89 réponses à ce sujet

[Randy1012]

Might as well include the ME1 characters, too...

Kaidan: Lawful Good
Liara: Neutral Good
Tali: Neutral Good
Jacob: Neutral Good
Garrus: Chaotic Good
Ashley: Lawful Neutral
Miranda: Lawful Neutral
Thane: Lawful Neutral
Samara: Lawful Neutral
Mordin: Neutral
Legion: Neutral
Wrex: Chaotic Neutral
Jack: Chaotic Neutral
Grunt: Chaotic Neutral
Zaeed: Chaotic Neutral
Morinth: Neutral Evil

Modifié par Randy1083, 20 février 2010 - 11:10 .

[Borschtbeet]

The_mango55 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

The reason why Samara is Lawful Nuetral is because she does not ask question's, or make morale decision's on her own.

If she see's some one commiting a crime, she will kill them, it does not matter if what she observes is out of context of the sutiuation, and if you talk to her she will admit that she does not want to know anything about the people she kill's or look outside her code for fear of the guilt she would feel if she killed a good person.

I used an example in another thread for Samara and I will use it here as well, if Samara came across a man1 beating man2 to death she will kill man1. She does not stop the fight or ask question's, she simply kill's him and moves on.

It does not matter if man1 was beating man2 because man2 had man1's daughter tied up in the next room where he was brutally raping and torturing her, had Samara stopped the fight and asked question's she would have found that out, instead she just kill's man1, and man2 gets to go back to raping and torturing once Samara has left.

In that case would you consider an individual who follows a code that mandates they kill innocent people to be lawful neutral?

If Samara were a robot with no free will of her own then I could understand, but she made the conscious decision to become a Justicar and she did it because she thought it was for good.  Therefore I think she is lawful good.

Just because she chose the code because she wants to do good doesn't mean her personal sense of right and wrong is deleted. She upholds the code no matter what her own morality and consious tells her.

That's basically the definition of lawful neutral. In fact IIRC the example they give you is of a judge who carries out sentences that are stern but fair. It doesn't matter whether her intentions were to make the galaxy a better place, many brutal warlords truly believe that under their rule the world will be better.

But if the code is in sync with her own personal beliefs wouldn't that mean that she is not neutral?  If she were neutral, her own personal beliefs wouldn't matter but with Samara her personal beliefs coincide with the code she swore to thus making her lawful good.

[dreman9999]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good".

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Any act of good he did was only because he got paid for it.  When acting on his own he puts his own selfish desires above what is best.  We saw it in his loyalty mission when he let his petty revenge come at the cost of many innocent lives.
He's a scumbag.  Not to say thats a bad thing.  I'm glad the squad in Mass Effect 2 is diverse and I liked Zaeed.

On my second play through I left him to burn because of that.

[Randy1012]

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good".

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Any act of good he did was only because he got paid for it.  When acting on his own he puts his own selfish desires above what is best.  We saw it in his loyalty mission when he let his petty revenge come at the cost of many innocent lives.
He's a scumbag.  Not to say thats a bad thing.  I'm glad the squad in Mass Effect 2 is diverse and I liked Zaeed.

On my second play through I left him to burn because of that.

On my Renegon playthrough I saved him, but didn't make him loyal, so he'll be dying during the mission. On my pure Renegade playthrough, I'll probably leave him to burn.

[Borschtbeet]

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good".

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Any act of good he did was only because he got paid for it.  When acting on his own he puts his own selfish desires above what is best.  We saw it in his loyalty mission when he let his petty revenge come at the cost of many innocent lives.
He's a scumbag.  Not to say thats a bad thing.  I'm glad the squad in Mass Effect 2 is diverse and I liked Zaeed.

On my second play through I left him to burn because of that.

You can leave him behind to die on his loyalty mission?

[The_mango55]

Borschtbeet wrote...

The_mango55 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

The reason why Samara is Lawful Nuetral is because she does not ask question's, or make morale decision's on her own.

If she see's some one commiting a crime, she will kill them, it does not matter if what she observes is out of context of the sutiuation, and if you talk to her she will admit that she does not want to know anything about the people she kill's or look outside her code for fear of the guilt she would feel if she killed a good person.

I used an example in another thread for Samara and I will use it here as well, if Samara came across a man1 beating man2 to death she will kill man1. She does not stop the fight or ask question's, she simply kill's him and moves on.

It does not matter if man1 was beating man2 because man2 had man1's daughter tied up in the next room where he was brutally raping and torturing her, had Samara stopped the fight and asked question's she would have found that out, instead she just kill's man1, and man2 gets to go back to raping and torturing once Samara has left.

In that case would you consider an individual who follows a code that mandates they kill innocent people to be lawful neutral?

If Samara were a robot with no free will of her own then I could understand, but she made the conscious decision to become a Justicar and she did it because she thought it was for good.  Therefore I think she is lawful good.

Just because she chose the code because she wants to do good doesn't mean her personal sense of right and wrong is deleted. She upholds the code no matter what her own morality and consious tells her.

That's basically the definition of lawful neutral. In fact IIRC the example they give you is of a judge who carries out sentences that are stern but fair. It doesn't matter whether her intentions were to make the galaxy a better place, many brutal warlords truly believe that under their rule the world will be better.

But if the code is in sync with her own personal beliefs wouldn't that mean that she is not neutral?  If she were neutral, her own personal beliefs wouldn't matter but with Samara her personal beliefs coincide with the code she swore to thus making her lawful good.

Your own personal morality doesn't matter in D&D terms, because good and evil are absolutes. Just because a brutal dictator think's he's doing good doesn't mean he's got a good alignment.

[dreman9999]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Monochrome Wench wrote...

Samara is not Lawful good. No way. Lawful Neutral perhaps, but it's a matter of perspective. She is folowing a strict code, but if anyone stands in her way, regardless of the reason she will kill them. That she will kill a police woman who is doing her job and is doing nothing wrong says to me that she can not possibly be considered good in anyway.

I agree. She's not performing her Justicar duties out of the goodness of her heart, but bitter hatred towards her daughter extending into any criminal regardless of the degree of his/her crime.

She will kill innocent to get the job done. That's in no way good.

Wrong, she will not kill an innocent, her code forbids that.  She says that her code puts the life of an innocent above the justice for a criminal.

For example: she slaughtered an entire village just to get to Morinth.

I think I must've missed that part.  If it's true then I think it contradicts what she also said about putting the life of an innocent above justice for a criminal.

The Village was not Innocent. They were perverted by Morith and stated worshiping her like a goddess and sacrifice young Asari to her daily. Morith turn that villige evil and attack Samara when she came. So even if Samara kill off that village, she still Lawful Good. She evenspared the young children of the villige who were still innocent.

Also, Samara is not driven by Hate but regret. She did not become a Justicar to go after her daughter but because of all three of here daughters condition. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 février 2010 - 11:29 .

[dreman9999]

Borschtbeet wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good".

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Any act of good he did was only because he got paid for it.  When acting on his own he puts his own selfish desires above what is best.  We saw it in his loyalty mission when he let his petty revenge come at the cost of many innocent lives.
He's a scumbag.  Not to say thats a bad thing.  I'm glad the squad in Mass Effect 2 is diverse and I liked Zaeed.

On my second play through I left him to burn because of that.

You can leave him behind to die on his loyalty mission?

Choose "I do want you on my ship." And then Leave him behind.
And I may have been a Renegade Fem ships but she end up Choatic Neutral. She cared for people and help them but she has a temper and looses control...Alot.
Any way a true Renegade would just help Zaeed kill off Vedo and not help the miners.

[Jzadek72]

Samara is not a good person. She admits it herself that she is merciless and kills even those who are repentant. She is more lawful neutral - bound by a code that forces her to do acts both good and evil.

[Borschtbeet]

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good".

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Any act of good he did was only because he got paid for it.  When acting on his own he puts his own selfish desires above what is best.  We saw it in his loyalty mission when he let his petty revenge come at the cost of many innocent lives.
He's a scumbag.  Not to say thats a bad thing.  I'm glad the squad in Mass Effect 2 is diverse and I liked Zaeed.

On my second play through I left him to burn because of that.

You can leave him behind to die on his loyalty mission?

Choose "I do want you on my ship." And then Leave him behind.
And I may have been a Renegade Fem ships but she end up Choatic Neutral. She cared for people and help them but she has a temper and looses control...Alot.
Any way a true Renegade would just help Zaeed kill off Vedo and not help the miners.

Very cool.  Anyone know if you get paragon or renegade points for it?

[RPGmom28]

Great thread. Very thought-provoking. I usually play my first run-through in any game as Lawful Good, because it's closest to what I am. It's very natural to make decisions the way I would. Sometimes when certain characters...ahem, Zaeed... want things done that I don't agree with, I can almost see the 'red aura' clashing with my blue. Thanks, KOTOR. =)



I agreed with almost all of your choices save that of Renegade Shepard. He/she can seem downright spiteful sometimes with red conversation trees.

[dreman9999]

Borschtbeet wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good".

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Any act of good he did was only because he got paid for it.  When acting on his own he puts his own selfish desires above what is best.  We saw it in his loyalty mission when he let his petty revenge come at the cost of many innocent lives.
He's a scumbag.  Not to say thats a bad thing.  I'm glad the squad in Mass Effect 2 is diverse and I liked Zaeed.

On my second play through I left him to burn because of that.

You can leave him behind to die on his loyalty mission?

Choose "I do want you on my ship." And then Leave him behind.
And I may have been a Renegade Fem ships but she end up Choatic Neutral. She cared for people and help them but she has a temper and looses control...Alot.
Any way a true Renegade would just help Zaeed kill off Vedo and not help the miners.

Very cool.  Anyone know if you get paragon or renegade points for it?

You get both. Though I don't think he's Dead. The mission log state "Assumes" as a major key word for his death and he did say he servived a bullet wound in the head due to pure rage and......
His right behind me isn't he.........

[Borschtbeet]

Oh man! I am so going to kill Zaeed!

[TheUnusualSuspect]

Some interesting choices above.  This thread is interesting more as a social experiment to see where people view actions, and is probably more useful as a tool for looking at oneself and one's own moral compass, rather than anything else.

Having said that, here's my take, and therein, an insight into my own moral code:

Paragon Shepard => Neutral Good.  He does the good thing, without regard for laws, but still believes in the general order of things.  There are moments where he's lawful, and moments where he's chaotic, but he's always generally good, so that must make him generally neutral good.

Renegade Shepard => Chaotic Evil.  He's doesn't really give a crap for anyone else's issues, he doesn't give a crap for laws, and he's a bully.  His motivation is revenge, power, and to put a stop to whatever's threatening him and his team of lick-spittles.  He's wholly self-centered, and will execute anyone who gets in his way (when given the choice).

Mordin => Neutral.  This guy is the epitome of Neutral in my opinion.  Cold, scientific, calculating, morally ambiguous, doing whatever is necessary to keep balance within the Galaxy, and will fight for whatever cause that prevents the balance from being upset.  Science/knowledge is neutral and impartial, and that is how Mordin lives his life.

Samara => Lawful Neutral.  She is the ultimate Lawful Neutral character.  She lives, dies, kill,. and saves, all according to the code.  Her personal feelings about things doesn't even matter.  If her code says you must die, then she will kill you.  She says that it doesn't matter if someone is a father and killing him may cause more harm, the father must die according to her code.  A truly good person would consider the ramifications of their actions and its impact.  Samara does not.  She's all "code", and this she is not Good.

Grunt => Neutral to Lawful Neutral.  Grunt is a hard one to judge.  He simply does what he does, and has trouble understanding why he should care about anything.  Later in the game he develops a reason to care, but he often refers to Shepard as his BattleMaster and the Normandy's crew as his krannt (family), and thus feels bound by the code of his ancestors and "clan" to serve under Shepard's direction.

Garrus => Chaotic Good.  Easy.  He's the ME2 equivalent of a dark version of Robin Hood.  In ME1 I would've said he was Neutral Good.  However, towards the end of ME2, I've used Garrus a fair bit and he rarely balks at ReneShep's more nasty side, so I may lean towards classifying Garrus as Chaotic Neutral.

Jack => Chaotic Evil.  About as clear as that one gets.  She's out for herself, wholly, and blowing up stations shows zero regard for any innocents on board.  She'd be a war criminal monster in any jurisdiction, her background sob story aside.  She kills any who gets in her way, without regard or remorse.  Don't know how anyone could classify an unrepentant mass-murder as anything but evil in the truest sense.

Morinth => Neutral Evil.  Clear as day to me.  Wholly concerned with her own self gratification.  Kills for pleasure, and justifies it as doing the victim a favor.  Evil, evil, evil.  She doesn't fancy rules, but she's also no agent of chaos, which makes her just plain evil, or in D&D terms, neutral evil.  Unsure how anyone could ever view her as non-evil.  Too many suckers falling for her "I'm hard done by" sob-story is my guess.

Jacob => Lawful Good/Neutral.  A soldier. Lives and dies by the rules of combat, but wants to do the good thing for humanity as a whole.  He distrusts TIM, but sees Cerberus as the best chance he has to continue to do good in the service of a para-miltary unit.  His loyalty mission makes it absolutely unambiguous as to where he sits on the moral compass scale.  There are rules that simply cannot be broken, and things that you simply don't do, no matter the situation.  He's close to about as Lawful as it gets without being a zealot like Samara, but does still ponder about what is the best/right/good thing to do.

Miranda => starts off Lawful Neutral, becomes more Neutral Good by end game.  Follows the rules, is a team player, and justifies Cerberus's action as being for the greater good while overlooking the moral ambiguity of it all.  Towards the end she learns to stop following orders blindly, and develops a stronger conscience for doing the right/good thing (ParaShep path).  Otherwise, remains Lawful Neutral (ReneShep).

Zaeed =>  Chaotic Evil.  Seems fairly obvious.  A mercenary bully.  His loyalty mission dissolve any notion of goodness where he's willing to sacrifice the lives of the trapped workers for his goals.  Selfish monetary interests are the only things that speak to him.  The guy is about as close to classic Chaotic Evil as it gets.  Too many people seem to confuse Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Stupid, and Zaeed therefore confuses such people.  He's not stupid, but there's no shred of goodness in him.  He rules with an iron fist and kills without mercy, purely because the money tells him to.

Thane => Lawful Neutral (early life) developing to Neutral/Chaotic Good.  He is a "weapon".  A gun.  He is detached from his body and has no moral perception or consequence during his early life.  He follows orders and does what he's told and doesn't question.  After his wife dies he goes rogue and tries to do good by killing bad people, almost being identical to Garrus/Archangel in that respect.

Tali => Neutral Good.  She does what she has to, for the good of her people, but she's not a zealot.

Legion => Neutral.  He/it is a machine, and wants to build consensus for a peaceful co-existence with organic sapient life.

The Illusive Man => Lawful Evil.  A well organised businessman who runs a tight ship, and does whatever it takes to see his vision through, no matter the expense to others.  He sees himself as the necessary ruthless organised "evil" in order to see that humanity continues to prosper.

Whew, long post.  Did I forget anyone?

[dan107]

This thread is the perfect example of why D&D type "alignments" are stupid..

[BattleVisor]

TIM: Lawful evil

[Enuhal]

The_mango55 wrote...

Yeah a lot of these are wrong.

Most neutral characters have good goals. Even some evil people have good goals. It's how they accomplish the goals that defines alignment.

Garrus: CG very close to N - If you let him kill Saleon and Sidonis he probably moves to N
Jack: CN very close to CE - If you get her to kill the guy she probably moves to evil.
Tali: NG
Grunt: CN - his philosophy (fight and see who is strongest) is very close to the CN god Tempus.
Morinth: NE
Miranda: LN
Jacob: NG
Mordin: N
Thane: N
Samara: LN
Legion: N

I have to agree with this list.

[Borschtbeet]

Dammit I'm bumping this damned thread up!

[mabalogna]

ZAEED IS NOT CHAOTIC EVIL! Nor is he any level of evil, he's got more morals and ethics then someone like Jack.

infact from what I understand from my limited experience with DnD, no character in the main story can truely be chaotic evil - except for maybe Morinth. A chaotic evil person would have to have no regard for anyones life, and does the most vile and ruthless things imaginable in order to see their ambitions seen through.



I would classify Zaeed more as a Chaotic Neutral. The man definatly has little regard for the law, but he does stand by his own morality. He is against killing civilians, hates slavers, and is not some heartless assassin who takes every contract that passes him by. Case in point is if you take Zaeed to Illium and goto the security office, he tells sheppard about his ethics towards taking contracts and killing. The man may be a bounty hunter, but he is not some meniacle madman going around killing everyone because hes a sadistic bastard.



Of all the character assesments I read, the few people who label Zaeed as Chaotic Evil just comes off as wrong.

[mabalogna]

double postage.

Modifié par mabalogna, 21 février 2010 - 06:44 .

[aaniadyen]

Volus Biotic God: Chaotic awesome. No explanation required.

[Skilled Seeker]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

How is Zaeed evil, or even a scumbag? Did you listen to any of his dialogues onboard Normandy or during missions? He has killed pirates and slavers, saved children along his mission and save freighters from Krogan raiders. Hell, he gives more of a damn about saving human lives than most of your squad mates. Chaotic Neutral is obviously a better suited designation for Zaeed.

Grunt is more Chaotic Neutral for me. Don't think anyone who fights for fun can be classified as "good". Also he has no respect for order or law whatsoever. He only respects Shepard out of sheer combat poweress.

Agreed with Morinth being neutral.

Agree with this guy.

[Steven the Hawk]

The Angry One wrote...

Samara: Lawful Stupid

Pretty much. Ignoring both morality and expediency in favor of a rigid code is what Lawful Stupid is all about.

[Aisynia]

mabalogna wrote...

ZAEED IS NOT CHAOTIC EVIL! Nor is he any level of evil, he's got more morals and ethics then someone like Jack.
infact from what I understand from my limited experience with DnD, no character in the main story can truely be chaotic evil - except for maybe Morinth. A chaotic evil person would have to have no regard for anyones life, and does the most vile and ruthless things imaginable in order to see their ambitions seen through.

I would classify Zaeed more as a Chaotic Neutral. The man definatly has little regard for the law, but he does stand by his own morality. He is against killing civilians, hates slavers, and is not some heartless assassin who takes every contract that passes him by. Case in point is if you take Zaeed to Illium and goto the security office, he tells sheppard about his ethics towards taking contracts and killing. The man may be a bounty hunter, but he is not some meniacle madman going around killing everyone because hes a sadistic bastard.

Of all the character assesments I read, the few people who label Zaeed as Chaotic Evil just comes off as wrong.

For sure. He also hates terrorists and doesn't torture people.

[Schneidend]

For once, Borschtbeet, you've posted something that didn't make me wish horrible things would happen to you. Kudos. I pretty much agree with all you've posted, though I would argue that Jack is more Chaotic Evil, as she does revel in the destruction she causes and actively seeks to cause destruction. Chaotic Neutral characters don't generally endeavor to cause collateral damage on purpose.

aaniadyen wrote...



What the **** are you talking about? (4th ed never happened).

4th edition is awesome.

Cutlass Jack wrote...



4th Edition isn't D&D. Its WoW without a computer.

I hear this a lot, and simply do not understand the correlation. At all. I've played D&D since Bladur's Gate (never played any 2nd edition tabletop, sadly) and later 3rd Edition, and I've also played WoW, and I don't really see any similarities other than the fact that both have magic and demihumans. Care to explain this to me, Jack?