Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
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.
Don't treat me like an ass, and I won't respond with the same tone.Optimystic_X wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
Don't be an ass. I'm justifying one specific loyalty mission, not "every Paragon action" in the game.
It's an interesting episode, but I disagree, both with the reviewer's conclusion over which is better and with the idea that they should both be Renegade. This would imply that a pure Paragon could do absolutely nothing without compromising her own morality, which seems... unrealistic, somehow. Every situation has a best option. Bioware did it best as made.Optimystic_X wrote...
This very well-done episode of Extra Credits goes into philosophical detail on the Legion decision - the upshot, which I completely agree with, is that BOTH options (rewrite and destroy) should be Renegade.
Guest_Shandepared_*
The heretic decision was probably the deepest decision in the entirety of the game. It was also very morally gray.Shandepared wrote...
I think the heretic decision should have been neutral.
It's also the Renegade who agrees to that in the first place, while the Paragon projects their morality onto the geth in the first place. Renegade seems a lot more accepting of moral relativism (if only as a defense of itself) than Paragon (who, for example, judges Samara about her extreme actions during their meeting).Xilizhra wrote...
Paragon is also about saving lives, arguably above everything else, and this does help with that. In addition, Legion themselves say that it's racist to apply human mindsets to every other species out there; the geth wouldn't be traumatized by this in the same way that organics would.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.
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:49 .
Guest_Shandepared_*
redplague wrote...
What this proves is that in a pretend world Renegade is better but in the real world Paragon is better.
Xilizhra wrote...
It's an interesting episode, but I disagree, both with the reviewer's conclusion over which is better and with the idea that they should both be Renegade. This would imply that a pure Paragon could do absolutely nothing without compromising her own morality, which seems... unrealistic, somehow. Every situation has a best option. Bioware did it best as made.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
I disagree about Garrus' loyalty mission, but so what? That sort of thing happens. I'm not saying your position is invalid, just that I don't agree with your justification for it. But this is a narrow-scope challenge (a 'Lawful' Paragon), not a dictation of every choice you can make. Lawful alone is debatable, and if you can do it well all better for you.
FieryPhoenix7 wrote...
The heretic decision was probably the deepest decision in the entirety of the game. It was also very morally gray.Shandepared wrote...
I think the heretic decision should have been neutral.
The first assumption is something I disagree with, as Paragon is also about risking lives for noble ideals as opposed to taking the most sure route to save as many as possible. You do save more lives end-tally by saving the Destiny Ascension, but you put magnitudes more at much greater risk in doing so. Paragon also justifies destroying the Collector Base not only on the grounds of the lives it would cost, but despite the lives it could save on grounds of 'soul of the species.' Saving lives may be a part, so too to renegades about the bigger picture choices. I would disagree that life is the defining part of Paragon: morality and law (in various occasions) are.
You cannot give a paragon justification for either robbing a set of sapient beings of their beliefs, or destroying them for disagreeing with you. As Legion themselves say - "all intelligent beings should self-determinate."
You also can't do nothing, because then ALL the Geth become heretics.
It's such a well-written dilemma BECAUSE it has no clear-cut "best" solution. The point is that you go through with it anyway, because the alternative is worse.
Guest_Shandepared_*
Xilizhra wrote...
It's also not really brainwashing so much as it is correcting a programming error; the conclusion it reaches isn't technically wrong, but it does seem more like a mental illness than a true choice.
Shandepard, that's referring to the Geth process, not the player choice.Shandepared wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
It's also not really brainwashing so much as it is correcting a programming error; the conclusion it reaches isn't technically wrong, but it does seem more like a mental illness than a true choice.
Trolling is uncalled for.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 septembre 2010 - 09:12 .
Xilizhra wrote...
The best solution isn't clear-cut, you have to think about it. It's clear that geth minds don't work like organics' do in the way that would make brainwashing a major problem for them. It's also not really brainwashing so much as it is correcting a programming error; the conclusion it reaches isn't technically wrong, but it does seem more like a mental illness than a true choice. And finally, it's better for pragmatic reasons that Dean pointed out.
Retour en haut