Commanding Shepard

There's this great moment in the game Gone Home. You're reading a note that you found in your family's house - just like you've done dozens of times already. This one is from your sister, Sam. And it’s about her girlfriend, Lonnie. And just as you start to realise that this one is very intimate - the note is forcibly closed and it can't be read anymore. You, the player, may want to to read it. But the game's protagonist, Sam’s sister Katie, definitely does not.

It's just a cute, funny, throwaway moment, but I think it speaks to a larger game design conundrum. When it comes to the protagonist of a game, who’s in charge? The player, or the character? And when it comes to role-playing games, that's a hugely important question. When the first Mass Effect game was released in 2007, the heroes of western RPGs were typically a nameless nobody. A blank slate of your own design who will be shaped in the character creation screen, and then throughout the course of the adventure.

These characters didn't even have a voice, outside of a few rare examples like JC Denton in Deus Ex. And that was all, mostly, by design. The character is essentially an empty avatar for the player to fill when inhabiting this world. So, it's quite right that the player should have complete control over how that character acts, looks, and sounds. But Commander Shepard is different. As a famous, N7-rank special forces commander with a distinguished service record, Shepard is definitely not a nameless nobody.

So, sure, you still get to dictate many aspects of your character. You get to pick Shepard's first name, pre-military background, psychological profile, facial features, and even sex - which is why I’m referring to Shepard as the gender-neutral “they” in this video. Plus, like any good RPG, you get to make dialogue choices, moral decisions, and relationships throughout. But as an established character, Shepard is also very much their own person, with their own identity and motivations.

And you never get to pick exactly what Shepard says: you just choose the gist and the tone using the now-famous dialogue ring, and the character says the rest - with full, expressive voice acting. Shepard: "I'm a marine, not some tourist on vacation." So Shepard is neither a fully-authored character like Nathan Drake, nor an empty shell like we might see in The Elder Scrolls. Instead, they are somewhere firmly in the middle.

In the Mass Effect trilogy, the ownership of the protagonist's personality is shared between the player and the character itself. And yes, that can be just as awkward as it sounds. ♫ Music ♫ Council Member: "Commander Shepard. Your heroic and selfless actions serve as a symbol of everything humanity and the Alliance stand for." The Illusive Man: "That one woman. One very specific woman. Might be all that stands between humanity and the greatest threat of our brief existence."

Soldier: "What do we do?" Shepard: "The only thing we can. We fight or we die." ♫ Music ♫ Part I - Shepard, Commander

So what’s the benefit of having a more defined character, anyway? Well, the game’s developer - renowned RPG studio Bioware - described most of the advantages in an interview with IGN, just before the game was released. Director Casey Hudson said “Mass Effect is so much more cinematic and real than anything we've ever done before that we really needed that extra bit, those extra sensory aspects to a story that you [don't] get if you just start out with a completely blank character”.

And so, with a visible, voiced, and involved protagonist, Mass Effect could easily compete with the flashy, cinematic games that were being released at the time, like Halo 3, Uncharted, Gears of War, and Metal Gear Solid 4. It also means that the story isn’t just happening around Shepard or to Shepard - but it can be about Shepard. We can learn about their identity, explore their personality, and see their character change over time.

It allows them to have believable and textured relationships with other characters. And for it to feel credible when people say they respect or like Shepard. Because it’s not a stretch to say that in a lot of RPGs - Western and Japanese - the hero is often the least interesting character around, and has to be propped up by their party members. Which is a hard sell, when you spend almost 100 percent of the game with the protagonist.

Also, the typical RPG experience is just inherently a bit awkward. The player must use their imagination to fill in the main character’s voice, and forget about the strange downtime that happens when you’re reading through reams of dialogue choices. By giving Shepard a voice, and mapping simple responses to predictable slots on the dialogue ring, the character can instantly reply to people and feel like a fully-fledged member of the Mass Effect cast.

Hudson also said "we wanted players to be really empowered. We wanted them to feel like they're somebody special even from the beginning, which is a challenge in a role-playing game”. And so because Shepard is already a commander, we can immediately start the game in the middle of the action, and in a position of power and authority. We don’t need to be broken out of prison or awoken from a 200 year snooze and then have to spend the first few hours becoming acquainted with the world.

Shepard can jump straight into the mission. So there are all sorts of advantages for letting the developer author a lot of things about the character. But defining Shepard’s personality so strongly, can also have limitations. Part II - Paragon of Humanity

Perhaps the most significantly defined aspect of Shepard’s personality is that they are, inarguably, a hero. They fight for the peace-keeping Alliance military, accept the authority of the Citadel council, and will always heed the call to save the galaxy. So Shepard will never side with the antagonist Saren, kill their boss Captain Anderson, or turn against humanity. This is very different to a typical RPG hero, who can often be made as good or as evil as the player likes.

For instance, in Bioware’s previous science fiction RPG, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, the studio let the player bring their character closer to the light or dark side of the force - depending on the good and evil choices they make throughout. That wouldn’t work for Mass Effect, though. Regardless of what the player wants to do, Shepard simply isn’t interested in being evil. So to address this, the game's still got a morality system but it isn't coded as good and evil.

Instead, it’s ”Paragon” and “Renegade”. The idea is that Shepard always does the right thing in the end - but their methods might be law-abiding, sympathetic, and egalitarian - or reckless, callous, and selfish. *Gunshots* In interviews, Bioware has pointed to Star Trek's Captain Kirk and 24's Jack Bauer as two very different types of hero, and the conceptual touch-stones for Paragon and Renegade. Though, maybe Picard would be better?

I don't know, I don't watch anime. Having a character with an established moral standing is actually closer to the genre’s tabletop roots than games like Fable and Fallout. In the rules for Dungeons & Dragons, the world’s most influential RPG, you pick the character’s alignment at the very beginning of the game and then must make choices that will fit your morality. Mikey: "We can't just leave those prisoners there!"

Chloe: "They can escape on their own time, when Duurgaron's dead" In the Advanced D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide it says “Changing of alignment is a serious matter, although some players would have their characters change alignment as often as they change socks. Not so!” So, it’s a good idea, but in Mass Effect 1 it obviously presented a huge challenge for Bioware. Because when your spectrum of moral decisions is greatly reduced from good and evil to good and not-quite-so-good, that’s a much tougher target to hit.

Especially when you’ve got to place two opposing viewpoints on the same spectrum. So, in many cases, Bioware played it way too safe and ended up with many decisions that are pretty insignificant - with Renegade choices just being a slightly more snarky or brusque version of the corresponding Paragon line. And, in truth, sometimes the two responses are actually exactly the same. Shepard: "I tried to warn you about Saren, and you refused to face the truth.

Don't make the same mistake again" But at other times, Bioware completely missed the mark and let a Renegade Shepard do things that are pretty unbecoming of a galactic saviour - if not downright reprehensible. Shepard can randomly knock-out a delirious man. Sucker-punch a reporter for asking questions. And even slaughter a colony of innocent civilians - despite being given gas grenades which would easily knock them out.

Shepard: "I'm not stopping to ask them to breathe deeply." Juliana: "How can it hurt to try? Please commander, these are our friends" Shepard: "I'm not doing it" Juliana: "At least take the grenades, so you have the option. Lizabeth: "Do the right thing Commander, please" The problem is: Mass Effect simply does not posses the narrative bandwidth to credibly support these actions. The game must always maintain Shepard’s heroic status.

And because this is not a game with branching paths, the story cannot bend or adapt to fit a Shepard who is, say, disgraced and hunted by the Alliance. So instead, the game simply chooses to wave away, excuse, or forget about your indiscretions. If you kill all the colonists, you’ll be thanked for trying anyway. If you punch the reporter, she’ll say your career is over - but the Alliance simply gives you a quick reprimand.

And here’s how long it takes someone to forgive Shepard for punching out their friend. Dr. Warren: "Oh my god! What did you do?" Kaidan: "That might have been a little extreme, Commander." Dr. Warren: "You can't just go around whacking people in the head!" Shepard: "It was only a matter of time till he did something crazy. And dangerous." Dr. Warren: I suppose you're right. By the time he wakes up the meds will have kicked in."

Shepard: "Williams. Take us to the space port." Dr. Warren: "Good luck, Commander." One clever thing that the first Mass Effect did was make Shepard a Spectre: a sort of above-the-law secret agent who isn’t bound by military rules of engagement. This is a convenient way to let Shepard bend the law without too many repercussions - and expands that narrow spectrum of choices a little wider than if Shepard was simply an Alliance soldier.

Plus, by having the Citadel council be a bureaucratic, obstructionist nuisance that regularly disbelieves Shepard, we're given ample reason to rebel against their authority. But there’s still a weird rubber-banding effect, of Shepard always being awkwardly dragged back to the centre, no matter how immoral the player tries to be. This also means that there are almost no downsides to playing as Renegade in Mass Effect.

But, crucially, there are no upsides, either. The only example I can think of where a Renegade player gets the advantage, is that a Renegade response is needed to talk a quest-giver into sleeping with Shepard as payment. All of this ultimately means that Paragon and Renegade end up being treated as roughly equivalent. When you’re faced with a pack of goons who are itching for a fight, they will be equally scared away by Renegade Shepard’s “intimidate” line as they are by Paragon Shepard’s “charm” line.

Shepard: "This would be a good time to find somewhere else to work." Goon 1: "Yeah, yeah right. That's a good idea." Goon 2: "Yeah, I never liked Fist anyway." So your morality in the first Mass Effect is almost as consequential as picking Shepard's sex. A simple chance to role-play the type of Commander you want to be, without affecting the overall plot too much. The same story, but with a slightly different flavour.

But it's not like you can really pick and choose, from moment to moment. The game encourages dogged moral partisanship - with all sorts of rewards like special dialogue, easy outcomes to situations, better deals in shops, and bonus side missions, for those who pick almost exclusively the Paragon or Renegade path. And if you're going to pick one, it's probably going to be Paragon. Being nice fits the narrative better, there's no awkward rubber-banding effect, and you don't have to constantly listen to your friends be disappointed in Shepard's actions.

Ashley: "I know those tests are important Commander, but we could have found another way." And so it really wasn't that surprising when earlier this year, former Bioware writer John Ebenger tweeted that a staggering 92% of players picked a largely Paragon path through Mass Effect 1. And so it does seem like Shepard’s strict adherence to heroism really does limit the player’s options when compared to a more traditional RPG.

Even if those Renegade choices were there - hardly anyone was actually picking them, and the game might as well not have offered moral choices at all. But in the sequels, Mass Effect would do a lot better. For one, while Mass Effect 2 kept that silly system of rewarding those who stick to one path, it was finally fixed in Mass Effect 3 - by adding your Paragon and Renegade choices together to calculate Shepard's overall Reputation.

Though it was replaced with a new problem. In the third game many dialogue options only have Paragon and Renegade responses, and that neutral middle ground has been taken away. So if you’re mostly playing as Paragon, your only option is to continue that way or have a complete personality switch in the middle of a conversation. But more importantly, Bioware evolved the idea of Paragon and Renegade - with the aim of making Renegade choices more tempting to players, while still respecting Shepard's heroism.

Half way through Mass Effect 3, Shepard is given the chance to do something that’s been talked about since the very first game… Wrex: "A cure for the Genophage." This is a biological weapon that was developed by the lizard-like Salarian race, in order to severely limit the reproductive power of a rhino-like race called the Krogan. Curing the virus is definitely a Paragon thing to do. But before Shepard heads down to the Krogan planet of Tuchanka, the Salarian leader gives Shepard the opposing Renegade choice: secretly sabotage the cure and trick the Krogan into thinking they’ve been saved.

Dalatrass: "We can provide you our very best scientists to build the crucible, and the full support of our fleets." Shepard: "If I sabotage the cure." Dalatras: "Think about it Commander, the choice is yours." The Renegade option is almost unthinkably immoral and shouldn’t really work for Shepard’s character. But I think it actually does make sense. Here’s why. One: Shepard - the character - has an overarching goal that must be met: build an army that’s big enough to save the Earth from an invasion of Reapers, which are apocalyptic alien machines.

But the player gets to decide how that goal is achieved: whether that’s in a perfectly ethical fashion, or by using more under-handed tactics. Shepard will accept that the ends sometimes justify the means. Two: If Shepard wants both the Salarian and Krogan armies to show up, they’ll have to choose the Renegade option. This forces Shepard to consider what it means to be a hero, and realise that the lawful approach isn’t always the best one.

And there are plenty of other examples in the sequels of times where Shepard is forced to make a Renegade choice to get the best results. Like sticking a cattle prod in a guard’s back to get a competitive advantage in the upcoming fight. Plus, there are also moments where Paragon Shepard’s cloying, kind-hearted naivety backfires. When Kelly Chambers, former yeoman of Shepard’s starship, is on the run from terrorists, Paragon Shepard recommends she stay on the Citadel and look after the refugees.

Meanwhile Renegade Shepard tells her to get out and change her identity. That will save her life - but telling her to stay on the Citadel will get her unceremoniously killed. Three: There are significant consequences to your decision. Getting both the Salarians and the Krogan on your side will improve your odds of saving Earth at the end of the game. But if your old Krogan buddy Urdnot Wrex is still alive by this point he’ll sniff out your betrayal, snatch back his support, and fight Shepard to his death.

Wrex: "I know… what you… did" *Gunshot* And then four: the Genophage isn’t just about being good or evil for the fun of it. The Salarians argue that the Krogan could rise up, seek retribution, and start another galactic war. This is a difficult problem with no easy answer, and credible arguments on either side. Both decisions seem valid and justified, though one is definitely more kind-hearted than the other. And the Mass Effect series is full of these dilemmas.

We even get a few in the first game, like when Shepard is asked how to deal with the Rachni queen: the central processing unit for a hive-mind species of ant-like aliens. A Paragon-leaning player will spare the queen and allow her race to flourish. But the Rachni used to be a war-mongering race in the past, and could be a threat once again - so perhaps it’s better to follow the Renegade path, drown the queen in acid, and end the entire species in an instant.

You’ll see the consequences play out in Mass Effect 3. But there are difficult choices all throughout the sequels. For instance, in the Mass Effect 2 side-quest A House Divided, you're given the choice between destroying a bunch of heretic Geth robots, or rewriting their AI directive so they are on your side. That's a meaty, tangled, sci-fi quandary: is there even a difference between brainwashing your enemies to help you, or just killing them?

And in a world of synthetics and artificial intelligence, what constitutes life? Now, okay, if we go by stats - 92% of people cured the Genophage - according to an infographic released by Bioware in 2013. That's the same number that played Paragon in Mass Effect 1. And that's pretty fair. Sabotaging the cure is reprehensible, you may have to kill two of your friends to do it, and in general Mass Effect 3 makes it pretty easy to get War Assets without having to resort to underhanded tactics.

Overall, though, the outlook is much better. In that same infographic, we learn that only 64.5% of players picked Paragon in Mass Effect 3 - proving that it’s very possible to create nuanced decisions for Shepard to make - with significant choices and meaningful consequences - while still respecting the character’s heroic personality. And in fact, by chucking out the cartoonishly simplistic depictions of good and evil that we see in other RPGs, we end up exploring a more interesting area of true moral ambiguity.

And there's another stat in that infographic which is even more encouraging. After successfully fighting off a Reaper on the Quarian home-world of Rannoch, you'll find that Tali is in conflict with Legion - a friendly Geth who becomes a squad-mate in Mass Effect 2. Legion wants to upload the Reaper code to the Geth collective, which would boost its people's processing power to the point of achieving true intelligence.

But this would surely lead to the Quarian fleet being overwhelmed by Geth ships - so Tali doesn't want the upload to go ahead. Naturally, Shepard has to choose. And it's one of the most difficult choices in the entire Mass Effect trilogy. Shepard: "I'm sorry Legion, I can't let the Quarians die." What makes this decision absolutely agonising is that the player probably likes and respects both of these characters, and has built up separate relationships across dozens of hours of gameplay.

And choosing one over the other won't just leave the losing character pissed off and sulking in the engineering deck. It will lead to their death. According to the infographic, the choice to save the Quarians and the Geth was split almost evenly amongst the player-base - disregarding the bonus option that lets you save both. It’s clearly the hardest choice in Mass Effect and that’s because it’s not about whether Shepard is good or evil - it’s about Tali and Legion.

It’s about picking the best choice in a bad situation. In that moment, the idea of Paragon and Renegade is rendered irrelevant. And so, since Mass Effect came out many games have just chosen to ditch these silly, binary morality systems altogether in favour of choices that are just… choices. The only thing that matters is the actual consequences of your decision - not what it means for some abstract point-scoring system.

Telltale’s The Walking Dead, which was released the same year as Mass Effect 3 and was partly inspired by the franchise, manages to provides difficult decisions without the need for good and evil. They just explore the tasty grey zone of moral ambiguity. Part III - Company Man

In Mass Effect 1, the player gets to choose the very first thing that comes out of Commander Shepard’s mouth. Shepard: "That's enough. You're soldiers. Act like it." It’s a bold statement that says while Shepard is not your typical RPG protagonist, the player is ultimately still in charge. In Mass Effect 3, however, Shepard can forget that the player even exists. Take this early-game cutscene which occurs after coming back from Mars.

Here, the game goes a full three minutes without offering the player any input. Commander Shepard has a full conversation with their Asari squad-mate Liara T’Soni, and another full conversation with the Alliance’s Admiral Hackett, without that famous dialogue ring ever showing up. And a final conversation with Liara with just one dialogue choice before the scene ends. Shepard: "You didn't see what they did to Earth. How is one weapon supposed to stop them?"

And I mean, it's not like every decision we make in a Mass Effect game is some hugely significant choice that will have galaxy-wide ramifications. Often times, we're just picking the tone we want to take in an otherwise prescribed conversation. But it's important to maintain that control over Shepard, and decide what sort of commander they are. Snarky? Confident? Brusque? Funny? That should be up to you. But when the character has their own personality and motivations, they have the propensity to ignore player control and act without input or consent.

Sometimes it’s a simple misunderstanding about what Shepard will say when a vague dialogue prompt is picked. Shepard: "Hey everyone! This store discriminates against the poor!" Asari Clerk: "Please, calm down!" But there are also some much bigger gaps between player and character. Mass Effect 2 begins with a bang. *Explosion* Shepard’s ship, the Normandy, is obliterated by a laser beam. And in the resulting blast, Shepard is thrown into space, deprived of oxygen, and killed.

But this isn't some Sons of Liberty-style switch in protagonist: instead, a group called Cerberus has spent billions of credits to do a Deus Ex and bring Shepard back to life - even if it means stuffing them full of synthetic material which pokes out of their face. Shepard: "I never asked for this." Cerberus, I should say, is a notorious pro-human terrorist cell with a laundry list of crimes to its name. And in Mass Effect 2, Shepard's working for them.

Now that's a bold move, but it actually has some huge benefits. For one, it expands Shepard's character to support a much wider range of moral choices than the first game. Shepard is back from the dead, is no longer directly associated with the Alliance, and is now essentially working for the bad guys. And while the top brass had to admonish your bad deeds, Cerberus boss The Illusive Man isn't fussed either way - and actually encourages more Renegade choices than Paragon ones.

It also leads to strong moments in the narrative. When you meet up with your old Mass Effect 1 squad-mate Ashley Williams on Horizon, she’s massively disappointed in Shepard for throwing in with Cerberus. Ashley: "How could you just turn your back on all of us? You betrayed the Alliance. Anderson. You betrayed me". There's serious drama to be had from seeing Shepard, saviour of the galaxy, suddenly choosing to side with the bad guys.

And losing the trust of former squad-mates in the process. Plus, if you were in a relationship with Ashley in Mass Effect 1, this marks a painful low point that will be resolved in Mass Effect 3 - emulating the basic three act structure of a romantic comedy. The problem is: joining Cerberus is among the biggest decisions that Shepard will make in the trilogy. And yet it's also one that the player doesn’t have a say in.

If commanding Shepard is a matter of joint ownership between player and character, this is one of the times where the character takes full control. And so this moment with Ashley actually doesn’t have the same impact as Bioware might have hoped. Because, if a friend brings up a controversial action that I chose, like sabotaging the Genophage cure, that feels like fair game because I picked that path. In fact, that's often a great, emotive moment that only video games can produce.

We can certainly empathise with a character’s guilt in a movie, but we can actually, personally feel that guilt, when we're playing a game. When Clementine flashes her puppy dog eyes at me and asks why Ben hasn't come home, you better believe that I feel like an absolute monster for leaving him to die in a previous scene. Ben: *Screams* But because you don’t have a choice about whether to sign up with Cerberus, moments like this aren’t earned and they don’t feel fair.

Vasir: "Besides, you're with Cerberus. Do you have any idea what your terrorist friends have done?" Still, there have to be moments where the player doesn’t have a say in matters. If, in Mass Effect 1, the player could decide to not chase Saren across the galaxy then the game would be a very short one indeed. And if the player could refuse to work for Cerberus, Bioware would have to make an entirely separate storyline: that’s not impossible, but it probably wasn’t within budget for this game.

So it’s all about being tactful with these moments. The first step is adequately justifying why Shepard has to make this choice. So The Collectors - who are Mass Effect 2's big baddy - are a significant threat to humanity and yet the council and the Alliance are ignoring it. And no one else in the galaxy but Cerberus has the budget to put together a mission to track them down to their home base. Shepard is convinced that this is the only viable move - and hopefully the player is too.

Another solution is to let the player bemoan their lack of choice in dialogue responses. In the Arrival DLC, Shepard literally kills 300,000 members of the Batarian race without asking the player’s permission. But it’s for a good reason - doing so delays the arrival of the Reapers, until - well, until Mass Effect 3 comes out. It’s a crazy decision but it clearly has to be done, and the opposite simply couldn’t be justified under Shepard’s heroic identity.

But when this is brought up in conversations, Shepard gets to argue their case and explain that the decision was out of their hands. This lets both the player and Shepard jointly complain about their lack of choice. Shepard: "The Reapers were coming. And destroying that relay was the only way to stop them." The game can also provide a false choice. The ability to say no, but then have it overridden by other factors. When Shepard lands on Noveria in Mass Effect 1, they are required to hand over their weapons.

They can comply or they can refuse… Shepard: "Nobody takes my weapon". Either way, the decision is made for them by another character. Matsuo: "One… two… three-" Parasini on Loudspeaker: "Captain Matsuo, stand down." This at least gives the player the sense of agency, even if it’s not real. Shepard: "Is this a volunteer job or am I being volunteered?" And then, the player should be given the opportunity to rebel against this forced choice.

So we can refuse many of Cerberus's orders. We can throw all kinds of snark at The Illusive Man. And Shepard can repeatedly tell people that they don’t work for Cerberus, they're just working with Cerberus. Bioware could have perhaps gone even further with this, and let Shepard secretly sabotage Cerberus from the inside - similar to the Genophage option in the following game. That would give the player some more control in a situation that is otherwise decided for them.

In a talk in 2010, Bioware's Armando Troisi explained The Agreement: four rules that the studio tried to abide by in Mass Effect, to ensure that the trilogy still felt like an RPG, even though the main character has an authored personality. Those are: The interface for choice is predictable. Choices produce results the player expects. Give the player the choices they want. It's the player's story. For the most part, Bioware succeeds.

But doing so takes very thoughtful design and so it’s not surprising that, sometimes, the studio missed the mark on those last two.

Part IV - Shepard's Flock Shepard’s predefined role provides the player with a number of handy conveniences. As an officer, they have instant access to a starship. As a soldier, they’re already proficient in combat. As a Spectre, they can get away with certain crimes. And as a commander, other characters will quickly join Shepard’s mission - no matter how crazy it sounds. Shepard: "They tell me it's a suicide mission. I intend to prove them wrong."

So over the course of the three games, Shepard will be able to command around 20 different squad-mates: from the strict Asari Justicar Samara, to the spiritual Drell assassin Thane, to the biotic superweapon Jack. These characters can be combat squad-mates, quest-givers, romantic partners, and a moral compass to Shepard’s decision-making. That’s certainly not unique to Mass Effect: most RPGs have squad-mates and party members.

But Shepard’s advanced military rank provides the commander with certain benefits. And not all of them good. Shepard: "You always second guess your superiors?" Ashley: "Ma'am! No ma'am… I'm sorry I was out of line. I'll get back to my duties, Commander." In Mass Effect 1, characters show infinite deference to Shepard. And while they certainly have firmly-held beliefs, preferences, and opinions, they will harbour no long-lasting ill-will towards the commander for acting in a way they don’t agree with.

Compare that to Bioware’s other RPG of the time, Dragon Age. *Sword swipes* In this series, we’ll find systems where companion characters take very keen notice of the player's choices. Each character has a visible meter to show their opinion of the main character - and a moral decision may be judged favourably by one party member, and unfavourably by another - depending entirely on that character's unique views on the matter at hand.

Or compare it to something like Fallout: New Vegas, where characters will stop following you altogether if you stray too far from their ideals. The character Cass will leave your party if your karma drops too low. Cass: "Look, maybe you were like this before I signed up with you. But if you keep acting this way, I'm not gonna stick around much longer." And NCR-supporting Boone can no longer support you if you join up with the Legion faction.

In Mass Effect, characters stick with you, regardless of your decisions. While moralistic Alliance soldier Kaidan Alenko might think many of your choices are distasteful, he’ll always stick with Shepard. Ashley: "But what about those nerve grenades we jury-rigged with Baynham?" Shepard: "We don't have time to waste on these people. There's a galaxy at stake." Kaidan: "Very well, Commander. If that's what you want." And he’ll still sleep with you, for that matter.

In this series, the only way a character's leaving your squad is in a body bag. This unstoppable hero worship of Shepard makes it seem like these characters have no motivations of their own - and the player will eventually stop worrying about the consequences of letting down their friends. This is taken further in Mass Effect 2. In this game, every single one of your squad-mates will ask for your help on a unique and personal “loyalty mission”.

So Cerberus agent Jacob has detected the distress signal from his father's ship, after it went missing 10 years ago. Jack wants to plant a bomb at the Cerberus facility where she was raised and tortured. And mercenary leader Zaeed wants to enact revenge on his back-stabbing former partner. Finish the mission and that character will get special bonuses, including a new power in combat and improved plot armour in the game’s bloodbath ending.

These missions are fun, diverse, and really focus on each character, giving you considerable insight into that person's back story and personality. But what's important is that nearly every mission ends with a big moral choice for the character in question. Salarian scientist Mordin has to decide what to do with unfinished data on the Genophage. Jacob's father has become a savage cult leader and needs to be dealt with.

And Jack finds a man called Aresh who wants to re-open the prison - and so she puts a gun to his head. But what's surprising is that Shepard is always the one to make the final call. Thane: "They'll have snipers outside." Kolyat: "I don't need-" *Gunshot* Kolyat: "What the hell-" *Punch* Sure, in some cases the character is conflicted and simply asks for Shepard's help without a preference for any option. Jacob isn't sure how to deal with his father.

Mordin is overwhelmed by the number of variables that would drive his decision. And Legion can't come to a consensus on what to do with those heretic Geth. But other characters do want a very specific outcome - and yet Shepard still gets the final say. So when Jack has her gun to Aresh’s head, Shepard can tell Jack what do, but Jack isn't interested in Shepard's orders. Shepard: "He deserves it." Jack: "I decide how to deal with my past. Not you."

Shepard: "I gave you an order." Jack: "Killing him isn't gonna fix my head. Get outta here. Go!" But Shepard can override this. By using a Paragon or Renegade interrupt, Shepard can force Jack to do whatever the player decides is best. Jack: "Killing him isn't-" Shepard: "Jack. If you can't, I will." *Gunshot* Now, in theory, this is not a bad idea. This showdown is ultimately not about the fate of Aresh - but the fate of Jack’s soul.

The player needs to decide whether Jack should get revenge, or needs to let this go. Which is the right thing for this character, and what will the fallout be either way? But actually - it doesn’t matter. The character will agree with Shepard’s choice and consider it the right move - whatever Shepard decides for her. Jack: "He's not worth chasing. None of it is." Jack: "That felt… good." Shepard: "A bullet in the head solves everything."

Jack: "I know that now." And then, this has no further consequences for Jack. A Jack who is told to kill a man is no different to a Jack who is told to let him go. You'll get her loyalty regardless. You can enter a relationship with her after either outcome. And Jack's personality remains unaffected. So even if Shepard forces Jack to execute a defenceless man against her will, by Mass Effect 3 she'll still call Shepard… Jack: "Kayleigh said she was putting out an SOS.

I had no idea the king of the boyscouts would show up." And so by boosting Shepard’s agency in the story, we actually reduce Jack’s - turning her from an interesting, independent, and credible human being into a paper-thin pawn designed merely to prop up the heroic leader identity of Commander Shepard. And I mean, Mass Effect has a nasty of habit of lionising Shepard’s decision-making… Luckily, not every character is like this.

So in Tali's loyalty mission, the absurdity of Shepard basically being their squad-mate's power of attorney is made real, as Shepard actually becomes Tali's attorney. Basically, the Quorian has been charged with treason and you've got to defend her honour in a courtroom setting. Shepard: "Does Tali have a defence counsellor? Someone who speaks for her side?" Shala'Raan: "Indeed she does, Captain Shepard. An accused is always represented by his or her ship's captain."

Later in the mission you find evidence from her deceased father that would certainly exonerate Tali - but also disgrace her father. So your friend asks you not to use this in court. The choice is then very much yours: do you present the evidence or not? Shepard: "Tali'Zorah is innocent." Tali: "Shepard, please…" Unlike Jack, Tali will be furious with Shepard if you go against her wishes. You will not receive her loyalty.

Any relationship with her is cancelled. And this is also flagged for import on your save game, and will have ramifications in the events of Mass Effect 3. Tali: "I'll fight at your side. Just don't… Don't talk to me unless you need something." This is a much more nuanced approach to the idea of character loyalty. Tali does not feel like a pawn to the player’s experience, but an independent character who has her own opinions and beliefs, and won’t be easily controlled by the player.

If you don’t listen to her, she won’t be happy. There's a few others like this - you can lose Zaeed's loyalty if you're not ruthless enough to leave some civilians to die, for instance - but I wish every character was explored to this extent. For the vast majority of the cast, simply completing their side-mission will guarantee that character's loyalty - regardless of the outcome. And that's a shame: losing loyalty is a nice way to show that a character disagrees with the player's decisions - without going so far as to remove them as a party member entirely.

Tali is not the only headstrong character in the series, though. In Mass Effect 3, Shepard is rushing to stop a coup that’s being planned by the human councillor Donnel Udina. But when they get to him, the commander finds that the councillor is being protected by Ashley. Ashley: Shepard? At this moment, Ashley will lay down her arms and let Shepard fire on Udina. And then become an asset for the upcoming war, or even another squad-mate.

But she might also stand defiantly in between the two characters, be shot in the stomach… *Gunshot* …and bleed out on the Presidium floor. What gives? Well, in this moment, the game actually checks your relationship with Ashley by considering a number of decisions you’ve made throughout the entire Mass Effect trilogy. Under the hood, secret points are awarded if you started a relationship with Ashley in the first game, didn’t cheat on her in the second game - whoops - and saw her in the hospital in the third.

If you score enough points, Ashley will step out of the way. If not, she’ll die. It almost sounds like a cold calculation of data but in the game itself it comes across as Ashley organically and naturally weighing up her relationship with Shepard. And deciding whether she needs to side with her boss, or side with her friend. Ashley: "I'm gonna regret this." Shepard: "No. You're not." Ashley "Alright skipper…" Just like with Tali in Mass Effect 2, it shows this character as an independent person who will not be easily controlled by the player - but will make her own decisions based on her values and experience.

And so I think that’s another reason why this scene on Horizon doesn’t quite work. The player’s choice is disregarded, as they have no option to not join up with Cerberus. But also, the player’s past choices are disregarded, as it completely ignores any relationship and trust that Shepard built with Ashley in Mass Effect 1. There’s one more way that Shepard can impact upon their squad-mates. And so I've got to talk about the fan’s favourite character, Garrus Vakarian.

Garrus: "I'm Garrus Vakarian and this is now my favourite spot on the Citadel!" Garrus is arguably the most important character in the first Mass Effect, because he is the living embodiment of the Paragon and Renegade divide that the player must wrestle with. Throughout Mass Effect, Garrus talks about how he didn't like working for Citadel security, or C-Sec, because he was restricted by regulations and bureaucracy. Garrus: "If i'm trying to take down a suspect, it shouldn't matter how I do it as long as I do it."

He's someone who is very much dabbling in the Renegade side of being a good guy. Aboard the Normandy, you'll get to talk to Garrus about this stuff and can either confirm or confront his beliefs. And later, he'll tell you a story about a depraved Salarian geneticist that C-Sec had to let go, because killing him was against regulations. You can then track the Salarian down, and choose whether to turn him over to the military, or enact some space justice yourself.

Shepard: "Put him out of his misery so we can get going." Garrus: "Gladly" And here's the thing: throughout Mass Effect, the game isn't just tracking Shepard's morality, but it’s also secretly tracking the morality of Garrus. Depending on how you talk to him, and the outcome of that Salarian side quest, you can either harden Garrus's resolve to become a Renegade, or encourage him to instead follow the way of the Paragon.

Actually, it's possible to influence the behaviour of every squad-mate in the first Mass Effect. Under the hood, the game ranks each squad-mate on a moral spectrum, with goody two shoes Kaidan on one end, and the absolute maverick Wrex on the other. And this will determine what sort of view they will take on certain choices. Now, the execution is a bit silly. Because Mass Effect wants there to always be a good and evil opinion before you make any major choices - like an angel and a devil are appearing on Shepard's shoulders - one character, the most Paragon in your party, will assume the lawful position While another, the most Renegade, will offer a more pragmatic opinion.

And this leads to weirdness like noted space racist Ashley changing her opinion from wanting to wipe out the Rachni… Ashley: "Commander, I don't trust this thing. We know its kind are killers. The tank is rigged with acid - I recommend using it. To wanting to save their life… Ashley: "We'd be making our whole race extinct. I don't want that on my conscience when I go to the final judgement"… Simply based on who else is in the party at that moment.

Or the kind hearted Liara advocating for you to let the Council die, just because she’s slightly less moralistic than Kaidan. Liara: "The council must be sacrificed for the greater good. Do not waste your reinforcements - hold them back until the citadel arms open up." But what’s interesting is that it’s actually possible to rearrange this balance. For example, you can temper Ashley's extremist views over the course of the game by having conversations with her and challenging her bigotry, making her more likely to provide a Paragon viewpoint on things in later scenes.

Garrus is more important though because he's the only character whose final moral leaning is one of the many variables that gets flagged on your Mass Effect save data and carried over into the sequel. So if the player pushed Garrus towards Paragon in the first Mass Effect, then in the sequel he’ll say that he rejoined C-Sec. But if you encouraged Garrus to become a Renegade he will say that tried to join the Spectres - and also comments that he learned the need for revenge from Shepard.

Shepard: "I'd do the same if I were you." Garrus: "I learned from the best." It’s interesting that the player doesn’t have complete control over Garrus. No matter which way Shepard lead Garrus in Mass Effect 1, Garrus has become the violent vigilante, Archangel - and now enacts his own street justice on Omega's mercenary groups. *Gunshot* No matter if he tried to join the Spectres or rejoined C-Sec, he’s still picking people off with a sniper rifle by the time you see him.

Garrus has resolutely chosen the Renegade path. I mean, it's absolutely no coincidence that Garrus gets a facial scar in this game, to match the facial scarring that Shepard gets if they act Renegade. But I think that’s actually a beautifully nuanced give-and-take, where Garrus is both an independent character who can make his own decisions - but also open to influence and mentorship from Shepard. It’s almost like the opposite of Dragon Age, where the Commander's advanced military rank means their squad-mates learn from them - not judge them.

Garrus: "Thanks, Shepard. For everything." Unfortunately, it’s also incredibly subtle - and many players won’t even know that it’s happening. And it’s something that’s dropped entirely in Mass Effect 2 and 3. The squad-members are no longer ranked from good to evil, and they no longer learn from Shepard’s leadership in any systemic sense. That is a shame.

Part V - Create a Commander For marketing purposes, there is an almost canonical Commander Shepard. This buzz-cut white guy who features in all the trailers and shows up on the box. And it would have been very easy for Bioware to simply say: This is Shepard. Deal with it. But that’s not what happened. In deference to player choice, Shepard can be a man or a woman. They can have pretty much whatever face you can put together in this creation screen.

They can have dark skin, red hair, or blue eyes. There are certain things that are dictated by the story: Shepard must be human and has to have a soldier’s physique. But if it doesn’t impact the narrative, then Bioware lets you craft Shepard’s identity in pretty much whatever way you see fit. Except in one, key way. Throughout the whole trilogy, Shepard can enter relationships with their squad-mates and other members of the Normandy crew.

If you answer questions favourably and act flirty, a hidden relationship value ticks up by one. When it hits a threshold, the characters fall in love and will consummate their relationship before each game’s final battle. It’s simple, but thanks to good writing it’s surprisingly effective. In the first two games, Bioware let a female Shepard hook up with other women, including Liara and Kelly. But a male Shepard could never go to bed with a man.

And it's not like Bioware was scared of catching the attention of Fox News by portraying a homosexual relationship between men, as it supported a gay romance with the character Sky in Jade Empire. And with Zevran Arainai in Dragon Age: Origins, which released in between the first two Mass Effect games. Zevran: "I fancy things that are dangerous, and exciting! Would you be offended if I said I fancied you?" Now the studio never really explained its position on this.

But I think we get a telling answer when, in 2010, 1UP's Tracey John asked Bioware why her female Shepard couldn't get with Tali in Mass Effect 2. Studio co-founder Ray Muzyka said "We love giving players choice, and we are going to continue to enable that for future games. That’s a commitment for some of our franchises. For some other franchises we’ve had more defined characters. They’ve had a more defined personality and a more defined approach to the way they’ve proceeded through the game and the world.”

I think Muzyka is pointing to the fact that Commander Shepard is far more defined than another RPG protagonist like Dragon Age's blank-slate The Warden, and so Shepard's authored personality will determine the people they can sleep with. And while Bioware never out-right said that they didn’t feel that male Commander Shepard could be gay, that’s certainly the vibe I get. But, whatever the case, Mass Effect 3 changes that.

Now, a male Shepard can enter a romantic relationship with one of two men: long-time squad-mate Kaidan, and Alliance pilot Steve Cortez. This is a good example of the player and the game co-authoring the character together. If something has no bearing on the story - like Shepard’s skin colour or sexuality - then by letting the player change it, they get to have a character that suits their own idea of who Shepard is.

And I think other franchises have taken Mass Effect’s lead on this. Assassin’s Creed has historically had a cast of male heroes who often have relationships with women. But starting with Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey - which is more of an RPG than others in the series - Ubisoft now lets players pick the sex of the game’s hero. And enter relationships with characters of either sex. As long as the hero is an assassin, the rest doesn’t really matter.

And this is also why it's important to look to the challenges and successes of Mass Effect. Because Ubisoft ran into Cerberus-like problems when an Odyssey DLC pack forced the character into a heterosexual relationship - potentially reversing an existing romance with a character of the same sex. Ubisoft had to apologise and issue an update to the DLC. Now that's not to say that every video game should let you play as whatever character you desire.

There can be incredible value in specificity when it comes to depicting a character's identity. And video games give us a unique insight in what it's like to be someone we're not. Meanwhile in Mass Effect, Shepard's male and female voice actors read from almost the exact same script - and both versions of the character share a lot of the same animations - with absolutely ridiculous results. The only difference is that female Shepard is subjected to lecherous comments from some male characters.

Batarian: "Well, aren't you sweet? You're in the wrong place honey, strippers' quarters are that way." Of course, one could argue that Mass Effect is set in the 22nd century, and so perhaps it shows a bright future where a commander's sex, ethnicity, or sexual preference is practically a non-issue. I could go for that. So Mass Effect does lose something in trying to paint so many different types of Shepard with the same broad brush - but I think it gains something just as huge, in letting so many people insert themselves into this power fantasy.

Part VI - Commanding Shepard

There are amazing RPGs where the hero is purposefully left vacant, so we may slip into their clothes as if we were in the game world ourselves. Games like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas allow us to create whatever character we like - and explore these massive worlds in a completely unique way. Other RPGs excel by having a hero with a far more authored identity, that we don’t have as much say in. That’s how a lot of RPGs from Japan work: the Yakuza games wouldn’t be what they are without the stoic, soulful menace of Kazuma Kiryu at the helm.

Kazuma (in Japanese): "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." But what about that great expanse in the middle? What experiences can be produced by having a character whose identity shared between the player and the game? Well, sometimes it doesn't really work. In Fallout 4, the main character is finally given a voice - but that just seem to limit the complexity of conversations. And the character is given a definitive back story involving your son being kidnapped - but that just makes it super weird if you don't immediately chase down your child.

These just feel like unnecessary impositions on an otherwise completely open-ended RPG. But other games definitely have made this work. And you can’t really talk about Mass Effect without mentioning another RPG character… No, not you. I’m talking about… Geralt: "Geralt of Rivia. Pleasure." The Witcher came out one month before Mass Effect and similarly features a shared protagonist. Though, Geralt is way more defined than Shepard with a set name, face, sex, fiercely heterosexual orientation, and a code of ethics.

Like Shepard, Geralt had a rocky development. Originally, CD Projekt Red was going to let players make a custom character in The Witcher - thinking it was impossible to respect both the player’s agency and a character who has had their personality defined in a set of authored novels. They ended up with a compromise - Geralt has amnesia in the Witcher 1, which only starts to wear off in Witcher 2. But by The Witcher 3, Geralt is, well, Geralt.

He’s incredibly defined. But The Witcher 3 is still one of the best RPGs ever made. It’s truly fun to explore the scope of this character’s morally ambiguous personality, see how your choices ripple out into the world, and get to be in joint control of one of the coolest characters imaginable. But if you want to define a middle point between blank slate and authored hero - Commander Shepard would be the perfect candidate.

Though, it certainly wasn’t always easy to get there. Throughout this trilogy, Bioware faced significant challenges and made critical missteps. The studio struggled to find the right tone for the morality system. Struggled to always honour the player’s input. Struggled to define Shepard’s relationships with their squad. And struggled to give players the options they wanted. But in a lot of other ways, Bioware really did succeed.

Shepard is a recognisable video game icon and a credible protagonist. But players also got the opportunity to craft their very own version of the character. Male or female. Gay, straight, or bisexual. A heroic saviour, an opportunistic rogue, or somewhere in between. When Bioware gets it right, the ownership of Shepard really is shared equally and fairly between the player and the character. Shepard gets to be to a commanding presence, but the player is the one commanding Shepard.

Hey, thanks for watching! I really appreciate you taking the time to watch such a long video. Don’t worry, this won’t be a habit for the channel - I’ve just had... a lot of time on my hands lately. As a treat for making it all the way to the end, I have a special gift for you: a quiz! In this video, there are 28 fictional characters - who are portrayed by 14 different actors. Which is to say, each actor portrays a pair of characters.

Here’s a freebie to explain: Troy Baker voices both Joel from The Last of Us and Kei Leng from Mass Effect 3. Can you name the other 13 pairs? And to be clear, it doesn't count if an actor voices two different characters in the same game. First person to name them all will get a shout out in a future video. Cheers, bye!