204 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

In a hostage scenario, the lawful thing is to save the lives of the people taken hostage.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

In a hostage scenario, the lawful thing is to save the lives of the people taken hostage.

That is policy more than law. If the hostages die, it will have been the terrorists pulling the trigger, not Shepard. If Balak goes free there is nothing to stop his fellow terrorists from killing the hostages anyway. It turns out that Shepard does get to save them but he can't know that in advance.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

In a hostage scenario, the lawful thing is to save the lives of the people taken hostage.

That is policy more than law. If the hostages die, it will have been the terrorists pulling the trigger, not Shepard. If Balak goes free there is nothing to stop his fellow terrorists from killing the hostages anyway. It turns out that Shepard does get to save them but he can't know that in advance.

If Balak is stopped, his 'fellow terrorists' can still kill the hostages anyway... (isn't that what happens?)

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 10:09 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

In a hostage scenario, the lawful thing is to save the lives of the people taken hostage.

That is policy more than law. If the hostages die, it will have been the terrorists pulling the trigger, not Shepard. If Balak goes free there is nothing to stop his fellow terrorists from killing the hostages anyway. It turns out that Shepard does get to save them but he can't know that in advance.

If Balak is stopped, his 'fellow terrorists' can still kill the hostages anyway... (isn't that what happens?)

That is my point. The law says 'stop Balak.' There is no law that says 'save hostages.' There is proceedure but not law, especially for a spectre. If the definition of renegade is 'rebelling against law and convention', then letting balak go is completely renegade. It is unconventional not to care about the hostages and it is rebelling against the law letting a terrorist go.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

It's actually very conventional to our society... that's why there's hostage negotiations to begin with.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It's actually very conventional to our society... that's why there's hostage negotiations to begin with.

I said it was unconventional NOT to care about the hostages. So a renegade could let Balak go and not save them.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Or the Renegade could stop Balak regardless of the cost to the hostages

[GuardianAngel470]

"Hostages only work when your enemy cares if they live."

To lift a line from Shepard's mouth. Also, who necro'd this thead? XVillyMaNilly, you have been a bad, bad boy/girl. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

Also, I just noticed my over 1 year old posts are on the last page. Man I've been here a while.

[Misnomer]

In the final recorded decision in ME1 Shepard must decide to:

(Renegade/Neutral)Sacrifice the council and concentrate all forces on Soverign in a rage against time to stop it from opening the relay and wiping out all organic life.

(Paragon)Risking all organic life in a race against time to save the council for. . . what exactly? What is worth that risk?

What sane person would pick paragon here, without prior knowledge that you succeed wither way? And no I'm not ripping on paragon; Just this choice bothers me :/

Modifié par Misnomer, 15 juin 2011 - 05:39 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Or the Renegade could stop Balak regardless of the cost to the hostages

Yes they could, but again that wouldn't be particularly relbellious or renegade, since stopping Balak is actually their primary duty.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Or the Renegade could stop Balak regardless of the cost to the hostages

Yes they could, but again that wouldn't be particularly relbellious or renegade, since stopping Balak is actually their primary duty.

It's still Renegade, because they're willing to sacrifice lives to attain it.  A Paragon's mission is to save life first, mission 2nd.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Misnomer wrote...

In the final recorded decision in ME1 Shepard must decide to:

(Renegade/Neutral)Sacrifice the council and concentrate all forces on Soverign in a rage against time to stop it from opening the relay and wiping out all organic life.

(Paragon)Risking all organic life in a race against time to save the council for. . . what exactly? What is worth that risk?

What sane person would pick paragon here, without prior knowledge that you succeed wither way? And no I'm not ripping on paragon; Just this choice bothers me :/

Good question, and I'm sure you'll hear a handful of answers, if they don't give them, I will... lol

Ultimately, they either didn't know there was a time limit, didn't percieve Sovereign as a threat that couldn't wait, or simply weren't willing to sacrifice the Council in order to win.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 juin 2011 - 06:00 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It's still Renegade, because they're willing to sacrifice lives to attain it.  A Paragon's mission is to save life first, mission 2nd.

This is the definition you gave for renegade a page ago : "An individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior."

You have been spending pretty much a full page defending that definition. It says nothing about willingness to sacrifice lives of hostages. As a spectre, treating the hostages as expendabe is both lawful and conventional. Nihlus actually took hostages just to keep a Justicar off his back.

Hence my having been saying for the last page that the strict dictionary defintion isn't particularly useful.

[Moiaussi]

Misnomer wrote...

In the final recorded decision in ME1 Shepard must decide to:

(Renegade/Neutral)Sacrifice the council and concentrate all forces on Soverign in a rage against time to stop it from opening the relay and wiping out all organic life.

(Paragon)Risking all organic life in a race against time to save the council for. . . what exactly? What is worth that risk?

What sane person would pick paragon here, without prior knowledge that you succeed wither way? And no I'm not ripping on paragon; Just this choice bothers me :/

At the time the decison is made it isn't quite as you are portraying it. The arms aren't even open yet, so the fleet can't concentrate on sovereign yet no matter how important it may be. In fact, there is time to save the DA before the arms finish opening. You are risking losing some firepower to take out enemy firepower immediately.

It is a solid tactical choice Council or no Council.

[Seboist]

Misnomer wrote...

In the final recorded decision in ME1 Shepard must decide to:

(Renegade/Neutral)Sacrifice the council and concentrate all forces on Soverign in a rage against time to stop it from opening the relay and wiping out all organic life.

(Paragon)Risking all organic life in a race against time to save the council for. . . what exactly? What is worth that risk?

What sane person would pick paragon here, without prior knowledge that you succeed wither way? And no I'm not ripping on paragon; Just this choice bothers me :/

The save the council decision is one of those choices that doesn't make much(if any) sense from an in-universe perspective. That along with the save the Rachni Queen choice rely on extreme blind leaps of faith without any indicator of a pay off from it. The way it would have made some sense is if they said that saving the DA would mean they would be able to use it's large canons on Sovereign but instead the game says it's dead in the water and completely worthless.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Plus why would you risk the Council's safety pitting it against Sovereign if you wanted to "save" the Council?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
At the time the decison is made it isn't quite as you are portraying it. The arms aren't even open yet, so the fleet can't concentrate on sovereign yet no matter how important it may be. In fact, there is time to save the DA before the arms finish opening. You are risking losing some firepower to take out enemy firepower immediately.

It is a solid tactical choice Council or no Council.

Moiaussi... we talked about this... Shepard had to open it, nothing's open at this point.  The fleet can't even save the Council until Shepard opens up the relays.

Moiaussi wrote...
This is the definition you gave for renegade a page ago : "An individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior."

You have been spending pretty much a full page defending that definition. It says nothing about willingness to sacrifice lives of hostages. As a spectre, treating the hostages as expendabe is both lawful and conventional. Nihlus actually took hostages just to keep a Justicar off his back.

Hence my having been saying for the last page that the strict dictionary defintion isn't particularly useful.

Sacrificing lives to achieve the objective is not conventional.  In a hostage situation... the hostage becomes the priority.  You don't sacrifice lives to ensure the killing of a hostage taker... that's why hostage negotiators exist.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 juin 2011 - 06:38 .

[tjzsf]

OK, why are you guys hung up on what "lawful" is? "lawful" would be to both arrest Balak and save the hostages. If it is impossible to do both, then whichever one you choose is a subset of "lawful" and is therefore still lawful.

Paragons are about short term moral/feel-good decisions, so they save the hostages and let Balak get away. Renegades are about taking necessary losses for the bigger picture, so they kill Balak and prevent him from doing the same thing later, as well as sends the message that taking hostages won't work.

[Spectre_907]

Misnomer wrote...

In the final recorded decision in ME1 Shepard must decide to:

(Renegade/Neutral)Sacrifice the council and concentrate all forces on Soverign in a rage against time to stop it from opening the relay and wiping out all organic life.

(Paragon)Risking all organic life in a race against time to save the council for. . . what exactly? What is worth that risk?

What sane person would pick paragon here, without prior knowledge that you succeed wither way? And no I'm not ripping on paragon; Just this choice bothers me :/

Three lives just isn't worth it with a time table that is unknown.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Moiaussi... we talked about this... Shepard had to open it, nothing's open at this point.  [b]The fleet can't even save the Council until Shepard opens up the relays.

Just because 'we talked about it" doesn't mean I am obligated to agree with you or that you are right. You are making my bloody case here. The relays open first either way. Then after a delay, the arms open. The choices aren't concentrate on Sovereign now vs save the DA now. It is save the DA asap, or hold back and concentrate on Sovereign after the arms open. If you hold back, the arms open just as the DA is blowing up. If you save the DA though, they open just as the fleet gives the DA the all clear. There is obviously an additional delay between the relays opening and the arms opening, and long enough for the DA to be saved before anyone can take any shots at Sovereign.

Sacrificing lives to achieve the objective is not conventional.  In a hostage situation... the hostage becomes the priority.  You don't sacrifice lives to ensure the killing of a hostage taker... that's why hostage negotiators exist.

It happens all the time in war time and in hostage situations. Hence 'collateral damage.' Even in civilian situations they do send the swat teams in if they feel the hostages are in sufficient danger regardless. If it wasn't 'conventional' any collateral damage would be treated as war crimes. When dealing with someone who is not after money but is after ramming an asteroid into a planet, the rules of engagement change. Since 911, they had to seriously rethink how similar hostage situations are normally handled.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

OK, why are you guys hung up on what "lawful" is? "lawful" would be to both arrest Balak and save the hostages. If it is impossible to do both, then whichever one you choose is a subset of "lawful" and is therefore still lawful.

Paragons are about short term moral/feel-good decisions, so they save the hostages and let Balak get away. Renegades are about taking necessary losses for the bigger picture, so they kill Balak and prevent him from doing the same thing later, as well as sends the message that taking hostages won't work.

I disagree with your use of 'short term' but other than that I agree with you. That is why I was objecting to the strict dictionary definition of 'renegade.'

Paragons don't make the decisions they do just to 'feel good' but because they really believe they are the right decisions. Renegades believe they are doing the right thing too. In fact, the additional risks from paragon decisions are almost never short term, nor are the additional gains (other than feeling they made the right decision, which as I said renegades also experience).

[tjzsf]

Misnomer wrote...

In the final recorded decision in ME1 Shepard must decide to:

(Renegade/Neutral)Sacrifice the council and concentrate all forces on Soverign in a rage against time to stop it from opening the relay and wiping out all organic life.

(Paragon)Risking all organic life in a race against time to save the council for. . . what exactly? What is worth that risk?

What sane person would pick paragon here, without prior knowledge that you succeed wither way? And no I'm not ripping on paragon; Just this choice bothers me :/

Myself and Roommate's justifications:
Roommate is a Computer Science major and determined it was not possible for Sovereign to call the Reapers, as you killed Saren before he could finish the part that would let Sovereign call the other Reapers. He was of the notion that the "several minutes" Saren gives you was but a bluff, as either Saren finished or he hadn't; if Saren finished then Sovereign would have called the Reapers already and if he hadn't then Sovereign would never be able to call the Reapers. He also views not attacking the geth as passing up a free surprise attack into the enemy's rear.

Myself, I actually killed the Council the first time around. Then I watched the Paragon ending, decided that Shep, as a naval officer, should have had the sense to ask for a rough idea of what the battlefield looks like, and should know enough about fleet capabilities to come to the conclusion that human fleet would cut through geth like a lightsaber through cheese. In addition, the fleet would have had to wait until the Citadel's arms open to get at Sovereign anyway, so they might as well jump in on the geth-fighting and utilize the age-old principles of Mass and Economy of Force (always better to attack part of the enemy's army with all your army) instead of sit around and do nothing. Plus, saving the DA lets you use the DA's guns on Sovereign and prevents surviving geth from interfering. Relevant link: http://l-clausewitz....com/263863.html

Modifié par tjzsf, 15 juin 2011 - 01:58 .

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...
Paragons don't make the decisions they do just to 'feel good' but because they really believe they are the right decisions. Renegades believe they are doing the right thing too. In fact, the additional risks from paragon decisions are almost never short term, nor are the additional gains (other than feeling they made the right decision, which as I said renegades also experience).

Not quite - renegades believe they did the thing that had to be done, which isn't necessarily the right thing to do. Mordin is an example of this - given the situation, the best thing that could be done was to create genophage 2.0, but it still eats at him enough for him to run thta clinic on Omega. Paragons get the fallback of "IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO" and derive direct justification from it, Renegades don't get a moral satisfaction - they get to rationalize their choices. Again, look to Mordin - he calls his favorite nephew because nevvy is a tangible being while galaxy is hard to actualize, and hearing from the nephew is far more rewarding than knowing galaxy has been saved. That, too, is part of BDtS - Balak got away, but you get to personally hear from the people you saved.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Just because 'we talked about it" doesn't mean I am obligated to agree with you or that you are right. You are making my bloody case here. The relays open first either way. Then after a delay, the arms open. The choices aren't concentrate on Sovereign now vs save the DA now. It is save the DA asap, or hold back and concentrate on Sovereign after the arms open. If you hold back, the arms open just as the DA is blowing up. If you save the DA though, they open just as the fleet gives the DA the all clear. There is obviously an additional delay between the relays opening and the arms opening, and long enough for the DA to be saved before anyone can take any shots at Sovereign.

The only thing they "hold back" on is saving the DA, they're constantly advancing toward Sovereign.  And that is a fact, your disagreement of this makes you wrong given what's presented.  They would have to wait for the relays to open up as well.  But how it ends is irrelevant to the choice.  The choice is you either open the Citadel's arms and concentrate on sovereign "before he regains control of the station" or you unlock the Relay so Joker can "send the calvary in."  If you advance toward the arms to Concentrate on Sovereign then you have to hold your forces back from engaging in the fight of the DA.  Those are the two options and expected outcomes you are given.  No one ever says "the DA is in our direct path to the Citadel's arms so we could fight on the way there" or "regardless of your choice we're going to send the ships to where the Council is and pass them by"... so that information is irrlevant to the choice at hand.  We already know the results of those choices wrap around the Paragon decisions... as usual.

It happens all the time in war time and in hostage situations. Hence 'collateral damage.' Even in civilian situations they do send the swat teams in if they feel the hostages are in sufficient danger regardless. If it wasn't 'conventional' any collateral damage would be treated as war crimes. When dealing with someone who is not after money but is after ramming an asteroid into a planet, the rules of engagement change. Since 911, they had to seriously rethink how similar hostage situations are normally handled.

It happens, but is still not conventional.  The goal is always to stem the loss of life.  Sometimes hostage takers are allowed to escape because of this.  SWAT are tasked to save as many lives as possible too and are usually called in because the threat to the hostages are deemed too high.  There's plenty of information... and even games about this.  Play SWAT 4, go in and kill hostages, see what happens... heck, even allow some hostages to be killed... it's not a conventional outcome... "Collateral Damage" is a Renegade term.  Bombing a strategic enemy that results in civilian (ie. innocent) casualties is not how things are "supposed" to be done and not how victories are "supposed" to be won.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 juin 2011 - 04:33 .

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

Hostility towards The Illusive Man is also considered Paragon

Because it's rather obvious he's a douche from the intro.

Strange enough, but as far as I noticed, hostility towards TIM & Cerberus happens to be renegade also. With the "upper" lines being sometimes the least confrontational. It starts with the dialogue whan Jacob reveals that he's working for Cerberus to you.

Well considering that Shepard's past history with Cerberus, regardless of being Paragon or Renegade, in Mass Effect 1 pretty much involved Cerberus agents and experiments trying to kill her/him.

Can you blame Shepard for not trusting Cerberus at the start of Mass Effect 2?

Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 15 juin 2011 - 04:55 .