Why DON'T you kill people?

[AppleQueso]

Aaaaaaaaaaand now the dude is advocating full on domestic abuse.

You guys still taking him seriously?

[dsheinem]

when a man becomes angry it is only natural for him to become violent, and now instead of the woman finally learning a lesson she should have learned a long time ago, the man is arrested and thrown into a cage. Now the lesson is for the man, and the lesson he learns is that it's best to become tolerant and submissive unless he wants more punishment. It's self-imposed psychological castration, and it's disgusting.

You are an idiot or a troll. In either case, please leave this site/community as you've pretty much managed to become the site's largest asshole in less than a week. Your "knowledge" of gender and sexuality is rooted in NOTHING that approaches any of the respected contemporary scientific, social scientific, philosophical, or other ways of researching/thinking about/understating how the world works. You are ignorance incarnate clinging to superstition and stereotypes as the basis for your "arguments". So fuck off.

(See, I am able to be angry without being violent!)

[CFFJR]

I'm amazed someone out there hasn't killed chilimac yet. Putting this sad sack out of his misery would be the manly thing to do wouldn't it? Fix up the gene pool too. Survival of the fittest and all that jazz.

[Luke]

If you ask me...

I didn't. No one did.

Wait, wait, wait.

This is BusomJack isn't it? Has to be. If this isn't BusomJack I would be completely stupefied.

And if not, I wasn't playing hero. I've got this weird thing called chivalry that I can't seem to shake. Or maybe I have an anti-slap-nuts gene that makes me stand up for those who can't.

Now this discussion has been nonsense for the last five or so pages so this is very easy to clear up. Buso....I mean chilimac, wouldn't you say the guy who eats chilimac all day on the couch is less of a man who posts on a retro game forum on what being a man means? And shouldn't a man already have the testosterone he needs? You can't even pitch a tent without medicine; what kind of a man does that make you? Your father must be ashamed...or proud that you won't be procreating.

[Michi]

If you ask me...

I didn't. No one did.

Wait, wait, wait.

This is BusomJack isn't it? Has to be. If this isn't BusomJack I would be completely stupefied.

I don't think it's BusomJack, Luke. I...I think it's the guy you punched in the face. There can be no other explanation.

[elmagicochrisg]

Just look at those shapely legs.

Well, isn't that the ultimate in divide & conquer style manliness? He's so rich and powerful he doesn't even have to give a shit about what men are supposed to wear. He wears what he wants, and if you don't like it, off with your head. It's super decadent and detached from the life of the common man.

The outfit probably makes a lot more sense knowing the full context of their culture back in that time.

You almost make me want to shave my legs and wear panties now. Almost...

[Luke]

You almost make me want to shave my legs and wear panties now. Almost...

You also never fail to make me feel icky.

[Hazerd]

This thread is so off-topic, it has nothing to do with Gaming anymore, or ever did.

[flex wood]

You almost make me want to shave my legs and wear panties now. Almost...

You also never fail to make me feel icky.

In that case I demand you do it and post pics.

[Key-Glyph]

Aaaaaaaaaaand now the dude is advocating full on domestic abuse. You guys still taking him seriously?

That was my turning point, too. Anyway, thanks to all for the genuinely sciencey, sociological, and psychological bits, and also the snark. I've been laughing pretty hard over here.

Potentially back on topic (with some video games thrown in):

Luke's story is a good example of having the potential to commit violence, but restraining it. Ultimately he used it in a necessary situation for an important end, but went no further than was absolutely needed. (Bravo, BTW.) This distinction between violence for enjoyment's sake and violence for duty's sake is something that I'm finding is done well in the first Mass Effect. I reluctantly decided to go for the 75% Renegade achievement on my current playthrough, expecting to feel like a complete asshole the entire time. Since most of my genuine decisions go Paragon, I'd assumed the Renegade options -- which I'd never seen -- would be gleefully sadistic in contrast. Not so. The persuasion options of Charm and Intimidate are equal paths to a peaceful resolve. It's the difference between "Go home to your wife, Conrad. I don't need you to throw your life away as a soldier; what I need is civilians like you to fight for," and "THIS IS WHAT A GUN IN YOUR FACE FEELS LIKE! YOU COULDN'T HANDLE THIS! SO GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"

I was seriously surprised that the game still makes me feel like a good guy regardless of my alignment, not to mention how some Renegade options actually make much more sense if you're not trusting in the game mechanics to reward you with ideal conclusions just for going Paragon ("You're a mentally ill cult leader who ordered his disciples to kill investigating Alliance soldiers and you want me to trust you that you'll surrender if I give you an hour alone to ready your things? Really?").

This ties into the "why don't you kill people?" question somewhat (maybe) because, in addition to thinking I would only take a life under extreme circumstances, I have always had an extremely difficult time doing evil in video games. It causes me stress. And so I was interested to find that it wasn't necessarily the dislike of violence alone that was the root of my anxiety in my Shepard's choices (I suppose I am running around shooting enemies, after all), but rather the attitude or goal of that violence. If the writing made Shepard a psychopath or a reveler in wanton death, I wouldn't be able to stand it. But since the writing makes Shepard an anti-hero with a good, if partially frozen, heart, I feel burdened, sometimes seriously mistaken in my judgment... but not violated as The Decider. Intentions aren't everything, but apparently they count for a lot in my mind. And I suppose that's the same sort of distinction people draw between "I support our troops" and "I support the war."