95 réponses à ce sujet

[rabbitchannel]

Oh, I've got one. If you still stick to your line of reasoning of, "you don't need a certain squad member because he/she is not useful/can be replaced by another during the suicide mission", since you know that, you will also know that Jack is NOT a liability and that she didn't do anything that negatively affected the mission. Thus, there is not reason not to bring her. You know she will not bring you harm.

[The Angry One]

Oawa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

So under what possible variable is a psychotic, unstable biotic useful for anything?
Even if Jack wasn't a colossal wimp who talks big, she'd still be a liability... and pro-Jacks have the nerve to criticise Morinth. Morinth may be a sociopathic rapist but at least she can hold her own in a fight and you can be reasonable sure she won't just start tearing up the ship for fun.

I totally understand what you're saying, but if you really think about it psychotic, and unstable are perspective terms used by people who have or think they are in control.

That's like a slaver claiming a slave that fought for their own freedom is psychotic and unstable because they didn't conform to what the slaver wanted out of them.

By Jack's own admission she's unstable. Either she's lying, which makes her a liability, or she really did engage in kidnapping, murder and terrorism, which makes her a liability.
Also she looks like a freakin piñata.

Ironically though it'd be my Paragon who'd want to keep her, feeling sympathy for her horrible upbringing and trying to save her.
My Renegade on the other hand sees Jack as a dog who needs to be put down. Too bad that can't be done.. early on, anyway.

[kraidy1117]

You humans are all racist!

[Oawa]

The Angry One wrote...

By Jack's own admission she's unstable. Either she's lying, which makes her a liability, or she really did engage in kidnapping, murder and terrorism, which makes her a liability.
Also she looks like a freakin piñata.

Ironically though it'd be my Paragon who'd want to keep her, feeling sympathy for her horrible upbringing and trying to save her.
My Renegade on the other hand sees Jack as a dog who needs to be put down. Too bad that can't be done.. early on, anyway.

I understand what you're saying here as well, but does Jack really think she's unstable, or does she say that because she's been conditioned to, after years of being told she was.

Jack is a very troubled individual no doubt about that.  She has no idea of who she really is, and had no guidance growing up.  Her morals are not the same as someone that has had someone there that truly cared about her well being.  She's basically been reduced to relying on her most basic of instincts.  Survival.  Like a feral child.

p.s. Just a side note.  I'm really enjoying this thread.  It's like personal therapy for me hah!

Modifié par Oawa, 27 février 2010 - 04:18 .

[smstarkiller]

I am surprised that no one brought up being forced to work for Cerberus when a "true paragon" wouldn't work for them knowing what they did in the past.

[newcomplex]

The only mandatory squadmates are Jacob+Miranda, Jack, Garrus, and Mordin. Every other one is optional.

I mean, that less then half.   ME1 featured four mandatory squad members, with only two being optional.

Modifié par newcomplex, 27 février 2010 - 04:43 .

[Djehutynakht]

Oawa wrote...



Of course I don't consider being judgemental as a personality defect. I see it as a definition of ones character, and what makes each one of us who we are, for better or worse.

Well, perhaps "personality defect" was a tad harsh. My point is that meeting Jack is akin to boarding the Princess of the Seas and finding a pile of corpses and one happy grinning lunatic covered in their blood and dancing a jig while singing "I like murder." I don't think it's being judgmental to say that I don't really want that person on my team. Judgmental would be refusing Garrus because he didn't stick with C-Sec, or refusing Thane because you don't like lizards.

For arguments sake, I can't remember when we get the dossier on Samara, but I believe it's already after we recruited Jack. Up until that point, Jack is our only option for a strong biotic. To quote Spock "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one".

You have a point. Jack isn't actually a powerful biotic, but that's a matter of game mechanics not living up to the plot. Even so, I'm not sure I could justify it. Jack is dangerously unstable. She threatens to kill you, your crew, and more or less every living thing in the galaxy. How can you trust her to fight the Collectors, or the Reapers? She probably thinks the Reapers have the right idea, and would be willing to pull a Saren -- not because she's mind-controlled, but because she'd enjoy it. It's too great a risk to take someone that dangerous, unstable, and downright mad on a mission this important.

... but if you really think about it psychotic, and unstable are perspective terms used by people who have or think they are in control.



That's like a slaver claiming a slave that fought for their own freedom is psychotic and unstable because they didn't conform to what the slaver wanted out of them.

Wow. No. Not at all. Completely wrong. "Psychotic" is a psychological term. It isn't about controlling the people locked up in asylums, it's about trying to understand what makes them that way. And Jack is demonstrably unstable, not just "unstable" because I want her under my thumb.



The slaver analogy doesn't work, either. For one thing, fighting for freedom does not mean one cannot be unstable or psychotic. It is entirely possible to have a dedicated freedom-fighter who is completely insane. If a slave breaks free of his captors and kills them, that's fighting for freedom. If that same slave then kills his captors' families, all their friends, their friends' families, their friends' families dogs, that person who looked at him while he was crossing the street, a school full of children, and so on, that's no longer fighting for freedom. That's being monstrously insane and evil.



You don't get a free pass on all future bad behavior if you were treated badly yourself. We don't welcome home prisoners of war who were tortured for years by giving them a rifle and saying, "Now go shoot anyone you want. Kill New York. All of it. It's fine, you were tortured, so you can't be a bad person no matter what."



I have great sympathy for Jack, for what she endured. That doesn't mean I must excuse her murders.



I will say that this discussion has made me reconsider my position regarding Jack. I now see two possibilities. Either she is sufficiently rational that she is in control of her actions, in which case she is evil and must be dealt with appropriately. Or she is insane, not capable of controlling her actions, in which case she is a dangerous lunatic who can never be trusted for a moment, and must be confined for her own good and the good of others.



As written, there's just no way to make accepting Jack a Paragon -- or even a rational -- action.

[Landline]

I think the squad mates are forced on us in order to ensure that we have enough body's to get through the suicide mission.



Try going through the suicide mission loosing a team mate at every opportunity right up until the final boss fight, you should find that you've only got two or three left.

[Booglarize]

Speculation regarding Jack's mental health aside, everything you learn about her (both from her and third-party sources regarding her history) indicates that, when it comes down to it, she does what it takes to survive and get the job done.



Also, given the dramatic change of heart she has once she comes aboard the Normandy (if you say the right things to her), it seems that her disposition was more a product of her past environments than something inherent to her.

[Booglarize]

Djehutynakht wrote...

I have great sympathy for Jack, for what she endured. That doesn't mean I must excuse her murders.

When it comes down to it, Thane and Samara are murderers too - they just have more eloquent rationalizations for the various people they kill (Samara's "code" and Thane's 'my body is just a weapon' spiel). To me, it looks like Jack's only flaw in this regard is that she doesn't bother with flimsy excuses and actually accepts her own agency regarding the things she did. I think I actually respect her more for that. 

[sonsonthebia07]

Well, you could just be a dick to characters you don't want on the Normandy until the suicide mission, and then purposely kill them off. But apparently that is too difficult.



And as you are working for TIM, what he says goes for the most part.

[Cascadus]

You know if you really hate Zaeed, just do his loyalty mission and leave him to die under the burning metal girder thing. On top of that you can smack that fellow silly.

[kanodin]

Booglarize wrote...

Djehutynakht wrote...

I have great sympathy for Jack, for what she endured. That doesn't mean I must excuse her murders.

When it comes down to it, Thane and Samara are murderers too - they just have more eloquent rationalizations for the various people they kill (Samara's "code" and Thane's 'my body is just a weapon' spiel). To me, it looks like Jack's only flaw in this regard is that she doesn't bother with flimsy excuses and actually accepts her own agency regarding the things she did. I think I actually respect her more for that. 

You've got a point with Thane, but Samaras code is primarily to stop criminals, while their is a small possibility of her killing innocents because the code demands it she will avoid doing so as much as possible with her limited freedom. It's still extreme but hardly on the same level as the murder for fun Jack regularly commits.

Further, both Thane and Samara avoid casualties, especially of innocents, Jack revels in killing as many as she can, that's what makes her a liability that some would like to avoid.

[kanodin]

sonsonthebia07 wrote...

Well, you could just be a dick to characters you don't want on the Normandy until the suicide mission, and then purposely kill them off. But apparently that is too difficult.

And as you are working for TIM, what he says goes for the most part.

So obey TIM or what? He stops you, the guy he spent 4 billion bringing back to life, from completing the one job he needs from you that could save millions of human lifes from the collectors and then the Reapers. TIM doesn't have much he can use against you without shooting himself in the foot.

[sonsonthebia07]

kanodin wrote...

sonsonthebia07 wrote...

Well, you could just be a dick to characters you don't want on the Normandy until the suicide mission, and then purposely kill them off. But apparently that is too difficult.

And as you are working for TIM, what he says goes for the most part.

So obey TIM or what? He stops you, the guy he spent 4 billion bringing back to life, from completing the one job he needs from you that could save millions of human lifes from the collectors and then the Reapers. TIM doesn't have much he can use against you without shooting himself in the foot.

Well from the start TIM is the only one doing anything about the Reapers, so yes. Information is his weapon.

[Oawa]

kanodin wrote...

Booglarize wrote...

Djehutynakht wrote...

I have great sympathy for Jack, for what she endured. That doesn't mean I must excuse her murders.

When it comes down to it, Thane and Samara are murderers too - they just have more eloquent rationalizations for the various people they kill (Samara's "code" and Thane's 'my body is just a weapon' spiel). To me, it looks like Jack's only flaw in this regard is that she doesn't bother with flimsy excuses and actually accepts her own agency regarding the things she did. I think I actually respect her more for that. 

You've got a point with Thane, but Samaras code is primarily to stop criminals, while their is a small possibility of her killing innocents because the code demands it she will avoid doing so as much as possible with her limited freedom. It's still extreme but hardly on the same level as the murder for fun Jack regularly commits.

Further, both Thane and Samara avoid casualties, especially of innocents, Jack revels in killing as many as she can, that's what makes her a liability that some would like to avoid.

I'm not quite sure I understand where this "murders for fun" concept of Jack comes from.

[kanodin]

Well there is her statement that they gave her drugs every time she won a fight, and that she still gets warm feelings after killing someone in her loyalty quest. But fun may be the wrong word, point is she goes out of her way to kill innocent civilians.

[Kaosu Haze]

Djehutynakht wrote...

Kaosu Haze, necessity requires no such thing (unless you're a Machiavellian thinker, which isn't terribly Paragonish). Shepard was able to say that necessity does not justify taking the Collector base, and that would have been a hell of a lot more useful than one psychotic biotic. Also, taking help where you can find it should have limits. Jack is worse than all the famous serial killers from real human history put together. If you gave her a puppy she'd strangle it and laugh.

Now you're changing the context.

Recruiting Jack: You need a team of specialists to destroy the Collector Base. According to the dossiers that TIM provides, Jack is an incredibly powerful biotic, always useful to have. Unfortunately she's dangerous and unstable. Well ****, she's all we've got.
Risk: Your own personal safety, safety of a few others if she goes back to her old ways, albeit keep in mind, you cut a deal with her, you should have nothing to fear unless you go back on your word.
Reward: Powerful ally to take on the Collectors.
You may not like her, but hey, you're out to save the galaxy. The Galaxy >>> Your preference. Suck up your pride and deal with it.

Keeping the base: Oh hey Shep it's me TIM, you know that base you've been trying to destroy and have probably lost people doing so? Give it to me instead and I may be able to get something to help us against the Reapers, and then Cerberus(Quote: Cerberus IS Humanity) can dominate the galaxy.
Risk: The Galaxy? You'd be turning over an incredibly powerful base filled with all kinds of Reaper Tech to a 'terrorist organization'(paragon opinion), and we've all seen what happens when people mess around with Reaper tech as is.
Reward: Possible weapons against the Reapers.
No justification for this as a Paragon. Too much risk for a potential reward.

Jack is NOT worse than famous serial killers. You simply hate the character and seem to be trying to press your opinion as fact.
As for your whole 'she's a psychopath' argument. No, no she isn't. She's disturbed. Psychopaths tend to exibit a complete lack of empathy or emotion. I challenge you to prove to anyone Jack lacks emotion, mostly rage, paragon romance shows sorrow, as well as happiness to an extent. Additionally during her loyalty she displays genuine concern/panic at hearing that the Cerberus cell may have set up elsewhere.
And to conclude; Psychopaths are born with their issues, it's hereditary. Jack if anything leans more towards being a sociopath - her problems are a result of what she went through as a child. Hell, she was conditioned with narcotics to enjoy fighting.

Oh and lol at the 'If you gave her a puppy she'd strangle it and laugh.", you're just showing that all this is is your personal hatred of the character.

If anything I'd agree with The Angry One's assesment of Jack however, either way she is a liability. I just happen to disagree with what you think, and although you're entitled to your opinion, you should stop stating it as a fact.

Modifié par Kaosu Haze, 27 février 2010 - 05:36 .

[Booglarize]

kanodin wrote...

Booglarize wrote...

Djehutynakht wrote...

I have great sympathy for Jack, for what she endured. That doesn't mean I must excuse her murders.

When it comes down to it, Thane and Samara are murderers too - they just have more eloquent rationalizations for the various people they kill (Samara's "code" and Thane's 'my body is just a weapon' spiel). To me, it looks like Jack's only flaw in this regard is that she doesn't bother with flimsy excuses and actually accepts her own agency regarding the things she did. I think I actually respect her more for that. 

You've got a point with Thane, but Samaras code is primarily to stop criminals, while their is a small possibility of her killing innocents because the code demands it she will avoid doing so as much as possible with her limited freedom. It's still extreme but hardly on the same level as the murder for fun Jack regularly commits.

Further, both Thane and Samara avoid casualties, especially of innocents, Jack revels in killing as many as she can, that's what makes her a liability that some would like to avoid.

See, I just don't buy Samara's justification (or, more appropriately, I don't buy that it puts her that far above Jack, if at all). When you first meet her, she kills an unarmed and defenseless mercenary, and she was fully prepared to kill that police chief too and her reasoning behind that made no sense whatsoever. Bear in mind that she's been doing this for hundreds of years so if those actions are any indication, it stands to reason that she's killed a good number of innocents over that time.

As for Thane, perhaps he avoids casualties as a result of his own direct actions, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with leaving a trail of bodies in his wake all the same - the bystanders killed by the mercenaries in the hotel wouldn't have had to die if he hadn't pursued that contract. And that's not even considering the possibility that some of his own past targets were innocent themselves - Thane explicitly states that it never mattered to him one way or another, so it stands to reason that some of them might not have deserved to die. 

As for Jack, I'm not entirely sure what the tally of her victims really is in terms of how many were people who had actually screwed with her, and how many were innocents she killed for the heck of it. In terms of numbers of innocents killed, though, I doubt very highly that she'd have either Thane or Samara beat. The only real difference as I see it, again, is that she doesn't bother making excuses for herself. And it wouldn't make sense for me to hold that against her. 

[Vaenier]

If I had a choice, I would not have broke Jack out of prison. Who's bright idea is it to bring a mentally unstable murderer on the super important mission into enemy territory? I don't care how strong she is or what her past is, she is damaged goods and a liability to my crew's safety and the missions success.

I wish I could leave Miranda with TIM, I just never liked her. But she isn't a threat to the mission so it is acceptable to have her on the ship. I do want to give her fancy room to Tali and make her sleep in the crew bunks though.

I really wanted to bring Liara; it was annoying that they forced her into a cameo role to avoid the suicide mission. Same goes for Ashley. I would rather they get rid of the suicide mission than ruin these characters.

Hopefully in ME3, we get control of OUR ship and OUR crew...

[GenericPlayer2]

rab****annel wrote...
I think arguments that so-and-so was useless and we could have completed the mission with or without him/her are incorrect. At the time of recruitment you/Shepard had no idea how the suicide mission would play out. You had no idea who or what you would need. The objective of recruiting all these people is to increase the probability of survival and success. Therefore, that argument would imply that Shepard has some sort of omniscience that enables him to say, "oh, in the future I definitely know I won't be needing Jack because I'll be recruiting Samara successfully and get everyone else I need too. I'll be getting Legion in the Reaper and put him in the vents and Samara can be our biotic specialist". Which is not that case. Had you been on your first playthrough and not completed the game yet, you would not have made that argument.

This is more than a numbers game. If I went by 'need to recruit people for mission' Shep would have offered Verner a spot on the Normandy. Jack's introduction and first conversation presents her as an extreme liability to the mission and NOT an asset. If the player wants to take a chance on her then fine, but if you want to take the RP angle then there are plenty of reasons to leave her on the station.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 27 février 2010 - 05:52 .

[kanodin]

Booglarize wrote...

kanodin wrote...

Booglarize wrote...

Djehutynakht wrote...

I have great sympathy for Jack, for what she endured. That doesn't mean I must excuse her murders.

When it comes down to it, Thane and Samara are murderers too - they just have more eloquent rationalizations for the various people they kill (Samara's "code" and Thane's 'my body is just a weapon' spiel). To me, it looks like Jack's only flaw in this regard is that she doesn't bother with flimsy excuses and actually accepts her own agency regarding the things she did. I think I actually respect her more for that. 

You've got a point with Thane, but Samaras code is primarily to stop criminals, while their is a small possibility of her killing innocents because the code demands it she will avoid doing so as much as possible with her limited freedom. It's still extreme but hardly on the same level as the murder for fun Jack regularly commits.

Further, both Thane and Samara avoid casualties, especially of innocents, Jack revels in killing as many as she can, that's what makes her a liability that some would like to avoid.

See, I just don't buy Samara's justification (or, more appropriately, I don't buy that it puts her that far above Jack, if at all). When you first meet her, she kills an unarmed and defenseless mercenary, and she was fully prepared to kill that police chief too and her reasoning behind that made no sense whatsoever. Bear in mind that she's been doing this for hundreds of years so if those actions are any indication, it stands to reason that she's killed a good number of innocents over that time.

As for Thane, perhaps he avoids casualties as a result of his own direct actions, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with leaving a trail of bodies in his wake all the same - the bystanders killed by the mercenaries in the hotel wouldn't have had to die if he hadn't pursued that contract. And that's not even considering the possibility that some of his own past targets were innocent themselves - Thane explicitly states that it never mattered to him one way or another, so it stands to reason that some of them might not have deserved to die. 

As for Jack, I'm not entirely sure what the tally of her victims really is in terms of how many were people who had actually screwed with her, and how many were innocents she killed for the heck of it. In terms of numbers of innocents killed, though, I doubt very highly that she'd have either Thane or Samara beat. The only real difference as I see it, again, is that she doesn't bother making excuses for herself. And it wouldn't make sense for me to hold that against her. 

I'm not really arguing that Thane and Samara are morally superior to Jack, more that they are not a liability. Consider the oath Samara swears to you that she will obey any order, as long as that is in effect you can trust her completely. Thane makes it very clear that he takes no pleasure in killing and has no reason to try and kill anyone on your crew.

Compare this to Jack who could at any time decide to start attacking you or your crew for no good reason, their is absolutely no reason to trust her and she could have done more harm then good for the mission.

I know I said I wasn't arguing that they are morally superior, but there few points in favor of Thane and Samara that you may not have considered.
 
For Samara she is basically the highest representative of Asari law, and no innocent asaris would ever get in her way on an asari world. The problem is that she left asari space where she was much more likely to have to kill innocents, within asari space she would almost certainly only kill criminals.

For Thane, remember that he does go out of his way to save those Salarian workers by shooting the mercs about to kill them. He put them in danger in the first place of course but he atleast got them out of it as well.

[GenericPlayer2]

Kaosu Haze wrote...
Now you're changing the context.

Recruiting Jack: You need a team of specialists to destroy the Collector Base. According to the dossiers that TIM provides, Jack is an incredibly powerful biotic, always useful to have. Unfortunately she's dangerous and unstable. Well ****, she's all we've got.
Risk: Your own personal safety, safety of a few others if she goes back to her old ways, albeit keep in mind, you cut a deal with her, you should have nothing to fear unless you go back on your word.
Reward: Powerful ally to take on the Collectors.
You may not like her, but hey, you're out to save the galaxy. The Galaxy >>> Your preference. Suck up your pride and deal with it.

No one is changing context. Grunt is a super-soldier that is always useful. Legion is a super hacker, that is always useful. Yet both are optional. Jack is powerful, but she is also a liability. She hates Cerberus, threatens to destroy the Normandy, jeopardizes the mission by accosting other team mates in their quarters. These problems do not outweigh her alleged power. If it did, then having her on the team would assure success and survival, but it does not. She is one out of MANY factors that affect success, and in no way a critical part.

[Booglarize]

kanodin wrote...


I'm not really arguing that Thane and Samara are morally superior to Jack, more that they are not a liability. Consider the oath Samara swears to you that she will obey any order, as long as that is in effect you can trust her completely. Thane makes it very clear that he takes no pleasure in killing and has no reason to try and kill anyone on your crew.

Compare this to Jack who could at any time decide to start attacking you or your crew for no good reason, their is absolutely no reason to trust her and she could have done more harm then good for the mission.

I know I said I wasn't arguing that they are morally superior, but there few points in favor of Thane and Samara that you may not have considered.
 
For Samara she is basically the highest representative of Asari law, and no innocent asaris would ever get in her way on an asari world. The problem is that she left asari space where she was much more likely to have to kill innocents, within asari space she would almost certainly only kill criminals.

For Thane, remember that he does go out of his way to save those Salarian workers by shooting the mercs about to kill them. He put them in danger in the first place of course but he atleast got them out of it as well.

Ah, okay. I agree that Jack does represent more of a risk based on the information you have when you first meet her (though subsequent conversations with her do ultimately vindicate your decision to bring her aboard). And even though I like Jack myself, I'd have to say that I also agree that leaving her on Purgatory should be a choice. Kind of like how it was with Dragon Age - people like Zevran and Sten you had the choice of killing outright instead of having them join your party (I think you may be able to kill Wynne as well, but you'd have to be one evil bastard to do that). As for me, I think risks ultimately make the game more fun and exciting.

Though regarding Thane, I should add that he only partially mitigates the civilian casualties brought about by his contract - if you talk to the trapped workers, they tell you that there were more Salarians on the upper floors, but that they're likely all dead by now. 

Modifié par Booglarize, 27 février 2010 - 06:29 .

[GenericPlayer2]

TIM: Its unfortunate the Blue Suns double crossed us like this. Did you get a hold of Subject Zero?

Shep: She refused to come with us, and was mentally unstable. Given the fact that she single handedly destroyed Purgatory station I decided she would be a liability.

TIM: She was a powerful biotic! You need someone with those abilities on the mission!

Shep: Agreed, do you have anyone else you can suggest?

TIM: Yes, there is an Asari Justicar on Ilium....



Now if that dialog was in the game, would the pro-Jack brigade in this thread come out and say that not recruiting her didn't make any sense? The fact is, having a choice to leave her on that station makes perfect sense whether you are RPing or metagaming. And those saying I can get her killed on the suicide mission, the only way to do that is to make her lead the second fire team or take her with me to the final boss. Those options make even less sense for someone I am already convinced is a liability.