290 réponses à ce sujet

[DuffyMJ]

The Angry One wrote...

Azint wrote...

Am I the only one who thought of the Sunry trial in KOTOR?

I did too, and it has similar warped morals.
Granted, this isn't as outright horrible as that one.
In this case, you can reason that you need Tali and the Quarians ignorant of the truth at least until the Reapers are defeated.
In the KOTOR trial, you're outright supposed to get a murderer off free with lies, intimidation and evidence witholding just because he's a Republic agent and the victim was a Sith agent (the murder not being done for any cause to benefit the Republic, and the agent having no information that would warrant absolving him)

This is so f'd up.  It is not Shepard's duty in his assigned role as Tali's advocate in this particular adjudication process to have any care of concern about the Quarian people or what they are/aren't ignorant of.  This is THE QUARIANS vs. Tali, why on Earth would incriminating Tali's father (and her as an ignorant collaborator, as well) be "the right thing to do"?  

Like I said before, the right thing to do would probably be for Shepard to recuse himself from serving as Tali's advocate, but that was not an option, and so Shepard's first duty is his obligation to defend his client to the fullest extent (providing incriminating evidence of her by association with her father's activities is NOT conductive to this end.) 

It's as simple as that. 

[Azint]

The Angry One wrote...

Azint wrote...

Am I the only one who thought of the Sunry trial in KOTOR?

I did too, and it has similar warped morals.
Granted, this isn't as outright horrible as that one.
In this case, you can reason that you need Tali and the Quarians ignorant of the truth at least until the Reapers are defeated.
In the KOTOR trial, you're outright supposed to get a murderer off free with lies, intimidation and evidence witholding just because he's a Republic agent and the victim was a Sith agent (the murder not being done for any cause to benefit the Republic, and the agent having no information that would warrant absolving him)

Well of course, it's not as morally grey.

My own input; you are there to defend Tali, no less no more. Sure you can break the already fractured flotilla but I'm pretty sure that will have big reprucussions in ME3.

[Zulu_DFA]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature? 

I assume your referring to Shiala.  I have seen this come up several times and would like to point out that she made the decision to align herself with Saren.  Granted that Saren used her and the Thorian possessed her, but an argument could still be made that she couldn't be trusted and still pose a threat because of her alignment.  The only option was to kill her or release her, not arrest her.

I kill Shiala for one reason. She was in my brain during the Cypher transfer, and there's a lot of classified information there. I would prefer to lock her up too, but there is no such option.

[Schroing]

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

[DuffyMJ]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

You'll have to point out the Volus and which Alliance Loyalist you're referring to here.

Volus AMBASSADOR. And Ashley Stupid Williams.

But don't bother.

Actually I like Mordin's explanation: Life is a game, and so on. And it's not like you should restrain yourself, if you're a better player. (This goes more to TIM, than renegade Shepard).

Look I live in a capitalist society, and don't deny that people should exercise themselves to their fullest potential, but the difference is that you have to draw a line when it comes to infringing on the natural rights of other living beings.  The fact that renegade players can't even seem to acknowledge the fact that -- at a certain point -- renegade Shepard crosses that line, is very disingenuous.  I see the justification behind preserving the collector base, for instance (considering FLEETS OF ROBOT SUPER BEINGS ARE COMING!!!) but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature?  punching a traumatized survivor out?  slaughtering a colony of people when they can be taken out with non-lethal force?  blowing up at a panhandler looking for concert tickets?  Give me a break, how about some common freaking courtesy? 

But no, renegade players often defend these decision to death, or -- even if they themselves didn't choose those particular set of decisions -- they simply go off on how paragons are boring hippy communists with the assumption that paragons make EVERY SINGLE paragon choice. 

Well, if you think that I ALWAYS click on RED, like a freaking Pavlov's Dog, you're sadly mistaken.

Well, maybe you should re-read my second paragraph and tell me how that implies that I think you picked every single red option.  I'd be really interested to hear your weasel word your way through that...

[Bigdoser]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature? 

I assume your referring to Shiala.  I have seen this come up several times and would like to point out that she made the decision to align herself with Saren.  Granted that Saren used her and the Thorian possessed her, but an argument could still be made that she couldn't be trusted and still pose a threat because of her alignment.  The only option was to kill her or release her, not arrest her.

I kill Shiala for one reason. She was in my brain during the Cypher transfer, and there's a lot of classified information there. I would prefer to lock her up too, but there is no such option.

I see no point in killing Shiala.

[DuffyMJ]

Schroing wrote...

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

Sure, some morals are, but a lot of them are pretty clear cut and universally agreed upon, such as "no one is above the law" and "all have equal protection under the law" -- a couple that seem to be conveniently ignored by participants in this thread.

[DuffyMJ]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature? 

I assume your referring to Shiala.  I have seen this come up several times and would like to point out that she made the decision to align herself with Saren.  Granted that Saren used her and the Thorian possessed her, but an argument could still be made that she couldn't be trusted and still pose a threat because of her alignment.  The only option was to kill her or release her, not arrest her.

I kill Shiala for one reason. She was in my brain during the Cypher transfer, and there's a lot of classified information there. I would prefer to lock her up too, but there is no such option.

Oh yeah? Where's her ****g right to due process? where's the trial?  where's the proof and evidence that she actually melded with your mind and that it wasn't some goofy parlor trick?  Where is the jury of her peers? where is the inspector general to keep your behavior and methods in check?

[Zulu_DFA]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Well, maybe you should re-read my second paragraph and tell me how that implies that I think you picked every single red option.  I'd be really interested to hear your weasel word your way through that...

No, I'm going to dissapoint you. In your second paragraph you're on the defensive, and I am not trying to "win" this conversation.

[Schroing]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Schroing wrote...

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

Sure, some morals are, but a lot of them are pretty clear cut and universally agreed upon

That doesn't matter. They're still subjective.
If a billion people believe one thing and one person believes something contrary to that, that doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't make the billion wrong, either. Neither of them are wrong. They -can't- be wrong. It's philosophically impossible for either of them to be wrong.
The same applies here.

[Zulu_DFA]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature? 

I assume your referring to Shiala.  I have seen this come up several times and would like to point out that she made the decision to align herself with Saren.  Granted that Saren used her and the Thorian possessed her, but an argument could still be made that she couldn't be trusted and still pose a threat because of her alignment.  The only option was to kill her or release her, not arrest her.

I kill Shiala for one reason. She was in my brain during the Cypher transfer, and there's a lot of classified information there. I would prefer to lock her up too, but there is no such option.

Oh yeah? Where's her ****g right to due process? where's the trial?  where's the proof and evidence that she actually melded with your mind and that it wasn't some goofy parlor trick?  Where is the jury of her peers? where is the inspector general to keep your behavior and methods in check?

No such things in space. Not that she seemed to be interested in them. She really impressed me by the way she died, and I felt a little regret, that it had to be done.

[Zulu_DFA]

Schroing wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Schroing wrote...

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

Sure, some morals are, but a lot of them are pretty clear cut and universally agreed upon

That doesn't matter. They're still subjective.
If a billion people believe one thing and one person believes something contrary to that, that doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't make the billion wrong, either. Neither of them are wrong. They -can't- be wrong. It's philosophically impossible for either of them to be wrong.
The same applies here.

Some people simply can't get it that "good" and "bad" don't exist in the Nature.

[Bigdoser]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature? 

I assume your referring to Shiala.  I have seen this come up several times and would like to point out that she made the decision to align herself with Saren.  Granted that Saren used her and the Thorian possessed her, but an argument could still be made that she couldn't be trusted and still pose a threat because of her alignment.  The only option was to kill her or release her, not arrest her.

I kill Shiala for one reason. She was in my brain during the Cypher transfer, and there's a lot of classified information there. I would prefer to lock her up too, but there is no such option.

I see no point in killing Shiala.

After the fact I don't either.  My first playthrough I didn't know if she was just trying weasle her way out or not.  Look at Rana Thanoptis.

Even in my first playthrough i saw no point in killing her she gave me the information i needed plus she wanted to help zhu hope so i thought why not?

[DuffyMJ]

Schroing wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Schroing wrote...

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

Sure, some morals are, but a lot of them are pretty clear cut and universally agreed upon

That doesn't matter. They're still subjective.
If a billion people believe one thing and one person believes something contrary to that, that doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't make the billion wrong, either. Neither of them are wrong. They -can't- be wrong. It's philosophically impossible for either of them to be wrong.
The same applies here.

That's a poor way of putting it, the truth is that there will be variance, with a few standard deviations of differing levels of agreement on a particular moral.  There is room for debate, but once you become that "one guy" who believes molesting children is fine, then no, I'm sorry -- but you're biologically defective, you're not "incapable of being wrong."  This is supported by criminology research, many of the most heinous sociopaths have significantly different brain activity as proven by neurological scans.

Society is the mass consensus -- the government is the authorization of force and a legitimate body sanctioned to use force when necessary in accordance to the said consensus. 

[DuffyMJ]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
but shooting an unarmed woman who was possessed by another creature? 

I assume your referring to Shiala.  I have seen this come up several times and would like to point out that she made the decision to align herself with Saren.  Granted that Saren used her and the Thorian possessed her, but an argument could still be made that she couldn't be trusted and still pose a threat because of her alignment.  The only option was to kill her or release her, not arrest her.

I kill Shiala for one reason. She was in my brain during the Cypher transfer, and there's a lot of classified information there. I would prefer to lock her up too, but there is no such option.

Oh yeah? Where's her ****g right to due process? where's the trial?  where's the proof and evidence that she actually melded with your mind and that it wasn't some goofy parlor trick?  Where is the jury of her peers? where is the inspector general to keep your behavior and methods in check?

No such things in space. Not that she seemed to be interested in them. She really impressed me by the way she died, and I felt a little regret, that it had to be done.

Yup, and it's fine to torture people because Guantanamo Bay isn't technically under American law too, right?  You make me sick. 

[The Angry One]

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Azint wrote...

Am I the only one who thought of the Sunry trial in KOTOR?

I did too, and it has similar warped morals.
Granted, this isn't as outright horrible as that one.
In this case, you can reason that you need Tali and the Quarians ignorant of the truth at least until the Reapers are defeated.
In the KOTOR trial, you're outright supposed to get a murderer off free with lies, intimidation and evidence witholding just because he's a Republic agent and the victim was a Sith agent (the murder not being done for any cause to benefit the Republic, and the agent having no information that would warrant absolving him)

This is so f'd up.  It is not Shepard's duty in his assigned role as Tali's advocate in this particular adjudication process to have any care of concern about the Quarian people or what they are/aren't ignorant of.  This is THE QUARIANS vs. Tali, why on Earth would incriminating Tali's father (and her as an ignorant collaborator, as well) be "the right thing to do"?  

Like I said before, the right thing to do would probably be for Shepard to recuse himself from serving as Tali's advocate, but that was not an option, and so Shepard's first duty is his obligation to defend his client to the fullest extent (providing incriminating evidence of her by association with her father's activities is NOT conductive to this end.) 

It's as simple as that. 

The evidence clears her name.
Thus it is Shepard's duty as Tali's advocate to present evidence that proves her innocence.

[DuffyMJ]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Schroing wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Schroing wrote...

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

Sure, some morals are, but a lot of them are pretty clear cut and universally agreed upon

That doesn't matter. They're still subjective.
If a billion people believe one thing and one person believes something contrary to that, that doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't make the billion wrong, either. Neither of them are wrong. They -can't- be wrong. It's philosophically impossible for either of them to be wrong.
The same applies here.

Some people simply can't get it that "good" and "bad" don't exist in the Nature.

YES they do.  The "carte blanche" idea has been disproven numerous times by the natural sciences which have observed moral decision making in everything from feral children and even in dogs and other animals.  Empathy is hard wired into the brain from birth. 

[DuffyMJ]

The Angry One wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Azint wrote...

Am I the only one who thought of the Sunry trial in KOTOR?

I did too, and it has similar warped morals.
Granted, this isn't as outright horrible as that one.
In this case, you can reason that you need Tali and the Quarians ignorant of the truth at least until the Reapers are defeated.
In the KOTOR trial, you're outright supposed to get a murderer off free with lies, intimidation and evidence witholding just because he's a Republic agent and the victim was a Sith agent (the murder not being done for any cause to benefit the Republic, and the agent having no information that would warrant absolving him)

This is so f'd up.  It is not Shepard's duty in his assigned role as Tali's advocate in this particular adjudication process to have any care of concern about the Quarian people or what they are/aren't ignorant of.  This is THE QUARIANS vs. Tali, why on Earth would incriminating Tali's father (and her as an ignorant collaborator, as well) be "the right thing to do"?  

Like I said before, the right thing to do would probably be for Shepard to recuse himself from serving as Tali's advocate, but that was not an option, and so Shepard's first duty is his obligation to defend his client to the fullest extent (providing incriminating evidence of her by association with her father's activities is NOT conductive to this end.) 

It's as simple as that. 

The evidence clears her name.
Thus it is Shepard's duty as Tali's advocate to present evidence that proves her innocence.

The evidence proves her works' association with a war criminal, which is self-incrimincation to -- as far as Shepard is aware with his limited knowledge of Quarian law -- a new offense.

[Schroing]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Schroing wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Schroing wrote...

I'm getting so sick of this thread. Morality is subjective, shut the **** up already.

Sure, some morals are, but a lot of them are pretty clear cut and universally agreed upon

That doesn't matter. They're still subjective.
If a billion people believe one thing and one person believes something contrary to that, that doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't make the billion wrong, either. Neither of them are wrong. They -can't- be wrong. It's philosophically impossible for either of them to be wrong.
The same applies here.

That's a poor way of putting it, the truth is that there will be variance, with a few standard deviations of differing levels of agreement on a particular moral.  There is room for debate, but once you become that "one guy" who believes molesting children is fine, then no, I'm sorry -- but you're biologically defective, you're not "incapable of being wrong."  This is supported by criminology research, many of the most heinous sociopaths have significantly different brain activity as proven by neurological scans.

Society is the mass consensus -- the government is the authorization of force and a legitimate body sanctioned to use force when necessary in accordance to the said consensus. 

Grats. Go do something else, now.

[Bigdoser]

Rana oh yes her i hope they put her in me3 need more funney scenes.

[Zulu_DFA]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Yup, and it's fine to torture people because Guantanamo Bay isn't technically under American law too, right?  You make me sick. 

Yup, and it's fine to use guys like you to get elected, then say: Ooops, I can't shut down Guantanamo right away, just wait a little bit. That's your democracy at work.

[The Angry One]

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Azint wrote...

Am I the only one who thought of the Sunry trial in KOTOR?

I did too, and it has similar warped morals.
Granted, this isn't as outright horrible as that one.
In this case, you can reason that you need Tali and the Quarians ignorant of the truth at least until the Reapers are defeated.
In the KOTOR trial, you're outright supposed to get a murderer off free with lies, intimidation and evidence witholding just because he's a Republic agent and the victim was a Sith agent (the murder not being done for any cause to benefit the Republic, and the agent having no information that would warrant absolving him)

This is so f'd up.  It is not Shepard's duty in his assigned role as Tali's advocate in this particular adjudication process to have any care of concern about the Quarian people or what they are/aren't ignorant of.  This is THE QUARIANS vs. Tali, why on Earth would incriminating Tali's father (and her as an ignorant collaborator, as well) be "the right thing to do"?  

Like I said before, the right thing to do would probably be for Shepard to recuse himself from serving as Tali's advocate, but that was not an option, and so Shepard's first duty is his obligation to defend his client to the fullest extent (providing incriminating evidence of her by association with her father's activities is NOT conductive to this end.) 

It's as simple as that. 

The evidence clears her name.
Thus it is Shepard's duty as Tali's advocate to present evidence that proves her innocence.

The evidence proves her works' association with a war criminal, which is self-incrimincation to -- as far as Shepard is aware with his limited knowledge of Quarian law -- a new offense.

Don't be ridiculous. The evidence proves Tali had no knowledge of Rael's crimes. Both Shepard and Tali know this, and presenting the evidence clears Tali's name.