237 réponses à ce sujet

[stewie1974]

Any one else read that email from the Quarrian Admiral after tali's trail?



(paraphrased)

If you had shared your findings with us, Humanity would have reaped the benefits of the research..As you did not do so, humanity will watch from the sidelines as we reclaim the homeworld and build the largest synthetic army the galaxy has ever seen buhahahahahaha....



so in short the quarian admirality will find out bout the research anyhow..... regardless of tali being pardoned or not... which in hindsight should be fairly obvious seeing as you didn't get the choice to "destroy" the research ....



"So we just gonna leave all this evidence...but you don't want me to tell anyone about it?"

"Pretty much yes..shepard.."

"Shouldn't we destroy the research evidence?"

"No, they'll never look at this liberated ship and the evidence after my trial"

"Really?"

"Yes really..."

................................fuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

The sarcasm is strong with this one. In any case, a total Paragon playthrough is impossible because you can't tell TIM to screw himself and/or turn the crew (or just Miranda) into C-Sec. That said, I'm tempted to try this one, especially since most of your tech upgrades don't involve getting fed into Cerberus.
A few other issues, though. For one thing, Collectors are mindless husk-equivalents; they have no real way of being stolen from. Second, there's this:

Debatable, especially until you reach a point you can confirm that for a fact, but the more important bit is that the tech goes to Cerberus.

While the game does shoe-horn you into a number of things, you can do as best as possible.

This involves a lower-right dialogue wheel option and is by your own standards impossible. And third, a major theme for Paragons is their attempts to redeem people, not just condemn them and throw them away a la Renegades. Hence, Miranda and Jacob wouldn't be entirely out, and their loyalty missions are harmless. Garrus' is specifically to stop an assassination (for Paragons), as is Thane's. Jack's is just blowing up an abandoned building on a planet no one comes to; I'd dearly love to not recruit her at all, but it isn't an option. Samara and Tali we did already; Legion's rewriting is morally permissible by geth standards, and since geth are the only ones being affected, that's all that matters. Mordin involves rescuing someone from a criminal group, and Grunt's is just a component of krogan culture. All fine.

Lawful-Good Paragon, remember. Not just Good Renegade. Sort of how human-first is a Renegade trait, but not all Renegades are racist first. (The Tali trial one is an oversight, but I believe the general intent was clear enough).

While I like the Garrus and Jacob justifications, according to the Council, nuking a garden world is a Big no-no, so Jack's is out. Miranda's is another matter: you are, after all, assisting in smuggling a kidnapped child, and lawfully...

[Xilizhra]

Jacob - premeditated murder

Arrest Ronald.

Miranda - aiding and abetting kidnapping

Protecting someone else from kidnapping.

Zaeed - premeditated murder

Save the refinery workers.

Kasumi - grand larceny

This,maybe.

Grunt - manslaughter

Self-defense when Uvenk attacks you.

Mordin - plagiarism / murder

Keep Maelon alive. Plagiarism is a little low on the scale of moral sins.

Samara - premeditated murder

It ends up as defense of another when they get into a fight; however, you could interpret it as stopping an attempted murder if you kill Samara.

Thane - assault

In the course of stopping an assassination, it doesn't really count.

Jack - vandalism

Technically, but does it really count if no one goes there anymore?

Garrus - premeditated murder / assault

Rescue Sidonis.

[General User]

Samara is a justicar, her judgements carry the same weight and authority that those of a judge and jury in human society. A paragon of paragons should have no problem backing her to the hilt.

[stewie1974]

Not so sure on Kasumi's mission being illegal...

The greybox is firstly being liberated... she's only stealing it BACK. It's not hock's property. He didn't legally buy it. You if anything are being a repo man. It's only a heist because well... due process for a man with hocks money means... you don't get a search warrent.... his lawyers will block you... the merchandise will move as soon as the legal authorities are involved anyway..

Even a paragon has to conceed that money buys a lot of legal protection... and that due process dosn't actually work..

Hock has stolen the grey box, it's not -his- property , so you are not stealing from him....

If anything you are "siezing stolen goods"

My main complaint about the heist is that you had to kill -someone- to enter hocks quarters... the ambush in the vault I'm fine with.... I just wish there was a way to call the gaurds out of the security wing so you could sweep the office and do the mission uber stealth like...

Modifié par stewie1974, 17 septembre 2010 - 01:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Zrvan wrote...

I clicked on this topic to see what it was. I could not stop laughing.

If playing through the game with approximately ~250ish credits is your thing, then go to it, put your back into it. Just bear in mind, this means NO upgrades. Of any sort. For anyone. Everything flows outward from Cerberus funding of your ops, up to and including the probes and fuel to go resource mining.

Your 'ultimate Paragon' can't do anything but totally fail the final mission, since virtually every loyalty mission in the game involves a crime of some sort.

Without disputing the fact that no, you aren't getting a perfect mission, some questions, since what you are calling murder and lawful killings (they do exist in the ME universe) are two things. Like Jacob: where was the premeditated murder? (Granted, he is still a Cerberus volunteer, but distinctions.) Similar with Zaeed, since mercenaries aren't illegal to the Council. Grunt hasn't been alive long enough to do manslaughter, and to date he has been under your lawful command. Samara's order is respected by the Asari law. Legion, nothing to our knowledge.

[Xilizhra]

The paragon would want the truth to be told, no matter the consequences.
The renegade however just wants his quarian engineer to be focused on
the mission so he doesn't care that he's covering for a war criminal.

Concern for your squadmates, however, is a Paragon trait while general dickishness is a Renegade one.

Debatable, especially until you reach a point you can confirm that for a fact, but the more important bit is that the tech goes to Cerberus.

The particle beam, for one, is too advanced for Cerberus to take advantage of. Plus, most of your advanced weapons already exist and aren't being made by Cerberus; I think that most of the tech upgrades are also preexisting and are just now getting installed into you, similar to your ship.

Lawful-Good Paragon, remember. Not just Good Renegade. Sort of how human-first is a Renegade trait, but not all Renegades are racist first. (The Tali trial one is an oversight, but I believe the general intent was clear enough).

While I like the Garrus and Jacob justifications, according to the Council, nuking a garden world is a Big no-no, so Jack's is out. Miranda's is another matter: you are, after all, assisting in smuggling a kidnapped child, and lawfully...

So, what's your verdict on Tali? And I'll buy your anti-justification for Jack; I never liked her anyway. Miranda still feels iffy, though, since the kidnapping took place a long time ago and now it's really Eclipse that's performing the current kidnapping.

If you do Thane or Garrus' recruit missions, and you have your Spectre status back, then you're breaking your word to the Council. You were only given your status back on the condition that you only operate in the Terminus Systems.

Good point. Deal with Sidonis and Kolyat before speaking to the Council.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 17 septembre 2010 - 01:48 .

[PsyrenY]

stewie1974 wrote...

Killing "sapient" creatures is anti paragon period.

Bull. You're saying Shepard joined the military without ever expecting to have to kill anyone, for any reason? NO U.

General User wrote...

Samara is a justicar, her judgements
carry the same weight and authority that those of a judge and jury in
human society. A paragon of paragons should have no problem backing her
to the hilt.

Uh, no. Even when you first meet her, Paragon Shep has a problem with her. That's hardly "backing to the hilt."

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 17 septembre 2010 - 01:52 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Concern for your squadmates, however, is a Paragon trait while general dickishness is a Renegade one.

Undisputed (though Renegades can have certain connection with the people as well), but in this challenge Lawful is one of the key words in the title.

The particle beam, for one, is too advanced for Cerberus to take advantage of.

Only for a matter of time, and they'll be researching it.

I was referring to the Collector Ship, though, and the tech-bounty scans and such we get from within. While they don't provide a game-relevant advance (except for a few upgrades), they are story-based advances for Cerberus.

So, what's your verdict on Tali? And I'll buy your anti-justification for Jack; I never liked her anyway. Miranda still feels iffy, though, since the kidnapping took place a long time ago and now it's really Eclipse that's performing the current kidnapping.

For Tali, what is the lawful thing to do? I place restrictions,  but you can provide the rational.

Good point. Deal with Sidonis and Kolyat before speaking to the Council.

See? Already looking for loopholes already.

[stewie1974]

Well yeah you just got my whole point that you can't really be a "true" paragon in the game

Once you decide "Hey I'll make my career to be killing sapient creatures" you are no longer paragon.

You have made the conscious decision , possiblly weighing up all the options, that yes your life would involve ending the lives of others....   you weighed up those possibilities...and had no problem with it. You gave yourself a convieniant "excuse" to "justify" executions... you are probablly "pro capital punishment" too....  which isn't really a paragon choice... when you are "shooting an enemy" , that is by its definition "capital punishment".  they did wrong, so you are executing them.... You are not sitting at home and shooting the enemies in self defence... you are going to their worlds and excuting them.

When you attack an eclipse base... you are invading their home, they are defending themselves... you are the aggressor....

Modifié par stewie1974, 17 septembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[Xilizhra]

I said "concern." Renegades can do loyalty missions for wholly pragmatic reasons; in any case, they offer more opportunities for mayhem and slaughter.

[PsyrenY]

Why can't Sidonis be Paragon? Mine roleplayed it as going along with my friend (and tempering his more violent impulses) right up until we found him, and then restraining him from the killing blow.



Harkin also explicitly tells the Blue Suns to fire on you, making them fair game for the rest of that whole section.

[BHRamsay]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Shepard is not a Quarian.
[quote]

For the Purposes of the trial ...Yes s/he is, recognized by Qurian law. A point that is made several times by several people during the mission.

Modifié par BHRamsay, 17 septembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[Xilizhra]

Only for a matter of time, and they'll be researching it.



I was referring to the Collector Ship, though, and the tech-bounty scans and such we get from within. While they don't provide a game-relevant advance (except for a few upgrades), they are story-based advances for Cerberus.

Of course. Those, I'll avoid.

For Tali, what is the lawful thing to do? I place restrictions, but you can provide the rational.

The lawful thing to do is anything legal, which applies to all of your options. It's perfectly within the law to withhold evidence that would exonerate you, and there's nothing illegal about yelling to the Admiralty about Tali's service record either (technically, it counts as more evidence). If you really want to leak this stuff, tell it to Han'Garrel after the trial.

See? Already looking for loopholes already.

Of course. Even the Justicar Code invented the Third Oath of Subsumation as a means of navigating gray areas.

[General User]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why can't Sidonis be Paragon? Mine roleplayed it as going along with my friend (and tempering his more violent impulses) right up until we found him, and then restraining him from the killing blow.

Harkin also explicitly tells the Blue Suns to fire on you, making them fair game for the rest of that whole section.

A true paragon would never execute/injure someone who is at their mercy, even if they are constitutionally incapable of knowing when to shut up.

[Alixen]

stewie1974 wrote...

A code of "thou shall not kill"... has no exceptions...even if someone else is breaking that law by trying to kill you......

Hey of course I would kill in self defence in real life..... but I'm not bound by some lofty ideal.

Sorry, just had to nitpick here, as a Christian.

The line is actually, if going via the Bible, is "shall not murder." when translated correctly. Hense why the Israelite's had sanctuaries set up for people who had commited manslaughter (accidental killing) to escape retribution to while the court was arranged, and assumedly why Jesus told his Apostles to take a sword with them on the road for self-defence.

Just throwing that out there. Don't really have anything to really add tot he thread, since I play Renegon's anyway.

[stewie1974]

Alixen wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...

A code of "thou shall not kill"... has no exceptions...even if someone else is breaking that law by trying to kill you......

Hey of course I would kill in self defence in real life..... but I'm not bound by some lofty ideal.

Sorry, just had to nitpick here, as a Christian.

The line is actually, if going via the Bible, is "shall not murder." when translated correctly. Hense why the Israelite's had sanctuaries set up for people who had commited manslaughter (accidental killing) to escape retribution to while the court was arranged, and assumedly why Jesus told his Apostles to take a sword with them on the road for self-defence.

Just throwing that out there. Don't really have anything to really add tot he thread, since I play Renegon's anyway.

Self defense... implies you are attacked while not engaged in an act that is "non kosher"

You break into someones home armed with a sword.... the home owner attacks you... is it self defence to use your sword... or murder?

Translated to game... you are invading another persons lodging/base/hideout .....armed with an assult rifle... the gaurds /owners/ residents attack you.......  is it self defence...

yeah take up a sword on the road .....if you are attacked by bandits.... but if you are invading the bandits camp... it's clearly premeditated murder.

Any scenerio that puts you in the "attacker" mode ((doing any mission in game which is in the domain of another)) puts you in the culpable murderer mode.

Modifié par stewie1974, 17 septembre 2010 - 02:14 .

[Xilizhra]

Sorry, just had to nitpick here, as a Christian.



The line is actually, if going via the Bible, is "shall not murder." when translated correctly. Hense why the Israelite's had sanctuaries set up for people who had commited manslaughter (accidental killing) to escape retribution to while the court was arranged, and assumedly why Jesus told his Apostles to take a sword with them on the road for self-defence.



Just throwing that out there. Don't really have anything to really add tot he thread, since I play Renegon's anyway.

I read an analysis of this, and it's rather shaky. There are about five different words for "kill" used regularly in the Old Testament; technically, the one used in the Commandments is the one God never did personally (though he did condone and order it with a fair amount of frequency), but there are injunctions against other words used for killing as well. It seems unlikely that it meant "murder" exclusively; perhaps that was what was meant, but it's impossible to say for certain.

[crimzontearz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then do that, and see if you stand to do it. Not all neutral choices are like that, but if you feel you need to, do it. There is variety of interpretation within lawful neutral, and you can see more of it if you try.

This is a character-challenge to the player, not so much a gameplay difficulty challenge.

LOL I despise Alignments, they are obsolete and nonsensical hence why I DO NOT play DnD games and stick with other games like NWoD

with that in mind my comment was aimed to make you realize how absurd the challenge is

[General User]

Optimystic_X wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...

Killing "sapient" creatures is anti paragon period.

Bull. You're saying Shepard joined the military without ever expecting to have to kill anyone, for any reason? NO U.

General User wrote...

Samara is a justicar, her judgements
carry the same weight and authority that those of a judge and jury in
human society. A paragon of paragons should have no problem backing her
to the hilt.

Uh, no. Even when you first meet her, Paragon Shep has a problem with her. That's hardly "backing to the hilt."

True, but Shepard was judging Samaras’ actions by human standards. To be fair those were the only standards s/he had to judge her by at the time as s/he had a limited understanding of the role justicars play in asari society.

Stopping Samara from executing someone is the moral and legal equivalent of intervening to stop the sentence of a court of law from being carried out. Something a lawful person would never do.