Interview with Brian Kindregan (Jack, Samara ME2) about ME2's story development

According to Samara, this was back in the day before she became a Justicar and she had reveled in combat, not the act of killing per se. There's no indication that it's a sign of psychopathy as she also was capable of turning on fellow mercs when she found out she was transporting slaves and they would not cooperate. The signs of mercy are there even when meeting her during her investigation. She promised to let the merc threatening her to live had she been given the information she needed and bent over backwards to keep from killing detective Anaya by agreeing to serve Shepard. This is someone who has a single-minded drive to stop her daughter from killing others. And yet she's willing to go that extra mile to avoid unnecessary deaths when she could just as easily interpret the Code to prioritize hunting down Morinth.

Morinth doesn't quite have as much proof that her cooperating with Shepard is a sign of rehabilitative altruistic behavior. Her situation is such that any suspicious death on the Normandy would immediately place her life in danger and that Shepard is her preferred target. She matches a serial killer in that she has a modus operandi that she follows almost ritualistically. Just because she's not going after other teammates doesn't make everything she says honest as she's at the same time saying Shepard would survive melding with her. Her promises are suspect because of her willingness to betray Shepard. We don't get to see her ever act on behalf of another without some form of benefit for her as she's admitted to seeking thrills like dueling or dwelling in dangerous places so a suicide mission is not uncharacteristic of her hedonistic habits.

Again, Samara's talks AFTER the LM don't reveal that she's talking about releasing slaves and killing mercs slavers.  The quotes I cited are from the conversations BEFORE the LM.  Shepard has to make the decision of one or the other during the LM, so what Samara says before is what counts here, not how she further justifies herself to Shepard afterward.

Before the LM, Morinth has "no proof" at all nor does Shepard have a promise from her.  However, the after-the-fact proof that Morinth ultimately keeps her word is absolute... N one on the Normandy crew is harmed by her, even if she is kept alive through the SM.

Shepard is not given a choice to "arrest" Morinth" and "Samara" and allow the courts to sort it out, which is what my ultimate preference would be.  Neither is Shepard given a choice to kill both of them.  He/she must take one or other as a "loyal" squad mate.  I don't like this whole story line.  I don't sympathize with Samara.  I don't like her as a character... and that IS my prerogative.  Furthermore,  I have never said that Morinth isn't dangerous either.  My best option (and one I also frequently take) is simply to not recruit Samara at all.

It's a poorly written scenario... and I'm not impressed that Kindregan couldn't even remember what it was he actually wrote because Samara said "my self-control is who I am" not that her self-control was all she had.

Except that Samara IS acknowledged as an authority figure by Asari. They may not be comfortable, but then, people usually aren't always the most comfortable when police officers are around. Even then, even before the post LM conversation, we're witness to Samara's actions which were prone towards avoiding unnecessary casualties like with detective Anaya. Anaya will tell you later that Samara's incarceration was suspect, suggesting that authorities were corrupt.

The first thing we find out about Morinth is that she murdered a teenage girl and left her mother a heartbroken mess.

It's a strange impression to take, seeing Samara as somehow more culpable than an amoral serial killer like Morinth. The damage Morinth does to innocent lives is undisputed so why is she getting the benefit of a doubt compared Samara's actions deterring criminals?

In real life, it's also considered to be questionable to let serial killers run free amongst people without their knowledge (aka Normandy crew). Political systems are an entire different animal altogether though because of what's allowable. Morinth DID have a choice to get out of this alive but has evaded authorities for 300 years. Just because she's agreeable doesn't mean she's an honest person or any less treacherous. After all, serial killers can have separate lives with a family and everything. That doesn't make letting them loose to harm everyone else any less irresponsible.

The general consensus that's common though is not to let dangerous people continue inflicting damage on citizens like Morinth has. Samara's actions have a clear benefit at deterrence like with that pirate raid being called off. Morinth is way too experienced with escaping and its through narrative contrivance that Shepard never faces the consequences for backstabbing a teammate and endangering everyone else.

Of course. Though I'd say Samara's actions *constitute* due process in Asari society. She is not a rogue agent that operates without official sanction. 

You also said that AY have impaired judgment. As far as I am aware, that isn't supported by the game. AY syndrome is a physical condition, maybe Bioware's commentary on stuff like AIDS. It doesn't impair judgment in any way. Morinth is a serial killer, while Samara is a recognized Asari "law enforcement official" who operates fully within the bounds of their law.

Now I agree that the scenario is badly presented because, unless one's Shepard is total idiot and/or psycho, there is absolutely no reason to choose Morinth over Samara. Bioware themselves seem to have recognized the fact that almost no one made that choice. That's probably why Morinth doesn't appear in ME3.

I agree.  If AY indicated "impaired judgment" then there would be no need for a monastery.  After all, they would all give in to the condition and seek to seduce and murder victims.  Yet, this is not the case.  Other than their first time (when the condition is discovered), the AY know that they will kill their victims every single time they mate.

Also, the due process thing is a human thing.  It may also exist for other ME races.  To the asari, the actions of a justicar are entirely legal and moral.  They only reason they get uncomfortable when justicars appear outside of asari space is because they might create diplomatic incidents with other races.  Note that the asari cop on Illium has no problem accepting the word of Samara as absolute truth, even to the point that she'll accept evidence brought forth by Shepard on Samara's say-so.  This is just the way it is for the asari, even if every other species has different rules.

EDIT: I would suggest justicars are similar to Spectres.  A Spectre doesn't have to engage in due process of any kind, can kill anyone it deems necessary for just about any reason and is answerable to just a few people - who rarely question their actions.

I would have made Samara mandatory and Jack optional in ME2

Whether Morinth is tried or not may not be relevant in the Asari justice system. In fact, everything we hear about Justicars and their mandate to pretty much kill any Asari that - according to their own judgement - is a criminal or corrupt or whatever already hints at the opposite.
I mean, Samara even has the legal authority on Illium to kill a detective, one who is clearly not corrupt but just has to follow orders of their potentially corrupt superiors (in fact, even they don't seem to be corrupt, just diplomatic as they don't want an incident with the resident alien population, that's all). She also has no moral issue with the prospect of killing this detective if she is held up for more than the arbitrary period of one day or if she is placed in a cell for that time.
What?!? This already shows how insane the Asari justice system seems to be. So I have no doubt that when killing Morinth, Samara acts in perfect accordance with Asari law. Whether this holds up to Shepard's standards is something, every Shep (i.e. player) has to decide for themselves. Frankly, I would have wished for some harsher criticism dialogue options for my Shep after Samara's LM. She plays the part of the broken mother in that dialogue but I find it very hard to sympathize with her, given her twisted sense of good and evil and her casual attitude towards killing.

BTW, somehow, the Mass Effect writers seem to really like this approach to have omni-powerful independent law enforcement agents, that deal out death sentences on a whim. The Spectres are no better in a way (even the non rogue ones like Vasir or - yes - also a renegade Shepard).

When I first read Revelation, I thought this made sense since the ME universe was described like such a vast empty space where small spots of civilization have to survive and wide spread organized law enforcement (or even communication) is not really a possibility (you get this impression when you read about the patrol ship Anderson is on before they get the distress call from Sidon). It's kinda like the wild west, where you have a central government and law enforcement in principle but everything is so spread out and tough to reach that in practice, you need more independent agents to ensure security and safety for the local populous. So, local Sheriffs would work with bounty hunters or other volunteers and since there were little practical means of transporting prisoners or communicate back for decisions, they were often made on the spot and often it was a death penalty. And many bounty hunters in those days were not much better than criminals themselves.
Problem is, by the time of the ME games (certainly ME2), the galaxy somehow seemed to get a lot smaller. Travel from one side to the other seemed not so tough (partially because gameplay convenience came first but also in the lore), communication was almost never mentioned as an issue again (contrary to the novel) and authorities seemed to be almost everywhere. In that more densely populate and civilized setting, these independent agents like the Justicars and the Spectres make less and less sense to me.


Side note on "impaired judgement": I don't quite remember but didn't Samara mention at some point that for an AY the sex-killing is somewhat addictive? If it is comparable to drug abuse, it would also make sense that Rila and Falere, who never did it have an easier time to keep from it then Morinth, who started once and could never go back. If there is physiological evidence for this and you can add her unstable personality that she may have had in the first place and you might be able to make a case for mitigating circumstances, at least for the later cases. Certainly not enough to go below a life sentence in prison or a closed mental facility but possibly to avoid a death penalty. But again, that's human/western civ judicial standards that are not relevant to Samara. Just a thought for the fun of it.

Yea, even Samara herself says that adhering to the code is tough in an era that has more shades of grey. Yet, she adheres to it. Not sure if doing so depite that insight makes it better or worse. Not sure what you mean by "first encounter with her runs contrary to what Asari officials are saying about her." IIRC, she killed a defenseless opponent in cold blood, when police forces that could have arrested that opponent were about 30 seconds away.

I agree that the fact that we shoot people a lot ourselves in this game (especially in ME1 or 2, not so much in 3) puts this whole thing in perspective. This is kind of a comic book universe where super heros with magical abilities fight each other. However, it's also the inevitable divorce of gameplay vs. story. It's one thing to shoot mooks because the gameplay demands it, it's quite another to make that part of the story. E.g. look at the Tomb Raider remake. Lara shoots hundreds of people during gameplay but in the cutscenes, she is this vulnerable little girl. Now, Tomb Raider is an extreme example (and it was rightly criticized for this issue) but a paragon Shepard faces a lot of the same problems. Look at Mass Effect 1 and Corporal Toombs. You shoot your way mercilessly through a band of mercenaries because the gameplay demands this but the story of a paragon Shepard is about trying to prevent Toombs from killing a Cerberus guy in cold blood and rather put that guy on trial for his misdeeds. As a player, you have to divorce gameplay from the story to some extent or the entire scenario would fall apart.
Sure, as Shepard, you kill lot's of mooks for the gameplay but unless you are renegade, the quests are usually resolved according to a very western/American set of moral values.
In Samara's case however, her cold blooded approach to extreme and black and white justce is really written into the story and thus, I ascribe more weight to it. So is my judgement of her hypocritical? To some extent yes, but give that I do consider a difference in what happens due to gameplay vs. cutscenes, I think at least for a paragon Shepard, it is fair to take a moral highground here. As a renegade, not so much.

I would disagree about the opponent being helpless as she had a weapon pointed at Samara and intended to shoot. Before that, there was another mercenary there being flung, meaning that Samara was facing stacked odds against her. The fact that Samara offered the mercenary a way to get out of this alive runs contrary to the claim that "she'd be obligated to gun you down if you tried to bribe her". It's exaggerated, but it emphasizes that even fellow Asari can never be too sure as to what constitutes death in the eyes of a Justicar. We're not given enough encounters in various situations to decide as to how extreme they are but what is seen is not unreasonable. Attempts at mercy were there despite what was told. What makes the situation suspicious is how there were police who had blocked the area off but not providing back up for her. Even more so was how even Anaya noticed the change in behavior in her superiors afterwards.

I'm not sure if even a paragon Shepard is in a position to judge. Shepard is a soldier, not a police officer, frequently operating in areas that lack a detainment facility for enemies. Disregarding gameplay, there is the matter of whether a soldier is in the wrong for not taking someone into custody every time a fight breaks out. Some missions require actively hunting down people based on hearsay, like with Helena Blake's mission. There's no evidence to convict her partners until you hunt them down and by the time you find evidence, they're already gunned down. With missions like that, it's hard to condemn Samara. Again, it's gameplay contrivance but even if we had the option, how would it work out sending them to C-Sec? They're outside Council jurisdiction, outnumber Shepard's team to transport them, will have funding (from illegal operations) to counteract any accusations. If we contact C-sec or a nearby authority to pick them up, wouldn't it be considered more trouble than it's worth to stretch resources for criminals through travel, manpower and money just to convict?

And before that? The mercenary was clearly armed before ending up in that position. And she had been given a chance to get out of it alive three times. It's like when Shepard tries to negotiate with clan Weyrloc and is met with predictable results. It could be argued that Krogan are like Morinth in that they have a medical condition and should not be executed the way Shepard guns them down and instead made to stand trial. But good luck bringing them to such a state even when they're actively threatening the government.

It's not that the Code isn't predictable that's the problem, it's people's perception of what is just in their eyes. Popular media has given modern Asari a false perception of the truth. Just because someone has a wrong expectation doesn't make the system they abide by wrong.

Those events though don't negate the fact that Shepard has killed people without giving them a trial. Major Kyle cannot be brought in without having killed a few of his followers first. Because those outcomes vary so widely according to players, there is no consistency to a justice system where it's right all the time to expend excessive effort to take in dangerous people for a court case in each and every situation. Court cases are lengthy, tedious affairs where oftentimes bias and inner connections tend to win out over actual truth.