376 réponses à ce sujet

[malloc]

Shepard in Mass Effect 3 was lowkey hitler

[The Heretic of Time]

Shepard in Mass Effect 3 was lowkey hitler

 

Not literally hitler?

[malloc]

Not literally hitler?

That too

[Seboist]

Shepard in Mass Effect 3 was lowkey hitler

 

If only he was, he should've taken advantage of the war to annex alien territories for humanity and turn various weakened aliens into client races that were ravaged by the reapers.

[AlanC9]

So a crime committed under martial law that directly involves the war at hand is not a war crime? Because that's the common accepted definition of "war crime" over here. I'm not American though.

It would not be. For instance, desertion in the face of the enemy is a crime under US military law, and it would directly involve the war at hand, but it would never be referred to as a "war crime." That's just not what that phrase is used for. It's used for stuff like the quote you inserted upthread:
 

Usually, war crimes. crimes committed against an enemy, prisoners of war, or subjects in wartime that violate international agreements or, as in the case of genocide, are offenses against humanity.

Note that this doesn't apply to Rael'Zorah's crime. Harming geth isn't his crime. If he had done it anywhere but the Fleet, it would have been fine.

Having said that, I'm only talking about the English usage of the term, not the quarian usage. It's quite possible that they have a phrase composed of the word for "war" and the word for "crime" which describes a concept that would include Rael'Zorah's actions. Translating this phrase into English as "war crime" would be a mistake, but such mistakes would probably happen with autotranslation all the time.

[KaiserShep]

Shepard in Mass Effect 3 was lowkey hitler

How so?

[The Heretic of Time]

It would not be. For instance, desertion in the face of the enemy is a crime under US military law, and it would directly involve the war at hand, but it would never be referred to as a "war crime." That's just not what that phrase is used for. It's used for stuff like the quote you inserted upthread:


Note that this doesn't apply to Rael'Zorah's crime. Harming geth isn't his crime. If he had done it anywhere but the Fleet, it would have been fine.

 

Not in Citadel space it wouldn't.

And him experimenting on active geth could very much fall under "crimes commited against the enemy". Which would make it a war crime. Certainly Tali believes that what Rael'Zora did was a war crime (and not just a war crime, but the worst war crime in quarian history).

[DeathScepter]

Law and Order, and Criminal Justice in the United States are depressingly bureaucratic and outdated.

 

Whatever David says on this issue is largely uninformed and inapplicable. Ignore him.

 

 

But he is our paragon of truth and heroism and universal harmony and balance.........

[KaiserShep]

Not in Citadel space it wouldn't.
And him experimenting on active geth could very much fall under "crimes commited against the enemy". Which would make it a war crime. Certainly Tali believes that what Rael'Zora did was a war crime (and not just a war crime, but the worst war crime in quarian history).

You gotta love though how the quarians were real quick to use Rael's work to their advantage through Xen, and attempt to wipe out the geth once and for all. If those meddling reapers came a wee bit later, they'd be dancing on a geth landfill.

[In Exile]

It would not be. For instance, desertion in the face of the enemy is a crime under US military law, and it would directly involve the war at hand, but it would never be referred to as a "war crime." That's just not what that phrase is used for. It's used for stuff like the quote you inserted upthread:
 

Note that this doesn't apply to Rael'Zorah's crime. Harming geth isn't his crime. If he had done it anywhere but the Fleet, it would have been fine.

Having said that, I'm only talking about the English usage of the term, not the quarian usage. It's quite possible that they have a phrase composed of the word for "war" and the word for "crime" which describes a concept that would include Rael'Zorah's actions. Translating this phrase into English as "war crime" would be a mistake, but such mistakes would probably happen with autotranslation all the time.

I think the argument would be that sapient geth are "enemy combatants", and that what Rael'Zorah did was well beyond the threshold of torture and into, essentially, WWII Axis-level mutilation/torture experiments. That would make his conduct a war crime. The analogy would have to be to using POWs to test biological weapons (that's sort of what he was doing, no? coming up with weapons that would mass shutdown geth?).

[Seboist]

I still lament that Renegade Shepard wasn't able to crack open a six pack of budweiser with Han Gerrel after smashing the Geth like he promised at the end of Tali's LM.

[In Exile]

As much as I enjoy being a dick for no real reason, the game should really stick to Renegade choices that are pragmatic. More things like killing the Rachni Queen (there is a solid case to be made for this choice) and letting the Batarian gunship repairman know that he works too hard. Less things like executing Shiala and siding with Morinth, because Shepard is EEEEVIL.

 

 

Godwin's Law, baby. Every time.

 

I'm not really seeing the logic in straight up executing the Rachni Queen, apart from the fact that game logic prevented Shepard from coming in with more firepower than 3 people who could just secure her to be turned over to the Council (which would have been IMO the reasonable choice). Even executing Shiala makes more sense (even if it's a war crime, in the sense of executing a POW). The problem ultimately is that Bioware excludes the actual option that'd be available and taken IRL, which is secure and imprison.

[KaiserShep]

I still lament that Renegade Shepard wasn't able to crack open a six pack of budweiser with Han Gerrel after smashing the Geth like he promised at the end of Tali's LM.

The destruction of their breweries is probably the one bright spot in the war. My Shep would sooner dance with a bottle of ryncol. I do approve of drinking with Gerrel though.

[Seboist]

I'm not really seeing the logic in straight up executing the Rachni Queen, apart from the fact that game logic prevented Shepard from coming in with more firepower than 3 people who could just secure her to be turned over to the Council (which would have been IMO the reasonable choice). Even executing Shiala makes more sense (even if it's a war crime, in the sense of executing a POW). The problem ultimately is that Bioware excludes the actual option that'd be available and taken IRL, which is secure and imprison.

 

That's due to Bioware's power fantasy approach with it's "epic galaxy changing choices!" that presents Shepard with these bizarre and contrived scenarios where he gets to make decisions far above his pay grade.

[DeathScepter]

Is that a serious question?

he is a paragon, he is not bound by our petty morality..........he is only bound by Universal Harmony and Balance

[wolfhowwl]

I'm not really seeing the logic in straight up executing the Rachni Queen, apart from the fact that game logic prevented Shepard from coming in with more firepower than 3 people who could just secure her to be turned over to the Council (which would have been IMO the reasonable choice). Even executing Shiala makes more sense (even if it's a war crime, in the sense of executing a POW). The problem ultimately is that Bioware excludes the actual option that'd be available and taken IRL, which is secure and imprison.

 

Imprisoning also has the advantage of keeping the character alive for future games.

[Hazegurl]

That's quite a stretch from our usage of the term. Though that's because we don't ban particular weapons except out of humanitarian concerns. And "laws of war" is just plain vague -- or rather, refers to an ad hoc bunch of law that's historically contingent and culturally specific.

This is getting a little silly, though. By Earth standards there's no "war crime" unless the geth are considered to possess rights that have been violated. By quarian standards, we don't even know if "war crime" is a thing, let alone whether the acts in question would fall into such a category if it did happen to exist.

Edit: I guess that makes the question indeterminate without more information on the quarian legal system.

Any violation of the Laws of War is war crime.

 

You seem focused on, war crime = abuse of the enemy and enemy's rights. That is not the only type of war crime that exists. Laws of War are laws created on how a government, military et al will conduct themselves during times of war.  That's it. No different than any other law, they are just laws specific to war time.

 

ex: America has a law of war which states that during war we will not use gas bombs. A general gets caught using gas bombs, he's a war criminal. If he used the bomb he would be be charged with both using prohibited weapons and violating the enemy, civilians, whatever. If he was attempting to use them but didn't get the chance he would still be considered a war criminal but it is an Inchoate offense.

 

The prohibiting of rebuilding and reactivation of Geth is specifically a Law of War.  Tali's father broke that law, thus making him a war criminal. 

 

@Heretic, I'm American, the definitions on war crimes seem to apply internationally. Though I'm no expert.

 

Anyway, that's all I wanted to add about that.

 

As much as I enjoy being a dick for no real reason, the game should really stick to Renegade choices that are pragmatic. More things like killing the Rachni Queen (there is a solid case to be made for this choice) and letting the Batarian gunship repairman know that he works too hard. Less things like executing Shiala and siding with Morinth, because Shepard is EEEEVIL.

 

Although I don't take it, I think executing Shiala is pretty logical. She was under Thorian control and spent time with Saren on board a Reaper, which meant a high chance of indoctrination, which turned out to be the case.  As for Morinth. I didn't pick her for the lulz. I found her to be a better option than the woman who swore to hunt me down if I gave her any order she didn't like.  Yeah, no. I'm like Aria, I'm not trying to sleep with her (Mornith) so she's no danger to me.

 

As for the Rachni Queen, I agree with Exile, I would have rather imprisoned her than let her go, but I opt to just let her go. of course it just turned out to be yet another Paragon choice with zero consequences.

[KaiserShep]

Imprisoning also has the advantage of keeping the character alive for future games.

 

True, but being optional still makes the character less important. 

[DieselJet]

Renegade choices should be viable - they shouldn't cut content (Killing Wrex) or be the "wrong" choice to make (Saving the Collector Base, giving Veetor to Cerberus, etc). I am fine with some decisions backfiring, but they shouldn't always be renegade decisions. 
 
They should also be realistic and make sense. I think the Rachni Queen was a great choice, even if the consequences sucked. Killing her makes sense: they are incredibly dangerous, have proved to be a threat in the past and you had just finished fighting more of them. It is a risk to let the Queen loose, but at the same time it is wrong to make them extinct because of the past. 

[Capsr]

I always saw Renegade as a calculating, pragmatic kind of person, a bit like how Tywin Lannister or Roose Bolton are in Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire.
Paragon is more emotional, trying to do the right thing, being everyones friend, just like Jon Snow or Ned Stark.
 

Both types of people have their (dis-)advantages, which causes them to attract certain allies/enemies and use certain tactics, which I hope can be explored in ME:A, as it can make for such a varied game on multiple playthroughs.

[Wulfram]

Paragon = Star Trek

Renegade = 24

was how it generally worked.  It wasn't really about their being a consistent logic behind them, it was a matter a tone

Both choices generally portrayed the PC as right when taken by themselves, but since Paragon "Star Trek" logic is more optimistic, Paragon outcomes tended to look better when compared.

 

Personally I'd rather scrap the whole system.  It implies that there should be two consistent and equally valid paths through everything, rather than allowing the options to be evaluated by themselves and leaving it to the player to keep their character consistent.

[Seboist]

True, but being optional still makes the character less important. 

 

Shame that BW made one of the few genuinely alien species as disposable as someone like Fist or the mechanic from Garrus' RM.

[Dean_the_Young]

The point about the Reaper tech is valid and unfortunately poorly done. The rest? Ridiculous.

 

Nothing is contradictory about Shepard being against 'brainwashing' when the alternative is death. Surely you can envision the possibility of someone being 'against' something but nevertheless choose it because the alternative is something they're against more?

 

 

Certainly I can- but that person would not be a Pure Paragon Shepard, who never makes such a caveat.

 

There is no Paragon option that justifies itself on grounds of 'brainwashing is cool only because the alternative is death.' Whenever brainwashing elements come by, they're resoundlingly opposed on Paragon principles because of principles... unless it becomes the Paragon option, in which case the principles aren't even raised (or, as in the case of Heretic Geth, the thematic roles are outright reversed).

 

 

 

 

 

Nor does Shepard advocate the law or due process as the inherently moral path. Do you have an actual conversation this is from?

 

One of ME1's key thematic trends with Paragon is that Paragon is consistently the 'by the book', due process, and general deference to authority path. This comes in not only across the core plotlines whenever available, but in a great many side quests: pretty much every time Shepard deals with someone wanting revenge in ME1, the Paragon option(s) amount to 'go through the system'- and this isn't even touching on the P/R character subplots like Garrus, Ashley, and Kaiden. Sidequests off the top of my head include the Keeper scanner quest chain, Toombs, the Noveria key pass delimma (particularly the Paragon-heavy investigation chain), the Shiala choice, the Council Decision themes, the criminal overlord chain, and so on. Pretty much any topic dealing with C-SEC and crime in general echoes this theme. If there's an option to follow the book and due process, more than 9 times out of 10 it's the Paragon option. If there's corruption that can be exposed, it's the Paragon path to expose it (as opposed to Renegade, which takes bribes or encourages cover-ups: see, most deals with criminals).

 

This doesn't even touch on ME2- including the incredibly significant events and example of Arrival, in which Paragon Shepard is entirely clear that they will answer of their actions because they are not above the law... now please ignore all the other people on the ship that Shepard holds to no such standard. Now, ME2 wasn't even consistent on its own terms as a morality system- part of switching P/R to a tone-based rather than ideological-based alignment system- but that's just indicative of how much tossed salad there was.

 

 

And what is this nonsense about Archer? The paragon choice is specifically to prevent the abuse of Archer's brother.

 

 

I'm referring to the Paragon interrupt to ******-slap Archer, which is the only Paragon interrupt to do so. Ever. It would be the archetypical Renage interrupt- letting anger guide and inflicting harm- except it's Paragon and cool because Archer's an ******* and has it coming.

 

Even in the ME3 fights, the Paragon fight interrupts are about deflection, de-escalation, and mitigating harm.

 

 

 

As the idea of Shepard being against 'corruption' and 'war crimes,' do you understand how silly that is? Next you'll be suggesting Shepard is against murder as well. Or killing babies. Or shooting old ladies in the face. Surely you aren't trying to paint being 'against' war crimes as a moral dilemma as if someone might argue how wonderful war crimes are?

 

 

Of course not- and thankfully I didn't make that argument. Though your own counter-argument is rather inept in light of what we actually see in the series.

 

Across the course of Mass Effect the series, there are numerous cases in which Shepard can not only partake in war crimes, but pass judgement on the crimes of others. In (almost) every case, Paragon is consistently the one that takes the moral, principled opposition- this is bad because these actions are inherently bad- while Renegade is occasionally given the option of arguing that the option is vindicated on some other grounds. "Necessary," "ends justify the means," "greater good," etc.

 

To use your (laughable) strawman: Mass Effect regularly gives us cases in which shooting old ladies in the face is an option- not because of how wonderful war crimes are in their own right, but because doing the war crimes might benefit other people in other ways that may or may not outweigh the cost. Renegade is generally reserved for these non-empathetic reasonings. Paragon is generally reserved for the moral refusal- the 'I won't let fear compromise what I am' sort of nonsense that comes up from time to time. Refusing a strategic advantage because it comes at immediate suffering for innocents. Exposing corruption of a non-hostile actor where Renegade might take hush-money. Accepting significant risks on faith that future risks won't materialize. If there's a moral objection to a delimma, it's usually reserved the Paragon.

 

But, and here's where the hypocrisy comes in- the 'usually' only applies when it's people the player (and Paragon Shepard) isn't supposed to like the delimma. Crimes and supposedly horrific experiments we're supposed to see as atrocious and bring to light if the perpetrator is Cerberus get covered up if the perpetrator is Tali's father. Looting is bad and totally unacceptable for Quarantine survivors in Omega... now let's pay no mind to the entire 'scavenge' mechanic of ME2, or the outright B&E with Kasumi. While we're at it, let's forget the whole 'coverups of illegal actions are bad' mentality from ME1 now that it's the Alliance with their hand in the Batarian cookie jar. And defering to legitimate authorities and their laws, the cornerstone of Paragonism in ME1? The not infrequent issues of due process and such that arise whenever we get involved with police? Police unfairly taking a harsh look at a Quarian migrant? Scolding and throwing around reputation. Vigilante murders a defeated enemy and threatens to blow up a police station for bizaarl thinking she might, well, murder people? True Paragon, right there folks!

 

 

 

And let's not even touch on the various examples in which Paragon Shepard will sacrifice the few for the many, because letting fear compromise who you are is totally common sense when the fear is obvious enough. (Like, say... Reaper invasion! Yay!)

 

 

 

 

No, I really think you don't have much of an understanding of what hypocrisy is at all.

 

 

You should probably phrase that as 'I really don't think you have much of an understanding.'

[Sidney]

I'm not really seeing the logic in straight up executing the Rachni Queen, apart from the fact that game logic prevented Shepard from coming in with more firepower than 3 people who could just secure her to be turned over to the Council (which would have been IMO the reasonable choice). Even executing Shiala makes more sense (even if it's a war crime, in the sense of executing a POW). The problem ultimately is that Bioware excludes the actual option that'd be available and taken IRL, which is secure and imprison.

The logic is the Rachni are dangerous aggressive aliens. She tells a sweet story but I'm sure Stalin could make himself sound good too. That falls into the pragmatic category to me j just like not curing the genophage and whacking Wrex in 1. There are bigger concerns about galactic security and peace that I might be concerned with.

The real question would be if they re skinned the Rachni but had the same lore and instead of them being all bug looking freaky things if they looked like a cross between baby harp seals, kittens and pandas how many fewer players would choose to whack them.