272 réponses à ce sujet

[Astartes Marine]

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Do you even know what moral relativism is? [/quote]
Oh yes, and if you were a poster child of it then I'd be ashamed to know any.  Thankfully you're not and the few relativists I do know do draw the line at certain things.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Call it whatever you like. Kahoku was a problem that needed to be solved. [/quote]
Because Cerberus was the problem that instigated his investigation.  An investigation into murders of Alliance personnel.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
What 'wrong' is goes as far as who is in charge.[/quote]
And that would be the Illusive Man, a leader is responsible for the actions of those under his or her leadership.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
They killed a man who was getting
too close, and was a threat to their operation. [/quote]
An operation that had the blood of many innocent lives on the hands of those taking part in it. 

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I don't blame them for taking care of their operations and making sure they're carried out. Morality isn't a factor.[/quote]
Again with the handwaving dismissiveness.  You're no better than the Turian Councilor, and I suspect you head may be just as far up your ass as his was.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I think the very definition of a crime is whatever whoever is in charge wants it to be.[/quote]
Laughable.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I think the alliance and the Council are guilty of a far graver crime than anything Cerberus could
ever do - the crime of apathetic ignorance. Of failing to do their job. [/quote]

On this point...I find myself in complete AGREEMENT.  Through inaction many lives were lost because of them.


[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Why don't you experiment on your own species like that? [/quote]
Do you not know what the term "murder" is?  Or did you handwave that in the name of progress just like Mengele who you yourself mentioned earlier?


[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
If not, then it happens.[/quote]
Hello Illusive Man 2.0...the exact same as the original and guilty of the same hubris and arrogance.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm not being a coward. [/quote]
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I call it like I see it.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm doing something you're unwilling or unable to do for the sake of advancing humanity and protecting the galaxy.[/quote]
Yes yes we saw much of Cerberus' "advancements", twisted abominable creepers and husks, civilians and soldiers massacred, children kidnapped, oh and yeah there was that thing with Sanctuary...

Oh yes you'd do it all, and sacrifice the soul of the human race while you're at it.  You're all for advancing and protecting and at the end you forget just what you're protecting and how precious it is.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
There's nothing 'wrong' with any actions. It's all relative.[/quote]
Rape? 
Murder?
Pedophilia?
Torture?
Genocide?

Nothing wrong with those of course, it's all relative right?  This is why I say it's cowardice; you can't take a mother******* stand, you don't take a side, you just dismiss it with a wave of the hand and say "meh, relative".

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
All
the alliance and Council personnel who stood back and did nothing are
going to be tried and executed for their incompetence the way I see it.
Everyone in Cerberus, who can demonstrate their usefulness, goes free to
work for my renewed Cerberus.[/quote]
Well all the higher ups in the Alliance are already dead, died in the opening strike of the Reaper war when Arcturus was hit.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:23 .

[wolfhowwl]

I don't know about having a trial but the transition between the second and third games was abysmal.

[AlexMBrennan]

This is getting off-topic - is membership of Cerberus a capital offence in Citadel space? Yes. Thus there should be a trial and Shepard should have been executed. End of discussion. You are free to disagree with any law in reality or fiction but that doesn't change the enforcement of that law.

[wright1978]

wolfhowwl wrote...

I don't know about having a trial but the transition between the second and third games was abysmal.

QFT

[Bleachrude]

StreetMagic wrote...

The whole notion of advancement is something I never cared about with Cerberus.

I just want humans to be able to chill in their prefabs and not worry about some batarian schmuck breaking in and raping his children. I don't necessarily need grand notions of "advancement" to accomplish that. Just vigilance. That's what Cerberus first set out to be. That's why they originally named themselves that -- Cerberus was a watchdog over the Hades cluster, just like Cerberus guarded Hades in myth.

This I can actually agree with...

But the alliance (and the council) does a good enough job of this...people complain about colonies being attacked but given how many colonies there ARE, it's more like trying to stop everyday burglary.

Never going to happen but you can minimize it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This is getting off-topic - is membership of Cerberus a capital offence in Citadel space? Yes. Thus there should be a trial and Shepard should have been executed. End of discussion. You are free to disagree with any law in reality or fiction but that doesn't change the enforcement of that law.

That was handwaved in ME2 by the Council, as long as Shepard confined the operations to the Terminus Systems. Now what is defined by the Council as Terminus Systems seems to be "where ever the Council doesn't want to get involved." These are areas such as Batarian space, Geth space, Illium, Earth Alliance colonies, Krogan neutral zone.

So, Councilor Anderson tells the other councilor "that's too far", and they agree to back off about the capital offense thing and offer Shepard her Spectre Status. If Shepard accepts, which quite honestly she'd be a fool not to accept since it is a paycheck and benefits, the entire Cerberus thing should get handwaved by the Council as an "exception to policy" and there should be no trial.

If Shepard does not accept and tells the council to go to hell, Shepard should fall under Alliance military jurisdiction, and thus a trial. 

But still the entire set up is a mess, and it does nothing for the plot. Having Shepard do Arrival does nothing for the plot except have a ham handed way of getting Shepard back to Earth. Yet that isn't even "canon." If you didn't play Arrival, the 103rd Marines take care of the Arrival mission and you lose 100 war assets, and you get "relieved of duty" instead of put in "lock up".

The beginning was a mess.

[Redbelle]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This is getting off-topic - is membership of Cerberus a capital offence in Citadel space? Yes. Thus there should be a trial and Shepard should have been executed. End of discussion. You are free to disagree with any law in reality or fiction but that doesn't change the enforcement of that law.

That was handwaved in ME2 by the Council, as long as Shepard confined the operations to the Terminus Systems. Now what is defined by the Council as Terminus Systems seems to be "where ever the Council doesn't want to get involved." These are areas such as Batarian space, Geth space, Illium, Earth Alliance colonies, Krogan neutral zone.

So, Councilor Anderson tells the other councilor "that's too far", and they agree to back off about the capital offense thing and offer Shepard her Spectre Status. If Shepard accepts, which quite honestly she'd be a fool not to accept since it is a paycheck and benefits, the entire Cerberus thing should get handwaved by the Council as an "exception to policy" and there should be no trial.

If Shepard does not accept and tells the council to go to hell, Shepard should fall under Alliance military jurisdiction, and thus a trial. 

But still the entire set up is a mess, and it does nothing for the plot. Having Shepard do Arrival does nothing for the plot except have a ham handed way of getting Shepard back to Earth. Yet that isn't even "canon." If you didn't play Arrival, the 103rd Marines take care of the Arrival mission and you lose 100 war assets, and you get "relieved of duty" instead of put in "lock up".

The beginning was a mess.

One thing about being a specte.

It's a blank check to the council. Even if Shepard accept's it, he is still a human military officer and can be held accountable by his own institution. The council have no say in how the military he belongs to choose to treat him. They can apply pressure. But they cannot interfere directly with how other races choose to conduct internal disciplinary hearings.

Shepard is essentially the labourer of two masters. It mean's he has access to more information networks. And Shepard working for the council put's humanity in good standing so they largely turn a blind eye. But Shepard is alliance navy and not wholely above the regulation's that bind him.

If he was..... He'd have told Ash, or she'd have told Kaiden in ME1.....

"I'm a spectre. I can totally do you".

To which the response would be.

"Well I'm not a spectre so the only one who wouldn't get in trouble.... is you".

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]Astartes Marine wrote...

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Do you even know what moral relativism is? [/quote]
Oh yes, and if you were a poster child of it then I'd be ashamed to know any.  Thankfully you're not and the few relativists I do know do draw the line at certain things.

[/quote]

I doubt that. Relativists would react much the same as I have.  They would question the necessity of such actions, but there really is no line to draw.

The only line that exists lies with the possibility of the action. If it is not physically possible, then it cannot physically exist, and is thus physically wrong.

Otherwise, morality is an illusion created by man, an abstract concept that we apply to ourselves. Much of it is dependant on culture and norms of upbringing within a society.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Call it whatever you like. Kahoku was a problem that needed to be solved. [/quote]
Because Cerberus was the problem that instigated his investigation.  An investigation into murders of Alliance personnel.
[/quote]

Yes, and Cerberus didn't want to get caught. I can't blame them for acting that way. Of course, that means there's no come-uppance for it. No justice. No karma. Nada. They got away with it. And they continued conducting experiments that created advances, advantages, and opportunities for humanity to grow from. Advances, advantages, and opportunities that worked to promote human interests and expand human influence.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
What 'wrong' is goes as far as who is in charge.[/quote]
And that would be the Illusive Man, a leader is responsible for the actions of those under his or her leadership.
[/quote]

You misunderstand. 'Wrong' is what is told by the person in charge is. On a universal scale, the only 'wrong' things are the things that don't exist. 

I can take preferences and stances too. Just because the abstract universe is subjective does not recuse me from having my own (subjective) opinion.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
They killed a man who was getting
too close, and was a threat to their operation. [/quote]
An operation that had the blood of many innocent lives on the hands of those taking part in it. 
[/quote]

And if it prevents the blood of many more lives, then I think it's a worthy sacrifice. If not, then we'll start talking about what went wrong with the operation. We'll look at the parts that failed and improve upon those methods while analysing the necessity of the violence incurred by the assignment. It was rather sloppily executed, I'll admit. Ideally, it would have been performed in areas of low interest and away from the public eye to not raise any suspicion. 

It wasn't very practical. That's how I think of it.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I don't blame them for taking care of their operations and making sure they're carried out. Morality isn't a factor.[/quote]
Again with the handwaving dismissiveness.  You're no better than the Turian Councilor, and I suspect you head may be just as far up your ass as his was.
[/quote]

It's hardly handwaiving dismissiveness. I don't approve of how they carried out their operation, but I do admire their survivalism. I think now you're focusing on attacking me personally rather than my argument.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I think the very definition of a crime is whatever whoever is in charge wants it to be.[/quote]
Laughable.
[/quote]

Why is it laughable? You realize that this is an appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy that tries to portray my point in a ridiculous manner. And you provided no argument against the point.

What constitutes a crime is whoever the person making the law says a crime is. It's that simple. There is no universal bar, no cosmic line or balance between good and evil. Law does not come from anything greater than the human mind.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I think the alliance and the Council are guilty of a far graver crime than anything Cerberus could
ever do - the crime of apathetic ignorance. Of failing to do their job. [/quote]

On this point...I find myself in complete AGREEMENT.  Through inaction many lives were lost because of them.
[/quote]

Yes indeed. I suppose it's not fair to condemn everyone in the alliance and Council of inaction. Some saw the threat and joined me to fight the Reapers (while I was working with Cerberus) to fight them. They saw the real threat. I commend them for it.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Why don't you experiment on your own species like that? [/quote]
Do you not know what the term "murder" is?  Or did you handwave that in the name of progress just like Mengele who you yourself mentioned earlier?
[/quote]

And why is murder a crime? To clarify, why do we percieve it as a bad thing? What constitutes a murder? Is there any circumstance where it's justified? 

I'm getting philosophical here, and playing devil's advocate. Why is murder considered bad in our society? 

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
If not, then it happens.[/quote]
Hello Illusive Man 2.0...the exact same as the original and guilty of the same hubris and arrogance.
[/quote]

If there isn't a reliable, reasonable, or feasible alternative, then yes, experimentation on living subjects is acceptable if the goal of the operation/mission calls for it, and if the end produced is enough to outweigh the consequences of the action. What that end might be is rather sketchy to define, but I'd call it something that provides humanity (or the galaxy at large) with a real, tangible benefit or advantage that makes lives easier and better for everyone in some way. 

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm not being a coward. [/quote]
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I call it like I see it.
[/quote]

Then by your definition, I'm a coward. I care little for subjective definitions and judgements. I care more for objective outcomes that provide tangible gains.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm doing something you're unwilling or unable to do for the sake of advancing humanity and protecting the galaxy.[/quote]
Yes yes we saw much of Cerberus' "advancements", twisted abominable creepers and husks, civilians and soldiers massacred, children kidnapped, oh and yeah there was that thing with Sanctuary...
[/quote]

Why were they 'twisted'? 'Abominable'? 

If they provided real, tangible avantages, benefits, and gains, then they did their job. The methodology was excessive, but the outcome to me is clear.

A positive outcome is a positive outcome to me. 

If it's stupid (evil, bad, immoral, disgusting, etc.) but it works, then it's not stupid (evil, bad, immoral, disgusting, etc.)

[quote]
Oh yes you'd do it all, and sacrifice the soul of the human race while you're at it.  You're all for advancing and protecting and at the end you forget just what you're protecting and how precious it is.
[/quote]

There is no 'soul' to the human race. That's a delusion. 

I know exactly what I'm advancing and protecting, and I know how I view it. And I know what I'm willing to do, and how far I'm willing to go to protect it. If that means sacrificing my 'soul' to do it, then I do it without guilt, remorse, shame, or reluctance. 

All that matters is stopping the Reapers. It's simple. 

Either we win, and they lose. Or they win, and we lose. 

And defeat means death. If that's the alternative, then I'm going to make sure we win. At absolutely any cost. Even the 'soul' of our species.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
There's nothing 'wrong' with any actions. It's all relative.[/quote]
Rape? 
Murder?
Pedophilia?
Torture?
Genocide?
[/quote]

Can you tell me what is objectively wrong with any of this? These are all acceptable in different cultures you know. Are you presuming to take the moral high ground (a fallacy by the way) and stating that they're 'wrong' because of it? No, there is nothing objectively wrong with this. Do I approve of them? No. But there is nothing universally wrong with any of these. 

[quote]
Nothing wrong with those of course, it's all relative right?  This is why I say it's cowardice; you can't take a mother******* stand, you don't take a side, you just dismiss it with a wave of the hand and say "meh, relative".
[/quote]

Nothing objectively or universally wrong, no. Maybe from a Western standpoint it's wrong. But that's just one perspective.

You're going into a personal attack (and presuming to know my opinions). The answer is that I can take a stand. Because I know that there is no universal right and wrong does not discount the notion that I myself have my own standards of right and wrong. And in my opinion, if any of those are committed in an unwarranted situation, then it is wrong by my own standards. Rape and pedophilia are wrong in my book in pretty much every circumstance, yet I recognize that it is the norm (even encouraged in some cultures). As for murder, torture, and genocide, it just might depend on the situation. Why would I be committing such actions?

Am I murdering someone now to protect someone? Am I murdering another human when I put on my uniform as a Soldier in the United States Army and doing my job that directly leads to other people's deaths (even though I myself am not the Soldier in the field)? Or torture. Is it acceptable to torture someone to lead to a greater good? By sacrificing one innocent, can I make the lives of a hundred better? For genocide, if a race, such as the Krogan, cannot be bargained with or controlled due to their hyper-aggressive behavior, am I not preventing galactic carnage and chaos by destroying them entirely? Am I not already committing genocide (and murder) by destroying the Reapers (a sentient, sapient race)?

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
All the alliance and Council personnel who stood back and did nothing are
going to be tried and executed for their incompetence the way I see it.
Everyone in Cerberus, who can demonstrate their usefulness, goes free to
work for my renewed Cerberus.[/quote]

Well all the higher ups in the Alliance are already dead, died in the opening strike of the Reaper war when Arcturus was hit.

[/quote]

Perhaps. I think that's justice right there. The Council, and many politicians from world governments that either hindered the war effort or refused to help will of course face charges as well. They're going to be removed from power. And people who can lead, and are willing to do whatever it takes to lead, will be put in their place.

[Astartes Marine]

EDIT:  You know what?  I'm not stooping to that level.  We are finished here.  You are set in your opinion as I am in mine.  You are happy with collaborating with irredeemable terrorists while I am quite content in sending as many as I can to oblivion.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This is getting off-topic - is membership of Cerberus a capital offence in Citadel space? Yes. Thus there should be a trial and Shepard should have been executed. End of discussion. You are free to disagree with any law in reality or fiction but that doesn't change the enforcement of that law.

I doubt it would flat out end in his or her execution.  Considerations would have to be taken into account, like the fact that human colonies were in fact saved and there's also the whole bit with Saren and the Geth in ME1.  I'd think the punishment would not be severe at all...I mean Shepard did flip off the Illusive Man and took Cerberus' latest and greatest ship and practically gift wrapped it for the Alliance along with stopping Collector attacks on Alliance colonies. 

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 22 septembre 2013 - 11:03 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Redbelle wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This is getting off-topic - is membership of Cerberus a capital offence in Citadel space? Yes. Thus there should be a trial and Shepard should have been executed. End of discussion. You are free to disagree with any law in reality or fiction but that doesn't change the enforcement of that law.

That was handwaved in ME2 by the Council, as long as Shepard confined the operations to the Terminus Systems. Now what is defined by the Council as Terminus Systems seems to be "where ever the Council doesn't want to get involved." These are areas such as Batarian space, Geth space, Illium, Earth Alliance colonies, Krogan neutral zone.

So, Councilor Anderson tells the other councilor "that's too far", and they agree to back off about the capital offense thing and offer Shepard her Spectre Status. If Shepard accepts, which quite honestly she'd be a fool not to accept since it is a paycheck and benefits, the entire Cerberus thing should get handwaved by the Council as an "exception to policy" and there should be no trial.

If Shepard does not accept and tells the council to go to hell, Shepard should fall under Alliance military jurisdiction, and thus a trial. 

But still the entire set up is a mess, and it does nothing for the plot. Having Shepard do Arrival does nothing for the plot except have a ham handed way of getting Shepard back to Earth. Yet that isn't even "canon." If you didn't play Arrival, the 103rd Marines take care of the Arrival mission and you lose 100 war assets, and you get "relieved of duty" instead of put in "lock up".

The beginning was a mess.

One thing about being a specte.

It's a blank check to the council. Even if Shepard accept's it, he is still a human military officer and can be held accountable by his own institution. The council have no say in how the military he belongs to choose to treat him. They can apply pressure. But they cannot interfere directly with how other races choose to conduct internal disciplinary hearings.

Shepard is essentially the labourer of two masters. It mean's he has access to more information networks. And Shepard working for the council put's humanity in good standing so they largely turn a blind eye. But Shepard is alliance navy and not wholely above the regulation's that bind him.

If he was..... He'd have told Ash, or she'd have told Kaiden in ME1.....

"I'm a spectre. I can totally do you".

To which the response would be.

"Well I'm not a spectre so the only one who wouldn't get in trouble.... is you".

Spectres are above the law until the Council decides it is inconvenient for the Council. Shepard is apparently not answerable to Alliance Command. Shepard had the authority to shut down Admiral Mikhailovich in ME1 and refused a direct order for an inspection with no repercussion at all even though the ship was to be under his command. 

And another thing about ME2 was this: Anderson: "Why are you working with Cerberus? Report for duty! That's an order!" Uh... that's the end of the ME2 plot right there. Why didn't Anderson say this line? The plot didn't make any sense. 

Miranda Lawson: "The Alliance will be receiving a bill from Cerberus for 4.3 billion Credits for rebuilding Commander Shepard. We expect to be paid in full. Come on Jacob. Let's go."

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]Astartes Marine wrote...

EDIT:  You know what?  I'm not stooping to that level.  We are finished here.  You are set in your opinion as I am in mine.  You are happy with collaborating with irredeemable terrorists while I am quite content in sending as many as I can to oblivion.

[/quote]

The fallacy of the high ground. You know this is considered forfeiting an argument right?

I think supporting the alliance and the Council is irredeemable. I hope Hackett and Anderscum and Williams are blown to oblivion. In fact, I know they will be. I'll put them there myself.

One man's terrorist is another man's idealist.

[quote]AlexMBrennan wrote...

This is getting off-topic - is membership of Cerberus a capital offence in Citadel space? Yes. Thus there should be a trial and Shepard should have been executed. End of discussion. You are free to disagree with any law in reality or fiction but that doesn't change the enforcement of that law. [/quote]
I doubt it would flat out end in his or her execution.  Considerations would have to be taken into account, like the fact that human colonies were in fact saved and there's also the whole bit with Saren and the Geth in ME1.  I'd think the punishment would not be severe at all...I mean Shepard did flip off the Illusive Man and took Cerberus' latest and greatest ship and practically gift wrapped it for the Alliance along with stopping Collector attacks on Alliance colonies. 

[/quote]

Well, I didn't flip the bird on TIM. I was arrested, against my will, and my ship stolen from me by the alliance, who have the gall to claim it as theirs and then 'allow' me to use it again.

Post-war, I'm going to be letting Hackett understand a few things about whose in charge here.

Anywho, I'll use my immunity to condemn the Council and the alliance to death. They deserve it.

[Redbelle]

I think the reason why no one tells Shepar dwhat to do is that he had a pre-built reputation. He was always for the Alliance. People trusted his judgement, even if they disagreed with it.

However, there still has to be accountability. No one wants another Saren.

Modifié par Redbelle, 22 septembre 2013 - 11:26 .

[Astartes Marine]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
You know this is considered forfeiting an argument right?

There was no argument to win, neither side was going to convince the other.  We would bicker back and forth until we were both blue in the face and our fingers had fallen off, neither would be convinced, as I said you are set in your view as I am set in mine and little will change that.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I
think supporting the alliance and the Council is irredeemable. I hope
Hackett and Anderscum and Williams are blown to oblivion. In fact, I
know they will be. I'll put them there myself.

One man's terrorist is another man's idealist.

That is your choice as I cannot dictate what you do in your game or mind. 

I do feel that the Alliance has always been weak though, I support the Imperium that I would build in my end. 
Humanity made strong without senseless murder and slaughter of it's own citizens, a shining beacon that other races could look upon with respect and admiration.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 22 septembre 2013 - 11:35 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Redbelle wrote...

I think the reason why no one tells Shepar dwhat to do is that he had a pre-built reputation. He was always for the Alliance. People trusted his judgement, even if they disagreed with it.

However, there still has to be accountability. No one wants another Saren.

This exactly. 

I'll say this: Shepard's a colony kid. Shepard after this war is over is through fighting. She's hanging up her guns. (I use MEHEM + Citadel) And she'll retire. She's got to get that PTSD taken care of, and she'll go to Thessia with her bondmate, maybe learn how to play guitar or something like that. Maybe tend bar.

[wright1978]

Redbelle wrote...

One thing about being a specte.

It's a blank check to the council. Even if Shepard accept's it, he is still a human military officer and can be held accountable by his own institution. The council have no say in how the military he belongs to choose to treat him. They can apply pressure. But they cannot interfere directly with how other races choose to conduct internal disciplinary hearings.

Shepard is essentially the labourer of two masters. It mean's he has access to more information networks. And Shepard working for the council put's humanity in good standing so they largely turn a blind eye. But Shepard is alliance navy and not wholely above the regulation's that bind him.

If he was..... He'd have told Ash, or she'd have told Kaiden in ME1.....

"I'm a spectre. I can totally do you".

To which the response would be.

"Well I'm not a spectre so the only one who wouldn't get in trouble.... is you".

As of ME1 yes Shep has 2 masters and it is clearly shown to be a problem.
As of ME2 i see it as death liberates him from any ties to the Alliance.
If the Alliance don't accept he died then they are welcome to try and court marshall him for deriliction of duty i suppose.

[David7204]

I'm curious. How long exactly do people think this trial would take for the player?

[KaiserShep]

Space Matlock would get this trial down to 5 minutes or less. Actually, the point on how long a trial would have to be to be even remotely convincing kind of rules out the viability of having such a scene in a video game. Who the hell wants to control dialogue for a whole trial in an action game? 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 septembre 2013 - 11:52 .

[Redbelle]

StreetMagic wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I think the reason why no one tells Shepar dwhat to do is that he had a pre-built reputation. He was always for the Alliance. People trusted his judgement, even if they disagreed with it.

However, there still has to be accountability. No one wants another Saren.

This exactly. 

I'll say this: Shepard's a colony kid. Shepard after this war is over is through fighting. She's hanging up her guns. (I use MEHEM + Citadel) And she'll retire. She's got to get that PTSD taken care of, and she'll go to Thessia with her bondmate, maybe learn how to play guitar or something like that. Maybe tend bar.

I think my Colonist Shep already learned an instrument growing up. What the hell else can you do on a colony?

Mime

[Kataphrut94]

It seems no matter what topic a thread begins with, they all eventually degenerate into an Alliance v. Cerberus, Geth v. Quarian, or Ending Sucks v. Ending REALLY Sucks debate. It's funny to think that back during Mass Effect 1, Cerberus and the geth weren't even worth defending. It was all about The Alliance v. the Council or how big of a fictional racist you are.

Aside from the main problem with the trial (that it would be a waste of time and a circle-jerk), it doesn't really seem like it would make sense from a story perspective. Mass Effect 3 opens with the Reaper invasion, six months after Shepard would have been arrested. It seems to me like the trial would have happened much, much earlier, not on the verge of the invasion. I mean, 300'000 manslaughter count and/or confirmed doomsday theorist with ties to a terrorist organization doesn't really leave much room for reasonable doubt.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 23 septembre 2013 - 12:42 .

[David7204]

It's funny, isn't it? People on this forum love to claim how BioWare and it's writers don't tell them what to do, that they think for themselves and are their own person. And then we have issues like 'How much do you hate aliens' solely because BioWare made them issues Because BioWare and its writers said 'Renegades hate aliens,' and so that's what BSN members obediently say and follow.

Modifié par David7204, 23 septembre 2013 - 12:37 .

[wright1978]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Aside from the main problem with the trial (that it would be a waste of time and a circle-jerk), it doesn't really seem like it would make sense from a story perspective. Mass Effect 3 opens with the Reaper invasion, six months after Shepard would have been arrested. It seems to me like the trial would have happened much, much earlier, not on the verge of the invasion. I mean, 300'000 manslaughter count and/or confirmed doomsday theorist with ties to a terrorist organization doesn't really leave much room for reasonable doubt.

I don't agree that a trial/hearing would have been a waste of time. It would great place to establish/re-establish player characterisation by allowing them to respond to charges. Certainly would have been 10 billion times better than the railroaded piece of drivel that currently serves as an intro to ME3.