113 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcovin]

With my main Shep i chose the decisions tht i thought would benefit the galaxy in the long run. For example, keeping the Rachni Queen alive could gain me a valuable asset to help fight the reapers, but also keeping the Collector Base intact would help as well. Destroying the reapers comes first, so i make my decision in favor of anything that i think will help regardless of paragon or renegade.

The other two Sheps i play, on the other hand, choose different choices than my main shep so i can see how it all plays out.

[Meshakhad2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I like to consider myself neutral, so that I can look down my nose and mock both sides at will.

That's why I'm a centrist in RL politics. Here, however, I'm a straight-up paragon. Why? Because it makes me feel good. I don't look down upon Renegades - they're having fun, and that's what matters.

[Xilizhra]

Shandepared wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't have Bring Down the Sky, so I still can't comment on that. But calling the rachni queen a "biohazard" is going rather far; she's a sapient being who hasn't done anything to hurt anyone.

That is she is sapient and innocent is irrelevant. A human infected with smallpox is sapient and innocent too, but they still need to be quarantined. The queen is dangerous simply because of her biology, nevermind whatever her motives might be.

Killing the rachni queen has nothing to do with the rachni wars, nothing at all. The queen could be a brand new organism and I'd still give her an acid bath. If my choice is either to release a dangerous organism on a vulnerable colony simply on the basis of her word then I'm going to kill her. The rachni queen telling me that she is friendly is not enough to convince me and when so many innocent lives are at stake you need to prove her innocence, not her guilt. This isn't a trial.

She can reproduce really fast, and her children who aren't raised near her go insane. But since, free, her children would in fact be raised near her, I can't see anything inherently dangerous. She's never given me any reason to believe that she'd be a threat, and the hot labs scientist confirms that the only reason the rachni there were aggressive was because of their separation from their mother.

No, I've been over that enough and no matter how you try and rationalize it you're wrong.

Since I cleanly won... yes, clearly I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure that the Fifth Fleet didn't win through sheer luck; Shepard made her decision because she thought they'd still be capable of beating Sovereign minus eight cruisers. She's not dumb enough to leave something like that up to pure chance.

Yes, because that's what the writers want. It doesn't mean that paragon Shepard uses any sound judgemente. In the end he just lucks out every time. If even one major paragon decision wound up blowing up your face the price would be tremendous and Shepard would go down in history as a moron.

Amusingly, the decision to let the Council die does blow up in your face when you hear about the race riots and other unpleasantness on the Citadel.

[bottledwater]

renegade is more practical (i.e zaeed being loyal, saving collector base, etc). although most of my characters end up being 50/50 paragade, just because i try to make the best decision given the circumstances, and not stick to a specific extreme. i dont think the game is meant to be played as "renegade" and "paragon", since no incarnation of  shepard should be that one-dimensional.

[philiposophy]

The paragon / renegade system sucks so I don't pay much attention to it. I just make decisions based on what I think is the correct course of action at the time. I kill Balak in BDtS but I save the colonists on Feros. I usually end up with more paragon points than renegade, fwiw.

[Alienoudamour]

Lemonwizard wrote...




What I don't understand is why Renegades bother with these arguments. Justifying your actions seems really against the overall spirit and idea of playing a renegade in the first place. You're supposed to say "I need to stop the reapers, and anybody who tries to get in the way can go to hell".

Renegades are not brainless paranoid sociopaths, they're renegades... Which means they actually can justify their actions. No fun doing choices and renegades actions all the game long with the only "I need to stop the reapers not matter the cost is" justification. Plus, if that was the only justification they should have, killing the Rachni Queen should not have been a renegade action: they kill a potentially powerfull ally. And she's no quite "in the way"...


(hum as I'm french and not quite fluent in english, I'm sorry for any weird grammatical uses/mistakes etc...)

[Xilizhra]

Hint: you've missed the point.

Do explain?

You won because you were lucky, not because you made an informed decision.

My Shepard felt like her decision was informed, certainly. Also, I sense bitterness.

That pales in comparison to the consequences of Sovereign opening the relay and the Reapers pouring through. Who cares about race riots? The military build-up between the turians and Systems Alliance has benefits for the coming war.

Damn good thing the Reapers didn't come through then, yes?

[Alienoudamour]

That pales in comparison to the consequences of Sovereign opening the relay and the Reapers pouring through. Who cares about race riots?

Yes, it must be easy to stop the Reapers while trying to avoid being killed in the middle of a civil war...

[Xilizhra]

No, go read my post again. Think critically about what it says, the idea it is conveying. I have a pretty good grasp of the english language so as long as you have some decent reading comprehension skills you should get it.

Presumably you're saying that the queen is a clear and present threat to the safety of Noveria, and possibly the galaxy. I agree that she has the capability to be a threat, but we don't know if she has the inclination. Should we imprison or kill any potentially threatening individuals from here on out?

Indeed, but I find it terrifying that you were even willing to risk that.

Just like TIM when he sent me into the fully operational Collector ship, I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think they could get the job done.

[Xilizhra]

Should we kill or imprison individuals as potentially dangerous as the rachni queen? Absolutely. I'd prefer not to kill the queen, but that option wasn't available. Ideally we'd keep her under close supervision and require her to restart her species someplace public where we can keep an eye on her. Allowing her to go someplace "hidden" to do that is unacceptable. It's the mistake the Council made with the geth all over again.

Imprisonment, or at least supervision, would be ideal, yes. Unfortunately, it's not possible, and simply killing her because it's inconvenient to imprison her seems... rather too ruthless for my tastes.

[Xilizhra]

I do what needs to be done. I'm also very good at telling the difference between what needs to be done (blowing up the genophage-cure lab) and what only looks like it might need to be done (letting the Destiny Ascension die).

[KainrycKarr]

Paragade. Handle everything situation by situation.

[FierachEredasSoulchiou]

I had a large, large post here, but I figured people are just metagaming too much of it when they do these arguments between Paragon and Renagade.



The Shepards that we play are humans too. Give them a certain mindset, and some personality quirks, and play the game doing what you think they would do.

[Legbiter]

My main Shep is a prince to his friends and companions and ruthless towards his enemies.

[Xilizhra]

I don't think you're skilled at that at all. You didn't have enough information to judge whether saving the Destiny Ascension was wise or not. You lucked out, nothing more.

I can accept that it was a risky decision, and that it would technically have been safer if I hadn't done that, but I thought it was an acceptable risk and I turned out to be right. Why do you feel the need to continue to say that she's a lucky moron when you haven't seen how I've played her?

[Xilizhra]

I'd say that the amount of risk added is about the same as the amount you risk death by driving a car. Present, but the reward is great enough to try for it. Again, like TIM.

[Alienoudamour]

I do not see how the destruction of the Destiny Ascension is less risky. How could you know Shandepared, BEFORE the scene, that Sovereign was actually going to die?
How could you know before ME2 that the death of the Council was not going to create some really bad riots/civil war/auto destruction of the civilization in front of laughing Reapers?
Either Parangon or Renegade choices are risky, equally. The difference is just perspective.

(sorry for the english)

Modifié par Alienoudamour, 11 septembre 2010 - 02:51 .