26 réponses à ce sujet

[dawsdgd]

what did you do?

[Karstedt]

Both

[Captain Crash]

I let Balak go on my paragon.



But it was so much cooler killing him!! Probably one the best cut scenes from the game and one of the few decisions I felt really mattered.

[DarthCaine]

Let 3 people die or risk thousands of people dying? Hmm...

[Devos]

It's tempting to think killing Balak will save many lives further down the line but that doesn't really follow. For that line or reasoning Balak alone has to raise the danger of attacks from an entire civilisation. The Attacks will continue regardless of whether he is alive or dead, that those attacks will claim many more lives because he is alive seems very dodgy reasoning.

[Dethateer]

The reasoning behind killing him isn't that the attacks will stop altogether, it's that HE won't attack a colony again (like this, or in any other way), costing many more lives should he do that.

[Karstedt]

And shooting him repeatedly without even talking as he goes through his monologue is just plain fun.

[Zaxares]

I tried out both options, but for my "canonical" playthrough, I let him go to save the hostages.

[petetehcanuck]

Captain Crash wrote...

I let Balak go on my paragon.

But it was so much cooler killing him!! Probably one the best cut scenes from the game and one of the few decisions I felt really mattered.

I did this as well for my Paragon Sheps.  It was hella fun to kill the bastage as a Renegade although I did feel bad about not saving the hostages.

[phimseto]

Devos wrote...

It's tempting to think killing Balak will save many lives further down the line but that doesn't really follow. For that line or reasoning Balak alone has to raise the danger of attacks from an entire civilisation. The Attacks will continue regardless of whether he is alive or dead, that those attacks will claim many more lives because he is alive seems very dodgy reasoning.

It follows quite nicely.  He's capable enough to mount that kind of attack, meaning he's well-informed, has a good amount of resources, and a willingness to put it all together into something catastrophic.  You do not let someone like that get away, not for the sake of a few hostages.  The attacks will continue in a macro sense, but you've removed a specific, dangerous threat to humankind by removing him (either by killing him or arresting him). 

It's a good example of where the "paragon" choice is simply the nice choice, certainly not the right one.

Modifié par phimseto, 05 février 2010 - 04:12 .

[Homebound]

I decided to murder Balek because he caused my Shepard's family to die in Mindoir.

[Devos]

phimseto wrote...

It follows quite nicely.  He's capable enough to mount that kind of attack, meaning he's well-informed, has a good amount of resources, and a willingness to put it all together into something catastrophic.

Or he works for an organisation with those qualities like he says. You are making an overly simplistic assessment of risk. A major attack takes a lot more than one person and the value of removing a single person, even if they have proved competent, is hard to assess. If Balak is gone some one else gets bumped up, maybe they are less competent which means their attack will be foiled, maybe they will be more competent. That's a lot of ifs and maybes.

The idea Balak himself caused the attack to happen with no organisation behind him, or at the very least his competence made an attack possible when it other wise would not have been, means attributing him with a level of capability which only makes sense because he's a fictional character. What is even more fantastic is attributing him with the ability to do it again. Of course he is a fictional character so it is reasonable but reasoning on that basis the "right" choice would more legitimately be judged by which is most thematically satisfying and not minimising the fictional loss of life.

[Homebound]

Devos wrote...

phimseto wrote...

It follows quite nicely.  He's capable enough to mount that kind of attack, meaning he's well-informed, has a good amount of resources, and a willingness to put it all together into something catastrophic.

Or he works for an organisation with those qualities like he says. You are making an overly simplistic assessment of risk. A major attack takes a lot more than one person and the value of removing a single person, even if they have proved competent, is hard to assess. If Balak is gone some one else gets bumped up, maybe they are less competent which means their attack will be foiled, maybe they will be more competent. That's a lot of ifs and maybes.

The idea Balak himself caused the attack to happen with no organisation behind him, or at the very least his competence made an attack possible when it other wise would not have been, means attributing him with a level of capability which only makes sense because he's a fictional character. What is even more fantastic is attributing him with the ability to do it again. Of course he is a fictional character so it is reasonable but reasoning on that basis the "right" choice would more legitimately be judged by which is most thematically satisfying and not minimising the fictional loss of life.

Im sorry, I know that was important but, LMAO at your sig!!  XD

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

[DPSSOC]

I kill Balak. I'm under no delusion that killing him will stop the attacks all together but I'm pretty sure if he goes free he's going to kill more than 3 humans before he croaks. He may not be able to do anything catstrophic again, but all he needs are a gun and a crowded space port to kill 3+ humans.

[tanarri23]

Kill. He would obviously repeat it the first chance he got, and Shepard might not be around to stop him.

[Jimbe2693]

I wounded him then left him for the alliance

Death is too merciful

[mattp420]

I never killed him, just wounded him and left him for the Alliance. Maybe the Alliance has some kind of interrogation skills that can get something from him. Either way I put him in much pain before he's picked up and as Jimbe2693 stated, death is too merciful.

[Abtacha1982]

I never really understood how he could get away so easy when you choose to save the hostages. He's on an asteroid with the Normandy most likely in an orbit. It shouldn't be so hard to tell Joker to blast him to stardust once you disarmed the bombs.

Or do Batharians have some kind of pocket Mass Relays the carry with them all the time?

[Markinator_123]

There are good reasons for arresting or killing him.

[DPSSOC]

Abtacha1982 wrote...

I never really understood how he could get away so easy when you choose to save the hostages. He's on an asteroid with the Normandy most likely in an orbit. It shouldn't be so hard to tell Joker to blast him to stardust once you disarmed the bombs.
Or do Batharians have some kind of pocket Mass Relays the carry with them all the time?

I'm lead to believe the Normandy was only ever armed with 1 shot, don't want to waste it on him.

[Zaxares]

DPSSOC wrote...

I'm lead to believe the Normandy was only ever armed with 1 shot, don't want to waste it on him.

We both know that's silly. What kind of naval frigate only has a one-shot weapon?  Personally, I like to imagine that after I let Balak go and saved the hostages, I radioed Joker and told him to blast Balak's ship into molten particles as it was taking off from the surface of the asteroid. (I'm relatively certain that Balak can't get to his ship and take off in less than 2 minutes.)

Unless... Balak ALSO had a Batarian frigate, and was able to fend off the Normandy long enough to make his escape into FTL, in which case... "YOU'RE INCOMPETANT, JOKER!"

(Hey! There's no Angry smiley!)

[Andorfiend]

Kate was willing to let her brother die in order to protect you, to let Balak go to order to save her afterwards feels to me like a betrayal of her principles and sacrifices. If there was anyone in the galaxy who would have understood why you did it, it was Kate.



So no escape for Balak. (No merciful death either, he got handed over to the Alliance. Heck I probably would have handed him over to Cerberus if I had the option and I hate Cerberus.)

[DPSSOC]

Zaxares wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

I'm lead to believe the Normandy was only ever armed with 1 shot, don't want to waste it on him.

We both know that's silly. What kind of naval frigate only has a one-shot weapon?  

The kind of naval frigate built by a government that appoints the most disagreeable SOB in the galaxy as their Ambassador?

Zaxares wrote...

Personally, I like to imagine that after I let Balak go and saved the hostages, I radioed Joker and told him to blast Balak's ship into molten particles as it was taking off from the surface of the asteroid. (I'm relatively certain that Balak can't get to his ship and take off in less than 2 minutes.)

Why wait?  Why not as you're running to the hostages radio joker to find and blow up his ship...if Balak had a remote detonator he'd just give you enough time to get to the bombs and then detonate.

[Zaxares]

DPSSOC wrote...

The kind of naval frigate built by a government that appoints the most disagreeable SOB in the galaxy as their Ambassador? 

I blame human politics for Udina. Who knows what kinds of strings were pulled to land him such a position?

DPSSOC wrote...

Why wait?  Why not as you're running to the hostages radio joker to find and blow up his ship...if Balak had a remote detonator he'd just give you enough time to get to the bombs and then detonate.

Well, I just figured between avoiding rockets from the Drones and furiously trying to disarm the bombs, I'd have too much on my mind to try and carry on a conversation with Joker at the same time.

"Joker! Red wire first Balak OW SHRAPNEL blast the ship CRAP WRONG WIRE!"