20813 réponses à ce sujet

[Mondo47]

BobbyTheI wrote...

Honestly, my interpretation is that all except Jack ended in sex.  The only one that's sorta borderline is Tali, but I seriously doubt she'd go to all the trouble of researching and taking antibiotics if all they were gonna do is make out.  That said, I could see how somebody could interpret the Jack relationship as ending in sex, too; the fact that they're still clothed in bed at the end could be chalked up to the game mechanics, and not having a nude model for the two of them.

In the end, I guess it's up to your own interpretation.  If somebody feels like Shep and Jack got busy, that's their prerogative, just as much as they can decide FemShep and Garrus just snuggled, or whatever Turians do   The devs have said as much regarding Kelly's "dinner," and you interpreting how far it went, so I guess the rest could be interpreted however you want, too.

(OT: I already posted this on my audio edit thread, but this made my night so much, I had to post it here too.  Unlike in ME2, in ME1 they must have had Mark and Jennifer read every line, and kept it on the disc.  I can only imagine the look on Mark's face after he had to read this.)

Oh Bobby... always taking me back to that RuPaul video... I'm now having to wrestle the image of Sheploo in an evening dress and a huge blonde wig at Hock's party out of my head. Actually, that's what the galaxy needs - more crossdressing

You're right though - it's all a matter of personal perspective as to how far the love scenes go. I think depending on my mood, most of the time I think Jack and Shep didn't, but almost certainly would later. Then again, sometimes sex really can uncork the bottle in more ways than one; cliche certainly, but I know for a fact that it can get things you've been holding in to the surface and let them just spill out (and yes, I'm aware that everything I'm typing here sounds dirty - I've tried rewriting it four times and just given up now). Just because it's sex (and thus has baggage attached to it in society's eyes) doesn't mean we should ignore it when it can have the same effects on the psyche as getting drunk, having a good laugh or a good cry. It can bring things out, especially if it's el supremo dynamite sex. So, maybe it's not alien to think they did.

Hell, it's probably for the best that Shep & Jack's first time together was with her in vulnerable little kitten mode... I don't think Shep could have saved the galaxy if she really cut loose, he'd be hobbling around with a fractured pelvis, two slipped discs, a broken nose and a dislocated shoulder

[royceclemens]

I guess it comes down to the strategically placed fade-out. The fade-out in Jack's scene was them cuddling in bed, neither having so much as even taken off their shoes. All of the other fade-outs were when the scene was leading to something else. So I am left to assume that Jack and Shepard didn't actually have sex.



And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

[Mak999]

BobbyTheI wrote...

Honestly, my interpretation is that all except Jack ended in sex.  The only one that's sorta borderline is Tali, but I seriously doubt she'd go to all the trouble of researching and taking antibiotics if all they were gonna do is make out.  That said, I could see how somebody could interpret the Jack relationship as ending in sex, too; the fact that they're still clothed in bed at the end could be chalked up to the game mechanics, and not having a nude model for the two of them.

In the end, I guess it's up to your own interpretation.  If somebody feels like Shep and Jack got busy, that's their prerogative, just as much as they can decide FemShep and Garrus just snuggled, or whatever Turians do   The devs have said as much regarding Kelly's "dinner," and you interpreting how far it went, so I guess the rest could be interpreted however you want, too.

On this occasion I agree with you.

Modifié par Mak999, 16 avril 2010 - 12:46 .

[adriano_c]

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

I don't agree. The hows and whys relative to them both becoming "biotic killers" are irrelevant. What does matter, however, is just what potency they've reached.

[Mondo47]

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

I don't agree. The hows and whys relative to them both becoming "biotic killers" are irrelevant. What does matter, however, is just what potency they've reached.

I don't know... Samara is one of those characters that offs people while making a cup of tea, then sits down and drinks the tea content that the shmucks were asking for it even if they adopted two children and run an animal shelter. I'm not saying it'd be an easy win for her (coming across a human that can throw out that much destructive energy might be a bit of a shock), but she'd not lose her temper, she'd compensate for errors, and about the only thing that might give her pause was if Jack's building wellspring of rage started to put innocent bystanders at risk (do you pick a fight with someone that might go off like an atomic bomb and take ten city blocks out when they go, or do you just suffocate them with a pillow).

Much as I find Samara an interesting, multi-layered character, her utter lack of compunction towards killing (daughter notwithstanding), even when those killed do deserve it, puts her a couple of steps too far into the socially-acceptable psycho camp... the apple never falls too far from the tree as they say. Like saying a prayer for the person you just cut in half makes it all better... at least Thane prays for his own tarnished ethics (which only makes him marginally better - at least he can see the dark in his work). Samara just hides behind the shiny light of the Code, knowing that some laundry list of regulations absolves her of all concern, and suffers inside in silence.

At least the other alledged 'psychopath' on the ship suffers loudly.

[royceclemens]

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

I don't agree. The hows and whys relative to them both becoming "biotic killers" are irrelevant. What does matter, however, is just what potency they've reached.

I disagree with your disagreement.  I think the general consensus is that, in their primes, Mike Tyson would get beaten by Muhammad Ali, and it isn't because Ali's the power puncher.  It's all in the approach.  The fact of the matter is, even though Jack has killed a ton of people, there's no evidence she ever pulled on anyone who didn't present a threat.  Even when presented with Aresh, Jack took some time to be talked out of it.  Samara, on the other hand, is seen dispatching a neutralized threat the first time you meet her.

Jack would hesitate.  There are things she just plain won't do.  I can't make that guarantee with Samara.  Jack can find nuance that Samara, by the definition of her code, can't.  And that's something you can't beat one on one.

Modifié par royceclemens, 16 avril 2010 - 01:30 .

[LiquidGrape]

royceclemens wrote...

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

I don't agree. The hows and whys relative to them both becoming "biotic killers" are irrelevant. What does matter, however, is just what potency they've reached.

I disagree with your disagreement.  I think the general consensus is that, in their primes, Mike Tyson would get beaten by Muhammad Ali, and it isn't because Ali's the power puncher.  It's all in the approach.  The fact of the matter is, even though Jack has killed a ton of people, there's no evidence she ever pulled on anyone who didn't present a threat.  Even when presented with Aresh, Jack took some time to be talked out of it.  Samara, on the other hand, is seen dispatching a neutralized threat the first time you meet her.

Jack would hesitate.  There are things she just plain won't do.  I can't make that guarantee with Samara.  Jack can find nuance that Samara, by the definition of her code, can't.  And that's something you can't beat one on one.

[Jackal904]

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

So you're saying Samara wants to kill people more than Jack? I'd have to disagree with that. Jack often reminds us how much she enjoys killing. She does get warm feelings when killing people. I'm honestly not sure who would win. If we're basing their abilities off of their cutscenes, Samara has done some impressive stuff, but she hasn't taken out three ymir mechs in five seconds. But I'd still say the odds are tilited in Samara's favor since she has hundreds of years of combat experience. Jack has 20 something.

Modifié par Jackal904, 16 avril 2010 - 01:51 .

[adriano_c]

royceclemens wrote...

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

I don't agree. The hows and whys relative to them both becoming "biotic killers" are irrelevant. What does matter, however, is just what potency they've reached.

I disagree with your disagreement.  I think the general consensus is that, in their primes, Mike Tyson would get beaten by Muhammad Ali, and it isn't because Ali's the power puncher.  It's all in the approach.  The fact of the matter is, even though Jack has killed a ton of people, there's no evidence she ever pulled on anyone who didn't present a threat.  Even when presented with Aresh, Jack took some time to be talked out of it.  Samara, on the other hand, is seen dispatching a neutralized threat the first time you meet her.

Jack would hesitate.  There are things she just plain won't do.  I can't make that guarantee with Samara.

That's a different argument than your previous one (Jack losing because she arrived as a killer due to happenstance, whereas Samara made the conscious decision to), though. Your Tyson/Ali comparison is fine, but it's basically in the same vein as what I said - comparing their current potency (not necessarily raw power) as killers. As for their demeanours, putting their guns on innocents and all that, what does it matter? We're talking, or so I thought, about a straight fight between the two.

Samara's cool, calm and collected. Jack's brutal, torrential and unpredictable. It's typical to go with the former, but it certainly isn't a given.

[Heart Collector]

Jackal904 wrote...

So you're saying Samara wants to kill people more than Jack? I'd have to disagree with that. Jack often reminds us how much she enjoys killing. She does get warm feelings when killing people. I'm honestly not sure who would win. If we're basing their abilities off of their cutscenes, Samara has done some impressive stuff, but she hasn't taken out three ymir mechs in five seconds. But I'd still say the odds are tilited in Samara's favor since she has hundreds of years of combat experience. Jack has 20 something.

I don't think killing actually gives Jack "warm feelings", despite what she says. It gives her a rush, a high, a satisfaction, possibly relief (I'll live to fight another day), but it is most likely a facade that she actually feels truly warm inside. Or maybe she misunderstands it as warmth, but in fact it is not that.

[adriano_c]

To be fair, she doesn't get "warm feelings" from killing, but rather during fights. A throwback to her days feeling the narcotic effects while fighting at Teltin, I guess.

[Jackal904]

royceclemens wrote...

Even when presented with Aresh, Jack took some time to be talked out of it.  Samara, on the other hand, is seen dispatching a neutralized threat the first time you meet her.

Jack would hesitate.  There are things she just plain won't do.  I can't make that guarantee with Samara.  Jack can find nuance that Samara, by the definition of her code, can't.  And that's something you can't beat one on one.

Good point, but Aresh wasn't actively trying to kill her. If they fought I picture Jack starting to win after fighting for some time, she gets Samara in a position for an easy kill, but she would hesitate right before the killing blow, and then Samara would take that opportunity to gain the upper hand and kill Jack.

adriano_c wrote...

To be fair, she doesn't get "warm feelings" from killing, but rather during fights. 

Oh yeah true. Well she has heavily implied she enjoys killing, but I think that was just part of the wall she puts up to not let people close.

Mondo you raise a good point about Samara. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but Samara seems a lot more heartless and unflinching than Jack when it comes to killing people. So yeah, I guess Samara would have a much stronger desire to kill someone, but only for the Code.

Modifié par Jackal904, 16 avril 2010 - 02:00 .

[LiquidGrape]

Jackal904 wrote...
Mondo you raise a good point about Samara. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but Samara seems a lot more heartless and unflinching than Jack when it comes to killing people. So yeah, I guess Samara would have a much stronger desire to kill someone, but only for the Code.

I think heartless is the wrong word for Samara.
While it's true that she justifies sometimes brutal behaviour by referring to the almighty code, she does occasionally reveal an inability to explain her adherence to it.
She strikes me as a person convinced that there is nothing left in this life for her to experience, and so she clings to an absolute which grants her the "freedom" to live without free will; without any incentive to explore aspects of herself.
This is especially evident if the player approaches her with romantic interest, as she's unable to accept the advances due to her unwavering loyalty to the doctrines she heedlessly abides by.

[Mondo47]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Jackal904 wrote...
Mondo you raise a good point about Samara. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but Samara seems a lot more heartless and unflinching than Jack when it comes to killing people. So yeah, I guess Samara would have a much stronger desire to kill someone, but only for the Code.

I think heartless is the wrong word for Samara.
While it's true that she justifies sometimes brutal behaviour by referring to the almighty code, she does occasionally reveal an inability to explain her adherence to it.
She strikes me as a person convinced that there is nothing left in this life for her to experience, and so she clings to an absolute which grants her the "freedom" to live without free will; without any incentive to explore aspects of herself.
This is especially evident if the player approaches her with romantic interest, as she's unable to accept the advances due to her unwavering loyalty to the doctrines she heedlessly abides by.

I'd certainly say Samara has a heart, what I find morally repellant about her is the use of the Code as a miracle hand-cleaner. The Code allows her to paint over the horrors it inflicts in the name of justice or the Greater Good. She still feels pain from it, but the Code is her shield in almost every case.

It seems to me like a Justicar is a mass-murderer with a rulebook; you have to kill evil-doer A, but because pencilpusher B and blandly-loyal evil-doers significant other C get in your way, you can just murderize them because it's all Cool & The Gang with the Code. It seems like the Code's ethos of getting the job done at almost any cost is not too far away from the Renegade Shep ethos of get it done at any cost. We can also argue send a monster to slay a monster, but Samara's monsterishness to me overshadows any guilt or sadness she harbours over her actions. It takes killing her own child to coax any kind of remorse out of her... ****, Lady Macbeth wasn't that hardnosed!

The Code says it's fine... it's almost as transparent an illusion as "God told me to kill those seven people and that dog." That's the one thing I find utterly unappealing in the character; she's not accountable, some book of regs is. It might mean your planet keeps lawful and on the rails having people like that for cops, but they'd have to either be psychopaths or reduce themselves to unfeeling machines to cope with it... which to me adds another string to Samara's rejection of potential relationships - she either doesn't want to 'feel' in case it weakens her resolution to the Code's will, or it's her punishment for chosing the Code as her ethical model and she spuns a little happiness to punish herself.

That's just my impression of it all... I don't consider myself to have examined the character too deeply, so it's probably wide of the mark

[LiquidGrape]

You say what I want to say far more in-depth and eloquent than I could ever hope to, Mondo.
And this is why I hope Samara will make a return as a fully-fledged squadmember in Mass Effect 3; to further explore that conflict of interests.
...wait, this is Jack's thread, isn't it?

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 16 avril 2010 - 02:33 .

[Jackal904]

Yeah 'heartless' wasn't the correct word. I'd say a better word would be 'merciless.' I didn't mean to imply that she is a soulless killing machine. She has emotions just like everyone else. She is just very good at suppressing them with the help of being able to hide behind the Code.

LiquidGrape wrote...

You say what I want to say far more in-depth and eloquent than I could ever hope to, Mondo.
And this is why I hope Samara will make a return as a fully-fledged squadmember in Mass Effect 3; to further explore that conflict of interests.
...wait, this is Jack's thread, isn't it?

Haha oh well.. It's somewhat relevant. We're kind of determining whether or not Samara would kill Jack without hesitation if she were not sworn to Shepard.

Modifié par Jackal904, 16 avril 2010 - 02:39 .

[royceclemens]

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

And going back to the potential Samara vs. Jack fight, as much as I hate to say it, Jack would lose. Jack was turned into a killer as a necessity for survival. If her life had taken a tiny diversion at any point, she could be a stock-broker for all we know (SELL AT FORTY, B**CH!). Samara on the other hand, signed up to kill people. She had murder in her from the get-go. You just can't beat something like that.

I don't agree. The hows and whys relative to them both becoming "biotic killers" are irrelevant. What does matter, however, is just what potency they've reached.

I disagree with your disagreement.  I think the general consensus is that, in their primes, Mike Tyson would get beaten by Muhammad Ali, and it isn't because Ali's the power puncher.  It's all in the approach.  The fact of the matter is, even though Jack has killed a ton of people, there's no evidence she ever pulled on anyone who didn't present a threat.  Even when presented with Aresh, Jack took some time to be talked out of it.  Samara, on the other hand, is seen dispatching a neutralized threat the first time you meet her.

Jack would hesitate.  There are things she just plain won't do.  I can't make that guarantee with Samara.

That's a different argument than your previous one (Jack losing because she arrived as a killer due to happenstance, whereas Samara made the conscious decision to), though. Your Tyson/Ali comparison is fine, but it's basically in the same vein as what I said - comparing their current potency (not necessarily raw power) as killers. As for their demeanours, putting their guns on innocents and all that, what does it matter? We're talking, or so I thought, about a straight fight between the two.

Samara's cool, calm and collected. Jack's brutal, torrential and unpredictable. It's typical to go with the former, but it certainly isn't a given.

I am talking about a straight up fight, though I'm sorry if I made myself unclear.  You put two people in a fight, one who knows how to kill people but may not want to, while the other knows how and DOES want to, I know which one I'm going to bet on.  Trains of thought and origin do matter in this case, otherwise it's just an episode of DEADLIEST WARRIOR... Which is awesome by the way, I'm not trying to defame that fine show.

I'd also like to applaud Mondo for nailing what I've been thinking as of late.  The only thing stopping me from calling Samara amoral is that I don't know her morals.  There's just the code, and the code ain't hers.  She doesn't have Jack's Darwinian upbringing, Thane's schooling, Garrus' sense of moral outrage or Zaeed's greed.  She kills because of a code she did not write that yields no tangible reward or personal satisfaction.

Which begs the question: If one seeks to take life to defend a moral reasoning, but that moral reasoning is not one's own, how is that different from garden variety murder?

This isn't to say Jack is blameless for her actions, no, far from it.  But at the very least she cops to killing people.  Jack has some weapons in her mental arsenal, but rationalization ain't one of them.

[adriano_c]

Mondo47 wrote...

...you can just murderize them because it's all Cool & The Gang with the Code.

Have you been watching Pulp Fiction recently or something?

I like the assessment, anyway.

[LiquidGrape]

yorkj86 wrote...

Samara is sent in because the people she is directed to kill have killed or corrupted everyone else who has been sent before her.  Notice, she is good at killing, and incorruptible.  A Justicar is a brute-force, last resort for a problem that has resisted solution.  Assigning a Justicar to a problem is a recognition that all else has failed, but something still needs to be done.

The Code is imperfect.  Samara is imperfect.  Justice is imperfect.  The Law is imperfect. 

Samara is just as much the Law as Judge Dredd is the Law, and both operate similarly.  In fact, Judges and Justicars are pretty much the same thing.  Well, almost.

I'd say Samara has more sex appeal than Sylvester Stallone in a jockstrap.

[adriano_c]

royceclemens wrote...

I am talking about a straight up fight, though I'm sorry if I made myself unclear.  You put two people in a fight, one who knows how to kill people but may not want to, while the other knows how and DOES want to, I know which one I'm going to bet on.  Trains of thought and origin do matter in this case, otherwise it's just an episode of DEADLIEST WARRIOR... Which is awesome by the way, I'm not trying to defame that fine show.

Given it's a one-off encounter in the proverbial steel cage, again, I think origin is out the window. Both will do what they need to regardless, and there's ample evidence that neither is adverse to this.

Oh and further disagreement regarding Samara wanting to kill (unless I'm mistaking which you're talking about). She isn't afflicted by some sort of bloodlust, lol.

[Mondo47]

yorkj86 wrote...

Samara is sent in because the people she is directed to kill have killed or corrupted everyone else who has been sent before her.  Notice, she is good at killing, and incorruptible.  A Justicar is a brute-force, last resort for a problem that has resisted solution.  Assigning a Justicar to a problem is a recognition that all else has failed, but something still needs to be done.

The Code is imperfect.  Samara is imperfect.  Justice is imperfect.  The Law is imperfect. 

Samara is just as much the Law as Judge Dredd is the Law, and both operate similarly.  In fact, Judges and Justicars are pretty much the same thing.

Joe Dredd though was always a bastard... total, complete, dyed-in-the-wool bastard. Judge Death was just Dredd with flashier powers. I don't think either was ever supposed to elicit warm sympathetic feelings from us. Samara is though. We're supposed to feel her conflict at slaying her own child, but... I don't know, I just feel like all we get is a sigh and "Well, it had to be done." It doesn't breed any kind of empathy in me for her horrible job - just like I read 2000AD just to see what Dredd was filling with lead this week, not be shocked that he feels a little bad about smacking the **** out of an old lady because her walking stick is tapping too loudly in a low-noise zone.

I prefered Ace Trucking Co. anyways

[MHRazer]

Jackal904 wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

Even when presented with Aresh, Jack took some time to be talked out of it.  Samara, on the other hand, is seen dispatching a neutralized threat the first time you meet her.

Jack would hesitate.  There are things she just plain won't do.  I can't make that guarantee with Samara.  Jack can find nuance that Samara, by the definition of her code, can't.  And that's something you can't beat one on one.

Good point, but Aresh wasn't actively trying to kill her. If they fought I picture Jack starting to win after fighting for some time, she gets Samara in a position for an easy kill, but she would hesitate right before the killing blow, and then Samara would take that opportunity to gain the upper hand and kill Jack.

adriano_c wrote...

To be fair, she doesn't get "warm feelings" from killing, but rather during fights. 

Oh yeah true. Well she has heavily implied she enjoys killing, but I think that was just part of the wall she puts up to not let people close.

Mondo you raise a good point about Samara. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but Samara seems a lot more heartless and unflinching than Jack when it comes to killing people. So yeah, I guess Samara would have a much stronger desire to kill someone, but only for the Code.

I'm not sure I agree with you two that Jack would hesitate in a confrontation with Samara. She might have hesitated in the confrontation with Aresh, but he wasn't an active threat, and at that point she wasn't in "survival mode."

It seems to me that when she gets into survival mode, such as when escaping Teltin and in fights in general, there is no stopping her then. She'll go straight through anybody in her way when she feels threatened, and says as much during her loyalty mission. (Something along the lines of "There was one guard left in my way; he begged for his life.") So if she were in a one-on-one with Samara trying to actively kill her, I don't think there would be a hint of hesitation in anything Jack did. She'd be all out crazy-biotic fighting for survival. 

Now maybe if she got Samara to a point where she had beaten her, Samara was defenseless, and all that was left was to deal the final blow - then Jack might hesitate. But I imagine that would only be if Shepard had changed her a bit through the Paragon romance, because if not Jack says she always does "the smart thing," and letting Samara live to try and kill you again another day would definitely not be the smart thing. 

Could Jack actually beat Samara though? I don't know. I think yes, especially if you take Jack's Purgatory cutscene into account. (That's the kind of survival-mode-biotic-bulldozer-no-hesitation I'm talking about.)

[Ilzairspar]

Mondo47 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Jackal904 wrote...
Mondo you raise a good point about Samara. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but Samara seems a lot more heartless and unflinching than Jack when it comes to killing people. So yeah, I guess Samara would have a much stronger desire to kill someone, but only for the Code.

I think heartless is the wrong word for Samara.
While it's true that she justifies sometimes brutal behaviour by referring to the almighty code, she does occasionally reveal an inability to explain her adherence to it.
She strikes me as a person convinced that there is nothing left in this life for her to experience, and so she clings to an absolute which grants her the "freedom" to live without free will; without any incentive to explore aspects of herself.
This is especially evident if the player approaches her with romantic interest, as she's unable to accept the advances due to her unwavering loyalty to the doctrines she heedlessly abides by.

I'd certainly say Samara has a heart, what I find morally repellant about her is the use of the Code as a miracle hand-cleaner. The Code allows her to paint over the horrors it inflicts in the name of justice or the Greater Good. She still feels pain from it, but the Code is her shield in almost every case.

It seems to me like a Justicar is a mass-murderer with a rulebook; you have to kill evil-doer A, but because pencilpusher B and blandly-loyal evil-doers significant other C get in your way, you can just murderize them because it's all Cool & The Gang with the Code. It seems like the Code's ethos of getting the job done at almost any cost is not too far away from the Renegade Shep ethos of get it done at any cost. We can also argue send a monster to slay a monster, but Samara's monsterishness to me overshadows any guilt or sadness she harbours over her actions. It takes killing her own child to coax any kind of remorse out of her... ****, Lady Macbeth wasn't that hardnosed!

The Code says it's fine... it's almost as transparent an illusion as "God told me to kill those seven people and that dog." That's the one thing I find utterly unappealing in the character; she's not accountable, some book of regs is. It might mean your planet keeps lawful and on the rails having people like that for cops, but they'd have to either be psychopaths or reduce themselves to unfeeling machines to cope with it... which to me adds another string to Samara's rejection of potential relationships - she either doesn't want to 'feel' in case it weakens her resolution to the Code's will, or it's her punishment for chosing the Code as her ethical model and she spuns a little happiness to punish herself.

That's just my impression of it all... I don't consider myself to have examined the character too deeply, so it's probably wide of the mark

What is the name of the Samara thread anyway?  I've always had this theory of her possibly being an Ardat-Yakshi [/b]who 'saw the light' and thats why she won't do any type of romance with Shepard.  They'll probably tell me the idea is cr@p but I'd like to see what they think.
[/b]