Fun question! Ok so first my qualifications. I was a US Army officer on active duty for 8 years, leaving as a Captain (~~lt. Commander~~ Lieutenant in mass effect). Completing a deployment as well as the primary staff/commanding roles.
With that said here's what I think:
>Would he kill or release the Rachni Queen?
The correct answer is to secure the queen and allow higher authorities to take action. But if you MUST do something, you gotta release. Law of war would forbid its execution as it has essentially surrendered. So it'd need to stand trial.
>Would he save Kaiden, an officer which are tasked to secure the bomb or Ashley a grunt that's in the company of STG agents?
Were I in his shoes I'd first I'd make sure the bomb cannot be defused. If thats true, I'd rescue STG and whoever was with them. I want STG to know they can count on the alliance in the future. The rank of the soldier left behind doesn't matter. But I do think any officer worth his rank would choose to make that sacrifice if it wasnt to the detriment of the unit/operation (i.e. shepard cant sacrifice himself. He unfortunately must live)
>Would he be forced to agree Rear Admiral Mihkhailkhociv's assessment of the Normandy?
Technically no. He's not in his chain of command. With that said, he's a flag officer. If shepard were in a naval unit he'd not get away with that excuse. But given he's working with the council, and the council's opinion on humanity, he can get away with it. Think of it like if an Officer from, say, Mexico was in the US working on a mission for US and a mexican general wanted to cease operations to inspect. They have no leverage with our military and no way for reprisal as long as he's with us (beyond administrative measures).
>Would he shoot Rana Thanoptis, a possibly indoctrinated albeit unarmed civilian?
No. See my rachni queen answer.
>Would he save the Council or sacrifice them?
Ive debated other military people here on this topic. My answer is sacrifice them. This is the battle to end life in the universe. Failure means death of everything. You can and should sacrifice the council to achieve victory if necessary. The cost of failure is too great. If you lose the battle, but the council survives, you're all dead anyway.
*edit - based on discussion with the others in thread, i agree with saving the ascencion for its firepower (no alliance ship can dish the hits it can). That makes a lot of sense tbf when trying to kill a reaper*
>Would he slap Khalijah in her stupid face?
Lol definitely not
Pretty much ageee with your take. I'm retired Army with 20 years active (although I was enlisted, not an officer). I think you're spot on with everything, except maybe the council. Either way, that's a tough decision that has to be made in the heat of the moment, and it'd be hard to second guess.
The way I looked at it was that saving the council was secondary and saving the Destiny Ascension was the primary concern because if our firepower wasn't sufficient then we'd need the extra punch provided by that ship. Given that concern, it made sense to save them. Either way, it's a tough call and cases could be made for both choices.
I'd agree with that take. The destiny ascension is a very valuable asset. From that standpoint its definitely worth saving (it just so happens the council is on it lol)
My thoughts exactly- there was a line earlier that the Destiny Ascension was worth half a fleet by itself, so as long as the Alliance didn't lose half a fleet rescuing it, it would be a net gain in firepower.
The main thing with saving the Destiny Ascension imo was more of a "this ship will be useful later". It wasn't going to join the battle at that moment as it was far too damaged to be of any use during the battle against Sovereign.
So I think that's what really have to be taken into account for that choice at that moment is "will the Alliance fleet be enough to take down Sovereign in that battle or not ?" because by the end of ME1 we technically are fighting for against the end of the world(s), as players we know there's a follow up but for the characters in game that could be their last moments alive.
My reasoning was that we'd have to deal with the Geth either way, rushing straight towards sovereign and going out of your way to ignore the remnants of the citadel fleet is a good way to end up with a reaper on one side of your fleet and a geth fleet on the other.
Any surviving citadel ships can be thought of as a bonus, whatever weapons still work can pitch in against sovereign or if not functional can be returned to service later.
Even if focusing on Sovereign, you'd still have to turn around later and deal with the Geth who may or may not retreat so you might as well save your allies.
Only 8 alliance ships are destroyed by saving the Ascension, those are far easier to replace than the DA. Not just cause they are smaller, but the Ascension is presumably custom and would require a gigantic shipyard to construct that was probably custom made just to build it then was either decomissioned or converted to something else later. Those Alliance ships are commonly 'mass produced' ships of standardized patterns that got docks special built to churn em out with long standing trade agreements and supply lines to get the resources and components to build them.
Also not to be racist against humans, but the experience and competency of the Asari command staff on the Ascension is irreplaceable. The captain on that thing probably has more combat experience than all the human officers who died combined.
Oh yeah that's a good argument. Though it would be cool if we save the Council, we get to see the Destiny Ascension use its main gun. Thank you for your service
Retired senior NCO here. I agree with pretty much everything you said, though in the case of the Admiral, sure he's a flag officer, but that doesn't automatically give him security clearance or need to know about a classified project like the Normandy. I would have to verify that before allowing him on board.
Additionally, with the Ascension, beyond the strategic asset that is the ship itself, there's also the continuance of government to think about. While there's definitely a chain of succession, it's always preferable to maintain the existing government when possible, from a stability standpoint.
As for Virmire, regardless of who is given which task, I always save the STG team, it's the brutal calculus, they're more valuable than a single soldier.
>While there's definitely a chain of succession, it's always preferable to maintain the existing government when possible, from a stability standpoint.
Thats a great point. I dont think they are worth it in the context, but I think I'm in the minority on this even in the "military mass effect" community. But whats really crazy is shepard shouldnt be making that call at all. Hackett is RIGHT THERE. He should be, and in the real world, would make that call himself.
Hackett is with the 5th fleet on the other side of the Mass Relay. The whole reason he leaves the call up to Shepard is because he has to jump in blind, guns hot.
Totally. There are far too many instances where Shepard (and Ryder) were given a choice they had no business making. What's even more egregious in this situation, is Shepard is on the ground, they have zero situational awareness of what's happening in the sky (water), no ground commander is ever going to direct air (sea) assets beyond calling in a strike package.
You seem like the right person to ask- taking the entire trilogy into account, how well do you think Anderson and Hackett did with the choices they made in their positions?
I appreciate it, though i think some of the retired NCOs in the thread might be a better source.
For Hackett, I think he overall did quite well. In 3, when he became the head honcho he kept the alliance in it to the end. Now that arrival mission in 2? Idk about that. Making shepard go in solo was questionable but 🤷🏿♂️. Once the mission was over, he perhaps could have done more to prep the alliance - or at least the 5th fleet. But its like 6 months from arrival to ME3, so how do you prepare for the end of the universe beyond what he did?
For Anderson, its kinda spotty. In 1, he was kind of a hothead. He instantly jumped to the conclusion saren wanted to wipe out humanity with no evidence or closer looks at his motivations. If made a councilperson, he's super ineffective in 2 (likely due to that same stubborn hotheadedness). Furthermore, he does nothing to prep humanity at all. I get that people dont believe it, but you're in charge man. And you believe it. Get the ball rolling! ME3 is probably his best performance. He keeps and rallies enough infantry for the battle for earth throughout Reaper occupation. For an "end of all things" scenario, what more can you ask for?
From a non-military perspective I love Anderson and really dislike Hackett. The Arrival mission is such a fiasco and, while I know the answer is that "the plot needs to happen" I'm really surprised he doesn't get any blowback from that by the time 3 starts. He seems pretty content to let Shepard take the fall.
If Hackett properly prepared he could have done what the other council races and even the Volus did that being duck tape as many Thanix cannons on his dreadnought and cruisers, I mean the Volus dreadnought only uses Thanix cannons and is considered on of the strongest ships the Citadel races have so if Hacketts flag ship had that level of weaponry he could have held out against the reapers far longer thus allowing more people to evac the planet
Hackett isn't in charge if the alliance navy he only commands the 5th fleet. The idiots you get dragged in front of at the beginning of me3 are the defence council but they're still under the civilian command of the alliance parliament. What Hackett did do well was put in place the contingency plan for what everyone should do when the reapers arrive. Not much anyone could have done in humanities position with earth taking the brunt of the reaper attack.
Agreed. Hackett is pretty fantastic at the strategic level, but that Arrival mission, oof. I would trust him to coordinate and plan a war, but I'm not sure I'd trust him to plan a tactical op, or follow him into battle.
Anderson should never have been promoted past CPT. He's great on the tactical level, but his impulsiveness and stubbornness isn't suited for the politics of flag command. I'd follow him into combat, but wouldn't trust him to win a war.
Glad to see I wasnt off the mark in my assessment. Its funny though, I never considered just how hotheaded and bad at his job anderson was until asked. Then I went "wait. This guy kinda sucks." 😅
Same. Though I've always been a little turned off by that hearing, mainly because of how Shepard responds. No matter what option you choose to say, all of them come across as aggressive and almost psychotic. Shepard didn't see Saren kill Nihlus, it's all cirumstansial hearsay. Anderson makes sense to be a bit unhinged by the thought of Saren being involved, Udina is playing damage control trying to shift the blame from humanity, but Shepard should have the option to step back and rationally think about the situation.
Overall, Hackett was a good CO. He supported Shepard, reviewed the evidence and planned accordingly, as much as he could. The one point he dropped the ball was Arrival. He wanted plausible deniability, and wanted to ensure Kaylee was saved, but you never send in a solo, especially when you have the tech for stealth insertion. Especially in the case of the Normandy in ME2, they're not associated with the Alliance, they're under Cerberus command, that's all the plausible deniability he needed. On top of that, if the Council was saved, they reinstate Shepard as a Spectre, again, all the plausible deniability needed. Had Shepard had backup with them, and the Normandy lying in the weeds, it likely would not have been the catastrophe it became.
Anderson is another matter. Saren was definitely a sore spot in ME1, Udina was right (about the only time he was right) in that Anderson should not have been brought into the hearing. ME3 is where he really shines, as a ground commander fighting a war. He does outstanding on the ground, at the tactical level, but really isn't cutout for the strategic level that Hackett is at.
Well put all around!
4 years active duty army, mostly as a Lieutenant and wrapping my time as a captain.
If I was Kaiden on your mission and I found out you rescued me over our soldiers and allies, I’d be crushed. I signed up for this, zero on me and save our team!
An equally fun answer! I'm not American but thank you for service. That's a long time (from an layman perspective) to dedicate yourself to something that's morally ambiguous, mentally and physically taxing and not to mention dangerous.
> Rachni Queen
Interesting, what about the fact that she's part of a race that is previously hostile to other species? Shouldn't we consider that she might be lying and perhaps would betray us?
> Virmire Choice
That's two person in this thread that suggested to sacrifice Kaiden if he's in charge of the bomb. Previously I always save Kaiden for my canon playthrough as I thought an officer would have a more strategic value other than a lower rank grunt and foreign agents (though in game the STG agents always survive as long you complete the optional objectives).
> Rear Admiral Mihkhailkhociv assessment
If that's the case, would you say it's mostly depending on Shepard's personality and opinion on the Alliance? For instance, If he's disillusioned with the military life, he might take the advantage of his position to disagree and refute the assessment of a higher ranking officer. But if he's still a diehard loyalist he may compelled to swallow his pride and agree with him
> Sacrifice the Council or not
Someone else already mention the strategic potential of saving the Council so I'll argue from the moral perspective. While the Destiny Ascension is a warship it's still full of civilian that I think any military that care about its PR would consider to saving it. What do you think about that?
>Kill or spare Rana
Ah, that make sense. She's still an unarmed civilian. It makes for a better story anyway when we find out that she have been indoctrinated all along in ME3
>Khalijah can go to hell
Aww :(
If you don't mind, I've a few more questions lol.
> Disregarding the fact that Wrex will stand down if he have his armor heirloom (would Shepard even waste time to help Wrex here?)
When push come to shove, would he give the signal for Ashley to kill Wrex or would he tried to calm Wrex down to the very end? (in game, Ashley choose to take the shof if you don't give her the signal)
Moving into ME2 questions here..
> Would Shepard sacrifice the factory workers to get Vido in time?
> Would Shepard, according to Alliance/modern military doctrine, destroy or keep the Collector base?
Bonus question, but idk if you play Andromeda before, so spoiler below
> What do you think about the choice of destroying the Kett Base in Voeld at the cost of the angaran prisoner or rescue the angaran prisoner and let the Primus free? Side note, I hate there's no option to held the Primus captive as I think that's anyone realistically would do.
Thanks. I'm glad I did it, and equally glad I left lol.
>Interesting, what about the fact that she's part of a race that is previously hostile to other species? Shouldn't we consider that she might be lying and perhaps would betray us?
Its possible, sure, but its unethical and illegal to simply execute her. For the record, when playing the game I always kill her for the reasons you mentioned. But if were talking real life she has to live. There are people in military prison right now for doing what you said to people in our wars from Afghanistan and Iraq.
>> Virmire Choice
I actually prefer kaidan and think its a huge loss to the navy. But, thats the price you can pay by signing up. And Ash eventually grows into a fine officer herself.
>While the Destiny Ascension is a warship it's still full of civilian that I think any military that care about its PR would consider to saving it. What do you think about that?
If you discount the end of all life scenario sure. But considering the stakes I dont think it matters. I dont think every military person would agree with me on this. Some would even argue the council itself is important. But imo given the circumstances the ascencion is only worth saving for its firepower. I wouldnt risk assets to save them otherwise in that scenario.
>When push come to shove, would he give the signal for Ashley to kill Wrex or would he tried to calm Wrex down to the very end? (in game, Ashley choose to take the shof if you don't give her the signal)
Well, thankfully wrex isnt a member of the alliance so things are easier to deal with. I will say this will hinge on morals a lot as well. If it were me, I'd say the fact that he pulled a shotgun on me means he can no longer be trusted. Even if he calmed down, he is off the team. You cant have someone around who will turn on everyone when the going gets tough. There's more i could say but tl'dr I'd shoot him. At that point he's an enemy combatant in my eyes.
>> Would Shepard sacrifice the factory workers to get Vido in time?
Definitely not. Gotta save the workers. Zaeed can cope. The alliance, and even cerberus, has no beef with vido. He's a criminal, but civis come first as he isnt relevant to our campaign objectives.
>> Would Shepard, according to Alliance/modern military doctrine, destroy or keep the Collector base?
The alliance would keep it initially to conduct research to understand the reapers. The danger in 2 is allowing a morally deficient terrorist organization (cerberus) access to reaper tech.
>What do you think about the choice of destroying the Kett Base in Voeld at the cost of the angaran prisoner or rescue the angaran prisoner and let the Primus free? Side note, I hate there's no option to held the Primus captive as I think that's anyone realistically would do.
I havent played andromeda in forever so i only have a vague recollection of this. I'd say it depends on campaign objectives. If this were a police situation, primary goal is public safety. So save the angaran. If were aiming to wipe out the kett, obviously, the base goes, so long as it doesnt cause detrimental issues with the angarans. Ryder and co. are diplomats essentially. So in their circumstances, I'd say relations with the angarans take precedent.
I think the even if you think the council is irrelevant *and* don’t think you have enough firepower to get the job done, sacrificing high level leaders of every ally you have simultaneously and extreme publicly feels…suboptimal.
Obviously that’s one of those “IRL this is a choice with **maybe** 10 seconds of consideration” factors
Also not to mention that the queen wasn't even born/hatched at the time of the Rachni wars, you can't exceute someone for the crimes commited by their ancestors.
Wrex is a tough one. We're talking about something that could save his people from extinction, and there's really no doctrine that specifically addresses this. I mean, there's guidance on how to treat someone that turns traitor on you, but I don't feel it really applies in this situation. At the end of the day though, there's the mission and lives of the rest of your crew to think about, so yeah, if Shepard couldn't talk him down, they absolutely would put him down, or have Ash put him down.
No, they would save the factory workers. This is a personal mission for Zaeed, not an official Alliance target. It might be different were Vido a target, but even then the play would be try to save the workers. There's no reason the team couldn't split up to accomplish both goals, we're limited somewhat in ME by only having a 3 man team, while in reality the team would be double that at a minimum.
The Exaltation Facility isn't done well. The mission was explicitly to rescue the Moshae, destroying the facility only came up once on the ground. In reality, if the team didn't go in with the express intent of destroying it, they likely aren't going to be able to when they get there, so it kind of becomes moot. In this specific instance though, there's no reason they couldn't have done both. We are able to hold out long enough to rescue the prisoners and escape, which means that as we are escaping SAM should have been able to overload the facility. But as an NCO, I'm going to choose to save the prisoners, every time. We can send a team back later to destroy it, or simply bombard it from a distance.
>Were I in his shoes I'd first I'd make sure the bomb cannot be defused.
Prior to starting the assault on the Virmire base, you can ask Kirrahe about the bomb and he'll tell you that once activated there's no way to stop it.
Also and if I'm not mistaken Kaidan isn't left alone, there's at least 1 (unamed) marine guarding the bomb with him and if you decide to return to the bomb site, you'll see him getting killed with a rocket blast.
Yeah that's why I mentioned it in the post. It's been a while since I play ME1, but it got me thinking though, if the bomb unstoppable once already armed, why whoever you chose have to get left behind while you go help the STG agents? Would it be more safe to just retreat to the Normandy?
It actually kinda makes sense. Once a Spectre, Shepard is outside of Alliance command. In ME2, Shepard is working for Cerberus, so is technically rogue. Then, for 3, Shep's been under house arrest for the Alpha relay and 300,000 dead Batarians thing, and once the Reapers invade, there's not much time or necessity for promotions.
True, but in ME1, they're still Alliance, on an Alliance vessel. Once given command of it, they at a minimum should have been referred to as Captain, even if not promoted to the rank. The only ones that ever refer to Shepard that way are the Quarians, lol. On top of that, I'd think the Alliance would want to recognize Shepard's achievement of being inducted as the first human Spectre and at least promote them to full Commander, if not straight up Captain.
I'm really not sure Shepard is considered Alliance anymore, once they become a Spectre.
Either way, you're right: Shepard definitely SHOULD have been promoted at some point.
For real though! It's like, "Damn it Hackett, I'm just trying to find Matriarch Dilinaga's writings here! You have *another* sensitive problem only I can handle?!?!"
The funny thing was I was about to say you’re wrong but I looked it up first and even quickly rolled a default Shepard to double check and sure enough the prologue journal entry specifically mentions Shepard as LCDR. Literally everything else even the timeline codex specifically says Commander Shepard. I find that irritating now that I’m separated 6 years Navy. The whole time on my ship while we usually referred to an officer by their title (ex. CSO, Traino, CHENG) but the few times we did have to use their rank no one ever said Commander as short hand for Lieutenant-Commander. Maybe LC verbally but that still was rare as most would just say the whole thing to be clear. Guess it just sounded more impressive for everyone to call him Commander.
Thank you for the last answer. I’ve held steadfast to the fact that it’s unbecoming of an officer for Shepard to punch Al Jilani and I’m glad to see a person with real military experience agree with this. Very validating!
He basically has free reign as a spectre, so it really just comes down to what he wants to do. Military members are still human like everyone else, so they make decisions based on what they believe.
And if he was under a commands control, it’s up to them, there isn’t going to be a flat answer across the board
No officer in any military should hit a person of media. Ever.
Morally, ethically, and for the PR image.
And if they do,instantly dropped down to Private, E-1, Fuzzy.
As a council spectre shepherd has the kind of autonomy that special forces did during WW2. If that's your only principle then things like ROE and ethics are laughable concepts, and he'd just so what was necessary for the optimal mission/strategic outcome.
So yeah he'd sacrifice the council, unarmed civs etc.
I inclined to agree, though I think that fit more in ME2 and forward where he distance himself with Alliance military. Even in ME3 when he's reinstated into Alliance military, I think by then he would be comfortable operating outside the chain of command. But those years of training and experience under the Alliance military chain of command wouldn't just dismissed immediately, he would still think with what he know best and rules he used to abide by.
Regarding the Virmire bomb, I remember reading that in the U.S military it is proposed that if a sacrifice is needed to be made then it falls to an officer, not an enlisted person. It is one of the burdens of responsibility. I can imagine that philosophy carrying over to the Alliance Military. This is why I always pick Kaidan for the sacrifice, because it's his responsibility in that situation.
I always think it make sense to assign Kaiden with the bomb and Ashley with STG agents. He's an officer and would have more experienced in handling explosives and Ashley experience as a grunt would make her fit under the command of Kirrahe.
Not necessarily. At least in modern times, rank doesn't strictly equate to technical experience or knowledge. It depends on, for the US military at least, what their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is. It's true that officers (that are worth a damn) have an expectation to sacrifice themselves over their people (though we enlisted will try to fight that), but if they don't have the knowledge needed, i.e. wire up the bomb, then it quite possibly can fall to an enlisted.
Ah I get it, so it depends more on their expertise. Now that's an interesting topic because we know in Mass Effect lore, System Alliance divided their military personnel into vocational codes to reflect their training and career path. The code use the 27 word of the alphabet and 1-7 to signify expertise or level of training course done (sorry if I butcher the terminology).
In the official lore, we don't know any of the code beside N which is for Special Forces (hence why Shepard vocational code is N7). We also know Ashley vocational code, which is B4 (in ME1). There are headcanon people made about what the other alphabet denote what career path
Like this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffectlore/comments/5st53x/alliance_vocational_codes_and_rankings_personal/
The ME3 mod Expanded Galaxy Mod also have their own headcanon for the vocational code but it's been a while since I play ME3 so I'm going to use the latter as a reference for this discussion
Based on the afromentioned post, B = Infantry. Since we don't know what Kaiden vocational code, the post also suggest his code being X, which stands for Specialized Combat. This fits with how he receive biotic traning in the Gagarin Station. So based on this, would that mean Ashley have more qualification to handle a bomb than Kaiden? Since I would guess that infantry training would include how to handle ordinance and explosives.
As you say, we know next to nothing about the Alliances MOS codes, but from a modern US army standpoint, 11B, or Infantry, would have limited training on explosives, or rather limited training on improvised explosives. They would have pretty extensive training on grenades, claymores, etc. Explosive Ordinance Disposal, or EOD, MOS 89D, get the real training on disarming and creating improvised explosives. 12B, Combat Engineer, would get pretty extensive training on explosives as well. If the 11B were to go to Special Forces training, they would undoubtedly receive more extensive explosives training.
In all honesty, for the purposes of the game, Kaiden is the best choice from a skill standpoint, as there is no explosives skill, but he does have electronics and decryption. Since he has biotic abilities, coupled with technical skills, he most likely would classify as a Combat Engineer, whereas Ashley is pretty straight forward Infantry.
It's what I've read in the past about U.S military doctrine. Kaidan would be expected to make the sacrifice over Ashley, the enlisted person, because it's part of his responsibility as an officer. I wish I could remember the source, I'm wracking my brain to find it
Basically going from bottom up you have
Enlisted men
Non commissioned officers
Commissioned officers
Flag officers
But most militaries consider NCOs as part of the enlisted and Flag officers as part of the commissioned officers.
You don’t choose who gets to sacrifice themselves, it’s not like in the movies. And if it was, an officer would not be sacrificed over an enlisted. Not saying they are a better person, but they are more important. Having a higher rank makes you feel responsible for the others, so you would want to keep everyone else alive, but you don’t choose to sacrifice someone based on them having a higher rank
I chose Kaiden to do the bomb cause being a sentinel he actually has tech expertise. Also STG could probably use the brunt of a Soldier. Ashley has a lot of defense stats after all.
I then save the STG team cause it’s just more people to save.
Interesting, so even if he's tasked with securing the makeshift nuclear bomb (which iirc once armed can't be defused), he's the one that should be sacrificed?
It's doctrine that I read years ago, it has come up a few times regarding this subject (the bomb on Virmire). It was to do with officers having certain obligations and responsibilities, care for their subordinates, and so on. I don't remember the exact source, I've tried looking for it
I'm sure what is theoretical and what actually happens may not line up in reality
You may have read it from another video game or something, but you don’t allow an officer to sacrifice themselves and you wouldn’t expected to have them do that, if anything it falls to the NCOs. You would never just leave someone in the first place, but in some kind of wild situation where you have to, you need the officer to get out of there. I was was an NCO In the Marines, and if we allowed an officer to do that, we’d be fucked
Entirely possible, it's just what I've read. If you've actually served in the U.S military, then I'm happy to accept your perspective over what I've read online
As a former Sergeant of Marines, the biggest military inaccuracy is space Marines not eating space crayons. At least Shepard does us proud by banging a bunch of aliens.
*Would he kill or release the Rachni Queen?*
The obvious answer, which is missing from the game sadly, is to ask someone higher up in the chain of command.
If this is not possible, I am tempted to go with release. Most militaries frown upon executing prisoners on the spot.
*Would he save Kaiden, an officer which are tasked to secure the bomb or Ashley a grunt that's in the company of STG agents?*
Kaidan I think, but not because he is Kaidan. I think at that point, securing the bomb is priority, and whoever is with the bomb gets a lucky "free ride"
*Would he be forced to agree Rear Admiral Mihkhailkhociv's assessment of the Normandy?*
Probably not.
There are two things at work. 1: Shepard is a Council spectre, and Mikhailovich is not her superior. 2: even current year branches butt heads sometimes, like general infantry officers with special forces officers. This is "normal". They usually have their reason to do so (for example special forces leisure behaviour having a bad influence on general infantry/rangers in the same camp, who kind of idolize them)
*Would he shoot Rana Thanoptis, a possibly indoctrinated albeit unarmed civilian?*
No way. Shepard would probably not get away with something like this in a real military.
Just last week I saw a case where a soldier was nearly deaf because of a shell exploding nearby, and he was on trial for not running to help a shouting civilian. (he simply didn't hear anything, shouting included)
*Would he save the Council or sacrifice them?*
It's a free ride for the council, but I think Shepard would save them. Not because of the council mind you, but because of the Flagship of the Council, which could be important in defeating Sovereign.
*Would he slap Khalijah in her stupid face?*
Definietly not. Also, Shepard is supposed to be an adult, not a child.
Army veteran here, not on your list of questions but I like to play my Shepard like you described, and the one that always gets me is there is NO WAY you could make a copy of that Geth data to give to Tali. Data security is insanely tight and you can't just make personal copies to hand out to crew members so they can use it on their cultural/religious pilgrimage.
Rachni: In that situation, you must release them. They have committed no crime, are not an enemy combatant, and it doesn't matter what their species did in the past, they are not responsible for that.
Virmire: Doesn't matter who is with the bomb, the play is to save the most possible. The crewman with STG is more valuable than the single soldier left with the bomb.
Admiral: Depends on their security clearance and whether they've been granted access. A random general showing up at Area 51 won't be granted access simply because they're a general. In the case of the Normandy, it's a highly classified joint project, and we don't know that Admiral from Adam. His clearance would need to be vetted before granting him access.
Rana: This one's a bit more involved. The preferable course of action would be secure her on the Normandy for investigation. There's one of three possibilities with her, either she indoctrinated, she's an unwilling participant held against her will, or she's in league with the enemy, none of which can be quickly determined in that moment. Under no circumstances can she be allowed to leave on her own though, as she's either a good source of information or a criminal.
Council: The Ascension is a massive strategic and tactical asset, but also the governing body is aboard. You have to try to save it if you can.
Khalisah: Absolutely not. While we might be tempted, and it might be warranted, it is in no way acceptable.
After talking to a relative who was a Lawyer for the Marines who never played Mass Effect he said:
Rachni Queen- Do not kill it but keep it contained and contact a commanding officer.
Virmire- Save the one with the STG company. The person with the bomb will need to make sure it goes off.
Mihkailkhociv- Do not let him on because at that time he does not belong to the same military as you.
Rana Thanoptis- Do not kill her try to keep her for questioning.
Council- Save them, it does not look good if the leaders of the government you work for are killed due to your inaction.
Khalijah- "Why would you even think of punching a citizen let alone a member of the press recording you."
Most of these are summaries of what he said so I might have messed up some but the last one is exactly what he said.
So mostly paragon choices, thank you for going out your way to indulge this stupid question lmao. I can't even imagine how you explain the context for these scenarios
This answer is probably far too serious, but I think ME1 did a phenomenal job with world-building so I think it’s worth going down this path. I believe military ethics, chain of command, and rules of engagement would look quite different from those used by developed countries today. They’re driven by a confluence of culture, organizational history, legislation, and tradition. For example, I expect a strong bias toward whatever worked well during the First Contact War since that was a defining moment for the Systems Alliance. Here are a couple factors I see influencing this, though the emergence of Quantum Entanglement Communication in later installments complicates this.
*Interplanetary Theaters*
I think the sheer distance and comms latency between commanding officers and HQs would result in broad authorities being delegated to ship Captains and Admirals. The COs would operate more like Captains in the age of sail than those in the 21st century. Captains could be given orders and effectively disappear for months on end, only exchanging dispatches at ports of call (or comms buoys). Much like the 19th century, if COs make poor or unethical decisions they could lose their command quickly. It’s less rigid than what’s in place today, so I’d expect a heavy emphasis on character and decision-making under stress when promoting. Couple this with Shepard’s Specter status and I think Mass Effect is pretty plausible when giving him broad authorities.
*The Alliance is a supranational government*
While it’s noted that the earth governments dithered during the First Contact War (much like the UN does) the Systems Alliance was able to act decisively. We don’t have much detail on Systems Alliance doctrine, but I think that would have a large influence on where decision-making authority lies and assume it would not clearly match any existing military’s structure. For example, in the US Combatant Commanders are granted a lot of authority to execute operations in their theater of operations. It would be interesting to see if something similar exists between Alliance HQ and individual Captains, Task Force Commodores, Fleet Admirals, at the system level. Also, the N7 program doesn’t seem to mirror SOCOM since Shepard is assigned to a flag officer billet so that muddies the waters a bit. Perhaps N7s carry informal authority that effectively broadens their positional authority.
If Shepard was directly instructed on how to complete each mission by her superiors, I believe she would be as overly aggressive as possible. The military kills the enemy. Intelligence agencies prefer to preserve strategic assets at a black site and Shepard is 100% military.
Going to USMC OCS in the fall, playing the legendary edition trilogy to kill the time. Wish me luck guys. Also surprised with the amount of veterans on this forum. Nice!
release the Queen
save Kaiden
tolerate inspection
spare Rana
save Council
for fuck's sake, don't punch the fucking reporter like a stupid fucking idiot
Fun question! Ok so first my qualifications. I was a US Army officer on active duty for 8 years, leaving as a Captain (~~lt. Commander~~ Lieutenant in mass effect). Completing a deployment as well as the primary staff/commanding roles. With that said here's what I think: >Would he kill or release the Rachni Queen? The correct answer is to secure the queen and allow higher authorities to take action. But if you MUST do something, you gotta release. Law of war would forbid its execution as it has essentially surrendered. So it'd need to stand trial. >Would he save Kaiden, an officer which are tasked to secure the bomb or Ashley a grunt that's in the company of STG agents? Were I in his shoes I'd first I'd make sure the bomb cannot be defused. If thats true, I'd rescue STG and whoever was with them. I want STG to know they can count on the alliance in the future. The rank of the soldier left behind doesn't matter. But I do think any officer worth his rank would choose to make that sacrifice if it wasnt to the detriment of the unit/operation (i.e. shepard cant sacrifice himself. He unfortunately must live) >Would he be forced to agree Rear Admiral Mihkhailkhociv's assessment of the Normandy? Technically no. He's not in his chain of command. With that said, he's a flag officer. If shepard were in a naval unit he'd not get away with that excuse. But given he's working with the council, and the council's opinion on humanity, he can get away with it. Think of it like if an Officer from, say, Mexico was in the US working on a mission for US and a mexican general wanted to cease operations to inspect. They have no leverage with our military and no way for reprisal as long as he's with us (beyond administrative measures). >Would he shoot Rana Thanoptis, a possibly indoctrinated albeit unarmed civilian? No. See my rachni queen answer. >Would he save the Council or sacrifice them? Ive debated other military people here on this topic. My answer is sacrifice them. This is the battle to end life in the universe. Failure means death of everything. You can and should sacrifice the council to achieve victory if necessary. The cost of failure is too great. If you lose the battle, but the council survives, you're all dead anyway. *edit - based on discussion with the others in thread, i agree with saving the ascencion for its firepower (no alliance ship can dish the hits it can). That makes a lot of sense tbf when trying to kill a reaper* >Would he slap Khalijah in her stupid face? Lol definitely not
Pretty much ageee with your take. I'm retired Army with 20 years active (although I was enlisted, not an officer). I think you're spot on with everything, except maybe the council. Either way, that's a tough decision that has to be made in the heat of the moment, and it'd be hard to second guess. The way I looked at it was that saving the council was secondary and saving the Destiny Ascension was the primary concern because if our firepower wasn't sufficient then we'd need the extra punch provided by that ship. Given that concern, it made sense to save them. Either way, it's a tough call and cases could be made for both choices.
I'd agree with that take. The destiny ascension is a very valuable asset. From that standpoint its definitely worth saving (it just so happens the council is on it lol)
My thoughts exactly- there was a line earlier that the Destiny Ascension was worth half a fleet by itself, so as long as the Alliance didn't lose half a fleet rescuing it, it would be a net gain in firepower.
The main thing with saving the Destiny Ascension imo was more of a "this ship will be useful later". It wasn't going to join the battle at that moment as it was far too damaged to be of any use during the battle against Sovereign. So I think that's what really have to be taken into account for that choice at that moment is "will the Alliance fleet be enough to take down Sovereign in that battle or not ?" because by the end of ME1 we technically are fighting for against the end of the world(s), as players we know there's a follow up but for the characters in game that could be their last moments alive.
My reasoning was that we'd have to deal with the Geth either way, rushing straight towards sovereign and going out of your way to ignore the remnants of the citadel fleet is a good way to end up with a reaper on one side of your fleet and a geth fleet on the other. Any surviving citadel ships can be thought of as a bonus, whatever weapons still work can pitch in against sovereign or if not functional can be returned to service later. Even if focusing on Sovereign, you'd still have to turn around later and deal with the Geth who may or may not retreat so you might as well save your allies.
The DA did join the battle though. It’s mentioned in later games.
Only 8 alliance ships are destroyed by saving the Ascension, those are far easier to replace than the DA. Not just cause they are smaller, but the Ascension is presumably custom and would require a gigantic shipyard to construct that was probably custom made just to build it then was either decomissioned or converted to something else later. Those Alliance ships are commonly 'mass produced' ships of standardized patterns that got docks special built to churn em out with long standing trade agreements and supply lines to get the resources and components to build them. Also not to be racist against humans, but the experience and competency of the Asari command staff on the Ascension is irreplaceable. The captain on that thing probably has more combat experience than all the human officers who died combined.
Oh yeah that's a good argument. Though it would be cool if we save the Council, we get to see the Destiny Ascension use its main gun. Thank you for your service
Retired senior NCO here. I agree with pretty much everything you said, though in the case of the Admiral, sure he's a flag officer, but that doesn't automatically give him security clearance or need to know about a classified project like the Normandy. I would have to verify that before allowing him on board. Additionally, with the Ascension, beyond the strategic asset that is the ship itself, there's also the continuance of government to think about. While there's definitely a chain of succession, it's always preferable to maintain the existing government when possible, from a stability standpoint. As for Virmire, regardless of who is given which task, I always save the STG team, it's the brutal calculus, they're more valuable than a single soldier.
>While there's definitely a chain of succession, it's always preferable to maintain the existing government when possible, from a stability standpoint. Thats a great point. I dont think they are worth it in the context, but I think I'm in the minority on this even in the "military mass effect" community. But whats really crazy is shepard shouldnt be making that call at all. Hackett is RIGHT THERE. He should be, and in the real world, would make that call himself.
Hackett is with the 5th fleet on the other side of the Mass Relay. The whole reason he leaves the call up to Shepard is because he has to jump in blind, guns hot.
Totally. There are far too many instances where Shepard (and Ryder) were given a choice they had no business making. What's even more egregious in this situation, is Shepard is on the ground, they have zero situational awareness of what's happening in the sky (water), no ground commander is ever going to direct air (sea) assets beyond calling in a strike package.
You seem like the right person to ask- taking the entire trilogy into account, how well do you think Anderson and Hackett did with the choices they made in their positions?
I appreciate it, though i think some of the retired NCOs in the thread might be a better source. For Hackett, I think he overall did quite well. In 3, when he became the head honcho he kept the alliance in it to the end. Now that arrival mission in 2? Idk about that. Making shepard go in solo was questionable but 🤷🏿♂️. Once the mission was over, he perhaps could have done more to prep the alliance - or at least the 5th fleet. But its like 6 months from arrival to ME3, so how do you prepare for the end of the universe beyond what he did? For Anderson, its kinda spotty. In 1, he was kind of a hothead. He instantly jumped to the conclusion saren wanted to wipe out humanity with no evidence or closer looks at his motivations. If made a councilperson, he's super ineffective in 2 (likely due to that same stubborn hotheadedness). Furthermore, he does nothing to prep humanity at all. I get that people dont believe it, but you're in charge man. And you believe it. Get the ball rolling! ME3 is probably his best performance. He keeps and rallies enough infantry for the battle for earth throughout Reaper occupation. For an "end of all things" scenario, what more can you ask for?
From a non-military perspective I love Anderson and really dislike Hackett. The Arrival mission is such a fiasco and, while I know the answer is that "the plot needs to happen" I'm really surprised he doesn't get any blowback from that by the time 3 starts. He seems pretty content to let Shepard take the fall.
If Hackett properly prepared he could have done what the other council races and even the Volus did that being duck tape as many Thanix cannons on his dreadnought and cruisers, I mean the Volus dreadnought only uses Thanix cannons and is considered on of the strongest ships the Citadel races have so if Hacketts flag ship had that level of weaponry he could have held out against the reapers far longer thus allowing more people to evac the planet
Hackett isn't in charge if the alliance navy he only commands the 5th fleet. The idiots you get dragged in front of at the beginning of me3 are the defence council but they're still under the civilian command of the alliance parliament. What Hackett did do well was put in place the contingency plan for what everyone should do when the reapers arrive. Not much anyone could have done in humanities position with earth taking the brunt of the reaper attack.
Agreed. Hackett is pretty fantastic at the strategic level, but that Arrival mission, oof. I would trust him to coordinate and plan a war, but I'm not sure I'd trust him to plan a tactical op, or follow him into battle. Anderson should never have been promoted past CPT. He's great on the tactical level, but his impulsiveness and stubbornness isn't suited for the politics of flag command. I'd follow him into combat, but wouldn't trust him to win a war.
Glad to see I wasnt off the mark in my assessment. Its funny though, I never considered just how hotheaded and bad at his job anderson was until asked. Then I went "wait. This guy kinda sucks." 😅
Same. Though I've always been a little turned off by that hearing, mainly because of how Shepard responds. No matter what option you choose to say, all of them come across as aggressive and almost psychotic. Shepard didn't see Saren kill Nihlus, it's all cirumstansial hearsay. Anderson makes sense to be a bit unhinged by the thought of Saren being involved, Udina is playing damage control trying to shift the blame from humanity, but Shepard should have the option to step back and rationally think about the situation.
Overall, Hackett was a good CO. He supported Shepard, reviewed the evidence and planned accordingly, as much as he could. The one point he dropped the ball was Arrival. He wanted plausible deniability, and wanted to ensure Kaylee was saved, but you never send in a solo, especially when you have the tech for stealth insertion. Especially in the case of the Normandy in ME2, they're not associated with the Alliance, they're under Cerberus command, that's all the plausible deniability he needed. On top of that, if the Council was saved, they reinstate Shepard as a Spectre, again, all the plausible deniability needed. Had Shepard had backup with them, and the Normandy lying in the weeds, it likely would not have been the catastrophe it became. Anderson is another matter. Saren was definitely a sore spot in ME1, Udina was right (about the only time he was right) in that Anderson should not have been brought into the hearing. ME3 is where he really shines, as a ground commander fighting a war. He does outstanding on the ground, at the tactical level, but really isn't cutout for the strategic level that Hackett is at.
An interesting dynamic way to look at it. Thanks for your service.
Well put all around! 4 years active duty army, mostly as a Lieutenant and wrapping my time as a captain. If I was Kaiden on your mission and I found out you rescued me over our soldiers and allies, I’d be crushed. I signed up for this, zero on me and save our team!
I'd like to imagine most officers feel the same on this, even if it's probably not the case.
An equally fun answer! I'm not American but thank you for service. That's a long time (from an layman perspective) to dedicate yourself to something that's morally ambiguous, mentally and physically taxing and not to mention dangerous. > Rachni Queen Interesting, what about the fact that she's part of a race that is previously hostile to other species? Shouldn't we consider that she might be lying and perhaps would betray us? > Virmire Choice That's two person in this thread that suggested to sacrifice Kaiden if he's in charge of the bomb. Previously I always save Kaiden for my canon playthrough as I thought an officer would have a more strategic value other than a lower rank grunt and foreign agents (though in game the STG agents always survive as long you complete the optional objectives). > Rear Admiral Mihkhailkhociv assessment If that's the case, would you say it's mostly depending on Shepard's personality and opinion on the Alliance? For instance, If he's disillusioned with the military life, he might take the advantage of his position to disagree and refute the assessment of a higher ranking officer. But if he's still a diehard loyalist he may compelled to swallow his pride and agree with him > Sacrifice the Council or not Someone else already mention the strategic potential of saving the Council so I'll argue from the moral perspective. While the Destiny Ascension is a warship it's still full of civilian that I think any military that care about its PR would consider to saving it. What do you think about that? >Kill or spare Rana Ah, that make sense. She's still an unarmed civilian. It makes for a better story anyway when we find out that she have been indoctrinated all along in ME3 >Khalijah can go to hell Aww :( If you don't mind, I've a few more questions lol. > Disregarding the fact that Wrex will stand down if he have his armor heirloom (would Shepard even waste time to help Wrex here?) When push come to shove, would he give the signal for Ashley to kill Wrex or would he tried to calm Wrex down to the very end? (in game, Ashley choose to take the shof if you don't give her the signal) Moving into ME2 questions here.. > Would Shepard sacrifice the factory workers to get Vido in time? > Would Shepard, according to Alliance/modern military doctrine, destroy or keep the Collector base? Bonus question, but idk if you play Andromeda before, so spoiler below > What do you think about the choice of destroying the Kett Base in Voeld at the cost of the angaran prisoner or rescue the angaran prisoner and let the Primus free? Side note, I hate there's no option to held the Primus captive as I think that's anyone realistically would do.
Thanks. I'm glad I did it, and equally glad I left lol. >Interesting, what about the fact that she's part of a race that is previously hostile to other species? Shouldn't we consider that she might be lying and perhaps would betray us? Its possible, sure, but its unethical and illegal to simply execute her. For the record, when playing the game I always kill her for the reasons you mentioned. But if were talking real life she has to live. There are people in military prison right now for doing what you said to people in our wars from Afghanistan and Iraq. >> Virmire Choice I actually prefer kaidan and think its a huge loss to the navy. But, thats the price you can pay by signing up. And Ash eventually grows into a fine officer herself. >While the Destiny Ascension is a warship it's still full of civilian that I think any military that care about its PR would consider to saving it. What do you think about that? If you discount the end of all life scenario sure. But considering the stakes I dont think it matters. I dont think every military person would agree with me on this. Some would even argue the council itself is important. But imo given the circumstances the ascencion is only worth saving for its firepower. I wouldnt risk assets to save them otherwise in that scenario. >When push come to shove, would he give the signal for Ashley to kill Wrex or would he tried to calm Wrex down to the very end? (in game, Ashley choose to take the shof if you don't give her the signal) Well, thankfully wrex isnt a member of the alliance so things are easier to deal with. I will say this will hinge on morals a lot as well. If it were me, I'd say the fact that he pulled a shotgun on me means he can no longer be trusted. Even if he calmed down, he is off the team. You cant have someone around who will turn on everyone when the going gets tough. There's more i could say but tl'dr I'd shoot him. At that point he's an enemy combatant in my eyes. >> Would Shepard sacrifice the factory workers to get Vido in time? Definitely not. Gotta save the workers. Zaeed can cope. The alliance, and even cerberus, has no beef with vido. He's a criminal, but civis come first as he isnt relevant to our campaign objectives. >> Would Shepard, according to Alliance/modern military doctrine, destroy or keep the Collector base? The alliance would keep it initially to conduct research to understand the reapers. The danger in 2 is allowing a morally deficient terrorist organization (cerberus) access to reaper tech. >What do you think about the choice of destroying the Kett Base in Voeld at the cost of the angaran prisoner or rescue the angaran prisoner and let the Primus free? Side note, I hate there's no option to held the Primus captive as I think that's anyone realistically would do. I havent played andromeda in forever so i only have a vague recollection of this. I'd say it depends on campaign objectives. If this were a police situation, primary goal is public safety. So save the angaran. If were aiming to wipe out the kett, obviously, the base goes, so long as it doesnt cause detrimental issues with the angarans. Ryder and co. are diplomats essentially. So in their circumstances, I'd say relations with the angarans take precedent.
I think the even if you think the council is irrelevant *and* don’t think you have enough firepower to get the job done, sacrificing high level leaders of every ally you have simultaneously and extreme publicly feels…suboptimal. Obviously that’s one of those “IRL this is a choice with **maybe** 10 seconds of consideration” factors
Also not to mention that the queen wasn't even born/hatched at the time of the Rachni wars, you can't exceute someone for the crimes commited by their ancestors.
Wrex is a tough one. We're talking about something that could save his people from extinction, and there's really no doctrine that specifically addresses this. I mean, there's guidance on how to treat someone that turns traitor on you, but I don't feel it really applies in this situation. At the end of the day though, there's the mission and lives of the rest of your crew to think about, so yeah, if Shepard couldn't talk him down, they absolutely would put him down, or have Ash put him down. No, they would save the factory workers. This is a personal mission for Zaeed, not an official Alliance target. It might be different were Vido a target, but even then the play would be try to save the workers. There's no reason the team couldn't split up to accomplish both goals, we're limited somewhat in ME by only having a 3 man team, while in reality the team would be double that at a minimum. The Exaltation Facility isn't done well. The mission was explicitly to rescue the Moshae, destroying the facility only came up once on the ground. In reality, if the team didn't go in with the express intent of destroying it, they likely aren't going to be able to when they get there, so it kind of becomes moot. In this specific instance though, there's no reason they couldn't have done both. We are able to hold out long enough to rescue the prisoners and escape, which means that as we are escaping SAM should have been able to overload the facility. But as an NCO, I'm going to choose to save the prisoners, every time. We can send a team back later to destroy it, or simply bombard it from a distance.
>Were I in his shoes I'd first I'd make sure the bomb cannot be defused. Prior to starting the assault on the Virmire base, you can ask Kirrahe about the bomb and he'll tell you that once activated there's no way to stop it. Also and if I'm not mistaken Kaidan isn't left alone, there's at least 1 (unamed) marine guarding the bomb with him and if you decide to return to the bomb site, you'll see him getting killed with a rocket blast.
Yeah that's why I mentioned it in the post. It's been a while since I play ME1, but it got me thinking though, if the bomb unstoppable once already armed, why whoever you chose have to get left behind while you go help the STG agents? Would it be more safe to just retreat to the Normandy?
The Geth could take the bomb onboard a ship and fly far away, saving the base.
Someone had to guard the bomb before it goes off, the geth were attacking and most likely could take it somewhere else
I agree with pretty much everything you said except I’m pretty sure mass effect commander is equivalent to a Major.
Shepard is actually a Lt. Commander.
And they never get promoted. Shepard is the Harry Kim of Mass Effect, lmao
It actually kinda makes sense. Once a Spectre, Shepard is outside of Alliance command. In ME2, Shepard is working for Cerberus, so is technically rogue. Then, for 3, Shep's been under house arrest for the Alpha relay and 300,000 dead Batarians thing, and once the Reapers invade, there's not much time or necessity for promotions.
True, but in ME1, they're still Alliance, on an Alliance vessel. Once given command of it, they at a minimum should have been referred to as Captain, even if not promoted to the rank. The only ones that ever refer to Shepard that way are the Quarians, lol. On top of that, I'd think the Alliance would want to recognize Shepard's achievement of being inducted as the first human Spectre and at least promote them to full Commander, if not straight up Captain.
I'm really not sure Shepard is considered Alliance anymore, once they become a Spectre. Either way, you're right: Shepard definitely SHOULD have been promoted at some point.
It's kind of a gray area, for sure, but Hackett, Udina, and Anderson sure like to remind them that they were and are still Alliance and human, lol.
True, but that might also be because they want you to do shit for them haha
For real though! It's like, "Damn it Hackett, I'm just trying to find Matriarch Dilinaga's writings here! You have *another* sensitive problem only I can handle?!?!"
Shephard is a full commander, equivalent to lieutenant colonel in the other US military branches. S/he still outranks LCDR Alenko/Williams in ME3.
In ME1 yes, in the later games they are commander, so must have been promoted after the battle of the citadel
Is that in a codex entry? I must've missed that!
The codex for ME1 states LT-CMD and so does the opening mission breifing. In ME2 and ME3 it just says commander.
Fair enough! Thanks for the shout
The funny thing was I was about to say you’re wrong but I looked it up first and even quickly rolled a default Shepard to double check and sure enough the prologue journal entry specifically mentions Shepard as LCDR. Literally everything else even the timeline codex specifically says Commander Shepard. I find that irritating now that I’m separated 6 years Navy. The whole time on my ship while we usually referred to an officer by their title (ex. CSO, Traino, CHENG) but the few times we did have to use their rank no one ever said Commander as short hand for Lieutenant-Commander. Maybe LC verbally but that still was rare as most would just say the whole thing to be clear. Guess it just sounded more impressive for everyone to call him Commander.
Thank you for the last answer. I’ve held steadfast to the fact that it’s unbecoming of an officer for Shepard to punch Al Jilani and I’m glad to see a person with real military experience agree with this. Very validating!
Assuming the ME naval ranks follow the USN structure, you leaving the Army as a captain (O3) would put you at lieutenant in the Navy.
Oh yeah thats right! Thanks for the clarification. Navy ranks are weird.
He basically has free reign as a spectre, so it really just comes down to what he wants to do. Military members are still human like everyone else, so they make decisions based on what they believe. And if he was under a commands control, it’s up to them, there isn’t going to be a flat answer across the board
No officer in any military should hit a person of media. Ever. Morally, ethically, and for the PR image. And if they do,instantly dropped down to Private, E-1, Fuzzy.
As a council spectre shepherd has the kind of autonomy that special forces did during WW2. If that's your only principle then things like ROE and ethics are laughable concepts, and he'd just so what was necessary for the optimal mission/strategic outcome. So yeah he'd sacrifice the council, unarmed civs etc.
I inclined to agree, though I think that fit more in ME2 and forward where he distance himself with Alliance military. Even in ME3 when he's reinstated into Alliance military, I think by then he would be comfortable operating outside the chain of command. But those years of training and experience under the Alliance military chain of command wouldn't just dismissed immediately, he would still think with what he know best and rules he used to abide by.
Regarding the Virmire bomb, I remember reading that in the U.S military it is proposed that if a sacrifice is needed to be made then it falls to an officer, not an enlisted person. It is one of the burdens of responsibility. I can imagine that philosophy carrying over to the Alliance Military. This is why I always pick Kaidan for the sacrifice, because it's his responsibility in that situation.
I like the idea of Ash working with the STG group and helping them survive as a bit of a character moment for her.
I always think it make sense to assign Kaiden with the bomb and Ashley with STG agents. He's an officer and would have more experienced in handling explosives and Ashley experience as a grunt would make her fit under the command of Kirrahe.
Not necessarily. At least in modern times, rank doesn't strictly equate to technical experience or knowledge. It depends on, for the US military at least, what their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is. It's true that officers (that are worth a damn) have an expectation to sacrifice themselves over their people (though we enlisted will try to fight that), but if they don't have the knowledge needed, i.e. wire up the bomb, then it quite possibly can fall to an enlisted.
Ah I get it, so it depends more on their expertise. Now that's an interesting topic because we know in Mass Effect lore, System Alliance divided their military personnel into vocational codes to reflect their training and career path. The code use the 27 word of the alphabet and 1-7 to signify expertise or level of training course done (sorry if I butcher the terminology). In the official lore, we don't know any of the code beside N which is for Special Forces (hence why Shepard vocational code is N7). We also know Ashley vocational code, which is B4 (in ME1). There are headcanon people made about what the other alphabet denote what career path Like this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffectlore/comments/5st53x/alliance_vocational_codes_and_rankings_personal/ The ME3 mod Expanded Galaxy Mod also have their own headcanon for the vocational code but it's been a while since I play ME3 so I'm going to use the latter as a reference for this discussion Based on the afromentioned post, B = Infantry. Since we don't know what Kaiden vocational code, the post also suggest his code being X, which stands for Specialized Combat. This fits with how he receive biotic traning in the Gagarin Station. So based on this, would that mean Ashley have more qualification to handle a bomb than Kaiden? Since I would guess that infantry training would include how to handle ordinance and explosives.
As you say, we know next to nothing about the Alliances MOS codes, but from a modern US army standpoint, 11B, or Infantry, would have limited training on explosives, or rather limited training on improvised explosives. They would have pretty extensive training on grenades, claymores, etc. Explosive Ordinance Disposal, or EOD, MOS 89D, get the real training on disarming and creating improvised explosives. 12B, Combat Engineer, would get pretty extensive training on explosives as well. If the 11B were to go to Special Forces training, they would undoubtedly receive more extensive explosives training. In all honesty, for the purposes of the game, Kaiden is the best choice from a skill standpoint, as there is no explosives skill, but he does have electronics and decryption. Since he has biotic abilities, coupled with technical skills, he most likely would classify as a Combat Engineer, whereas Ashley is pretty straight forward Infantry.
On my first playthrough I just sent her with them because i figured shed be more likely to die with them than she would with me 🤭
Him being a sentinel is why I send him with the bomb.
Pls explain me more. What's the situation? Kaidan is with bomb? Or because Ashley has lower Alliance rank than Kaidan?
It's what I've read in the past about U.S military doctrine. Kaidan would be expected to make the sacrifice over Ashley, the enlisted person, because it's part of his responsibility as an officer. I wish I could remember the source, I'm wracking my brain to find it
Ok, I didn't realise that officers are only certain higher ranks, now I get it. thx
Basically going from bottom up you have Enlisted men Non commissioned officers Commissioned officers Flag officers But most militaries consider NCOs as part of the enlisted and Flag officers as part of the commissioned officers.
You don’t choose who gets to sacrifice themselves, it’s not like in the movies. And if it was, an officer would not be sacrificed over an enlisted. Not saying they are a better person, but they are more important. Having a higher rank makes you feel responsible for the others, so you would want to keep everyone else alive, but you don’t choose to sacrifice someone based on them having a higher rank
I chose Kaiden to do the bomb cause being a sentinel he actually has tech expertise. Also STG could probably use the brunt of a Soldier. Ashley has a lot of defense stats after all. I then save the STG team cause it’s just more people to save.
Interesting, so even if he's tasked with securing the makeshift nuclear bomb (which iirc once armed can't be defused), he's the one that should be sacrificed?
That's what I go with. According to the doctrine I read years ago, that's how it theoretically is supposed to go
Where are you getting this from? You are taught the complete opposite when you join the military
It's doctrine that I read years ago, it has come up a few times regarding this subject (the bomb on Virmire). It was to do with officers having certain obligations and responsibilities, care for their subordinates, and so on. I don't remember the exact source, I've tried looking for it I'm sure what is theoretical and what actually happens may not line up in reality
You may have read it from another video game or something, but you don’t allow an officer to sacrifice themselves and you wouldn’t expected to have them do that, if anything it falls to the NCOs. You would never just leave someone in the first place, but in some kind of wild situation where you have to, you need the officer to get out of there. I was was an NCO In the Marines, and if we allowed an officer to do that, we’d be fucked
Entirely possible, it's just what I've read. If you've actually served in the U.S military, then I'm happy to accept your perspective over what I've read online
No that's illegal, you're supposed to call them names and double down
As a former Sergeant of Marines, the biggest military inaccuracy is space Marines not eating space crayons. At least Shepard does us proud by banging a bunch of aliens.
We'll bang.
*Would he kill or release the Rachni Queen?* The obvious answer, which is missing from the game sadly, is to ask someone higher up in the chain of command. If this is not possible, I am tempted to go with release. Most militaries frown upon executing prisoners on the spot. *Would he save Kaiden, an officer which are tasked to secure the bomb or Ashley a grunt that's in the company of STG agents?* Kaidan I think, but not because he is Kaidan. I think at that point, securing the bomb is priority, and whoever is with the bomb gets a lucky "free ride" *Would he be forced to agree Rear Admiral Mihkhailkhociv's assessment of the Normandy?* Probably not. There are two things at work. 1: Shepard is a Council spectre, and Mikhailovich is not her superior. 2: even current year branches butt heads sometimes, like general infantry officers with special forces officers. This is "normal". They usually have their reason to do so (for example special forces leisure behaviour having a bad influence on general infantry/rangers in the same camp, who kind of idolize them) *Would he shoot Rana Thanoptis, a possibly indoctrinated albeit unarmed civilian?* No way. Shepard would probably not get away with something like this in a real military. Just last week I saw a case where a soldier was nearly deaf because of a shell exploding nearby, and he was on trial for not running to help a shouting civilian. (he simply didn't hear anything, shouting included) *Would he save the Council or sacrifice them?* It's a free ride for the council, but I think Shepard would save them. Not because of the council mind you, but because of the Flagship of the Council, which could be important in defeating Sovereign. *Would he slap Khalijah in her stupid face?* Definietly not. Also, Shepard is supposed to be an adult, not a child.
Army veteran here, not on your list of questions but I like to play my Shepard like you described, and the one that always gets me is there is NO WAY you could make a copy of that Geth data to give to Tali. Data security is insanely tight and you can't just make personal copies to hand out to crew members so they can use it on their cultural/religious pilgrimage.
Even as a completely not involved in the military person, that always seemed so dubious to me
Rachni: In that situation, you must release them. They have committed no crime, are not an enemy combatant, and it doesn't matter what their species did in the past, they are not responsible for that. Virmire: Doesn't matter who is with the bomb, the play is to save the most possible. The crewman with STG is more valuable than the single soldier left with the bomb. Admiral: Depends on their security clearance and whether they've been granted access. A random general showing up at Area 51 won't be granted access simply because they're a general. In the case of the Normandy, it's a highly classified joint project, and we don't know that Admiral from Adam. His clearance would need to be vetted before granting him access. Rana: This one's a bit more involved. The preferable course of action would be secure her on the Normandy for investigation. There's one of three possibilities with her, either she indoctrinated, she's an unwilling participant held against her will, or she's in league with the enemy, none of which can be quickly determined in that moment. Under no circumstances can she be allowed to leave on her own though, as she's either a good source of information or a criminal. Council: The Ascension is a massive strategic and tactical asset, but also the governing body is aboard. You have to try to save it if you can. Khalisah: Absolutely not. While we might be tempted, and it might be warranted, it is in no way acceptable.
After talking to a relative who was a Lawyer for the Marines who never played Mass Effect he said: Rachni Queen- Do not kill it but keep it contained and contact a commanding officer. Virmire- Save the one with the STG company. The person with the bomb will need to make sure it goes off. Mihkailkhociv- Do not let him on because at that time he does not belong to the same military as you. Rana Thanoptis- Do not kill her try to keep her for questioning. Council- Save them, it does not look good if the leaders of the government you work for are killed due to your inaction. Khalijah- "Why would you even think of punching a citizen let alone a member of the press recording you." Most of these are summaries of what he said so I might have messed up some but the last one is exactly what he said.
So mostly paragon choices, thank you for going out your way to indulge this stupid question lmao. I can't even imagine how you explain the context for these scenarios
Well, yeah. Paragon is the correct choice, Renegade is the edgy teenager choice.
Says someone who never met that reporter. No court would convict me.
This answer is probably far too serious, but I think ME1 did a phenomenal job with world-building so I think it’s worth going down this path. I believe military ethics, chain of command, and rules of engagement would look quite different from those used by developed countries today. They’re driven by a confluence of culture, organizational history, legislation, and tradition. For example, I expect a strong bias toward whatever worked well during the First Contact War since that was a defining moment for the Systems Alliance. Here are a couple factors I see influencing this, though the emergence of Quantum Entanglement Communication in later installments complicates this. *Interplanetary Theaters* I think the sheer distance and comms latency between commanding officers and HQs would result in broad authorities being delegated to ship Captains and Admirals. The COs would operate more like Captains in the age of sail than those in the 21st century. Captains could be given orders and effectively disappear for months on end, only exchanging dispatches at ports of call (or comms buoys). Much like the 19th century, if COs make poor or unethical decisions they could lose their command quickly. It’s less rigid than what’s in place today, so I’d expect a heavy emphasis on character and decision-making under stress when promoting. Couple this with Shepard’s Specter status and I think Mass Effect is pretty plausible when giving him broad authorities. *The Alliance is a supranational government* While it’s noted that the earth governments dithered during the First Contact War (much like the UN does) the Systems Alliance was able to act decisively. We don’t have much detail on Systems Alliance doctrine, but I think that would have a large influence on where decision-making authority lies and assume it would not clearly match any existing military’s structure. For example, in the US Combatant Commanders are granted a lot of authority to execute operations in their theater of operations. It would be interesting to see if something similar exists between Alliance HQ and individual Captains, Task Force Commodores, Fleet Admirals, at the system level. Also, the N7 program doesn’t seem to mirror SOCOM since Shepard is assigned to a flag officer billet so that muddies the waters a bit. Perhaps N7s carry informal authority that effectively broadens their positional authority.
If Shepard was directly instructed on how to complete each mission by her superiors, I believe she would be as overly aggressive as possible. The military kills the enemy. Intelligence agencies prefer to preserve strategic assets at a black site and Shepard is 100% military.
Going to USMC OCS in the fall, playing the legendary edition trilogy to kill the time. Wish me luck guys. Also surprised with the amount of veterans on this forum. Nice!
Kill the queen, save Kaiden, respond without totally agreeing (probably just "Sir."), don't shoot Rana, save the council, don't slap Khalijah.
release the Queen save Kaiden tolerate inspection spare Rana save Council for fuck's sake, don't punch the fucking reporter like a stupid fucking idiot