough. Shepard killed THOUSANDS of innocent batarians. I'll actually let the motive act as a defense for the sake of argument. But you should know it still stands that one man with a gun versus a trained soldier is not 100% an issue. He is disarmed, he is a bad guy, he is also "less" of a "murderer" than Shep is.. Consequences man, they are a ****.

And back to Jack. She is still using the facade on ship with Shepard. Hell, all your references are through what either she says or what others have heard of her. The character is intentionally hyped up to be this mean and mad killing machine. Yet when it boils down to it, it is just this human with means and attitude. You could kill her I guess, but what does that even mean in light of her utility. I'm arguing that death removes the possibility of redemption.

If you can warrant that Shepard can have just means for killing, then you could at least admit the fact that Jack is potential for a justified killer.

The events before here imprisonment are not exactly clear to people though. It is all conjecture. Being part of pirate band as a means to find a place of belonging or use only to be abused time and again.. Yeah, sounds like stupidity and incompetence over pure vicious insanity.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

I'm not going to argue about it, but I'm supporting the pro-Jack side. She's probably the one character I really felt needed more screen time than they got.

[Zix13]

InsaneAzrael wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

Heretic19 wrote...

Yeah the Jack haters still don't have a point to me. So you don't think her childhood had anything to do with how she grew up? 

Everyone has choices and free will. I was physically and sexually abused from the time I was 2 until I was 14. I made choices to be a good person and not let the past control me. My brother ended up a lot like Jack. I love him but I do not condone his behavior. He has made his choices to be mean and angry. I tried to give Jack a chance. I felt bad for her and wanted to be kind to her and help. Shep shows up to save the academy and Jack punches her. That just ruined everything for me. I felt it was completely unnecessary. I just don't buy having a horrible childhood as an excuse to be rude and mean.

This is what I find to be the issue with hating on characters like this. Its not just the childhood that causes the problems. Its the intermittent periods.

I don't think your comparison of Jack to yourself is valid, unless you've killed a whole bunch of people. Your actions are not abhorrent, hers are. I sympathize with her childhood. However, her actions since then are of her own doing, and her childhood is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Her actions since her escape are what is relevant to her character. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Zix13 wrote...

If you telling her to kill the guy convinces her to kill the guy, it's pretty easy. She still kills him because you say "go ahead". He's innocent. He hasn't done anything. He has suffered more than her. You'd think she'd be sypathetic. But her first instinct is "KILLLLLLLLLLLLLL"

No, she kills him because Renedouche justifies it for her. She can't justify it on her own. Odds are she wouldn't have even done it if not for Shepard, she reasons that killing him won't fix her head if she's not convinced by him/her.

I don't have an issue with her character in me3, only her character in me2. The problem is that they're entirely different. D&D alignment scale (chaotic evil ----> chaotic good). It doesn't happen.

Irrelevant. You are trying to say that Jack is to be taken seriously when she makes a threat. She never acted on her threat to kill Miranda though, so there goes that.

And the whole "it's bad writing" card is just a lame cop-out. Sorry, but writing is set in stone, you have to deal with it. Otherwise I can dismiss any claims you use from the game as just being "bad writing" too.

Really? Choosing not to kill someone unless some other guy says "kill him" is hardly a redeeming quality.

See up top.

Yes a catfight where she's throwing **** around the office and issuing a line of threats that would make... someone proud. Saying she had a catfight and that anything related to it shows maturity is.... ironic.

Again, her threat was an idle threat. And as Javik astutely states: ideal threats are empty threats.

What's mature is that she put her differences aside in the end. She could've gone back and tried to get revenge. She didn't. 

They locked Shep up, and he's a hero. Jack is still a pyschopath.

Correction: she was a pyschopath. Not anymore.

Hardly. That was not a personal attack. You obviously are only seeing the "good"( or rather just ignoring the bad, since there really isn't any good) in her character, which seems to be the case with most who bother romancing her. I tried in one of playthroughs, but couldn't do it. 

That only further highlights the inherent hypocrisy in your way of thinking. In fact, that's why I made that comment in the first place, to see if you'd react to it. And you took the bait. You insult my intelligence and say that I can't think objectively because my liking of her makes me biased and ignorant. And the way you said it was pretty downright crude and crass too. "Sleeping with her" at least is not very mature and a bit of a low-blow. And if I'm offended by it, you have no right to say it's not offensive either. But when I question YOUR intelligence, it's so insulting.

In the end, you ignored what you wanted to and chose to have an issue with what you want to have an issue with. Just like your hate for Jack.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 16 avril 2012 - 01:15 .

[Zix13]

InsaneAzrael wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

First off: I should add
e) Because certain people are beyond redemption(always an option not to) and your Shep's ideas of justice might demand that murderers die. 

Merc on illum. That group of mercs just murdered a whole crapload of civilian workers. He is a threat to others if left alive and has likely killed innocents in the last couple hours. 

Vorcha plans on killing you. Whether he is capable of it at the time, he is a threat to Shepard and obviously violent enough to be a threat to others. 

Balak. Killed >100 innocent humans. Threatens you with a weapon. He is a danger to innocents, has killed many innocents, and is a threat to Shepard when you click the button. 

However, all of those are optional. 

You're right, her actions IN prison are fine. However, the actions that landed her in that prison... well. Not so much. 

Merc on Illium is a faceless singular.. Being associated with the other mercs should not sign his death-sentence.

Vorcha still can be detained or incapacitated. The uncertainty of the situation also does not warrant an imminent death sentence. Like you said, shepard is a soldier. He also has unprecedented military experience. That was not an "imminent threat" scenario. Hell it would have been even better in that case to be a non-lethal badass.

Balak killed >100 (less than a hundred?), fair enough. Shepard killed THOUSANDS of innocent batarians. I'll actually let the motive act as a defense for the sake of argument. But you should know it still stands that one man with a gun versus a trained soldier is not 100% an issue. He is disarmed, he is a bad guy, he is also "less" of a "murderer" than Shep is.. Consequences man, they are a ****.

And back to Jack. She is still using the facade on ship with Shepard. Hell, all your references are through what either she says or what others have heard of her. The character is intentionally hyped up to be this mean and mad killing machine. Yet when it boils down to it, it is just this human with means and attitude. You could kill her I guess, but what does that even mean in light of her utility. I'm arguing that death removes the possibility of redemption.

If you can warrant that Shepard can have just means for killing, then you could at least admit the fact that Jack is potential for a justified killer.

The events before here imprisonment are not exactly clear to people though. It is all conjecture. Being part of pirate band as a means to find a place of belonging or use only to be abused time and again.. Yeah, sounds like stupidity and incompetence over pure vicious insanity.

The merc. His attitude doesn't make him seem like he regrets being in the merc band at all. He is a scumbag, a potential threat, and basically asks for you to shove him out the window. Don't really feel bad for him, though a bullet to the head might be a little less.... melodramatic. 

Vorcha. Also a scumbag, no one will regret his death, he's attempting to kill Shepard, and has undoubtedly killed many innocents. Also, he needed to die to secure the blood packs allegiance to assist in saving the galaxy. 

Shep didn't kill tens of thousands of batarians, the marines did that! Oh wait, different playthroughs. Besides, Balak killed innocents out of vengeance, Shep killed the batarians to save a population millions of times larger. It was not a question of choice, it was necessity.

You're basically saying I can't trust what Jack says about herself or what anyone else says about her. Implications.... problematic. Her utility does not outweigh the risk of having someone on your ship with a grudge against cerberus who is a violent tempermental murderer. Jack does nothing to even suggest she kills for justified reasons. If they were truly justified, she probably wouldn't be in a prison filled with serial killers. 

[InsaneAzrael]

Zix13 wrote...

I don't think your comparison of Jack to yourself is valid, unless you've killed a whole bunch of people. Your actions are not abhorrent, hers are. I sympathize with her childhood. However, her actions since then are of her own doing, and her childhood is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Her actions since her escape are what is relevant to her character. 

Wow, misrepresenting my comment is bad form. I did say "intermittent periods".. Read the whole thing. Its not about me.

1. The period in which she is further exposed to violent/abusive conditions reinforces aggressive and violent behaviours (killing)
2. Jack reacts violently out of conditioning over years of being with violent groups.
3. Reacting aggressively warrants aggressive treatments from scared people, leading to the learned conclusion that this is necessary behaviour. In a sense, the response is a learned helplessness in being unable to change.
4. Aggression, domination and killing become an expected behavioural norm if that is all the character knows to be effective in their limited "social" interactions.

The merc. His attitude doesn't make him seem like he regrets being in
the merc band at all. He is a scumbag, a potential threat, and basically
asks for you to shove him out the window. Don't really feel bad for
him, though a bullet to the head might be a little less....
melodramatic. 

Posturing and occlusion.. Its not something worth death.
If you feel nothing for it.. I'm rather surprised that you think Jack is capable of mindless murder.

Vorcha. Also a scumbag, no one will regret his
death, he's attempting to kill Shepard, and has undoubtedly killed many
innocents. Also, he needed to die to secure the blood packs allegiance
to assist in saving the galaxy. 

"Scumbag". That term, its just another way to dehumanise the victim. Nice. Not unlike Jack as you claim the character to be.

Shep didn't kill tens of
thousands of batarians, the marines did that! Oh wait, different
playthroughs. Besides, Balak killed innocents out of vengeance, Shep
killed the batarians to save a population millions of times larger. It
was not a question of choice, it was necessity.

Arrival.. Yup, that was Shep alright.. Totally helped a bunch. It was a blind attempt. Admit it, Shep has no idea what s/he's doing, but deaths by the buttload seemed to "justified" in getting there.

You're basically
saying I can't trust what Jack says about herself or what anyone else
says about her. Implications.... problematic. Her utility does not
outweigh the risk of having someone on your ship with a grudge against
cerberus who is a violent tempermental murderer. Jack does nothing to
even suggest she kills for justified reasons. If they were truly
justified, she probably wouldn't be in a prison filled with serial
killers. 

I'm 'basically' saying that you don't know. If you think thats all cool.. fair enough. I'm saying that justification without sound information is poorly justified killing. Especially when you can be put in prison for it, if your a civvy. The logic is neither Shep nor Jack had full justification for their killing sprees. They just went with what "felt necessary".

Modifié par InsaneAzrael, 16 avril 2012 - 01:28 .

[Zix13]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

If you telling her to kill the guy convinces her to kill the guy, it's pretty easy. She still kills him because you say "go ahead". He's innocent. He hasn't done anything. He has suffered more than her. You'd think she'd be sypathetic. But her first instinct is "KILLLLLLLLLLLLLL"

No, she kills him because Renedouche justifies it for her. She can't justify it on her own. Odds are she wouldn't have even done it if not for Shepard, she reasons that killing him won't fix her head if she's not convinced by him/her.

I don't have an issue with her character in me3, only her character in me2. The problem is that they're entirely different. D&D alignment scale (chaotic evil ----> chaotic good). It doesn't happen.

Irrelevant. You are trying to say that Jack is to be taken seriously when she makes a threat. She never acted on her threat to kill Miranda though, so there goes that.

And the whole "it's bad writing" card is just a lame cop-out. Sorry, but writing is set in stone, you have to deal with it. Otherwise I can dismiss any claims you use from the game as just being "bad writing" too.

Really? Choosing not to kill someone unless some other guy says "kill him" is hardly a redeeming quality.

See up top.

Yes a catfight where she's throwing **** around the office and issuing a line of threats that would make... someone proud. Saying she had a catfight and that anything related to it shows maturity is.... ironic.

Again, her threat was an idle threat. And as Javik astutely states: ideal threats are empty threats.

What's mature is that she put her differences aside in the end. She could've gone back and tried to get revenge. She didn't. 

They locked Shep up, and he's a hero. Jack is still a pyschopath.

Correction: she was a pyschopath. Not anymore.

Hardly. That was not a personal attack. You obviously are only seeing the "good"( or rather just ignoring the bad, since there really isn't any good) in her character, which seems to be the case with most who bother romancing her. I tried in one of playthroughs, but couldn't do it. 

That only further highlights the inherent hypocrisy in your way of thinking. In fact, that's why I made that comment in the first place, to see if you'd react to it. And you took the bait. You insult my intelligence and say that I can't think objectively because my liking of her makes me biased and ignorant. And the way you said it was pretty downright crude and crass too. "Sleeping with her" at least is not very mature and a bit of a low-blow. And if I'm offended by it, you have no right to say it's not offensive either.

In the end, you ignored what you wanted to and chose to have an issue with what you want to have an issue with. Just like your hate for Jack.

You literally ignored all my points and focused on your own without providing any explanation for why mine were invalid. Please provide counter arguments rather than "Nope you're wrong, here's what I think" or this debate is worthless. 

I'm also going to take the highroad and not respond to your admitted flamebait. 

[Zix13]

InsaneAzrael wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

I don't think your comparison of Jack to yourself is valid, unless you've killed a whole bunch of people. Your actions are not abhorrent, hers are. I sympathize with her childhood. However, her actions since then are of her own doing, and her childhood is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Her actions since her escape are what is relevant to her character. 

Wow, misrepresenting my comment is bad form. I did say "intermittent periods".. Read the whole thing. Its not about me.

1. The period in which she is further exposed to violent/abusive conditions reinforces aggressive and violent behaviours (killing)
2. Jack reacts violently out of conditioning over years of being with violent groups.
3. Reacting aggressively warrants aggressive treatments from scared people, leading to the learned conclusion that this is necessary behaviour. In a sense, the response is a learned helplessness in being unable to change.
4. Aggression, domination and killing become an expected behavioural norm if that is all the character knows to be effective in their limited "social" interactions.

My apologies, I misinterpretted your intent.
My point, however, is that killing for the hell of it is not excusable, regardless of background. If they've been conditioned to do so, that is unfortunate, but ultimately, they dictate their own actions. In a more practical sense, distinguishing murderers based on their background is not acceptable. You can't let one person go because they had a bad childhood while incriminating one who did. This sets a double standard for something that is too fundamentally wrong to allow such distinction.  

[Zix13]

Posturing and occlusion.. Its not something worth death.
If you feel nothing for it.. I'm rather surprised that you think Jack is capable of mindless murder.

I'm not saying I would kill the guy for it. Fortunately, I'm not Shepard. He killed 40-50 such mercs getting there. They were also faceless. This guy won't help you, would be shooting at you if he could, and you don't have time to call in the authorities to deal with him. I think if you've killed as many mercs as Shep, you wouldn't have any moral qualms about killing another who seems douchier than most. 

"Scumbag". That term, its just another way to dehumanise the victim. Nice. Not unlike Jack as you claim the character to be.

 

Scumbag, a term associated with those who have little to no morals. Vorcha as a whole have very few redeeming qualities and this guy was the leader of the most bloodthirsty of the merc bands. He's not an innocent victim, he wants to kill you. The galaxy is safer with his death. Every one of your squad members would kill him without a second thought. 

Arrival.. Yup, that was Shep alright.. Totally helped a bunch. It was a blind attempt. Admit it, Shep has no idea what s/he's doing, but deaths by the buttload seemed to "justified" in getting there.

You realize if you don't buy arrival shep isn't the one who did it, but moving on. Reaper artifact, indoctrinated people trying to prevent the asteroid from hitting the relay.... I think we can conclude that Shep had some idea what would happen if he did nothing. 

I'm 'basically' saying that you don't know. If you think thats all cool.. fair enough. I'm saying that justification without sound information is poorly justified killing. Especially when you can be put in prison for it, if your a civvy. The logic is neither Shep nor Jack had full justification for their killing sprees. They just went with what "felt necessary" 

I disagree on account that Shepard had actual justification while Jack's justification is still " I felt like it". Partial or arguable justification is different than none. 

For example, you will be put in prison for seeking vengeance on a man who killed your daughter, but I sympathize with the motive. If you kill someone because you got pissed off about their big mouth, I do not. 

Jack never attempts to justify her actions, other than with an overwhelming tone of "my childhood sucked". I understand that you don't have a lot of info, but the fact that she is on purgatory, the little you hear about her on purgatory, and her actions when you catch up with her are very, very, very strong evidence that she is a heartless murderer. I also don't see her do much in ME2 to suggest otherwise. I just get to learn more about how fragile her personality really is. 

Also, did you kill Samara on her loyalty mission out of principle? She's a heartless killer of "scumbags". Morally questionable? Sure. As much as Morinth or Jack? =/

Modifié par Zix13, 16 avril 2012 - 01:59 .

[InsaneAzrael]

Zix13 wrote...

InsaneAzrael wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

I don't think your comparison of Jack to yourself is valid, unless you've killed a whole bunch of people. Your actions are not abhorrent, hers are. I sympathize with her childhood. However, her actions since then are of her own doing, and her childhood is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Her actions since her escape are what is relevant to her character. 

Wow, misrepresenting my comment is bad form. I did say "intermittent periods".. Read the whole thing. Its not about me.

1. The period in which she is further exposed to violent/abusive conditions reinforces aggressive and violent behaviours (killing)
2. Jack reacts violently out of conditioning over years of being with violent groups.
3. Reacting aggressively warrants aggressive treatments from scared people, leading to the learned conclusion that this is necessary behaviour. In a sense, the response is a learned helplessness in being unable to change.
4. Aggression, domination and killing become an expected behavioural norm if that is all the character knows to be effective in their limited "social" interactions.

My apologies, I misinterpretted your intent.
My point, however, is that killing for the hell of it is not excusable, regardless of background. If they've been conditioned to do so, that is unfortunate, but ultimately, they dictate their own actions. In a more practical sense, distinguishing murderers based on their background is not acceptable. You can't let one person go because they had a bad childhood while incriminating one who did. This sets a double standard for something that is too fundamentally wrong to allow such distinction.  

Likewise, you can also not kill the person whos actions can be utilised. A lot of the cast are killers. No doubt about that. Why only Jack as the example here? All the other ones went into it with their half-arsed justifications. What is infeasible about someone doing it as all they have ever known.

You seem to be fairly aware of the invalidity of killing. Yet you state several times that it is "justifiable". Even going so far as to say, that the perception held of the victim is justification enough. As earlier exemplified with the Vorcha and Merc. They are still perceptions of a just cause for murder. Jack's killings did not attempt to justify it in terms of a plan or personality, rather on the purpose of survival. You argued that motives mattered, and now they are not the matter. I argued that the consequences mattered. And here you are making a direct note of how the consequences (killings) are what matter.

Your own maxims dictate that the entire squad be incarcerated or
killed for some misgiving. Remember, that if you cannot justify a killer
based on their conditioning to the task in a bad background, there is
no purpose to doing so for those from the "good" background.

Also, did you kill Samara on her loyalty mission out of principle? She's
a heartless killer of "scumbags". Morally questionable? Sure. As much
as Morinth or Jack? =/

I did not kill Samara. On the grounds that she could be directed at a target and let loose.
I also did not agree with the "code" doctrine of the character.

End of the day.. Jack ain't the worst character. She has no qualms in killing, but she has no delusions that the action has to be justified. Doing it for the part of survival is more appealing than for the sake of an imperative.
And yes, Jack perceives it as a survival mechanism. As deluded and unfounded as the mechanism is established, it remains her perception of threats that drives her motives. This is made evident by her continual exposition as paranoid, defensive and aggressive.


EDIT: I'm going to wrap this up before the thread gets out of hand (its also pretty late here).
Jack is not my least favourite character as made evident.. As a character (imho) she is more based on the idea that our lives are a continuum. That over time, our actions condition us to react in certain ways. Whatever we establish as our justifications are not fixed or immutable. Rather that heinous action is not always the result of heinous character. We do not become defined for the sake of inability to act, but rather inability to adapt.

I liked the chat. It was entertaining banter and food for thought. cheers for the perspective and it was fun playing devil's advocate.

Modifié par InsaneAzrael, 16 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[Zix13]

InsaneAzrael wrote...

I liked the chat. It was entertaining banter and food for thought. cheers for the perspective and it was fun playing devil's advocate.

Likewise. 

[Heretic19]

Zix13 wrote...


1. Hindsight is 20/20. She was on the verge of killing Miranda when you broke that up. It was quite clear that she was a danger to your mission given the fact that she a) is a psychopath has a personal hatred for cerberus and c) starts off by antagonizing everyone. Her appearence in ME3 is irrelevant since it is not even remotely similar to her ME2 personality. Why'd she help you? Because you made a deal with her when she got on your ship, betray cerberus for her help. 

2. She's killed many, many people and is a convicted criminal, so obviously not. She moves to kill Aresh.  Her first instinct is "kill this guy". She's confused. Left to her own devices it seems quite likely that she would have killed him. 

3. She's not killing people, shes not talking about killing people, she's not talking about how much her childhood sucked, she's not talking about how few ****s she gives. Pretty obvious that her character was retconned. Also, her Me3 appearence involved her being in a position she never would have been given had the writing made sense. 

We just don't see eye to eye on the subject, but by your logic Samara, Mordin and Grunt are just as bad if not worse. to me, all the characters in ME2 were set up to have serious problems, and you help them overcome so that they can give you their all. If you play the cards right, Jack becomes a serious team player by the end of the game. She just voices her opinion more and tends to have a more violent nature. I know women like this, I'm good friends one 

Modifié par Heretic19, 16 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[Vexille]

The difference between Jack and the others (with the exception of maybe morinth) Is that Jack killed for pleasure and was actually CONVICTED.

Noone is ordering Jack to do XYZ "for the greater good" or to "uphold justice". Jack kills because she enjoys it. Her and Morinth kill for kicks and fail to show redeeming qualities through ME2, I dont recall either of them showing remorse for the people they murdered.

And as Zix said... Jack was retconned and given an unrealistic position to fit her kameo into the game. I mean come on... even if you LIKE Jack you have to admit that the idea that the most prestigious school for gifted humans would let a convicted murderer and sociopath TEACH CHILDREN

[RADIUMEYEZ]

Diana Allers

[Serp86]

Vexille wrote...

The difference between Jack and the others (with the exception of maybe morinth) Is that Jack killed for pleasure and was actually CONVICTED.

Noone is ordering Jack to do XYZ "for the greater good" or to "uphold justice". Jack kills because she enjoys it. Her and Morinth kill for kicks and fail to show redeeming qualities through ME2, I dont recall either of them showing remorse for the people they murdered.

And as Zix said... Jack was retconned and given an unrealistic position to fit her kameo into the game. I mean come on... even if you LIKE Jack you have to admit that the idea that the most prestigious school for gifted humans would let a convicted murderer and sociopath TEACH CHILDREN

I think they went overboard in ME2 with Jacks backstory. The Cerberus stuff was fine and her beeing a bit psycho because of it.  Making her criminally insane only made her totally unbelieveable as a squadmate.  There's no reason to allow a serial killer on the ship for a Paragorn Shepard. Morinth is different because you actively have to chose her so a "good" Shepard would just ignore this option.

The way they portrayed Jack in ME3 was unrealistic in regard to what she was in ME2 yes but they changed the character to something that is more believeable to be an assotiate of Shepard.

Modifié par Serp86, 16 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[Vexille]

Serp86 wrote...

Vexille wrote...

The difference between Jack and the others (with the exception of maybe morinth) Is that Jack killed for pleasure and was actually CONVICTED.

Noone is ordering Jack to do XYZ "for the greater good" or to "uphold justice". Jack kills because she enjoys it. Her and Morinth kill for kicks and fail to show redeeming qualities through ME2, I dont recall either of them showing remorse for the people they murdered.

And as Zix said... Jack was retconned and given an unrealistic position to fit her kameo into the game. I mean come on... even if you LIKE Jack you have to admit that the idea that the most prestigious school for gifted humans would let a convicted murderer and sociopath TEACH CHILDREN

I think they went overboard in ME2 with Jacks backstory. The Cerberus stuff was fine and her beeing a bit psycho because of it.  Making her criminally insane only made her totally unbelieveable as a squadmate.  There's no reason to allow a serial killer on the ship for a Paragorn Shepard. Morinth is different because you actively have to chose her so a "good" Shepard would just ignore this option.

The way they portrayed Jack in ME3 was unrealistic in regard to what she was in ME2 yes but they changed the character to something that is more believeable to be an assotiate of Shepard.

I agree entirely. She was an unbelievable squadmate in 2 so she was retconned in 3. I just dont agree with those saying "character progression". as she goes from insane pycho killer to "caring school teacher" in less then 6 months