271 réponses à ce sujet

[Fjordgnu]

I know I would've liked to kill Sidonis if it were me he'd betrayed. I often spare enemies I don't have to kill - the Batarians on Omega, for instance - but I see no reason not to kill Sidonis.

[SoyProduct]

I always let Garrus kill Sidonis. The paragon "Dont kill him!" speak is too preachy for my tastes.

[tonnactus]

Fjordgnu wrote...

I know I would've liked to kill Sidonis if it were me he'd betrayed. I often spare enemies I don't have to kill - the Batarians on Omega, for instance - but I see no reason not to kill Sidonis.

Why do you think selfjustice is forbidden in civilized countries??
Garrus was dumb to be honest.With 12 people fight huge merc groups.It have to end this way.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 mars 2010 - 11:12 .

[Nostradamoose]

In my paragon Sheppard I killed him anyway...



Sorry, bastard had to die.

[Bigdoser]

Revenge is not worth it, it can change people that's why some conflicts even happen today its hard to forgive someone and let go of the hartred but in my opinion if you learn to let go of hatred I think there will be less death in this world. I also applied this to garrus loyalty mission, who knows Sidonis said he will make it up to garrus and I hope he will as Garrus said "I can still see the good in him".

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Damn, you people are tough judges. I will have my main male and female shep save him, but i would also like to see what would happen if i let garrus pop his head.

[mortons4ck]

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

Maginipowfire wrote...

Shooting him isn't even sadistic, though.  He doesn't learn anything, doesn't have time to realize what's happened, in fact it's relief from his life of guilt.  I'm happy letting him live knowing he feels in debt to Garrus.
Yeah, and we are the bad ones for killing him... xD

It's not about being good or bad, it's about what's the best thing for Garrus.  It's a bad situation and letting Garrus assassinate a guy just drags him down further.  Sidonis is already miserable as he should be.  With him living and knowing he's been given another chance, there's an opportunity for him to do something positive.  He was never dangerous, just cowardly.

I agree, I could care less about Sidonis. But I couldn't let Garrus go through with it.  It's tough love.

[R-F]

the guy was a ****** and a traitor. thumbs way the hell down. i didn't spare him in either playthrough, didn't want Garrus to be disloyal and die, plus he irked me.

Modifié par R-F, 15 mars 2010 - 02:40 .

[Aedan_Cousland]

I let Garrus take the shot even on a Paragon playthrough.

He betrayed the team and got them all killed except for Garrus, who would have died, had Shepard not shown up. For those of you who spare Sidonis, ask yourself this question: If Sidonis was a member of Shepard's team, and if he betrayed that team and got everyone killed except for Shepard, do you let Sidonis live? If the answer is no, then why are you stopping Garrus from taking that shot?

[Ray Joel Oh]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

I let Garrus take the shot even on a Paragon playthrough.

He betrayed the team and got them all killed except for Garrus, who would have died, had Shepard not shown up. For those of you who spare Sidonis, ask yourself this question: If Sidonis was a member of Shepard's team, and if he betrayed that team and got everyone killed except for Shepard, do you let Sidonis live? If the answer is no, then why are you stopping Garrus from taking that shot?

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

What
if that person who had betrayed everyone was Garrus, or Tali, or Liara
or one of the others though?  Would killing them make me feel better,
even though they had been my friend?  I don't think so.  I'd be
disgusted with them, and I wouldn't be their friend anymore, but I
wouldn't feel so satisfied in killing them.  Sidonis was Garrus's friend
and comrade.  I think Garrus's rage would have eventually become
disgust and pity.

[Ray Joel Oh]

Shandepared wrote...

Ray Joel Oh wrote...


Those mercs were armed and ready to kill.  Sidonis was defenseless, laying low, hoping to never capture attention.

So what? He's hiding from his betrayal, he's trying to avoid being punished for him. Are you trying to make me pitty him? You're pathetic.

 

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

...it's about revenge--that's the same motivation behind half the criminal activity in the world.

No, crime is almost always about greed. A smaller proportion is out of acts of extreme passion.

Garrus is already a vigilante; killing Sidonis doesn't change that. It merely cuts a loose end and allows him to move on. He's done a hell of a lot more good as a vigilante than any C-Sec officer too.

Uh oh, internet tough guy alert.  I can see this is going places.
Feel free to check out "Munich," "Syriana," or any world news for further discussion on carving out your own justice.  Or you could just believe it'll all work out like in "The Punisher."

[Computron2000]

Shandepared wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...


Meaningless only if you cannot think of consequences further than revenge.

What consequences? Fill me in, please. I doubt you've thought about this very hard at all.

If someone betrays you and kills your friend or your family you do not become as bad as them or worse than them if you kill them for it. That concept is storybook tripe.

Duh, i do not talk about you becoming the thing you hunt or such. I  am talking about logical consequences.

You kill A, A has a brother called B, a father called C and a mother called D. He also has a son called E and a daughter called F. His wife is still around and called G

So you kill A = B,C,D,E,F,G has a large chance of wanting to kill you. After they kill you, your son called U and you parents called V and W and your sister called X decides to take revenge = U,V,W,X kills B.

So it is now C,D,E,F,G <-> U,V,W,X. Then B (your brother)'s family decides to take revenge. There's H and I, the parents in law, J the wife and K the son.

So now it is C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J <-> U,V,W,X

Repeat ad nausem. If you have any inkling of international affairs you would be aware of this, eg palestinians vs israelis.

[Ray Joel Oh]

Computron2000 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...


Meaningless only if you cannot think of consequences further than revenge.

What consequences? Fill me in, please. I doubt you've thought about this very hard at all.

If someone betrays you and kills your friend or your family you do not become as bad as them or worse than them if you kill them for it. That concept is storybook tripe.

Duh, i do not talk about you becoming the thing you hunt or such. I  am talking about logical consequences.

You kill A, A has a brother called B, a father called C and a mother called D. He also has a son called E and a daughter called F. His wife is still around and called G

So you kill A = B,C,D,E,F,G has a large chance of wanting to kill you. After they kill you, your son called U and you parents called V and W and your sister called X decides to take revenge = U,V,W,X kills B.

So it is now C,D,E,F,G  U,V,W,X. Then B (your brother)'s family decides to take revenge. There's H and I, the parents in law, J the wife and K the son.

So now it is C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J  U,V,W,X

Repeat ad nausem. If you have any inkling of international affairs you would be aware of this, eg palestinians vs israelis.

I'm glad there are a handful of people who are getting this.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

If he hadn't admitting that he was afraid to sacrifice his own life to save 11 of his friends, i would have let him take the shot. First playthrough i let that ****** die, but then when i think of it, it probably isn't the best idea for garrus.



I thought, that if hes going to gundown a unarmed and defenseless criminal hes going to have no problem doing that again in the future....then eventually hes going to move onto innocent people. Revenge can seriously alter a individual's personality, i think i'd rather have garrus as he is then someone completely different.

[Ray Joel Oh]

Shandepared wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

Duh, i do not talk about you becoming the thing you hunt or such. I  am talking about logical consequences.

We'll cover our tracks. Also you can say the same thing for ANYONE you killed at any point in the games.

Did you shoot Ethan Jeong? Maybe he has some rich relatives.

Did you get into a violent confrontation with Captain Ventralis? Well maybe he has was of value to somebody too.

That's why it's sensible to only kill people when it's necessary.

[royceclemens]

Live.



He was unarmed. If Sidonis was packing, he'd be a little purple smear, but he wasn't, so he got to live. There's a difference between rubbing out a merc who comes at you with guns blazing and wiping an unarmed civilian out like a weasel, no matter what he did.



The latter, of course, is ungentlemanly.

[Ray Joel Oh]

Shandepared wrote...

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

That's why it's sensible to only kill people when it's necessary.

If only everyone could agree on exactly when that is.

Self defense, or to defend somebody else.  Killing Sidonis did neither.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

royceclemens wrote...

Live.

He was unarmed. If Sidonis was packing, he'd be a little purple smear, but he wasn't, so he got to live. There's a difference between rubbing out a merc who comes at you with guns blazing and wiping an unarmed civilian out like a weasel, no matter what he did.

The latter, of course, is ungentlemanly.

Pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly.

[Ray Joel Oh]

Shandepared wrote...

I don't think my statement penetrated your skull.

No, sweetie, I just outgrew it.