Ce sujet est fermé
More about military. 'Don't sleep around in the squad or along the chain of command' exists for a number of reasons that apply otherwise, even if they were rare in a heteronormal nearly-all-male military history.
Even in ragtag bands of barbarian warriors? 
As something along a lines of a character study (or something similar to that) it could be interesting but I thought someone was asking it as a romance which I'm not sure how that would work at all unless they made all this unsettling things 'romantic' or just made one LI pretty unstable then in that case theres not much reason to be there since we're finding allies that can help deal with the fade and someone that emotionally unstable wouldn't really make much sense being there. Or do they function normally aside from being creepily too attached to one person?
Yeah you mentioned the killing their partner part before in an earlier post.
I like the idea of squadmates of varying levels of dysfunction, for different types of players. I applaud that with romances as well, even if I don't like them. I get creeped out by the Jack romance, but I totally understand the appeal of the woobie romance.
Yandere should be one of many (or else there's no way you'll survive).
I like the idea of squadmates of varying levels of dysfunction, for different types of players. I applaud that with romances as well, even if I don't like them. I get creeped out by the Jack romance, but I totally understand the appeal of the woobie romance.
Yandere should be one of many (or else there's no way you'll survive).
I'm not saying all the romances should be prefect (though I would love having a stable romance where I don't have to play therapist) and conflict does add flavor to things I just think if they go with that type of character they shouldn't try to cover it up as 'romantic' or 'sexy'. Also I can kind of see why you would be creeped out by the Jack romance in ME2 I felt little creeped out watching her crying right before her and shepard slept together (not to mention an article I read before hand summed it up as 'shedding a few tears before being mounted' but I get not everyone feels that way, so I'm sure there would be someone out there that wouldn't be uncomfortable with that kind of character but I still think it would be a kind of waste of an LI since they're are only a few and someone could feel like they got robbed out on the romances depending on the gender of the Yandere LI.
Maybe the Inquisitor want to follow the traditions of the Royal Navy. Well, mostly the first two traditions, I guess.
Or the Theban Sacred Band.
Even in ragtag bands of barbarian warriors?
I had a good deal of the cultural chauvenism beat out of me in my teenage years. I tend not to think of people in those terms.
I have totally different slurs to sling that them. [/straight face]
Maybe the Inquisitor want to follow the traditions of the Royal Navy. Well, mostly the first two traditions, I guess.
I remember the sodomy (oo-er), but what was the other first tradition?
I remember the sodomy (oo-er), but what was the other first tradition?
Rum
More about military. 'Don't sleep around in the squad or along the chain of command' exists for a number of reasons that apply otherwise, even if they were rare in a heteronormal nearly-all-male military history.
Shepard may have led the fight against Saren/The Collectors/The Reapers but apart from Ashley, Kaiden, Traynor and Cortez, he was not any romanceable character's direct superior (although Jacob treated femshep like one because he was ex-Alliance). Everyone else was an ally working towards a common goal or an independent contractor. Yes, there was a command structure in place when it came to carrying out their mission but Shepard held no power over them. The most he could do was refuse to let them be part of his mission. In the cases of Traynor and Cortez, they were never in his/her squad so no threat to unit cohesion there and in the cases of Ashley and Kaidan, all I can say is that while it isn't generally a good idea to get involved with a subordinate that you have to command on the battlefield, that roadblock can and should be set aside in the case of (I hate to say it but...) true love - especially when all life in the entire galaxy is mostly likely about to be wiped out.
I only romanced a few female NPCs during my non-canon PTs (Ashley, Miranda, Jack, Tali - once each) and my Shepard was never creepy about it. There did seem to be some heavy come-on dialogue options that could be considered creepy (maybe) but all in all I found that it was handled well. In general, the mission came first and in ME1 and ME2, the romance was nothing but words until just before the final mission when they could be forgiven for throwing caution to the wind. ME3 was different in that if a romance was locked in, it was heavily implied that after that point, they were doing it on the regular. But you know... Reapers/end of life as we know it.
Shepard may have led the fight against Saren/The Collectors/The Reapers but apart from Ashley, Kaiden, Traynor and Cortez, he was not any romanceable character's direct superior (although Jacob treated femshep like one because he was ex-Alliance). Everyone else was an ally working towards a common goal or an independent contractor. Yes, there was a command structure in place when it came to carrying out their mission but Shepard held no power over them. The most he could do was refuse to let them be part of his mission. In the cases of Traynor and Cortez, they were never in his/her squad so no threat to unit cohesion there and in the cases of Ashley and Kaidan, all I can say is that while it isn't generally a good idea to get involved with a subordinate that you have to command on the battlefield, that roadblock can and should be set aside in the case of (I hate to say it but...) true love - especially when all life in the entire galaxy is mostly likely about to be wiped out.
This is the regulation argument they tried to make with Liara back in ME1. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now, because the problem isn't that there's a regulation against fraternization within a squad. The problem is the reason why fraternization regulations exist in the first place: bias, favoritism, a lack of trust in command impartiality, and the much feared Drama.
When you make an argument that such a rule shouldn't apply because true love won't compromise your objectivity, your objectivity has already been compromised. You are exactly the sort of poor leader who risks team integrity and the day being ruined. (Which, in ME terms, means that galaxy. Go figure.)
Of course, Bioware soft steps around any potential issues and wouldn't let bad things happen to the player and their cause simply because of Romance. But then, these are also the writers who wrote Commander Shepard as an excellent leader without ever showing them as, well, a competent leader. If anyone on the writing team had ever seen a squad or command relationship poisoned by fraternization, I'd be amazed.
This is the regulation argument they tried to make with Liara back in ME1. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now, because the problem isn't that there's a regulation against fraternization within a squad. The problem is the reason why fraternization regulations exist in the first place: bias, favoritism, a lack of trust in command impartiality, and the much feared Drama.
When you make an argument that suc
h a rule shouldn't apply because true love won't compromise your objectivity, your objectivity has already been compromised. You are exactly the sort of poor leader who risks team integrity and the day being ruined. (Which, in ME terms, means that galaxy. Go figure.)
Of course, Bioware soft steps around any potential issues and wouldn't let bad things happen to the player and their cause simply because of Romance. But then, these are also the writers who wrote Commander Shepard as an excellent leader without ever showing them as, well, a competent leader. If anyone on the writing team had ever seen a squad or command relationship poisoned by fraternization, I'd be amazed.
But that's why I always thought that the fraternization problem never really came up in DA (or rather, pretty much always came up in DA regardless of a Warden sleeping with his/her subordinates), because unprofessional dislike/drama pretty much dominated the party. Alistair couldn't stand (and didn't trust) Zevran, Morrigan and Alistair hated each other, etc. The team basically already had lots of drama and favouritism (at least as practiced by pretty much every NPC you pick up).
It looks like DA:I will follow in that hallowed tradition.
But that's why I always thought that the fraternization problem never really came up in DA (or rather, pretty much always came up in DA regardless of a Warden sleeping with his/her subordinates), because unprofessional dislike/drama pretty much dominated the party. Alistair couldn't stand (and didn't trust) Zevran, Morrigan and Alistair hated each other, etc. The team basically already had lots of drama and favouritism (at least as practiced by pretty much every NPC you pick up).
It looks like DA:I will follow in that hallowed tradition.
I suspect that a majority of plotlines would never develop if fictional settings practiced emotional and professional counseling. I mean, half the mage-templar conflict could be resolved if Thedas invented and invested in competent psychologists.
(The other half could be resolved if the Templars learned how to run an effective security aparatus, but that's another issue.)
@MrJack Shepard was the captain of the Normandy which makes him the superior of everyone on board.
Yes but in the case of non-Alliance, non-Cerberus personnel the most he could say was "get off my ship", he wasn't in command of Wrex or Primarch Victus in ME3 or Tali or Garrus really. They could have disobeyed any order Shepard gave them without any other repercussions other than not being able to take part in the mission. They were not compelled to do everything Shepard said and their "careers" were never in jeopardy. If we're talking about power dynamics and abuses of said power, I don't think Shepard was necessarily in a position to do that with most of his squadmates. There is also an optional conversation Shepard can have with EDI, where she asks him point-blank if Shepard thinks it okay for a crew member to disobey a direct order that they don't agree with - you can either say yes or no depending on how you want to play your Shepard.
This is the regulation argument they tried to make with Liara back in ME1. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now, because the problem isn't that there's a regulation against fraternization within a squad. The problem is the reason why fraternization regulations exist in the first place: bias, favoritism, a lack of trust in command impartiality, and the much feared Drama.
When you make an argument that such a rule shouldn't apply because true love won't compromise your objectivity, your objectivity has already been compromised. You are exactly the sort of poor leader who risks team integrity and the day being ruined. (Which, in ME terms, means that galaxy. Go figure.)
Of course, Bioware soft steps around any potential issues and wouldn't let bad things happen to the player and their cause simply because of Romance. But then, these are also the writers who wrote Commander Shepard as an excellent leader without ever showing them as, well, a competent leader. If anyone on the writing team had ever seen a squad or command relationship poisoned by fraternization, I'd be amazed.
I have never been in the military so no, I do not have first-hand experience of how fraternisation might poison a squad or command relationship (as you put it). I defer to you on this and believe you when you say that in very many (probably even the vast majority of) instances where it turns out to be disastrous for all involved. What I don't believe is that in every instance, this is the case. And while you may think that Bioware is side-stepping the issue altogether and painting Shepard as the ultimate leader when you believe him to be incompetent, I would remind you that the Alliance Navy is not the US Navy or the Royal Navy or any other military organisation that exists in real life. There may be many similarities but the Alliance quite obviously operates very differently. The strict command structure technically exists but Shepard and his crew are basically given carte-blanche to do what they want and when restrictions are placed upon them, they just do what they want anyway because they do what they think is right, not what they're ordered to. Is this realistic? In our world, no. It would be utter chaos and people that go against orders are punished even if it turns out they were doing the right thing. In an idealised fantasy world, the hero risking being tried with treason to save the galaxy from themselves is what makes the polt compelling for those of us that enjoy such things.
Regarding romance and yandere: This is basically the plot of Fatal Attraction (which is a psychological thriller/horror) and while each to their own (I sincerely mean that, no judgements) I think anyone that aspires to take part in a relationship like that or finds it appealing or gratifying to watch play out in their video games is in a pretty niche market and I'm not sure it's the type of game Bioware is trying to make. But who knows, there might literally be bunny boilers in DA:I.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Yes but in the case of non-Alliance, non-Cerberus personnel the most he could say was "get off my ship", he wasn't in command of Wrex or Primarch Victus in ME3 or Tali or Garrus really. They could have disobeyed any order Shepard gave them without any other repercussions other than not being able to take part in the mission. They were not compelled to do everything Shepard said and their "careers" were never in jeopardy. If we're talking about power dynamics and abuses of said power, I don't think Shepard was necessarily in a position to do that with most of his squadmates. There is also an optional conversation Shepard can have with EDI, where she asks him point-blank if Shepard thinks it okay for a crew member to disobey a direct order that they don't agree with - you can either say yes or no depending on how you want to play your Shepard.
Shepard could literallly order the majority of that squad to their death. In fact, lots of players actually order characters to their death because they dislike them during the Suicide mission. There are no other parts of ME1 or ME3 that allow (with the exception of Ashley vs. Kaiden where, again, the osensibly superior officer - Kaiden - is left to die because Shepard is boning Ashley). That's a real problem.
Yes but in the case of non-Alliance, non-Cerberus personnel the most he could say was "get off my ship", he wasn't in command of Wrex or Primarch Victus in ME3 or Tali or Garrus really. They could have disobeyed any order Shepard gave them without any other repercussions other than not being able to take part in the mission. They were not compelled to do everything Shepard said and their "careers" were never in jeopardy. If we're talking about power dynamics and abuses of said power, I don't think Shepard was necessarily in a position to do that with most of his squadmates. There is also an optional conversation Shepard can have with EDI, where she asks him point-blank if Shepard thinks it okay for a crew member to disobey a direct order that they don't agree with - you can either say yes or no depending on how you want to play your Shepard.
Shepard could literallly order the majority of that squad to their death. In fact, lots of players actually order characters to their death because they dislike them during the Suicide mission. There are no other parts of ME1 or ME3 that allow (with the exception of Ashley vs. Kaiden where, again, the osensibly superior officer - Kaiden - is left to die because Shepard is boning Ashley). That's a real problem.
Yes but in the case of non-Alliance, non-Cerberus personnel the most he could say was "get off my ship", he wasn't in command of Wrex or Primarch Victus in ME3 or Tali or Garrus really. They could have disobeyed any order Shepard gave them without any other repercussions other than not being able to take part in the mission. They were not compelled to do everything Shepard said and their "careers" were never in jeopardy. If we're talking about power dynamics and abuses of said power, I don't think Shepard was necessarily in a position to do that with most of his squadmates. There is also an optional conversation Shepard can have with EDI, where she asks him point-blank if Shepard thinks it okay for a crew member to disobey a direct order that they don't agree with - you can either say yes or no depending on how you want to play your Shepard.
I have never been in the military so no, I do not have first-hand experience of how fraternisation might poison a squad or command relationship (as you put it). I defer to you on this and believe you when you day that in very many (probably even the vast majority of) instances where it turns out to be disastrous for all involved. What I don't believe is that in <i>every</I> instance, this is the case. And while you may think that Bioware is side-stepping the issue altogether and painting Shepard as the ultimate leader when you believe him to be incompetent, I would remind you that the Alliance Navy is not the US Navy or the Royal Navy or any other military organisation that exists in real life. There may be many similarities but the Alliance quite obviously operates very differently. The strict command structure technically exists but Shepard and his crew are basically given carte-blanche to do what they want and when restrictions are placed upon them, they just do what they want anyway because they do what they think is right, not what they're ordered to. Is this realistic? In our world, no. It would be utter chaos and people that go against orders are punished even if it turns out they were doing the right thing. In an idealised fantasy world, the hero risking being tried with treason to save the galaxy from themselves is what makes the polt compelling for those of us that enjoy such things.
You're repeating the regulation argument again.
Shepard doing whatever he or she likes despite any and all restrictions that would normally apply (or in an absence of them) is an example of why Shepard is often a bad leader, not an unrealistic one. Bias, favoritism, and ignoring rules are quite realistic. Just because the rules can't be held to you doesn't mean it's not bad leadership to go against their premise.
Now, I have no issue with slandering Shepard with the brush of bad leadership. There are and have been people who protested, because they want to envision their Shepard as the most awesomest person and leader of the power fantasy that Mass Effect nakedly is. Or they say it was all good because nothing bad came of it. To which I say... congratulations. Your bad leader got lucky. More power to you.
It's not that I expect Bioware to ever hit military fraternization, mind you. To date with Bioware, fraternization concerns have been a dramatic/excitement threat to add spice for a relationship, not an actual threat or something others would condemn.
But then, what would you expect? These are the writers who Shepard was a good character to throw a PTSD/war stress plotline at. And, for some reason, thought that the above would be a credible candidate for 'most respected war hero in the galaxy' reputation for all the military soldiers encountered. You know, because he was an officer 'in the trenches' and 'just like them' with hisher three hot meals, hot showers, and a bunk (possibly with pretty LI) on a stealth ship far away from the front lines with short missions and frequent shore leave.
Actual soldiers would eat Shepard alive. Forget the heroic return to Earth as hero of hope for the resistance: Shepard would be lucky if the resistance didn't snidely thank the Commander for coming back after leaving them on their own.
Or maybe they did, and Anderson was just running interference. Can't have those fans learning how big of assholes soldiers can be towards their favorite projection avatar whose supposed to be the best of the best. (Uh, yeah. About that...)
The Virmire choice is why i would have prefered Kaiden & Ashley to have been bisexual since the romance thing pretty much makes it an unfair choice since 1 will always be more favoured over the other depending on Shepard's sex, ie: femshep likely saves Kaiden & maleshep likely saves Ashley.
The Virmire choice is why i would have prefered Kaiden & Ashley to have been bisexual since the romance thing pretty much makes it an unfair choice since 1 will always be more favoured over the other depending on Shepard's sex, ie: femshep likely saves Kaiden & maleshep likely saves Ashley.
Are you kidding? That's the best part of the structure of the delimma. It's a wonderful characterization moment: if you're the sort of person who would romance a subordinate, what would you do if they were pitted against another who you weren't (and couldn't) romance?
It's a great bias test.
The Virmire choice is why i would have prefered Kaiden & Ashley to have been bisexual since the romance thing pretty much makes it an unfair choice since 1 will always be more favoured over the other depending on Shepard's sex, ie: femshep likely saves Kaiden & maleshep likely saves Ashley.
But that's screwed up. Shepard shouldn't save a character because s/he's boning them, that's exactly the point. That's totally wrong. I've only ever romanced Liara in ME1, so it isn't an actual problem I came across... kinda..., but I distinctly remember saving Ashley on one of my MaleShep playthroughs, and she asked if it was because of our relationship (Which didn't exist). It was creepy and weird.
Also Tali vas Normandy, she'd lose any status she had left.
Only if you get her exiled in Mass Effect 2. If you are able to stop that, she is still a welcomed Quarian to her people but simply helping others defeat galactic threats. In Mass Effect 3, she is on the Admiralty Board despite still being Tali'Zorah vas Normandy.
But that's screwed up. Shepard shouldn't save a character because s/he's boning them, that's exactly the point. That's totally wrong. I've only ever romanced Liara in ME1, so it isn't an actual problem I came across... kinda..., but I distinctly remember saving Ashley on one of my MaleShep playthroughs, and she asked if it was because of our relationship (Which didn't exist). It was creepy and weird.
Is this really going to be a problem though in DAI with leader and subordinate romance? Do others think it was a problem in DAO?
Only if you get her exiled in Mass Effect 2. If you are able to stop that, she is still a welcomed Quarian to her people but simply helping others defeat galactic threats. In Mass Effect 3, she is on the Admiralty Board despite still being Tali'Zorah vas Normandy.
Personally I thought Admiral Tali'Zorah was one of the stupidest pieces of of the Quarian plotline. About the only reason it wouldn't be considered nepotism is because Rael'Zorah is already dead. Talk about an undeserved promotion of naked politics: if you want to see why people scoff at the claim of the ME2 cast being qualified the Best of the Best, Tali's progress through the series is a great case study.
Yeah, I get it Bioware. You want Shepard to seem even more awesome by adding the awesome to everyone who serves in the presence of Shepard's awesomeness. Promotions and authority positions abound for Shepard's clique. When your main character is a company-grade officer in a sergeant's position, what's more awesome than an Admiral who will be a de facto private? Nothing. That's totally awesome.
You know what's just as awesome? When Garrus Goddamn Vakarian tells a General to be at ease after being saluted as a 'special adviser' and task force leader.
You know what was just as funny? When not one single Turian asked him to stay when Garrus upped and left and quit yet another job.
Retour en haut
