86 réponses à ce sujet

[Micon2]

Never stole the Normandy it was given to you by the council after Captain Andersen stepped down.



It is a game that is trying to be realistic but from what I have read it hard to understand just how much the idea of cartoon casual sex offends so many and as for a gay romance......well this is 2010 or wait a minute 2043 and there are aliens.

[Xaenn]

Micon2 wrote...

Never stole the Normandy it was given to you by the council after Captain Andersen stepped down.

It is a game that is trying to be realistic but from what I have read it hard to understand just how much the idea of cartoon casual sex offends so many and as for a gay romance......well this is 2010 or wait a minute 2043 and there are aliens.

After Virime your ship gets impounded, you steal it before heading to Ilos. Wasn't Captains choice on stepping down either, you'll find out.  I'm assuming you haven't beat it yet either, so that maybe a spoiler..

Modifié par Xaenn, 22 janvier 2010 - 08:00 .

[Basher of Glory]

Xaenn wrote...

If you're looking for an abstract view on the subject you need to lose the concept of professionalism. Why would it be unprofessional to enter a romance on a mission as to save the galaxy? What makes it unprofessional? Who exactly thought up the concept that is it unprofessional to do so?

Maybe more important things at stake, but taking time to be human I would say is equally as important, such is why you're trying to save the universe to begin with.

Perhaps an example will clarify my point of view:

Imagine, you're a soldier in company A and your best friend serves in company C. The leader of your batallion is a good soldier but has a romance with a (female) NCO of company B. This is common knowledge in the batallion but everyone seems to tolerate it.

Now the batallion receives orders for a mission against <whomever>.
For some reasons the unit gets flanked by the enemy and finally divided: Companies A and D are in one pocket, company C in another and finally company B in the last. The chances for A and D for a breakthrough to one of the surrounded companies are equal. The commander of the batallion decides to rescue company B, which means death for all soldiers in company C.

What would you think now? Wouldn't you consider, that the commander's descision was at least influenced by his affair with the NCO from company B? Would you be the only person to consider this?

A paragon Sheperd often states ingame, that "there are rules for a reason". And that's my entire point: A good leader won't risk the confidence of his men because he knows, that he is NOTHING without them.

[Micon2]

thats ok I did know that he was forced to stand down, but you are right I am really only beginning but I think I will bow out of this one , someone has missed and "s" out their name,

[Hells_eAngel]

No one is forcing you to romance anyone. Its just an option, like many things in this game.


Also they're companions, they're not subordinates. Like Bioware employees commented on some of the videos, if you don't get their trust and or loyalty, they may end up screwing you in the end. They are NOT your subordinates. They choose to follow you. They are NOT alliance personnel.

[Basher of Glory]

Hells_eAngel wrote...

No one is forcing you to romance anyone. Its just an option, like many things in this game.


Also they're companions, they're not subordinates. Like Bioware employees commented on some of the videos, if you don't get their trust and or loyalty, they may end up screwing you in the end. They are NOT your subordinates. They choose to follow you. They are NOT alliance personnel.

....and I repeat again: This is not a discussion about "how can I play this game", so please stop telling me about optional things

For your second paragraph:
Are you sure we talk about the same game? You seem to have DA:O in mind.
In ME a lieutenant or a gunnery chief are certainly subordinate to a commander.
Wrex, Tali and Garrus you can see as "temporarily enlisted", although they are volunteers.

[Basher of Glory]

doublepost / deleted

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:32 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Baher of Glory wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Unprofessional or not... If you love someone there is not much you can do about that.

Of course we could:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

"The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not undergo such emotions"

I'm aware that this might be hard to swallow for a "fun society" 

Interesting option. I think I'll skip that one.

[MightySword]

While I understand the argument, it's something that personally doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a pure logical angle why there is a need for such a question. It feels like it has more to do with rhetoric than logic and discipline. I believe that the decision to save between Kaiden/Ashley should only be judge on a tactical level, because that's only what matter. It's a situation in which one of them will surely die, I don't think it's correct to judge it on an emotional level because frankly I think it's the same either way.

If you accuse that saving the love interest is unprofessional and can lead to a fall in leadership, than what the opposite implies? That not saving your love interest will be professional and enhance your leadership? That's why I mean it's the samething either way, the latter is just a different type of favor, and it's wrong to weight a person life that way. Because under this logic if you argue the former case put more weight on the love interest, then the latter case mean being a love interest means having less weight on one's life. To me they're both equally wrong.

If the situation dictates that only one of them can be saved, then that's what matter, if it happens to be the love interest then so be it as long as it does not provoke a tactical compromise. For example: it's unethical if you go for the love interest if the other member hold a higher tactical value to the mission. Or there is a very slight chance that you might be able to save both of them if you go for the other member first. The situation here however is not like that. In the end if only one person can be saved, when all else hold equal why does it matter what is your relationship? And like I said, if you logic argue that all else are not hold equal then under that same logic it's just a different type of inequality. Is saving the love interest wrong? Does that mean sacrify the love interest is better? No, they're both wrong, and to me that's why neither the questions are considered.

I usually call this kind of thinking a blacksheep strain of thought. For example, if one of your two employees don't do things right and you yell at that person, hopefully both of them are the same race, otherwise some people might accuse you for discrimination. Or if you can only provide service to one out of two person, hopefully the two standing in front of you are the same gender else there is a chance you're be accused a sexist for turning one of them down despite the fact you only has resource to provide service to one person.

You see what I meant? That kind of thought are unnecessary rhetoric that focus more on the symbolic side than the merit side of the decision. And I think those who accompany a Specter would be above that nonsense. As for what the crews think, well they have gone through hell together, if their bond can be shaken by such a controversial thought than that means Shepard had never meant that much to them anyway, if that the case they wouldn't make that far so the point is kinda moot.

Modifié par MightySword, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:38 .

[Basher of Glory]

If the question would be rhetorical, I'd neither discuss it nor would I need an answer, right?
http://en.wikipedia....orical_question

Back to topic:
In the Virmire example I assumed, Shepard decides always in a totally pedestrian way. (S)he does only what (s)he thinks is the best in the current situation.
My concern was indeed how others would regard this descision, be it for Williams or for Kaidan.

Perhaps the crew wouldn't bother, perhaps the squadmates (Garrus, Tali etc.) wouldn't even think about an "influenced" descision. And perhaps the council, the ambassador and others would not, too.

But there are many "perhaps" now, right?
Remember, how the Torian council argued on Sheperd's actions on Eden Prime and in Zhu's Hope: "Because they were humans, Sheperd certainly did the best."
Now, isn't this exactly, what you wrote?
Quote:
"For example, if one of your two employees don't do things right and you yell at that person, hopefully both of them are the same race, otherwise..."

Sheperd is not only in charge of a vessel, (s)he is not only a Specter, (s)he is far more. Thus, Sheperd has to avoid ANY risks which could raise his / her qualities as Spetcter AND leader to question.

For you it might be "moot", for me it's an interesting issue. Still I assert, that a professional leader avoids ALL risks, which could jeopardize his / her misssion.
100% is always better than 99.9%, so if a risk of 0.01% is avoidable, then it should be avoided.

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 23 janvier 2010 - 05:34 .

[sidion77]

Shepard is a human being in addition to a Commander, Spectre and career soldier. So in effect when faced with the possible end of his/her life in addition to the possibility of the elimination of all life he feels himself getting a bit cozier with shipmates.



It's a game, like a movie, and in a similar way meant to entertain. Since you might find the game entertaining by playing a loveless robot bent on saving the world and doing nothing else so be it. For the rest of the playerbase that enjoys a bit of romance in their stories I say it fits just fine.

[Basher of Glory]

sidion77 wrote...
...
It's a game, like a movie, and in a similar way meant to entertain. Since you might find the game entertaining by playing a loveless robot bent on saving the world and doing nothing else so be it. For the rest of the playerbase that enjoys a bit of romance in their stories I say it fits just fine.

Perhaps it will stop others form writing replies like this:

I am thankful that BioWare gave us stuff like the romances to think about it. Maybe I didn't express that correctly in my OP.
It is not my intention to convince anyone to play the game in a certain way and - again -
I am aware that this is a game and that many contents are in this game for entertaining purposes.

[Jostle]

Baher of Glory wrote...


Sheperd is not only in charge of a vessel, (s)he is not only a Specter, (s)he is far more. Thus, Sheperd has to avoid ANY risks which could raise his / her qualities as Spetcter AND leader to question.

For you it might be "moot", for me it's an interesting issue. Still I assert, that a professional leader avoids ALL risks, which could jeopardize his / her misssion.
100% is always better than 99.9%, so if a risk of 0.01% is avoidable, then it should be avoided.

I argue that because Shepard is far more than a Specter, he or she can get away with exactly this kind of thing.

I didn't feel out of place at all romancing during my playthrough. I was a war hero, the first human Specter, I was saving the galaxy from certain destruction, and I did personal missions for each of my followers to gain their trust and influence their perceptions of me. More importantly, however, I was the best hope for defeating intergalactic genocide.

IF one of your loyal companions decided that say, saving Ashley instead of saving Kaiden was influenced by your apparent relationship with Ashley, and they were truly upset and demoralized by it, then they really have two options. They can leave your command and abandon a mission to potentially save literally everyone in the galaxy's life and get into a LOT of trouble for dereliction of duty, or they can suck it up and do their job to save lives instead of being immature.

And that's a big if. The people surrounding you are adamantly loyal, and know Shepard well. If, in the example you posed about Companies A, B, C, and D, I were one of the soldiers in the company that was not saved, my attitude toward the commanding officer would be completely and totally dependent on how well I knew him. If it were Commander Shepard, I think I would be fine with it. After all it was MY choice to join the military, MY choice to run with Shepard, and MY choice to put my life on the line in order to save BILLIONS of other lives.

[MightySword]

For you it might be "moot", for me it's an interesting issue. Still I assert, that a professional leader avoids ALL risks, which could jeopardize his / her misssion.
100% is always better than 99.9%, so if a risk of 0.01% is avoidable, then it should be avoided.

And that's why it's not exactly the merit of a decision factor.

Another example is this: if a man only has time to save one out of two children out of a burning house and one of the children is his.

I would not praise the man for deciding to save the other child instead of his own, neither I would criticize him if he decided to save his own child instead of the others. Why? Because they're both important life, you can not weight one over another, and only one of them can be save. The "merit" here is that one child is saved, no matter which. I would praise him if he managed a miracle that save both of them, and maybe I would criticize for saving neither when he could have saved one. The point is saving life, and to me, that's all there to it, the fact of him being a father and one of the child is his is of no concern when it comes to the merit of saving one of them.

However we live in a society that will somehow praise the man if he saved the other child, saying it a noble act of sacrify and at the same time, they might crtiticize him as selfish and abandon the other to save his own skin. What I don't get it why people make that distinction. It hold no merit for the actual life that was at stake but only a mental pleasure. So, because it's the father who doing the rescue, one of the child should get less priority? Why such criticism (possitive or negative) won't come into be if it's a complete stranger doing the rescue? Why ... say, a male who does not romance Ashley won't get criticise and a male who does get criticise? Does the outcome change? Would more people get rescue? Would more people die? So because Shepard romance Ashley, she should get a different priority to satisfy other opinions (whether possive or negative doesn't matter), opinion that has nothing to do with life saving? Why?


And what I meant at the end is that the crew of the Normandy, given who they are hopefully can think beyond such trivial issue. Your original argument is more or less from a formality/politic angle, to me it doesn't relate to the actual merit of the situation since it's the kind of thinking the seem concern more on the biproduct of an act rather than act itself. It's like if you help someone, it should be only for the shake of helping someone, not for the shake of making one look good later. Oh btw I'm not dismissing your argument or say you shouldn't be talking about, I'm just presenting my thought on the issue.

Modifié par MightySword, 23 janvier 2010 - 11:04 .

[anthonieee]

though out the game, your character begins to lose more, and more faith in the council. he's a specter. and he kicks ass. why wouldn't he fraternize. really? he's above the law. which, no, does not mean he is above the rules and regulations that come with being in the alliance, but it does mean he has a lot of wiggle room. plus, all of the relationships you develop aren't exactly way out in the open. you can have a romance, without everyone knowing about it. meaning he can get away with it. besides, you don't have to have a romance with anyone. you can make commander shepard do the whole "er...later" thing. you can have him reject any "propositions". but where's the fun in that?(:

[Basher of Glory]

@ anthonieee



Please read my numerous posts above about the topic "How can I play the game" and "even as a Specter Shepard stays a leader and thus, has responsibilities".



@ MightySword



I see the point in your example with the father. IMO it has only one flaw: The father is not leader of an entire crew and captain of a space ship. Because of this he does not have the need to prove his integrity all the time.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I assume, that Shepard rescued whomever in Virmire because of a situative assessment of his / her options.



Perhaps I should add some other points of my view:

Of course Shepard is "only" a human being. Of course this human has strenghts, weaknesses and needs.

I understand totally, why Shepard would want a liaison with <whomever>, and be it just because (s)he doesn't want to be emotionally alone in this mess about saving an entire galaxy.

If I had to judge a "romancing Shepard" I would rather see the merits than his / her devotion to another person.

I concur in all these points.



I also agree, that most if not all of his / her allies / crewmembers would not see an improper action, because (s)he has romantic feelings for someone else on the ship.



OTOH the concept of "leadership" is something different and should be seen as another aspect:

A professional leader would rather macerate himself than taking the risk of being influenced in his descisions by avoidable bonds to another person.



The father may decide out of his heart, a leader may not.

[PurplePox]

@ Baher of Glory



Simply imagine the father of the story is... The President

[Aulleas123]

Love happens baby

[MightySword]

OTOH the concept of "leadership" is something different and should be seen as another aspect:
A professional leader would rather macerate himself than taking the risk of being influenced in his descisions by avoidable bonds to another person.

Good leadership inspire the belief in the true value of worth, not by showing off good sympolic gesture. Quite frankly if they have to rely on such things to work, like I said I doubt they can go very far. Athough you still miss what I'm trying to say. To repeat: a relationship might be a cause to act upon favor, at the same time, sacrifying that relationship to me is nothing more than just another act of favor, it's a different kind of favor and maybe it's the kind of favor people tend to look more favorably upon one way or another, but it's still a skewl behavior nontheless. No matter what direction the favor pendulum swings a fact remain it does not swing for what is at stake.

The father may decide out of his heart, a leader may not.

This is exactly why I said you missed the point. The question was not about the man's motives so your answer is kinda off, my point is to question people reaction. You didn't address the question why people would praise the man if he saves the other child, and why people would criticize him if he saved his own child. To put it simply, if the people accuse the man playing favor for his child because he's the dad, I believe under that very same logic, those people are commiting the very same crime they're accusing because they're playing favor for the other kid. Playing favor for what there is or playing favor for the lack thereof to me is the same. It has nothing to do with what the man may think (again so his motive is of no matter), or the children life, the only things matter in that argument is what other people might think, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what actually is matter. The more you say it, the more it appears the problem is not the relationship, but with the way other might look at it. However, if the problem is not with the relationship itself then I stand by my point that the concern is not reasonable.


I know what you're saying, but they are what politician use to inspire the mass, what maybe the boss needs to keep the employees in line ...etc... However the situation the crew of the Normandy is in are different, they're going to hell and wave through fire together, that kind of environment would require a leadership that absolutely base on merit and a spirit to follow through. If Shepard has to rely on symbolic gesture to influence his crew then he would not suit to lead even before we need to consider a situation like this. The samething for his crew, to follow Shepard this far they believe he did what he could for this situation, because I believe if they act like those people in my example above, they won't be following into such situation to begin with.

Modifié par MightySword, 24 janvier 2010 - 09:28 .

[A. Cameron]

Just thought that I might suggest that along the same lines; If romancing subordinates in the game is considered unprofessional, in the context of taking risks that could affect the end outcome of the mission, then potentially so could undergoing personal missions for the crew members.

Consider if a character was potentially killed or maimed during one of these unnassigned missions. This would surely affect the rest of the crew's trust in the decision making of their commander. By the same reasoning that this discussion is happening, most of Sheps side missions would be unprofessional.

I'm just sayin'.

[Homebound]

Either do it or dont. The option is there but Its your choice.

[brightblueink]

I sorta see where you're coming from here, although I think you're expressing yourself poorly. In fact I used that portion of the game as a roleplaying opportunity--my (female) Shepard is for the most part a typical Paragon, but occasionally she makes choices that seem unorthodox when it comes to protecting others (a possible byproduct of her "Sole Survivor" background). Virmire is the first time that she truly stumbles--I chose to save Kaiden with the idea that Shepard's motivations WERE to save her love interest. There were other justifiable reasons, sure--Ashley made more sense to send with the attack team because of her being the stronger fighter and Kaiden is more of a techie guy. And it made more sense to protect the bomb than to save a soldier who marched into battle knowing she might not make it out alive. But when Kaiden confronted her on it she admitted that she couldn't leave him behind anyway, and that was the real reason she saved him--maybe the first time she's really "slipped" when it comes to playing by the rules.



I don't know if this'll come into play when I get ME2 or not, but it's a fun flaw to toy with. Maybe she'll start slipping into more of a gray area.

[A. Cameron]

MMMMmmm moral grey areas. *drool*

[Basher of Glory]

MightySword wrote...

Good leadership inspire the belief in the true value of worth, not by showing off good sympolic gesture. Quite frankly if they have to rely on such things to work, like I said I doubt they can go very far. Athough you still miss what I'm trying to say. To repeat: a relationship might be a cause to act upon favor, at the same time, sacrifying that relationship to me is nothing more than just another act of favor, it's a different kind of favor and maybe it's the kind of favor people tend to look more favorably upon one way or another, but it's still a skewl behavior nontheless. No matter what direction the favor pendulum swings a fact remain it does not swing for what is at stake.


This is exactly why I said you missed the point. The question was not about the man's motives so your answer is kinda off, my point is to question people reaction. You didn't address the question why people would praise the man if he saves the other child, and why people would criticize him if he saved his own child. To put it simply, if the people accuse the man playing favor for his child because he's the dad, I believe under that very same logic, those people are commiting the very same crime they're accusing because they're playing favor for the other kid. Playing favor for what there is or playing favor for the lack thereof to me is the same. It has nothing to do with what the man may think (again so his motive is of no matter), or the children life, the only things matter in that argument is what other people might think, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what actually is matter. The more you say it, the more it appears the problem is not the relationship, but with the way other might look at it. However, if the problem is not with the relationship itself then I stand by my point that the concern is not reasonable.


I know what you're saying, but they are what politician use to inspire the mass, what maybe the boss needs to keep the employees in line ...etc... However the situation the crew of the Normandy is in are different, they're going to hell and wave through fire together, that kind of environment would require a leadership that absolutely base on merit and a spirit to follow through. If Shepard has to rely on symbolic gesture to influence his crew then he would not suit to lead even before we need to consider a situation like this. The samething for his crew, to follow Shepard this far they believe he did what he could for this situation, because I believe if they act like those people in my example above, they won't be following into such situation to begin with.

Well, I agree in almost every aspect except one: I did not miss your point at all. I'm rather not able to express my arguments in an understandable way.

BTW, your way of discussing doesn't make my life easier, because now it starts to become complicated.

The "ideal" leader as I see him, does not have the least need to do anything because of the symbolism. Indeed, leaders that do so show their lack of self convidence.
As example I bring up - without the intention to hurt someone's patriotic core values - the US- presidents of the last 20 or 30 years. Whenever there is an opportunity they show up with their kids, their dogs / cats, wife and so on. Whenever there is a chance, they caress babies of bystanders and then the dogs of these people.
After they showed the nation, how family-friendly they are they go to their office and let their specific Monica do the rest. Such examples you find in every nation all over our planet, most of them even worse.

This kind of symbolism is nothing but poor acting, there is no authenticity in it. it's just for the so called "dumb" masses.

In other words: That has really nothing to do with "leadership".
Now, I brought up an extreme example. Let's return to our Shepard (for reasons of clarity and simplicity let him be male from now on).

If Shepard would come to a descision out of symbolistic reasons he would fail in my eyes. He would be the same bad actor as all these baby-hugging politicians.

The Shepard I'm talking about would not commit such nonsense. He would always do what he considers to be the right thing in a given situation.

So, what's all my write-ups about these romances and stuff?

A leader thinks ahead, he thinks anticipatively. Thus, he tries to avoid any situation which MIGHT weaken his position or influence his future descisions in a false way.

Hence my Shepard would never be in a situation in which he must decide to save his love or the other teammate. He would not allow himself to be distressed from his goals and he would not allow something to happen, which could jeopardize his mission.

In other words: In Virmire is NO "love-interest" AND Kaidan, there are  two good soldiers and just one can be saved.

@ PuplePox

You wrote
"Simply imagine the father of the story is... The President"

So? Many very bright people demand unmarried persons without family bonds for this duty. As a matter of fact a good leader should be like a monk, only dedicated to his tasks.
But I know... I overdo it a bit, perhaps


@ BrightBlueInk

You wrote
"I sorta see where you're coming from here, although I think you're expressing yourself poorly"

I humbly ask pardon for my amateurish attempt to express complicated matters in a language which is not my native tongue. I just try to do my best.

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 24 janvier 2010 - 10:23 .

[Mitridathes]

Baher of Glory, I get the feeling that your perfect leader is incredible unsure of himself... if he have to keep constant focus on not doing anything wrong... then how do he get any leading done at all?

I know its a silly question... but in our history we have Sheppard... he or she is a leader that by leading the crew through all the hardship have earned their respect and devotion... he or she should not have to be constant concerned with how the crew judges his latest actions. Unles he start killing babies, im pretty sure the crew will think along these lines

Okay... he had fun with a crewmember, they love each other.. but still not the smartest thing to do... that leave him at a score of 120 good things done.. and 1 bad deed... I think I will keep trusting him

The crew follow Sheppard due to personality and what he have done trough the game so far. I am pretty sure that if a relatively minor transgression as this could shake the foundation of that trust enough to even matter... Then the shaken crewmember would have balked before they leave The Citadel after returning from Virmire.

So we are in a situation where Sheppard and pretty much the rest of the crew have placed the cause of saving the universe higher than they former affiliation with the alliance. And in that situation I personally don´t see anything wrong with a leader that seek comfort with a loved crewmember...

Who knows... there could be other pairs all around Normandy that also fall into each others arms for a short mnoment of comfort and safety... they have just thrown all of their former life away on a belief that they do the right thing... and even if you believe in the cause strongly enough to take the gamble... then im pretty sure you would still need the comfort after making that kind of choice.

Modifié par Mitridathes, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:41 .