237 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You can be as 'Super Lawful-Good' Paragon as the game lets you.

Given that your choices are:

1) Go with Garrus and temper his more violent tendencies, followed by convincing him to spare Sidonis' life, AND along the way plug a leak in C-Sec security;

2) Deny your friend and leave him to track down Sidonis on his own WITHOUT your temperance/supervision, assuming he even survives the SM in his distracted (disloyal) state;

I see (1) as being far more responsible and therefore the more paragon choice. You can do Garrus' loyalty just fine.

Furthermore, doing so makes Garrus himself more Paragon, just as you could steer him towards being more Paragon in ME1.

How is (1) Lawful? Especially if you haven't gone to get your Spectre status reinstated, or after (when you promised NOT to do stuff on the Citadel).

Lawful and Paragon isn't always responsible (however you wish to define that: Renegade, sometimes?), but then metagaming the SM outcomes isn't exactly roleplaying within the guidelines either.

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tali's ruling, I believe, is open ended as to your interpretation of 'the law.' I, personally, believe that not coming out with the truth is a more unlawful/unparagon thing to do, but then the Paragon persuasion is pretty ****ing and good to go.

Samara is legal to the Asari culture. Whether you play a Lawful Paragon by the Council's laws, the Alliances laws, or apply legal relativism, I suppose, is up to you to justify as being both Lawful and Paragon-ish.

I am not aware of anywhere in the codex, game, etc. where the exact distinction between Council law and the laws of various races is made clear.
 
It’s my impression that asari law is the major force behind and antecedent of Council law. So Samara’s authority to dispense justice by her own judgment may be entirely within the bounds of Council law. This is a subject of great interest to me; can anyone shed some light on the subject?

[Dean_the_Young]

khevan wrote...

I love how this thread is turning into a Paragon vs Renegade: which is better.

I find it funnier that Renegades seem to be using this as proof that Renegade is better, when it proves no such thing. It proves that ultra Paragon is stupid, that's all. Ultra Renegade isn't much better. Being an ass to everyone you meet, killing everyone who looks at you wrong or says something you don't like, in any kind of realistic setting these would lower your life expectancy by quite a bit, especially in lawless areas like the Terminus Systems. Shepard simply has the whole plot armor thing going on.

I personally play Paragade, with quite a bit of Renegade to go with my fairly Paragon ways. I'm not opposed to Renegade on principle, but both extremes are dumb, and trying to say that "Ultra Paragon is stupid, therefore Renegade is better" is just fallacious and disingenuous.

Am I the only one who can see anything admirable about a Lawful Paragon who will suffer loss in the name of principals? 

It's like I'm the only idealist here, and everyone else is jaded, fair-weather virtuosoes.

[Xilizhra]

Am I the only one who can see anything admirable about a Lawful Paragon who will suffer loss in the name of principals?



It's like I'm the only idealist here, and everyone else is jaded, fair-weather virtuosoes.

Nope. I'm with you all the way.

[General User]

Optimystic_X wrote...

General User wrote...

Consensus.

See my post above yours.

I agree with you.  As you present them, number 1 is the superior choice.  Risky in a variety of ways, yes.  But not outside of  the reasonable expectations for an experienced secret agent like Shepard

[PsyrenY]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
How is (1) Lawful? Especially if you haven't gone to get your Spectre status reinstated, or after (when you promised NOT to do stuff on the Citadel).

Lawful and Paragon isn't always responsible (however you wish to define that: Renegade, sometimes?), but then metagaming the SM outcomes isn't exactly roleplaying within the guidelines either.

1) I'm not metagaming - not only do TIM and Jacob repeatedly tell you everyone needs to be focused, you can actually do the SM with a disloyal Garrus and have him survive. So I'm not using any SM outcomes as justification.

2) Paragon is always responsible; otherwise, by your own metric there's no reason to be bent out of shape by Garrus' actions. You can't have it both ways. Either you are responsible for his conduct or you aren't. You can't be both responsible for his actions if you go with him, yet have clean hands if you force him into doing something that could cause more suffering down the road.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Am I the only one who can see anything admirable about a Lawful Paragon who will suffer loss in the name of principals?

It's like I'm the only idealist here, and everyone else is jaded, fair-weather virtuosoes.

There is nothing admirable about Lawful Stupid behavior. Period.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:41 .

[khevan]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Am I the only one who can see anything admirable about a Lawful Paragon who will suffer loss in the name of principals? 

It's like I'm the only idealist here, and everyone else is jaded, fair-weather virtuosoes.

In response, I quote you and Shandepared:

Shandepared wrote...

So you admit renegade is superior.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

redplague wrote...

Clearly the most anal post that there has ever been on these forums.  If you follow the pure paragon path that the OP describes then there is no point in playing the game as most of the fun has been taken out of it.

Edit: Nevermind, Shand's is better.

This, to me, says that your OP was a satirical attempt to "prove" that Ultra Paragons are dumb by pointing out how dumb they are.  Well, mission successful.  However, both you and Shandepared are trying to use this as proof that Renegade is somehow better than ultra Paragon.  It's like trying to say that the Carnifex will all damage upgrades will do more damage than the Widow (but with no SR damage upgrades).  It's true, but meaningless.

[Dean_the_Young]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
How is (1) Lawful? Especially if you haven't gone to get your Spectre status reinstated, or after (when you promised NOT to do stuff on the Citadel).

Lawful and Paragon isn't always responsible (however you wish to define that: Renegade, sometimes?), but then metagaming the SM outcomes isn't exactly roleplaying within the guidelines either.

1) I'm not metagaming - not only do TIM and Jacob repeatedly tell you everyone needs to be focused, you can actually do the SM with a disloyal Garrus and have him survive. So I'm not using any SM outcomes as justification.

By the context you were. The assumption that you must go on this loyalty mission, that nothing else would temper Garrus's emotions, was an indicator. You can't know that beforehand.

2) Paragon is always responsible; otherwise, by your own metric there's no reason to be bent out of shape by Garrus' actions. You can't have it both ways. Either you are responsible for his conduct or you aren't. You can't be both responsible for his actions if you go with him, yet have clean hands if you force him into doing something that could cause more suffering down the road.

Responsible in the eyes of the laws is not the same thing as responsible in treatment of others or responsible in the evaluation of risks. Paragons take a number of choices I would consider highly, highly irresponsible.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Am I the only one who can see anything admirable about a Lawful Paragon who will suffer loss in the name of principals?

It's like I'm the only idealist here, and everyone else is jaded, fair-weather virtuosoes.

There is nothing admirable about Lawful Stupid behavior. Period.

Why, oh why, do you hate Gandhi, who led people to not defend themselves from unjust violence?

Why, oh why, do you hate idealists who lead by their ideals, even when it costs them and those who willingly follow them?

[Dean_the_Young]

khevan wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Am I the only one who can see anything admirable about a Lawful Paragon who will suffer loss in the name of principals? 

It's like I'm the only idealist here, and everyone else is jaded, fair-weather virtuosoes.

In response, I quote you and Shandepared:

Shandepared wrote...

So you admit renegade is superior.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

redplague wrote...

Clearly the most anal post that there has ever been on these forums.  If you follow the pure paragon path that the OP describes then there is no point in playing the game as most of the fun has been taken out of it.

Edit: Nevermind, Shand's is better.

This, to me, says that your OP was a satirical attempt to "prove" that Ultra Paragons are dumb by pointing out how dumb they are.  Well, mission successful.  However, both you and Shandepared are trying to use this as proof that Renegade is somehow better than ultra Paragon.  It's like trying to say that the Carnifex will all damage upgrades will do more damage than the Widow (but with no SR damage upgrades).  It's true, but meaningless.

Then you read wrong, or lack context. I think Renegade is better in general, but I can find things admirable about a sincere Lawful Paragon. This is a challenge to others to take things to general lawful-good declarations.

Being called an anal poster by redplague for something that wasn't, however, incited a response I thought better of. Shandepard's had a levity I appreciated.

[Xilizhra]

By the context you were. The assumption that you must go on this loyalty mission, that nothing else would temper Garrus's emotions, was an indicator. You can't know that beforehand.

Write it as having asked Kelly about it, and Kelly confirming it.

Responsible in the eyes of the laws is not the same thing as responsible in treatment of others or responsible in the evaluation of risks. Paragons take a number of choices I would consider highly, highly irresponsible.

Like what, aside from the ubiquitous Collector base and rachni queen?

Why, oh why, do you hate Gandhi, who led people to not defend themselves from unjust violence?



Why, oh why, do you hate idealists who lead by their ideals, even when it costs them and those who willingly follow them?

Shepard is a different kind of idealist than Gandhi. Gandhi's nonviolent solution was tactically appropriate for his situation; Shepard's in a place that requires a lot more violence.

[PsyrenY]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
By the context you were. The assumption that you must go on this loyalty mission, that nothing else would temper Garrus's emotions, was an indicator. You can't know that beforehand.

Kelly: Garrus received some news that put fire in his eyes. You should go speak with him when you have a chance.
Garrus: (if you refuse his request to go to the Citadel): Understood Commander... I'll keep in touch with my contact on the Citadel, in case you... in case we have time.
Garrus (every time you talk to him afterward): Commander, can we go to the Citadel? I really want to go and find Sidonis.

If you don't think he's distracted by that... I suppose he could hang a neon sign in your quarters, but Shepard would have to be denser than Iridium to miss the other bits anyway.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Responsible in the eyes of the laws is not the same thing as responsible in treatment of others or responsible in the evaluation of risks. Paragons take a number of choices I would consider highly, highly irresponsible.

Hey, newsflash - by the law, if someone tells you "I am going to murder that guy, dead serious" and you do nothing about it, YOU ARE LIABLE!

"Every member of my team died except for Sidonis. I am going to find him, and correct that."
"Whatever Garrus."

Real Paragon behavior there.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why, oh why, do you hate Gandhi, who led people to not defend themselves from unjust violence?

Why, oh why, do you hate idealists who lead by their ideals, even when it costs them and those who willingly follow them?

So Ghandi would not accompany Garrus and keep him from kneecapping the shady criminal or headshotting his former friend? You and I have very different ideas of the man.

Passive Resistance != No Resistance.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...


[quote]By the context you were. The assumption that you must go on this loyalty mission, that nothing else would temper Garrus's emotions, was an indicator. You can't know that beforehand.[/quote]
Write it as having asked Kelly about it, and Kelly confirming it.[/quote]Heh, I'll give you that, though in my mind (but not forcing anyone else to follow) any Shepard's first stop should be the Citadel to try and connect with the Council.

But, if you have a good reason to put off that as a Paragon... more power to you.

[quote]Like what, aside from the ubiquitous Collector base and rachni queen?[/quote]Sovereign, Overlord (if do not already have Legion and know that most geth are not hostile), would-be Legion's loyalty if they hadn't switched the brainwash/destroy idea halfway through, and similar. There are a number of ME1 little-choices that can be solved paragon or renegade any direction, so I'll obstain from those.

[quote]Why, oh why, do you hate Gandhi, who led people to not defend themselves from unjust violence?

Why, oh why, do you hate idealists who lead by their ideals, even when it costs them and those who willingly follow them?[/quote]
Shepard is a different kind of idealist than Gandhi. Gandhi's nonviolent solution was tactically appropriate for his situation; Shepard's in a place that requires a lot more violence.[/quote]Agreed, but then Gandhi's approach was hardly a known successful strategy beforehand either.

What is good for the mission isn't necessarily good in the eyes of the law. Garrus may be a great guy, but helping him go on a revenge quest, even with a Benezia-like intention to disuade him or moderate him, is still agreeing to go on a murder mission, and taking the opportunity for it to go out of hand. It may be Paragon, but is it lawful, even without the Spectre promise? I have my doubts.

[Dean_the_Young]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Responsible in the eyes of the laws is not the same thing as responsible in treatment of others or responsible in the evaluation of risks. Paragons take a number of choices I would consider highly, highly irresponsible.

Hey, newsflash - by the law, if someone tells you "I am going to murder that guy, dead serious" and you do nothing about it, YOU ARE LIABLE!

And, roleplaying, you can try to have talked him out of it and to prevent him from doing it and breaking the law.

You know, like not help them do it, or give them the opportunity to do it.

"Every member of my team died except for Sidonis. I am going to find him, and correct that."
"Whatever Garrus."

Real Paragon behavior there.

Lawful Paragon for sure.

So Ghandi would not accompany Garrus and keep him from kneecapping the shady criminal or headshotting his former friend? You and I have very different ideas of the man.

Passive Resistance != No Resistance.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure Ghandi never pretended to cooperate with a murder vendetta on the hope that he could stand aside and keep his hands clean while putting in a good word.

Ghandi generally outright said he wouldn't do resort to violence or cooperate with it, and told others not to do the same.  

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[Xilizhra]

Sovereign, Overlord (if do not already have Legion and know that most geth are not hostile), would-be Legion's loyalty if they hadn't switched the brainwash/destroy idea halfway through, and similar. There are a number of ME1 little-choices that can be solved paragon or renegade any direction, so I'll obstain from those.

Saving the Council can be risky, but I believe the risk is justified when compared with the reward. Overlord is irrelevant because if I ever play it, it'd be after Legion's loyalty mission. And what are you referring to with the thing about Legion's loyalty mission?

What is good for the mission isn't necessarily good in the eyes of the law. Garrus may be a great guy, but helping him go on a revenge quest, even with a Benezia-like intention to disuade him or moderate him, is still agreeing to go on a murder mission, and taking the opportunity for it to go out of hand. It may be Paragon, but is it lawful, even without the Spectre promise? I have my doubts.

I play my Paragon as being neutral good. She'll support the law when it helps save lives, which is usually, but will bend it if the consequences of not doing so are bad enough.

[PsyrenY]

I don't know about your Paragon, but mine actually stopped the murder, and was fully intending to do so from the start. I neither "helped him to do it" nor "gave him the opportunity to do it", to the point that I kept my own head in Garrus' line of fire to protect a turian I had never even met.

Maybe yours stepped aside, but don't judge all Paragons by that.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[General User]

stewie1974 wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, yes. Samara's methods may be a touch brutal, but her motives are at least pure.

And her actions are legal, under asari law anyway.  Consensus achieved?

So what about muslim law?

It's ok to stone unfaithful women to death?.....

You'd stand for it because it's legal in those countries?...... ahhhhhhaaaa.

What should a just (paragon) man or woman do when the law itself is unjust? Everyone since So-crates (a la Bill and Ted) has been trying to figure that one out...


What the hell, I’ll give it a whack.
 
Simply put I’ll say that all laws, criminal, civil, or religious, must be judged against an objective standard. A perfect moral standard that must originate from a divine source, since all human beings (and asari for that matter ) are inherently flawed. When someone claims to have knowledge of that divine standard, that claim, and that person deserve rigorous and critical examination. If a purported moral code or claim thereof fails to meet the objective standard, it becomes the duty of the just to oppose it as they would any evil. This is a general philosophy, I am not singling out any particular person or faith. These are murky waters, so I won’t say any more on this point, I don’t want to accidently insult anyone’s religion.
 
Samara, for her part, seems to understand the need for an objective code, as she carries out her duties according to the Justicar Code and not her personal judgment.
 
Asari law is not in question in the case of Samara killing that helpless merc, only Samara’s authority to pass judgment and execute sentence on the spot. And even then only by Shepard who seems to be unaware that justicars carry the same weight for asari that judges and juries do for humans.
 
As for what happens in other countries, or other planets … It’s not Shepard’s job to restructure the justice system of Illium or the United Asari Republics, if the citizens of those states don’t like the nature of their justice system it is their responsibility to change it. I feel the same way about the justice systems of other countries. 

[Asheer_Khan]

JOIN THE DARK SIDE - We have COOKIES :devil:


And my Shepard now choses her own path and since SB ship is now in her and Liara's hand she keeps keys to almost everyones future.

cerberus did made one mistake with her during Lazarus... they forget to reimplant chip of ultimative paragon:innocent:... so from now one tip from Shepard to Liara and dear "Ah YES" Councilor might start to find new job, or Mr "This is an outrage" can land in jail for corruption charges...

Remember folks... "Knowledge is ultimative power which might cast down even most powerful civilizations"

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...


[quote]Sovereign, Overlord (if do not already have Legion and know that most geth are not hostile), would-be Legion's loyalty if they hadn't switched the brainwash/destroy idea halfway through, and similar. There are a number of ME1 little-choices that can be solved paragon or renegade any direction, so I'll obstain from those.[/quote]
Saving the Council can be risky, but I believe the risk is justified when compared with the reward. Overlord is irrelevant because if I ever play it, it'd be after Legion's loyalty mission. And what are you referring to with the thing about Legion's loyalty mission?
[quote]In Legion's loyalty mission, at the beginning of the mission the Paragon is against brainwashing the geth while the Renegade is nonchalant about it. At the end, however, Paragon decision is to brainwash, and Renegade is to destroy the base. I find brainwashing the responsible action, but it flip-floped from Renegade to Paragon mid-mission.

With the Council choice I disagree for old reasons that don't need to be raised (I lean on the 'all firepower on Sovereign' choice), 

[quote]
 [/quote][quote]
I play my Paragon as being neutral good. She'll support the law when it helps save lives, which is usually, but will bend it if the consequences of not doing so are bad enough.[/quote]Perfectly valid... but not this challenge, I'm afraid.

[PsyrenY]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Perfectly valid... but not this challenge, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid your challenge is pointless, as your definition of "Paragon" and the game's diverge too widely for any semblance of rational behavior.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

By the context you were. The assumption that you must go on this loyalty mission, that nothing else would temper Garrus's emotions, was an indicator. You can't know that beforehand.

Write it as having asked Kelly about it, and Kelly confirming it.

Responsible in the eyes of the laws is not the same thing as responsible in treatment of others or responsible in the evaluation of risks. Paragons take a number of choices I would consider highly, highly irresponsible.

Like what, aside from the ubiquitous Collector base and rachni queen?

Why, oh why, do you hate Gandhi, who led people to not defend themselves from unjust violence?

Why, oh why, do you hate idealists who lead by their ideals, even when it costs them and those who willingly follow them?

Shepard is a different kind of idealist than Gandhi. Gandhi's nonviolent solution was tactically appropriate for his situation; Shepard's in a place that requires a lot more violence.

HA!

I  using "Gandhi" and "tactical(ly)" in the same sentence!

[Xilizhra]

In Legion's loyalty mission, at the beginning of the mission the Paragon is against brainwashing the geth while the Renegade is nonchalant about it. At the end, however, Paragon decision is to brainwash, and Renegade is to destroy the base. I find brainwashing the responsible action, but it flip-floped from Renegade to Paragon mid-mission.

I was curious as to why you think rewriting the geth is more responsible, as you tend toward the Renegade.

Perfectly valid... but not this challenge, I'm afraid.

Of course.

[Dean_the_Young]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I don't know about your Paragon, but mine actually stopped the murder, and was fully intending to do so from the start. I neither "helped him to do it" nor "gave him the opportunity to do it", to the point that I kept my own head in Garrus' line of fire to protect a turian I had never even met.

Maybe yours stepped aside, but don't judge all Paragons by that.

I, uh, don't. And I'm confused where you get this idea that all Paragons do.

Edit: Oh. You mean literally. No, that's not what I meant. I was speaking figuratively, in the sense of taking the mission at all.

That said, yeah, you pretty much did give Garrus the chance. Let him put up a sniper post, and then trusted nothing more than his sense of restraint (and Sidonis's sense not to break cover, and that he couldn't make the shot before Sidonis was safely behind you) that he wouldn't act.

[PsyrenY]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That said, yeah, you pretty much did give Garrus the chance. Let him put up a sniper post, and then trusted nothing more than his sense of restraint (and Sidonis's sense not to break cover, and that he couldn't make the shot before Sidonis was safely behind you) that he wouldn't act.

Of course I trusted him. That's what teammates do, remember?
Tying him up in the car, or leaving him on the Normandy, would not have ever stopped him from trying to kill Sidonis. Seeing Sidonis' haunted and distraught face, and my willingness to protect him, did.

You can keep your short-term fair-weather Paragon, but don't try to stop the rest of us from making the really tough decisions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

In Legion's loyalty mission, at the beginning of the mission the Paragon is against brainwashing the geth while the Renegade is nonchalant about it. At the end, however, Paragon decision is to brainwash, and Renegade is to destroy the base. I find brainwashing the responsible action, but it flip-floped from Renegade to Paragon mid-mission.

I was curious as to why you think rewriting the geth is more responsible, as you tend toward the Renegade.

Destroying the base does no one any good, and only kills the Heretics in this base alone. Heretics outside of the base, such as those still engaged and engaging the Alliance in those 'mop up' operations (or who would try to launch major attacks like the ship hijacking/attacking) are left alone to act, still be a threat, and possibly still help the Reapers when they return.

Brainwashing them, however, does help you, in the sense that it makes the Geth stronger (and thus better prepared against the Reapers). It also will infect Heretics not at the station, when they make contact, and wipe them as well. Those Geth, who would otherwise still be fighting the Alliance/ready to side with the Reapers, are in time completely (or almost completely) removed as threats.

Destroying the base hurts the Heretics badly, but leaves stragglers. Hacking the base wipes out all Heretics, and puts them (and the base) to work for you against the Reapers.


However, I'm still perplexed as to the mid-mission switch, and have never really been able to square away the change. Paragon, after all, has been less about not coercing or forcing others against their will and about soul of the species and freedom and all that jazz, while Renegade is about immediate effects, expediancy, and full of threats and forceful coercion.

You can justify the choice regardless, with enough twisting, but I was always surprised that it was a Paragon.

[Dean_the_Young]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Perfectly valid... but not this challenge, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid your challenge is pointless, as your definition of "Paragon" and the game's diverge too widely for any semblance of rational behavior.

Only if you aren't capable of differentiation. You can be a Paragon without taking every Paragon action, and you can be a Lawful Paragon without taking unlawful Paragon opportunities.

I suppose I could have put the 'The Ultimate [subtype] Paragon Playthrough Challenge' in the title line...

Oh. Wait. I did.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:30 .