152 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It can't be Adams. He's an airdale. You don't put an engineer in command of a warship. He's the CO of his department, but he's not a line a unrestricted line officer.

And yet Shepard can be an Engineer.....

EDIT:  to answer the original question:  Joker would be formally XO according to Alliance Protocol, but Garrus would likely be making the Decisions until Kaidan/Ashley came aboard.

After the Ship Crash, Kaidan/Ashley, being Major/Lt. Commander, and the most senior ranking officer aboard, would assume command.  As per Alliance Regulations.

And yet, Adams is an airdale. Shepard is a Special Forces Officer with a specialization in combat engineering. An unrestricted line officer. Adams is a starship engineer. Not an unrestricted line officer.

That said, my Shepard doesn't give a **** for alliance regulations. They've proven to be unworthy of him. He will tell Hackett to sod off if he wants, and the alliance knows it. 

If Kaidan/Ashley even once tries to ovveride Shepard's orders, he will kill them on the spot. He holds no confidence or respect in any leadership of the alliance. The only person he in the galaxy fit to command his ship in his absence is Miranda Lawson.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 27 juin 2013 - 09:46 .

[NeonFlux117]

Garrus, as evident after tuchanka when Garrus say's that he'll watch over things and makes sure joker doesn't launch any suicide missions. And it should be Garrus, cause he's the only one that's been with Shepard from the beginning. Beginning of ME1 and Beginning of ME2 and ME3, Garrus is the only original squad-mate to be with Shep for the majority of all three games (tali comes close but is only available about a 1/3 of the way in ME2 and almost over half in ME3). Space Batman FTW. Like a boss.

[thehomeworld]

Garrus

[Lost Mercenary]

First Officers however are more than second in command. In a sense they are sort of a secretary for the Commanding Officer. Disciplining the crew, assigning tasks, managing small issues among ship and crew. It's a desk job as well as a "Take over ship when CO isn't around!"

And to me that is just not Garrus. He'd go nuts sorting out all those little things like that. Miranda was perfect for that role since it's more or less what she did at Cerberus. Liara would be more patient and could possibly deal with it.

Adams is an interesting and potential choice in sorting those tasks. He even says he has dealt with types like Donnoly before, so yeah he could do it.

Leave Garrus as Tactical Officer. He gets to do his two favorite things in the universe. Shooting things and calibrating gun to shoot things. Sweet bliss.

[CaptainZaysh]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not killing someone because they're weak, though granted, they better get their **** together. I'm killing someone because through their death, everyone else might benefit.

I consider myself a pretty pragmatic operator.  In fact I think in most situations I'd be your go-to guy if something really unpleasant and ethically complex needed to be done.  Limiting ourselves to the Mass Effect universe, I completed the genocide of the rachni; saved the Collector Base; sacrificed the Destiny Ascension; sabotaged the genophage cure; wiped out the geth; killed Wrex; etc, etc, etc.

And so I feel the need to chime in here and tell you, dude: you're literally evil.  You're as far gone as Harper ever was, and you don't even have indoctrination as an excuse.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 27 juin 2013 - 11:53 .

[Dextro Milk]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not killing someone because they're weak, though granted, they better get their **** together. I'm killing someone because through their death, everyone else might benefit.

You are taking away their right to live just to exploit them for new technology; new technology, that you haven't even told me you would successfully get from these horrid experiments.

You never answered me. What technology or scientific advancements would you get from killing people? (This is post-reapers being dead.)

You said "Gee, I'll start up what the Illusive man had on Horizon in a heartbeat, I'll kill you if you try to stop me"

So tell me, what usefull technology would you be able to get from experimenting on people/killing them? (Do not use the Illusive Man's results in ME3 as a valid reason, because guess what, you can control the reapers without having killed all those people.)

[The Night Mammoth]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

And so I feel the need to chime in here and tell you, dude: you're literally evil.  You're as far gone as Harper ever was, and you don't even have indoctrination as an excuse.

It's just a case of armchair morality thanks to BioWare doing a fairly good job of allowing people to play around as a fantasy renegade pragmatist. 

Frankly, I can't even seriously entertain the sort of view MassivelyEffective0730 is projecting because it's just far too detached from reality.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 28 juin 2013 - 12:17 .

[xassantex]

i'd say Kaidan. For one thing Anderson relies on Kaidan to raise the Normandy in the prologue.
It's unfortunate that he gets injured but he comes back to finish off the job.
And in my 'play throughs' he's with Joker after the crash landing in the end. So he had most likely taken command.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not killing someone because they're weak, though granted, they better get their **** together. I'm killing someone because through their death, everyone else might benefit.

I consider myself a pretty pragmatic operator.  In fact I think in most situations I'd be your go-to guy if something really unpleasant and ethically complex needed to be done.  Limiting ourselves to the Mass Effect universe, I completed the genocide of the rachni; saved the Collector Base; sacrificed the Destiny Ascension; sabotaged the genophage cure; wiped out the geth; killed Wrex; etc, etc, etc.

And so I feel the need to chime in here and tell you, dude: you're literally evil.  You're as far gone as Harper ever was, and you don't even have indoctrination as an excuse.

How odd that I did the opposite of everything you did there.

Then call me what you wish. I really don't give a damn about another person's definition of evil. It's not going to stop me. I'll concede that what I'm doing might be extreme, but I'm not just going to carte blanche start stealing children from their beds or pluck people up off the street. 

Remember though, I'm not going to just start massacring planets to figure out that the sky is, in fact, orange. 

I'm not even going to resort to the methods that might be seen as unethical or immoral until I have a firm understanding of what I'm doing and what I'm dealing with.

I'm stating that if and when a time comes that I might gain a significant benefit or breakthrough in science, medicine, technology, etc, and it will require the life or lives of people, I would probably take an estimation of the cost of the life versus the benefits from the results.

If the benefits outweigh the cost of life, then the subjects fate is sealed. 

I'm going to imagine that at this point, you're going to wonder how I decided what benefit is worth it or not. That's not really something I can objectively answer for you. We all have our different definitions of morality and achievement.

All I can say is that I'm not going to resort to the egregious methods that TIM gave leeway to for his employee's, nor will I tolerate it within my organization of people going off on the most extreme method.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 juin 2013 - 12:46 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

And so I feel the need to chime in here and tell you, dude: you're literally evil.  You're as far gone as Harper ever was, and you don't even have indoctrination as an excuse.

It's just a case of armchair morality thanks to BioWare doing a fairly good job of allowing people to play around as a fantasy renegade pragmatist. 

Frankly, I can't even seriously entertain the sort of view MassivelyEffective0730 is projecting because it's just far too detached from reality.

I guess it could be seen like that. How you and I view reality is probably a lot different. It's not likely to ever happen where I'm in charge of a billion dollar private paramilitary and science group. That said, I think it makes perfect sense from my point of view. I'm not saying my point of view is perfect, or that my point of view is any better than anyone elses. I just think that my perspective allows me to make sense of it, and that is what my Shepard is going to be doing in my own headcanon.

I'd rather disagree with the renegade connotation though. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 juin 2013 - 12:47 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dextro Milk wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not killing someone because they're weak, though granted, they better get their **** together. I'm killing someone because through their death, everyone else might benefit.

You are taking away their right to live just to exploit them for new technology; new technology, that you haven't even told me you would successfully get from these horrid experiments.

You never answered me. What technology or scientific advancements would you get from killing people? (This is post-reapers being dead.)

You said "Gee, I'll start up what the Illusive man had on Horizon in a heartbeat, I'll kill you if you try to stop me"

So tell me, what usefull technology would you be able to get from experimenting on people/killing them? (Do not use the Illusive Man's results in ME3 as a valid reason, because guess what, you can control the reapers without having killed all those people.)

Truth is, I don't know yet either. I don't even know the science or research behind what I'll be doing for experiments I haven't started yet. I don't know what I have yet beyond a lot of Reaper tech to learn, study, dissect, and develop from. 

That said, I'm not going off and resorting to killing people for science in every experiment. I think that's what you're trying to imply that I'm going to do. I'm saying that if I see a benefit that is worth the cost, and said cost is the life of one or more living beings, I'd might seriously consider the option of making that cost.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 juin 2013 - 12:36 .

[18 Brains]

I'd have to go with either Garrus or Kaidan. Though if it came down to it, Garrus, despite him not being Alliance. Has the most leadership skills of anyone on the Normandy besides Shepard during ME3.

[darthrevaninlight]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think it makes perfect sense from my point of view. I'm not saying my point of view is perfect, or that my point of view is any better than anyone elses. I just think that it makes sense, and that is what my Shepard is going to be doing in my own headcanon.

This debate looks fun. I want in.
:bandit:


So you say it makes sense? I assume that you mean "sense" as in the practicality of the issue. You seem to assert (correct me if I'm wrong) that if someone's death occurs, and the result of their death is some betterment, whatever it may be, then it would be better that they do die.

I have two points of contention with this; the first being, on what basis do you determine betterment? Does it have to do with defeating the Reapers? What do you define 'better' as?

The other; assuming that you have no superhuman ability to know the future, on what basis would you be able to say 'this will happen as a result of their death'?

[The Night Mammoth]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I guess it could be seen like that. It's not likely to ever happen where I'm in charge of a billion dollar private paramilitary and science group. That said, I think it makes perfect sense from my point of view. I'm not saying my point of view is perfect, or that my point of view is any better than anyone elses. I just think that it makes sense, and that is what my Shepard is going to be doing in my own headcanon.

I'd rather disagree with the renegade connotation though. 

Of course it makes sense. It's incredibly easy to way up ethics when speaking hypothetically, to the point where you're suggesting using people for invasive and lethal scientific experiments because they might die anyway. 

[CaptainZaysh]

darthrevaninlight wrote...

I have two points of contention with this; the first being, on what basis do you determine betterment? Does it have to do with defeating the Reapers? What do you define 'better' as?

The other; assuming that you have no superhuman ability to know the future, on what basis would you be able to say 'this will happen as a result of their death'?

Whatever the stated answer, I'm suspecting the real answer to both these questions is "because of my enormous ego".

Hopefully he's young and will mature out of this insanity.  Back in my twenties I did much worse things than declare myself the righteous director of all human life on a video game board.

[darthrevaninlight]

^
Well, either way, stuff like this is the fun part of the forums. The mind. How far can practicality go? Is it truly more logical and meaningful to kill a person towards the benefit of others, including being willing to take your own life? How far can humanity judge, if at all?

Most interesting subjects.

That, and matching wits. Always a good way to pass the time.

18 Brains wrote...

I'd have to go with either Garrus or Kaidan. Though if it came down to it, Garrus, despite him not being Alliance. Has the most leadership skills of anyone on the Normandy besides Shepard during ME3.

Why not Tali, Brains? Why not Tali?
:crying:

Modifié par darthrevaninlight, 28 juin 2013 - 01:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I guess it could be seen like that. It's not likely to ever happen where I'm in charge of a billion dollar private paramilitary and science group. That said, I think it makes perfect sense from my point of view. I'm not saying my point of view is perfect, or that my point of view is any better than anyone elses. I just think that it makes sense, and that is what my Shepard is going to be doing in my own headcanon.

I'd rather disagree with the renegade connotation though. 

Of course it makes sense. It's incredibly easy to way up ethics when speaking hypothetically, to the point where you're suggesting using people for invasive and lethal scientific experiments because they might die anyway. 

Indeed it is. I'm not suggesting that it's anything more than hypothetical. And I'll reiterate what you said: hypothetically, it makes sense.

[xlegionx]

darthrevaninlight wrote...

18 Brains wrote...

I'd have to go with either Garrus or Kaidan. Though if it came down to it, Garrus, despite him not being Alliance. Has the most leadership skills of anyone on the Normandy besides Shepard during ME3.

Why not Tali, Brains? Why not Tali?
:crying:

Do you forget that Garrus was space Batman and lead a team of a dozen mercs against the entirety of Omega's crime scene?

Tali led two missions and got her entire squad killed both times

Modifié par xlegionx, 28 juin 2013 - 01:02 .

[darthrevaninlight]

xlegionx wrote...

Do you forget that Garrus was space Batman and lead a team of a dozen mercs against the entirety of Omega's crime scene?

Tali led two missions and got her entire squad killed both times

Hideous machine. Do you not believe in second chances?

[xlegionx]

darthrevaninlight wrote...

xlegionx wrote...

Do you forget that Garrus was space Batman and lead a team of a dozen mercs against the entirety of Omega's crime scene?

Tali led two missions and got her entire squad killed both times

Hideous machine. Do you not believe in second chances?

She did. On Haestrom. 

[Astartes Marine]

darthrevaninlight wrote...
Why not Tali, Brains? Why not Tali?
:crying:

No offense to Tali...but the last time she was in charge of a group of others they all ended up dead.  Actually the only two times she's led a group there were massive losses, first with Prazza on Freedom's Progress then on Haestrom.

As much as I like Tali, that's not really what I'd call command material.  And yet the Quarian admiralty still made her an admiral. 

EDIT: Ninja'd


And Garrus also lost his whole team as well.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 28 juin 2013 - 01:07 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

darthrevaninlight wrote...

I have two points of contention with this; the first being, on what basis do you determine betterment? Does it have to do with defeating the Reapers? What do you define 'better' as?

The other; assuming that you have no superhuman ability to know the future, on what basis would you be able to say 'this will happen as a result of their death'?

Whatever the stated answer, I'm suspecting the real answer to both these questions is "because of my enormous ego".

Hopefully he's young and will mature out of this insanity.  Back in my twenties I did much worse things than declare myself the righteous director of all human life on a video game board.

It might be an ego issue. I don't know, it depends on how you look at it. I don't think it is, but that's me, and you're probably not going to put stock into what I say. You're going to view me as you view me, and I have little incentive to really care.

However, now I think you're just trying to decry what I'm saying as "ego, ego, ego". Right now, I think you're bound and determined to criticize what I say about my own game and my sense of ethics that are derived from it because you don't agree with them. But try not to be condescending about it. If I came off as condescending myself, sorry, I probably didn't mean to.

I'm not calling myself the righteous director of all human life. Those are your words, not mine. I'm going to ignore the issue behind you getting upset at this and ask why you're making such a big deal over my headcanon?

I doubt I will change. I hope I don't in fact. I rather like where I'm at.

[Dextro Milk]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I doubt I will change. I hope I don't in fact. I rather like where I'm at.

And that, is why you have a problem.

[darthrevaninlight]

xlegionx wrote...
She did. On Haestrom. 

Could that not be seen as extenuating circumstances? Haestrom was expected to be a suicide mission for Tali and her team. They weren't even sure if they would make it back. That's why Tali went in the first place--because she didn't want anyone else to go through it.


Garrus had a similar problem, and yet he seems to be a popular choice in this forum. If anything, he would be among my list of "those that do not work well with others" due to his attitude and lone-ranger act.

Astartes Marine wrote...

And Garrus also lost his whole team as well.

:bandit:

Modifié par darthrevaninlight, 28 juin 2013 - 01:18 .