Ryder v Shepard: The Making of Legends.

One of the most fascinating, and ocassionally preplexing conversations on the Forums recently, well since the game came out, is the difference between Ryder and Shepard, and usually resulting in people choosing one side or the other shouting down any of the opposition, instead of, critically examining the issue before us and who knows maybe actually learning something from the whole process.  

Now the general assumption on the forum from a lot of corners that Ryder is a weak do nothing submissive 'pussy' who can't really do anything while Shepard is an AR toting bad ass able to do bad ass things like...punch reporters in the face.  Now, the truth, as it usually is, is a lot more nuanced then that.  And, truthfully even after what I do today it will still come down to personal preference.  Because in my mind, despite being team Ryder and really talking up Ryder...its close...really close.  The two characters are awesome and it almost comes down to a flip of a coin which one you prefer. 

Out of all the categories you could compare the two characters in the easiest, and most compelling, are their individual character (arcs) and their leadership abilities.  

Shepard was a  character who was given everything to them.  They became a Spectre early in the first Mass Effect, circumventing an entire process to become Spectre, and had little development from that.  I suppose one could argue that the ME 3 character 'development' counts as Shepard descends into misery and madness at the increasing death tolll...but good RPGs give the character the chance to reflect or even choose which direction this arc takes.  ME 3 did not.  Inspite of this all Shepard is super competent at their job.  Able to get away with a lot of things in the MET on the simple basis that they are Commander Shepard.  They are tough.  No nonsense.  And a military officer through and through.  And despite the weakness of Shepard's arc in the games, Shepard is reasonably well defined.  Though, it is worth noting that Shepard follows many of the genre tropes and cliches of an over powered player character, yet people sseem to like that sort of thing, explaining the popularity of people like Chuck Norris, Darth Vader, and Negan.  

Ryder in contrast subverts this long established Trope.  Yes they are given the keys to the car fairly early in the story.  But they have no idea how to drive.  They aren't respected by themselves or their peers.  Alec Ryder made a very human choice in choosing Ryder to be the Pathfinder over Cora.  But the Iniative did not trust them and Ryder had to prove themselves.  Forcing them to grow as a character.  Something they achieve, gradually over the course of the story.  Furthermore, as has been argued, this character development is not owing to SAM but to their own personal will because even without the SAM connection Ryder manages to persevere and ultimatley prove themselves.  Ryder's arc may not be the best BioWare has ever done, but it is an arc, and they showed an ability to learn and grow throughout their journey that frankly Shepard never managed...though more on that in a bit.  

On this one I have to give the vote to Ryder.  Ryder has frankly accomplished more from a very young age then Shepard, and they actually had to earn it.  They had a well defined, though maybe it could have used more input of dialgue options from Ryder themselves, character arc that they went from a scared kid to a competent pathfinder.  Unlike Shepard early in the game becoming a Spectre...and that was it...Ryder subverted tropes by having to earn the title of Pathfinder.  And they managed to through the main story and side story content.  However, it is worth noting that I give it to Ryder because I like character arcs, Shepard is an admitted bad ass and if that is what you want in a character...who am I to stop you?  

Which brings us to leadership: 

Ryder is an incredibly young character, at only 22 years old next to Shepards...29 I think?...means that Ryder lacked a certain amount of experience.  However, given what Ryder achieved in MEA, they have  a bright future ahead of them and I wonder how experienced and gritty they will be when they reach 29 years old and have 7 years of command experience under their belt, while Shepard was just getting started.  However, Ryders leadership style is...generally speaking more stand offish.  Quick note here: This could greatly depend on roleplay as well and I actually welcome different interpretations of the character.  But Ryder, was a thinker and more dipplomatically minded.  Afterall their job was chiefly to explore strange new worlds and not to conquer or defend them.  Ryder wasn't a soldier, which actually provided more range of options in what Ryder could be as a leader.  But, Ryder when pushed, demonstrated an ability to learn...applying previous lessons learned throughout the game, the story, and especially their father, into an actionable solution.  Plus, they were able to effectively command a Remnant Fleet at the end.  Actually using the ships and the resources available despite being severely outnumbered and out gunned.  I likedn Ryders style more to a ship Captain.  Someone who sees the big picture and knows how to execute and move entire units around, rather then individual people, or leading by example.  

Whereas Shepard is more of a grunt, more of an onfield battle commander.  Shepard leads by example.  Shepard takes the hill.  Shepard is actually more like an NCO or a competend Sergent Major then an actual officer.  They are good in combat, good at leading men into battle on the surface of the planet.  Good at small unit tactics and in the trenches warfare...but they really fall apart when pushed for strategic thought.  When asked by the Admiralty in ME 3 'what is our plan' Shepard boldly declares 'we fight or we die...that's the plan'.  While they are technically right, and while I don't blame them since they are just a Commander, with the mindset of a grunt, and they are being put on the spot by an ignorant group of Admirals...this has been pointed out rightly as horrible strategic advice.  Later on in ME 3 when Shepard is 'commanding' the attack wing on Earth all they manage to shout out is a couple of mundane orders like 'standby' and 'attack'.  It is clear most of the actual commanding was done by the individual fleet groups and ships and Shepard was just there in a ceremonial role, contrast that again to Ryder actually being able to effectively utilize a fleet.  

Despite this all it is really hard to give a point to either of them.  It just comes down to what we personally view in a Commander and what the situation calls for.  If you want a Special Forces ground assault go with Shepard.  If you want an actual command of a starship or a small fleet, go with Ryder.  I liken it to being, to use an example from other Science Fiction, Shepard is more like Janeway while Ryder is more like Picard in their overall styles and demeanor, or, dare I say it, Ryder= John Sheridan?  

Though as a funny aside if there was any sense in the world, age Ryder by a couple of years, and had the two of them been on the Normandy I could easily see Ryder being the CO while Shepard was the XO Ground pounder...at least until Ryder had to step aside from some silly contrived plot reason.