yknow all i’m thinking about is how like … out on missions, ashley is definitely along the lines of practical, sometimes even harsh. shes quick to weigh the pros and cons of each situation and find the best outcome that saves the most amount of lives. she also isn’t naive in her estimates? she recognizes what is and isn’t possible, the odds, what cost her decisions might have in the future, and if the decisions are up to her, she makes the best possible choice for the future, not what feels right in the moment. maybe it’s a bit easier for her to say that this or that is the “right” choice, considering she’s the one not actually making the decision, but ? she’s very firm in her convictions, and i think she’d make the same decisions if the choice was up to her.
for example, since it’s on my mind – killing the rachni queen in me1. she decides on the spot that the rachni are dangerous. they were dangerous in the past, and will likely be dangerous in the future – an entire war was waged to stop them before, so why not now? in her mind, sacrificing one rachni queen is a much smaller price to pay than potentially risking the lives that will be lost fighting the rachni, should they decide to start another war. it’s a (some would say) harsh, and utterly practical decision based on previous evidence. kill rachni queen, don’t risk another war. her reasoning is very point a to point b. but she’s not cold or heartless about it: she isn’t saying kill the rachni queen because Why The Fuck Not, she’s keeping in mind the amount of people who could potentially lose their lives over this decision - the same way people lost their lives in the past.
another good example is probably leaving the council to die in mass effect 1. she’s fully in support of this [ “you can’t sacrifice human lives to save the council,” ] and there’s probably some idiot out there who’s used that as another way to prove that she’s really just an Evil Space Racist (gags) – but when you really think about it, the reasoning behind isn’t really callous, or even that illogical. she likely makes the connection instantly: by saving the council, they’ll be sacrificing people who could be held back to focus their strengths on sovereign, the actual threat. the council will die, but they’re three people compared to potentially hundreds of human lives. if the alliance fails to stop sovereign, then everything they’ve done has been for nothing.
so in short, ashley tends to align more on the renegade decisions, not because she’s ruthless or cold (we know that’s definitely not the case) but she’s highly practical, and realistic. she looks at each situation with the mindset of saving the most amount of lives, and occasionally that means putting down a potential threat, or even sacrificing the few for the many.
