186 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

HellbirdIV wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

All that matters to Samara is what the 'Code tells her to do

The Code demands that she kill Falere in ME3. The Code most likely doesn't say that the Justicar should kill themselves. She makes that choice herself; Killing herself to avoid having to kill Falere because of what the Code demands of her.

I'm not defending Samara or the Justicars though, the whole concept is probably supposed to be an antiquated relic from the era of asari City States that just hasn't been questioned because "tradition". But it shows that she's not brainwashed to follow the Code no matter what - it always comes down to the choice she makes in the moment.

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Yes David, I agree that letting the quarians die is indeed a silly choice.

Too bad it's not the Renegade option at all; it's Paragon.

It makes sense in context, really. Renegade!Shep is the one who argues that machines aren't really people, whereas Paragon!Shep will tell EDI that self-aware synthetic life gets to choose just like organics.

If you side with the geth, you're saving billions of lives - if you're playing Paragon, in which case them being Synthetics does not make them less alive. If you're Renegade, geth lives don't count, so the only option is to save the quarians.

Or a ruthless Renegade could feel that an army of killbots would be "more useful" (I recall something similar said to Samara) and any lives lost are just a means to an end. Who cares if they are "alive" or not, they're just the more effective cannon fodder.

The idealistic Paragon could say they can't betray the Quarians now after helping them this far or (vomit) that they couldn't that to Tali.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 29 juillet 2013 - 05:09 .

[grey_wind]

StreetMagic wrote...

This is a pretty harsh (and alien) universe. No point in trying to replicate all of our own laws and morals here.

Anyways, I like Samara, even if she says she'd kill me. She gets points not just because of her skills, but because she's relentless (to a point). She demonstrates many of the same qualities chasing down Morinth as some variations of Shepard did chasing Saren. I'd say Zaeed is more of an extreme where I draw the line in hunting down a target. That's completely unnecessary. It's one of the few Renegade options I have a hard time doing. It's kind of worth doing early if you just want the Assault Rifle upgrade (heh), but storywise, it's hard to justify for me.

I actually find that it's perfectly reasonable to take the Renegade path in Zaeed's mission. There are like 10 workers in the factory, whereas Vido is the head of one of the most powerful and spread out merc groups in the entire galaxy. Killing him should set the Blue Suns back by quite a bit; one can reasonably hope that Vido's death will cause a lot of infighting and internal chaos in the Blue Suns ranks, leaving the organization as a whole rather weakened and unable to spread its roots while rendering it vulnerable to attacks from rival gangs or Council agents.

[Bourne Endeavor]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Huh? No, because the decision is dumb on its face. You've got the data; it's just stupid to throw away a capability even if it's one you don't see a need for at the moment

Mordin himself says otherwise, citing it the "right decision" at the time. While the Genophage became far too black and white for my preference. The narrative does partly insinuate curing the Genophage is a significant risk, thus why Mordin can survive if Wreav is in charge. Destroying the data in ME2 is essentially acknowledging that risk too great at the time, but by ME3 the circumstances have changed.

Not using the cure isn't what I have a problem with; that's defensible. My problem is with having Maelon's data in your hands and throwing it away rather than putting it in storage just in case it becomes useful.

While that security is nice. You do run the risk of it being discovered and subsequent insistence from the Krogan forthcoming. I doubt they will be civil if the possibility of a cure existed. Another argument can derive from the crude method by which is was created; is this cure even viable? Mordin is only theorizing at this point and Maleon has certainly not shown leniency when it comes to the lengths he was willing to go for science. Although, the best argument is a belief the Genophage should not be cured. Unfortunately, whereas Mass Effect 2 offers a great amount of ambiguity on the subject, ME3 railroads you down a black and white path.

It may not be the best idea in hindsight, but goes the benefit of hindsight. At the time, you can justify it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Yes. That's kind of the point.

Samara's morals are based on what the Justicar Code says, unlike our own morality where a punishment should fit the crime and it is considered better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent to be punished.

We weren't discussing wether or not the Eclipse mercs really deserved to die or by what measure they would be judged guilty, though - they were judged guilty by the Justicar Code, as that is the only morality Samara adheres to.

And my point is: the 'Code's morality is arguably criminal (for the listed reasons), and she is, too, for adopting it.

If I lived in the MEU, I would be far more worried about a Justicar in my area than an Ardat Yakshi!

EDIT:

I should also note that Samara specifically states that the Eclipse merc she neckstomps was actually offered a chance to surrender. This implies that the Justicar's Code does permit for taking even the guilty in alive.

Yeah, I just remembered that too, and it doesn't really help her case here.

So, it's not that the Lt's crime is affiliation with Eclipse for which she's guilty, but her unwillingness to hand over some information. Why didn't she cooperate with Samara, though? Because she feared for her life as it was.

With good reason, I would add. Samara has been unable to apprehend Morinth over centuries(!) of trying. Hell, it's not without Shepard's help that she's finally able to do it. So if/when Samara fails to catch Morinth again, Morinth will know who ratted her out and will deal with that merc in her own special way. In comparison, a snapped neck is a massage.

Cases like that Merc Lt's is why we have witness-protection programs. Samara offered her no such thing, though.

It was basically a choice of: death now, or worse death later?

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 29 juillet 2013 - 05:00 .

[HellbirdIV]

Well you're just being anthropocentric now, HYR. Which I find ironic, because...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Legion: "No two species are identical. All must be judged on their own merits. Treating every species like one's own is racist - even benign anthropomorphism (is racist)."

The Code's morality is "arguably criminal" based solely on your standards of morality.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Well you're just being anthropocentric now, HYR. Which I find ironic, because...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Legion: "No two species are identical. All must be judged on their own merits. Treating every species like one's own is racist - even benign anthropomorphism (is racist)."

The Code's morality is "arguably criminal" based solely on your standards of morality.

lol... it seems nobody that actually should see that quote ever does!

But I am judging her Code on its own merits, though. It's broken, and I can prove it to you...

The Code would kill another Justicar for following the Code. Samara's encounter with Nihlus proves it. Nihlus killed an unarmed person, and Samara hunted him for it. Why? Per Samara, she hunted him because "killing unarmed civilians is wrong" [sic]. She didn't know why he did it, though. As a Spectre, Nihlus is well within his rights to kill. Worse yet, Samara herself killed an unarmed person. The Code permitted her to do it. So if another Justicar witnessed Samara kill that merc ... the Code would compel her to kill Samara, over something the Code itself permits.

So no, there is no merit in the 'Code. It is outdated and provably broken.


I would also add: when another's morality involves me, I reserve the right to factor my own. Batarians can legally take slaves, but I won't allow them to take me. The Reapers believe they're morally-justified, but I'll still fight their cycle...

I don't recruit Morinth, her character is not taken seriously and thus not worth it. I don't recruit Samara, either. I like her, the person, but I detest her fundamentalism and hate that her loyalty-mission requires me to stand up for it.

So I just pretend she doesn't exist.



HYR, OUT!!!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 29 juillet 2013 - 05:47 .

[HellbirdIV]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Code would kill another Justicar for following the Code. Samara's encounter with Nihlus proves it. Nihlus killed an unarmed person, and Samara hunted him for it. Why? Per Samara, she hunted him because "killing unarmed civilians is wrong" [sic]. She didn't know why he did it, though. As a Spectre, Nihlus is well within his rights to kill. Worse yet, Samara herself killed an unarmed person. The Code permitted her to do it. So if another Justicar witnessed Samara kill that merc ... the Code would compel her to kill Samara, over something the Code itself permits.

The Code is probably not that broadly generalizing, though. It is supposed to cover all possible things the Justicar can encounter, after all.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

So no, there is no merit in the 'Code. It is outdated and provably broken.

I agree. I theorize that the Justicars originate in the time of asari city-states, where a fugitive could just run from one state to another to escape justice. Thus, Justicars would roam Thessia, administering justice by the Code rather than local laws. It would probably help stomp out corruption and organized crime before it became a serious thing in asari culture.

In the modern, global - and even interstellar - time of instant communication, however, the Justicar's black and white morality and complete lack of jurisdictional limitations are severely outdated and actively dangerous. It's probably kept alive solely because tradition can make people ignore how stupid something is if it's an old enough practice.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I would also add: when another's morality involves me, I reserve the right to factor my own. Batarians can legally take slaves, but I won't allow them to take me. The Reapers believe they're morally-justified, but I'll still fight their cycle...

Fair, but in this case you were judging Samara from an outsider perspective, not the perspective of the victim.

[KaiserShep]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
And my point is: the 'Code's morality is arguably criminal (for the listed reasons), and she is, too, for adopting it.

If I lived in the MEU, I would be far more worried about a Justicar in my area than an Ardat Yakshi!

Heck, ME2 makes it clear that Justicars are kind of a potential diplomatic hazard, since their hard line method of justice could end with people being executed without any due process.

[Bleachrude]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

It reminds me of the "why would you choose the Legion" in Fallout: New Vegas.question on the Bethseda boards. if the choice had been NCR or Caesar, I can see (even though I don't agree with it) people choosing caesar.

But there's the independent path (or Mr. House if you think there needs to be come sort of guiding hand) so why the hell would any courier side with the legion?

Because Caesar is awesome.

I'll bite.

What makes the LEGION awesome?

Is it the raping, the wholesale murder the slavery?

Pretty much nowadays, people seem to define mature work as anything that has the "antagonist" not cackling with laughter and saying "I'm doing this NOT for myself but for group X".

Bawlderdash I say.

Just because a character says "I'm doing this not for myself" does NOT make hm a complicated character.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

While that security is nice. You do run the risk of it being discovered and subsequent insistence from the Krogan forthcoming. I doubt they will be civil if the possibility of a cure existed. Another argument can derive from the crude method by which is was created; is this cure even viable? Mordin is only theorizing at this point and Maleon has certainly not shown leniency when it comes to the lengths he was willing to go for science. Although, the best argument is a belief the Genophage should not be cured. Unfortunately, whereas Mass Effect 2 offers a great amount of ambiguity on the subject, ME3 railroads you down a black and white path.

It may not be the best idea in hindsight, but goes the benefit of hindsight. At the time, you can justify it.

And that would be fair, I would say, in most circumstances where we did not believe we were about to be assaulted by 10 km tall killer machines. However, given the Krogans'  rapid maturity/birth cycles, the genophage cure itself presents a very useful opportunity to the player.

[Bleachrude]

I disagree that ME3 railroads you into curing the genophage is the right choice. This is people not actually playing various imports.

It does this IF and only if Wrex is alive and even here, you can still ask Victus what he thinks of a resurgent krogan and he's not exactly cheering fro it.

Now, if you had Wreav, the game hammers you constantly "curing the genophage is a BAD, VERY BAD, thing" and frankly, the only pro-genophage cure person is Eve.

Note that if Eve dies (Wreav alone) and you get to the shroud, there's no big confrontation with Mordin...you can easily convince him that the krogans aren't ready.

The genophage arc is basically how much do you believe in what version of the krogans the majority are. Wrex (and Eve) reprsent one angle whereas Wreav is the other.

[AlanC9]

Bleachrude wrote...
Now, if you had Wreav, the game hammers you constantly "curing the genophage is a BAD, VERY BAD, thing" and frankly, the only pro-genophage cure person is Eve.

Note that if Eve dies (Wreav alone) and you get to the shroud, there's no big confrontation with Mordin...you can easily convince him that the krogans aren't ready.

The only time I went this route -- my Shep just couldn't stomach destroying a genophage cure twice (counting Saren's) --- it didn't matter much, since that Shep picked Control and could just open up a couple cans of Reaper-flavored whoop-ass on Wreav if he got out of line. But Destroy could be a problem; the main disadvantage the krogan have is no real industrial base, but give them a few centuries of isolation without relays and they can build one.

[Reorte]

Bleachrude wrote...

I disagree that ME3 railroads you into curing the genophage is the right choice. This is people not actually playing various imports.

It does this IF and only if Wrex is alive and even here, you can still ask Victus what he thinks of a resurgent krogan and he's not exactly cheering fro it.

What was sorely missing was a chance to ask Wrex and Eve about the very sensible concerns a lot of other people had about the genophage. Wrex doesn't exactly help when he talks about expansion and trying to get some worlds back, yet the portrayal is that, with those two around, it's the right thing to do. I don't even remember Mordin having much to say about it.

In the end I took the view that we needed the krogan no matter what, perhaps it would've been interesting for the fears to have been raised a bit more with Wrex and Eve (along with them offering some counter arguments) but the best ending impossible without krogan support.

[Bleachrude]

Reorte wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

I disagree that ME3 railroads you into curing the genophage is the right choice. This is people not actually playing various imports.

It does this IF and only if Wrex is alive and even here, you can still ask Victus what he thinks of a resurgent krogan and he's not exactly cheering fro it.

What was sorely missing was a chance to ask Wrex and Eve about the very sensible concerns a lot of other people had about the genophage. Wrex doesn't exactly help when he talks about expansion and trying to get some worlds back, yet the portrayal is that, with those two around, it's the right thing to do. I don't even remember Mordin having much to say about it.

In the end I took the view that we needed the krogan no matter what, perhaps it would've been interesting for the fears to have been raised a bit more with Wrex and Eve (along with them offering some counter arguments) but the best ending impossible without krogan support.

That's a neat idea but I'm of the suspicious idea that BW used the Wrev/Wreave choice to be a blatant example of "Your choice matter" from ME1.

Basically, if you killed Wrex in ME1, betraying Wreav is a no brainer option and I believe this is what the game kind of hammers towards the player. If Wrex _IS_ alive, saving the krogans should of course be presented in a much more positibe light.

Still, like I said, your idea has merit...although I can imagine people arguing that the game doesnt acknolwedge enough the difference between Wrex and Wreav if both options have the game repeating the same type of lines.

[Element Engine]

Wrex survives Virmire every time. Other than, I try to switch it up on re-playthroughs. I do have a 'canon' Shepard though.

[CptData]

Well, in my case it's more or less like this:

- same overall playthrough
- main decisions remain the same
- mostly paragon decisions (80 - 90%)
- same LI (Ashley)
- obviously, same sex (male Shepard)
- different class
- different background

So yeah, all of my Shepards are pretty much going down the same path, however, their background changes as well as their class. That's all.

[Rodulv]

 When I do a renegade run, I get a strong urge to take a shower and start over as paragon and right every single wrong I did on my ren playthrough... it's a vicious circle:happy:


I never let Wrex be killed and I always cure the genophage on all playthroughs.

Modifié par Rodulv, 30 juillet 2013 - 01:34 .

[Massa FX]

To OP: I always choose destroy because I can't stomach any other option. But I do mess with the reputation levels in the editor to allow different conversations to surface. Each of my Shepard's have unique journeys... sort of.

[Nole]

I had no problem picking Control with my renegade Shepard

[Barquiel]

I always make certain choices (for example I always romance Liara, spare Shiala and the rachni queen, save the Destiny Ascension, save Falere, destroy the collector base)...and there are some other choices I've gone different ways (for example the decision on Rannoch)

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm not sure how serious I can take the "can't stomach" comments. Is it sarcasm? I don't want to lecture too much, but it's just roleplaying. I don't know why you would attach a character to yourself so much. It's like saying Marlon Brando was bad because he played the mafia boss Vito Corleone. It was pretend. He was acting. Ever since I've played RPGs (going back to pen n paper), it's the same thing. If I make a dwarf warrior or something, I create a backstory.. and it might be cliche at times (like a beer guzzling brute who gets literal pleasure from smashing people with a warhammer). It's fun to approach things from that character's standpoint, instead of do the same thing all the time.

I'm not trying to judge anyone btw. Just wondering why you don't seperate yourself from the character. I have a preference for Renegade type of characters, but I can enjoy Paragon too. It's not like I can't stomach it (I can't stomach it when it's forced on me though).

I'm quite happy to take some renegade actions, but I just can't bring myself to play a renegade character...I simply don't enjoy playing a "ruthless" Shepard.

I tried to do renegade playthoughs a couple of times...you'd think it'd be easy - just click the dialogue option and be done with it - but I can't. There are too many renegade actions that are needlessly cruel or xenophobic/pro-human (especially in ME1) imo. That's probably the reason I've never had more than 30%-40% Renegade points in all my playthroughs (even less in ME1).

[Fixers0]

I quite liked the idealogical aspects attached to dialogue Mass Effect 3, gave it more depth and actually provided the player with a wide variety of ways to express themselfs. As for choices, I'd often tend to pick choices that conflict with the "preffered" narrative, such as holding the fleets back and destroying the C-base. All the former truly changes are the new councillors, the rest of the reppurcussions are delegated to war assets and the latter always has the same outcome, with minor differences in dialogue and some hidden mechanic near the endgame for no good reason.

[Kataphrut94]

The weird thing about the Collector Base decision is that although for most of us it really doesn't matter, for the tiny percentage of people who had low EMS, it's practically the difference between life and death.

If you save the base and have low EMS, all you can do is Control. If you destroy the base and have low EMS, all you can do is Destroy. Comparing the two low EMS endings, Control is simply so much better that the Collector Base essentially becomes a safety net. If you save it in Mass Effect 2, then no matter how badly you screw up in Mass Effect 3, you can still finish the game with something resembling a salvageable ending.

It's weird how some of these choices pan out if you look at them in a certain way. Like how giving Veetor to Tali can become the first step toward creating peace between the geth and quarians. Or how saving Wrex on Virmire in ME1 is inadvertently signing the death warrant for Mordin in ME3. Suddenly, it doesn't feel as good.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 30 juillet 2013 - 11:54 .

[DarthLaxian]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm not sure how serious I can take the "can't stomach" comments. Is it sarcasm? I don't want to lecture too much, but it's just roleplaying. I don't know why you would attach a character to yourself so much. It's like saying Marlon Brando was bad because he played the mafia boss Vito Corleone. It was pretend. He was acting. Ever since I've played RPGs (going back to pen n paper), it's the same thing. If I make a dwarf warrior or something, I create a backstory.. and it might be cliche at times (like a beer guzzling brute who gets literal pleasure from smashing people with a warhammer). It's fun to approach things from that character's standpoint, instead of do the same thing all the time.

I'm not trying to judge anyone btw. Just wondering why you don't seperate yourself from the character. I have a preference for Renegade type of characters, but I can enjoy Paragon too. It's not like I can't stomach it (I can't stomach it when it's forced on me though).

that is exactly my problem - i get attached (i love having options and i chose different ones, if the outcome is not negative in my POV (like in DA:O when chosing the dwarf-king...i can live with both options and have done both, but only after convincing myself, that Behlen would be acceptable, too (i had done all origins at first, before continuing to the larger game, so i knew what he did to my dwarf-character and i thought: can't put that traitor on the throne...but then i read the ending slices and he is the better king in the end IMHO...and - that is one of the few times i can roleplay - my (non-dwarf) character, that is a liberal/free-thinking mage (most of the time anyway) would not know of him killing his siblings anyway)) but in ME i just can't do that, because i can't play a character that i myself would probably kill if give the chance (and i would kill a genocidal maniac who kills the rachni-queen, lets the council die, kills wrex etc.) - so yeah, it's the same over all choices for me every time!)

and yes, i become attached to my character (he/she is me - why? - because otherwise the game is not immersive, if the character is not me, then playing the game is like reading a book (and you have no influence on the story in those, do you? - not that you do in ME...at least not if you cound ME3 )

greetings LAX