Follow TV Tropes

Live Blogs Playing Mass Effect 2...with Morinth
KilgoreTrout2013-06-24 10:37:11

Go To


Waiting to go to Omega

This isn't going to be a full account of my playthrough of the game. I've already gone through it once as a mostly-Paragon Shepard, so I'm seeing a lot of stuff for the second time. The time to post about my initial reactions to things I didn't know were coming would have been then.

One thing I have not seen in its entirety, though, is how taking Morinth into your party makes things different. Different conversations, obviously, different dialogue on some missions, one different power...I get that as far as gameplay goes, she is mostly a Samara clone.

I'll mostly be focused on the story here. I'll be making a new post whenever Morinth does or says something noteworthy and I'll write down by reactions and thoughts about it.

But for now, let's talk about her mother. What did I think of Samara? Where to begin?

Okay, if you played ME1 then you may remember that a number of NPCs in that game had a negative view of Spectres. This was because Spectres could do whatever the fuck they wanted, they were above the law. The only way a Spectre could ever answer for what s/he did would be if the Council decided to rein them in, and the Council apparently did not do so very often.

Justicars are basically like that, only they seemingly have nobody to rein them in, not even an equivalent of the Council. There is a lot I don't know and perhaps I will learn that there is more accoutability than I think when I get to the third game. But my impression of justicars are that they are loose cannons who believe in summarily executing criminals. Their code, what I know of it, demands that they run around acting like Frank Castle. And I frickin' hate The Punisher.

The first time I saw Samara, she killed a helpless victim. That's damn cold. I'm not going to argue that Samara causes more suffering than her daughter does, because I'm sure that is not the case. But Samara does cause her fair share of suffering. Let's consider lethal force by itself and, for the moment, forget about the various reasons and justifications for it. Every time Samara or Morinth or anybody kills another person, regardless of what sort of person that was, that person had a family. That person had friends. That person had a number of people who are going to be heartbroken by their passing.

If Samara were to try to take people into custody without killing them, she would be sparing their families and friends a lot of grief. But—whether because of personal inclination or because she decided to follow her order's Code or some combination of the two—she doesn't even try.

I don't like that. On a number of occasions in ME1 and ME2, the Paragon decision involves sparing the life of a criminal instead of just gunning the criminal down in cold blood. That is what the good guys are supposed to do, in my opinion. They are supposed to avoid doing the same things as the bad guys. If a good guy kills, say, five people when there are other options and goes on to say "I am NOT as bad as the bad guys, because I kill fewer people than they do,"...fine, okay, that's true good guy, but you still murder people. People who, perhaps, might have turned over a new leaf if they'd been left alive. People who might have done what they did more due to being mentally fucked up than out of a decision to be evil just for the hell of it, and might have benefited from therapy that cured their mental problems.

Jack, for example, starts out as a dangerous killer, undoubtedly somebody who—were Samara to cross paths with her prior to both of them meeting Shepard—Samara would have attempted to execute in cold blood. Turns out that's the wrong thing to do, because guess what? Jack can be redeemed. Jack can become a better person, with Shepard's help. Jack can cease to be a threat to innocent people if somebody takes the time to try and rehabilitate her.

I'm getting off-topic here. TL;DR is I'm not fond of Samara because her go-to answer for dealing with criminals is to kill them. She usually doesn't look for other options. She never gives a satisfactory explanation (at least not in this game) why she doesn't look for other options. Even if Morinth is utterly and absolutely irredeemable and beyond saving, not everybody Samara kills is as bad as Morinth.

I've gotten Samara's side of the story via conversations with her and observation of her actions. Now I'm going to get Morinth's side of things.

Maybe I'll be surprised, maybe not.

For now, as the title says, I'm just waiting for the turning point in the story where I go to Omega and have to choose between one or the other.

Comments

montagohalcyon Since: Dec, 1969
Jul 7th 2013 at 10:56:59 PM
My paragon Shepard still took the Renegade option here; aside from moral issues I didn't trust even a modified Reaper virus not to backfire on me in the third game.
KilgoreTrout Since: Dec, 1969
Jul 10th 2013 at 1:48:10 AM
Yeah, sometimes you just gotta do the Renegade thing. I haven't acted like a complete Paragon while playing the third game.
Korval Since: Dec, 1969
Jul 16th 2013 at 1:33:38 AM
Samara would kill them when it wasn't necessary. Nihlus, according to Samara, killed somebody when it wasn't necessary. I do not see any difference, and feel she's a hypocrite for saying that there is a difference between what she's done and what Nihlus did that one time.

There is a difference. Samara would kill them because they were holding her against her will. They impedes her progress and allows bad people to potentially escape justice. And that, the Justicar code does not allow. Therefore, the Justicar must behave like any other violation of the code: kill the violators.

And remember: Samara would warn them first. I rather doubt that Nihlus's prey got a similar warning.

You can consider that an insufficient justification. But it is a reason, and it's a reason that everyone knows going in: you don't hold Justicars against their will. Not without consequences.

I would like to think that, as long as the Ardat-Yakshi's memories and beliefs and opinions on things were left untouched, as long as it was just their sex drive that was affected, that it would be better than killing them outright.

And why would clamping down on their sex drive be sufficient? AY is about a lot more than just murder-sex. AYs are sociopaths; the wants, needs, and rights of others simply do not exist for them. Everyone around them is an object to be used. Whether they're used for murder-sex or as pawns for self-aggrandizement, they're still just being used.

Sure, Fel might have lived. But only as the victim of a horrific long-term abusive relationship until Morinth discarded her. And indeed, Morinth probably would have killed her anyway, just to keep her from becoming a liability once Morinth tired of her.

Also, the number of Asari born with sufficient AY tendencies to enforce the "isolation or death" decision is pretty low. Remember: in Samara's lifetime, there were only 3. And those were all her daughters. So developing a cure that only cures the harshest 0.000000001 percent of a disease would be difficult to do, if for no other reason than the lack of suitable candidates to investigate and test treatments on.
Top