Live Blogs Playing Mass Effect 2...with Morinth

KilgoreTrout2013-06-27 16:54:39

Huh, so it turns out that I have time for Legion's mission after all. I'm on the station now with him and Samorinth.

Samorinth talks about Legion's rewriting option by saying that changing who somebody is is unethical, that it's like killing them and leaving the body alive with somebody else inside it. I'm assuming that this is something Samara says when it really is Samara in the party, and for once her and I feel the same way.

Well, it's not just once. I'm not a fan of the whole killing unarmed civilians thing either...but that is part of the reason I don't like Samara. The way I see it, the reason killing civilians is considered bad is because civilians are not a threat to you. They aren't combatants. They're just people trying to mind their own business and live their lives. The cops that Samara was prepared to kill may not technically qualify as "civilians" since often cops are not described as such, but they were also trying to mind their own business, live their lives, and even trying to make asari society safer.

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.

If we imagine Morinth saying and meaning the same thing, it's interesting to think about. What if there was a way of "rewriting" Ardat-Yakshi? It would make everybody safer, but would it be as bad as killing the Ardat-Yakshi?

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. More would be left of them than would be after an execution, certainly.

I wonder if the asari even tried to discover a cure. Perhaps I'll find out in the third game.

As it pertains to geth, though, I have trouble understanding why a rewrite is the Paragon move here. It seems different to me than helping the heretics understand that what they're doing is wrong and talking them out of it; it's like brainwashing more than anything else. Enslaving them, even. How is that any more acceptable than destroying them?

Am I missing something? Do I just not get something about them being part of a whole instead of individuals that makes some kind of big difference in the morality here?

Holy crap, blowing them up instead of rewriting gave me THIRTY Renegade points! I still think both options are more or less the same, with destruction perhaps being more merciful since it doesn't involve forcing the heretics to do things that they wouldn't otherwise want to do.

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.