48 réponses à ce sujet

[Excella Gionne]

Would it make it "okay" if FemShep was punching a woman tied up instead?

[KaiserShep]

Eh, I always thought the best path for this sequence was talking to him until the lawyer comes in, and then you can give the lawyer sh*t too and not care what he says. You get the same result without Shepard looking like a tool punching a guy who's restrained. 

[Reorte]

How old are you referring to? A show from 20 years ago? Or one back in the 1960s when everyone smoked?

It doesn't make any difference IMO. It's still fairly common and not something only done in private, i.e. nothing you won't witness often enough in real life. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it gets complaints though if it appears in a modern programme set in the 60s.

[Reorte]

Eh, I always thought the best path for this sequence was talking to him until the lawyer comes in, and then you can give the lawyer sh*t too and not care what he says. You get the same result without Shepard looking like a tool punching a guy who's restrained. 

Looks more like Shepard punching a tool who's restrained. As for restrained or not it makes no difference - either someone deserves punching or they don't, and if you favour "don't at all" other than in a fight then there's always the option not to - that's the point of  having choices in games.

[KaiserShep]

Looks more like Shepard punching a tool who's restrained. As for restrained or not it makes no difference - either someone deserves punching or they don't, and if you favour "don't at all" other than in a fight then there's always the option not to - that's the point of  having choices in games.

 

 

Whether or not Kelham deserves to be punched doesn't matter. It's no different from how Shepard can choose to deal with Mouse. The characters are written respond to torture with valid information, like a terrorist just blabbing all their plans when Jack Bauer shoots them in the kneecaps, when they could just as easily give bogus info to free themselves of their tormenter and book it before Shep & co. find out that they've been had. This is why Shepard looks like a tool punching that guy in his chair, and why Shepard is a silly jerk for putting a boot to Mouse on the ground. 

[Reorte]

Only if they didn't think that Shepard would be able to come after them for giving them false information. The "could've given them false information" line works no matter how you do it (Mouse doesn't seem likely to lie if treated well but I don't see that it would make Kelham any more reliable). "Torture isn't reliable" is often quoted but I'm rather sceptical about how accurate that is, as much as I hope we'd all like it to be. Threats often work after all (there would be far more criminals in prison if they didn't).

 

Should Garrus and Harkin have been handled differently? (even though in there Shepard can warn Garrus that he's getting carried away and going further than necessary).

[Dantriges]

Torture as a method of finding truth was abolished in the 18 to 19th century (in quite a few absolutist ruled monarchies by the monarch themselves) and criticised far earlier than that out of ethical reasons, religous or practical. There is the simple fact that most death penalties for practising witchcraft were based on confessions under (threat of) torture. None of these men or women were able to cast spells. One of the biggest problems with torture is, if you do it long enough, that you get everything or anything from anyone just to make it stop.

[Monica21]

Torture as a method of finding truth was abolished in the 18 to 19th century (in quite a few absolutist ruled monarchies by the monarch themselves) and criticised far earlier than that out of ethical reasons, religous or practical. There is the simple fact that most death penalties for practising witchcraft were based on confessions under (threat of) torture. None of these men or women were able to cast spells. One of the biggest problems with torture is, if you do it long enough, that you get everything or anything from anyone just to make it stop.

 

To be fair, the scene with Kelham is mostly just Shepard making threats. Yep, there are a few punches thrown and he ends up with a bloody nose, but it's not like he's being waterboarded or having his fingernails pulled out. There's not even an iron maiden or a rack in the room, if you want to talk about the good old-timey torture. If Kelham really wanted to keep his mouth shut, he could, but he's kind of a ***** so he blabs.

 

And just as far as the scene itself goes, I like it, if only because my Shepard gets to say, "You think he's the good cop and I'm the bad cop? Guess what? We're both the bad cop." Kelham's a bad guy and could use a couple more punches in the face.

[Dantriges]

It was a response to this:

 

"Torture isn't reliable" is often quoted but I'm rather sceptical about how accurate that is, as much as I hope we'd all like it to be.

[Monica21]

It was a response to this:

 

Well, yes, but I can see it becoming a "Kelham was tortured!" thing.

[Reorte]

Torture as a method of finding truth was abolished in the 18 to 19th century (in quite a few absolutist ruled monarchies by the monarch themselves) and criticised far earlier than that out of ethical reasons, religous or practical. There is the simple fact that most death penalties for practising witchcraft were based on confessions under (threat of) torture. None of these men or women were able to cast spells. One of the biggest problems with torture is, if you do it long enough, that you get everything or anything from anyone just to make it stop.

Which unfortunately doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Let's face it, plenty of criminals go free because people who could give the information which would get them locked up don't because of the very real threat of something very unpleasant happening if they do. Criminals may well get information they need by threatening unpleasant things to people if they don't get it. I don't see much difference.

 

This is a different matter from confessions, which are hopelessly unreliable for the reason you give. There's also the chance that a victim will make up something if they genuinely don't know anything of course (always a possibility anyway even with more acceptable methods of questioning).

[Reorte]

Well, yes, but I can see it becoming a "Kelham was tortured!" thing.

If you insist... Isn't that what "Tell us or get hurt" is? There are boundaries at what is considered torture for legal reasons but IMO they're more for the purpose of deciding what an appropriate response is to whatever degree of unpleasantness there is, they don't define the word in the general sense.

 

Anyway, back to Kelham...

[Monica21]

If you insist... Isn't that what "Tell us or get hurt" is? There are boundaries at what is considered torture for legal reasons but IMO they're more for the purpose of deciding what an appropriate response is to whatever degree of unpleasantness there is, they don't define the word in the general sense.

 

Anyway, back to Kelham...

 

I was not aware that a verbal threat of physical pain would be considered torture. That's like the school bully threatening to take your lunch money "or else." So yeah, how about we stick with the legal definitions of torture instead of making stuff up?

 

And sure, let's keep this to what actually happened to Kelham instead of what didn't happen, namely, that Shepard never actually cut his balls off.

[Reorte]

I was not aware that a verbal threat of physical pain would be considered torture. That's like the school bully threatening to take your lunch money "or else." So yeah, how about we stick with the legal definitions of torture instead of making stuff up?

 

And sure, let's keep this to what actually happened to Kelham instead of what didn't happen, namely, that Shepard never actually cut his balls off.

No, the threat of it is the threat of torture.

 

The legal profession is not the authority on the definition of words outside their application in law, which often has to draw arbitrary boundaries for reasons of practicality, so how about being polite? I'm not "making stuff up." Sticking with legal definitions is only important when discussing the legal aspects of something and isn't particularly useful as a general guide. For that the dictionary will do - according to the Concise OED "The action or practice of inflicting severe pains as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion." What "severe" is is of course subjective (probably nothing that Shepard does to Kelham).

 

Don't be too hidebound by rigid definitions that try to nail somewhat arbitrary thresholds on a continuum of behaviour. Those rigid boundaries are a concession to practicality that try to reflect concepts and issues, not define them.

[Monica21]

No, the threat of it is the threat of torture.

 

Explain to me how the threat of being tortured is actual torture, even according to the dictionary definition you provided.

[Reorte]

Explain to me how the threat of being tortured is actual torture, even according to the dictionary definition you provided.

I don't recall claiming that it was.

[Vanilka]

You know, I've never actually punched this guy. I just kind of squeeze him when he provokes me too much and he starts singing. I don't care whether it's a man or a woman. It's a criminal that's planning to assassinate somebody first and foremost. But, yeah, the option to punch him is there. He's restrained. Probably not exactly by the book kind of interrogation. But, let's face it, Shepard can do some pretty unreasonable things throughout the franchise, like shooting suicidal teenage girls that are only danger to themselves, so I get that the option is there.

 

Given that we get the option to punch Khalisah that by no means deserves that kind of treatment as obnoxious as she might be, I don't really see Kelham as a problem just because he's restrained. Both of those actions are immoral, over the top, and there for you when you want to play an assh☹le. (Although I'm pretty sure punching Kelham is by far more justifiable than punching Khalisah because he's a criminal and if we don't get the info out of him somebody dies. Khalisah's only crime is that she's annoying.) Speaking for myself, if Kelham were a woman I still wouldn't care we had the option because she'd still be a murderous bastard and we have quite enough opportunities to hurt or kill both men and women in these games. (It's not like we're talking disturbing or fetishistic levels of violence, either. It's not like it's done in a way that's meant for you to enjoy it in some sick way.)

 

If you're not happy with punching Khalisah for an example, we have that moment in the Lair of the Shadow Broker when Tela Vasir grabs the lady on Illium and uses her as a meat shield. That lady is defenceless, she's crying, she's terrified, she's being restrained and you can choose to harm her just to get to Vasir even though you have other options. I drop my thermal clips on the ground despite all the other options because I believe that's realistically the best option to save the hostage. But I'm not upset that the option to harm her is there because it makes sense given the circumstances. Much like it makes sense with Kelham given the circumstances. It's not the same situation, but I'd say it's close enough.

 

So, while I see where you're coming from, OP, I believe BW is pretty fair when it comes to whom we can hurt and how and I wouldn't worry about Kelham.

[themikefest]

The video I posted in this thread is what I do. Get it over and done with quickly. No need to waste time with the other crap

[Vanilka]

The video I posted in this thread is what I do. Get it over and done with quickly. No need to waste time with the other crap

 

I need to get my renegade score that high to be able to do that one day. 

 

I remember one time the interrogation backfired wonderfully for me and it's a great memory to this day. I took too long and decided to squeeze Kelham like a moment before his lawyer walked in. The conversation was a bit as follows:

 

Lawyer: "Get your hands off my client at once!"

Shepard: "  "

Thane: "  "

Shepard: "Okay........ Everybody calm down, I'm a Spectre!"

Lawyer: "Sh*t!"

Kelham: "What? What the hell does that mean?"

Lawyer: "Means we can't do sh*t."

Kelham: "Sh*t."

 

Now, I'm exaggerating, of course, it's been a while, BUT not that much. (Even the language is there.) Probably my favourite Mass Effect fail of mine.

[themikefest]

I've gotten that dialogue a couple of times.

[Vanilka]

I've gotten that dialogue a couple of times.

 

I'm not surprised. I've only made three playthroughs so far. I have a lot of catching up to do in comparison. 

[themikefest]

I'm not surprised. I've only made three playthroughs so far. I have a lot of catching up to do in comparison. 

Take your time.

 

Its probably my number one reason why I like ME. The replay value. I can do a playthrough one way and for the next playthrough, do something completely different

[afgncaap7]

Look at the shadow broker vids. The guy literally slams into a turian with his shuttle and doesn't even pretend to care. He's lucky a few punches and threats is the worst I can do.

[Vanilka]

Look at the shadow broker vids. The guy literally slams into a turian with his shuttle and doesn't even pretend to care. He's lucky a few punches and threats is the worst I can do.

 

True. I freaking hate we can't arrest him or something. Bailey really grinds my gears when it comes to these things.