127 réponses à ce sujet

[Markinator_123]

Overall, though, I believe this is the reason why the "paragade" playstyle is so popular because both paragons and renegades have bad*** moments. Why not experience the best of both worlds? Bioware refers to the paragon as the ultimate hero while they refer to the renegade as the ultimate bad***. Wouldn't you like to play as the bad*** hero?

[Uber Rod]

For Zaeed's mission I figured that even though we should be saving people, it's his show. I'm just there for support.

Although my Renegade Shepard took the Paragon action in Zaeed's mission just to ****** Zaeed off. I had never taken the Paragon route and wanted to see what happened. Besides, I didn't like his attitude. As a result, Zaeed didn't survive the Suicide Mission. Oh well.

[StarcloudSWG]

There is no such thing as a pure Paragon playthrough. I tried it once, and *still* ended up with some Renegade points.

It is neither paragon nor renegade to sabotage the heavy mech's IFF routines, for instance. But it would be stupid not to.

And apart from that one Paragon-only playthrough, I have never chosen to save the workers at the refinery in Zaeed's loyalty mission over killing off Santiago. The trade off, as I've seen it, is the short term benefit of saving the refinery and the people inside, vs. the long term benefit of making sure Vido dies to force a change in leadership in the Suns, thus crippling the Blue Suns in the long term. Either way, I have no problem keeping Zaeed's loyalty, so that's not a factor.

[Markinator_123]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

There is no such thing as a pure Paragon playthrough. I tried it once, and *still* ended up with some Renegade points.
It is neither paragon nor renegade to sabotage the heavy mech's IFF routines, for instance. But it would be stupid not to.
And apart from that one Paragon-only playthrough, I have never chosen to save the workers at the refinery in Zaeed's loyalty mission over killing off Santiago. The trade off, as I've seen it, is the short term benefit of saving the refinery and the people inside, vs. the long term benefit of making sure Vido dies to force a change in leadership in the Suns, thus crippling the Blue Suns in the long term. Either way, I have no problem keeping Zaeed's loyalty, so that's not a factor.

That is assuming that you won't get someone even worse to replace Vido Santiago. This is where I support the paragon decision.

[GnusmasTHX]

I get a full paragon bar but usually take the renegade interrupts that do harm to my enemies. I mean.. That's what I'm supposed to do.



Killing Fist is still the highlight of all renegade actions though, despite being a paragon in ME1 and ME2.

[Agorme]

i always choose the renegade option on those 3 occassions in a paragon savegame.

The gunship doesnt have shields i believe when you do. And the other two are smart to consider since you can allready disable somme enemies before you start an obvious fight....

[yummysoap]

On a slightly related note: I pissed myself laughing when I electrocuted that dude. Shepard's deadpan line is just too funny.

[Sajuro]

I do all three of those for the lulz

[horacethegrey]

StarcloudSWG wrote...
And apart from that one Paragon-only playthrough, I have never chosen to save the workers at the refinery in Zaeed's loyalty mission over killing off Santiago. The trade off, as I've seen it, is the short term benefit of saving the refinery and the people inside, vs. the long term benefit of making sure Vido dies to force a change in leadership in the Suns, thus crippling the Blue Suns in the long term. Either way, I have no problem keeping Zaeed's loyalty, so that's not a factor.

I don't get why you should let Zaeed have his way on his loyalty mission. The guy blew up a refinery just so he could have his revenge, clearly ignoring Shepard's command and compromising the mission. Even on a renegade playthrough, I'd still save the workers, just to show Zaeed who's in charge and that if he ever forgets I'l put bullet in his skull as a reminder. 

[TuringPoint]

Some people believe in Paragon as being the opposite of Renegade; it simply isn't.



You can take Paragon, or Renegade actions. You can take both, or take an action that is both.

[Moiaussi]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

There is no such thing as a pure Paragon playthrough. I tried it once, and *still* ended up with some Renegade points.
It is neither paragon nor renegade to sabotage the heavy mech's IFF routines, for instance. But it would be stupid not to.
And apart from that one Paragon-only playthrough, I have never chosen to save the workers at the refinery in Zaeed's loyalty mission over killing off Santiago. The trade off, as I've seen it, is the short term benefit of saving the refinery and the people inside, vs. the long term benefit of making sure Vido dies to force a change in leadership in the Suns, thus crippling the Blue Suns in the long term. Either way, I have no problem keeping Zaeed's loyalty, so that's not a factor.

How do you know at the time you make the decision that you will get Vido anyway? Depending on class, if Zaheed hadn't taken the situation in his own hands you might have been able to simply snipe Vido's head off quietly. Besides the possibility of Vido simply going straight to his gunship while you are slowed down by security locks and the fire, there is every possibility that Zaheed might have just done something else reckless allowing Vido's escape. If Vido escapes and the workers die, it wouldn't be very bright....

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Markinator_123 wrote...

There are certain renegade interrupts in the game that make wonder why someone would not take them. Some people say that a pure paragon is hardly "stupid good" in this game. In my opinion, not taking these interrupts are either what someone could consider a case of "honor before reason" at best or "stupid good" at worst.

1. Not stabbing Cathka
-You are going into a large battle with only three people and you don't even know who the fourth guy is. You know a gunship is going to make your life harder. Why worry about stabbing a guy who is working for the enemy?

2. Not taking the renegade interrupt on Miranda's loyalty mission
-"This whole time we have been talking my men have been lining up shots." At that point diplomacy goes out of the window.

3. Not burning the krogan on Mordin's loyalty mission
-Seriously, a paragon would literally listen to this guy's whole speech?

These are top renegade interrupts that I believe that everyone should take. If you have more interrupts that you like to add that everyone should take feel free to add them. Nonethless, if someone could give me a good justification for not taking these interrupts, I would like to hear it.

really...and the guy is likely (not likely, but DEFINITELY) to start fighting with you anyways... if you take the "renegade" action then you end it before it even starts... most logical decision.  it should be considered renegade if you listen to the guy spew his nonsense.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 20 septembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[snfonseka]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Overall, though, I believe this is the reason why the "paragade" playstyle is so popular because both paragons and renegades have bad*** moments. Why not experience the best of both worlds? Bioware refers to the paragon as the ultimate hero while they refer to the renegade as the ultimate bad***. Wouldn't you like to play as the bad*** hero?

Approves +10

[Fishy]

Markinator_123 wrote...

There are certain renegade interrupts in the game that make wonder why someone would not take them. Some people say that a pure paragon is hardly "stupid good" in this game. In my opinion, not taking these interrupts are either what someone could consider a case of "honor before reason" at best or "stupid good" at worst.

1. Not stabbing Cathka
-You are going into a large battle with only three people and you don't even know who the fourth guy is. You know a gunship is going to make your life harder. Why worry about stabbing a guy who is working for the enemy?

2. Not taking the renegade interrupt on Miranda's loyalty mission
-"This whole time we have been talking my men have been lining up shots." At that point diplomacy goes out of the window.

3. Not burning the krogan on Mordin's loyalty mission
-Seriously, a paragon would literally listen to this guy's whole speech?

These are top renegade interrupts that I believe that everyone should take. If you have more interrupts that you like to add that everyone should take feel free to add them. Nonethless, if someone could give me a good justification for not taking these interrupts, I would like to hear it.

Paragon use diplomacy before violence.Your point fail!

1:You stab a mechanic in the back . He's not a direct threat to you . You don't know the future.You stab him and possibly kill him with the belief that the ship might endanger your own life.It's like beating the crap out of someone because he know some secret about you and you don't want other people to know it.

2:Same thing.You kill someone in the middle of a conversation.Not very diplomatic.

3: See 2




Now assume this.You're in a diplomatic conversation with another country  .. You take the initiative first and send nuclear warhead to blow them up before the conflict's resolved through negociation .

Not very diplomatic.

Modifié par Suprez30, 20 septembre 2010 - 09:21 .

[Zan Mura]

At first I actually agree on much of what the OP said, and not just in those there incidents. But really, ultimately it comes down to wanting to be pure paragon while still wanting to have that hardcore attitude, so how it plays in the game is actually how it should go. A pure paragon will always be good, loyal, honourable, and decent in all the various ways. It represents an extreme. And that extreme is just something most of us can't bring ourselves to agree with.

This is better emphasized by playing a renegade, and picking the renegade option each and every time. Most would soon notice that it doesn't feel right, not even for a complete bad-ass, brutal type of character. Because that's also an extreme, one that is as evil as can be for the sake of evil, same as a complete paragon is a goody for the sake of good, both becoming equally unbelievable and ridiculous. BW has done good in providing that option, their "limit" to an alignment - if you will -, is farther along than most people are willing to go. If it wasn't, it would imply that the game doesn't allow for enough where the moral choices are concerned. If you catch my drift.

My purest paragon character who truly is pure with full paragon bars, still has about 1 bar of renegade too, precisely for picking some dialogue options that she'd be just plain stupid to miss. Basically that translates to something less than the naivély goody good fairy of purity that a perfect paragon with zero renegade would be: She is fundamentally a deep paragon, but also exactly what you should expect of a military leader: someone not afraid to do what needs to be done, if it further the cause of what is good. The purest paragon in the game goes beyond what is in any way even realistic, but we should be glad that the option is still there.

As said, I feel the dialogue choices and interrupts do match quite well overall. Regardless of whether or not you saw where the situation was heading, interrupting someone by burning them alive before the fight ever started IS a renegade option. It will always be that, arguing it is pointless. You cannot make such an obviously hardcore choice and argue that you still want your character to be a 100% good, always putting diplomacy over any violence stats-wise. Because if that happened, then the stats would be lying.

[GodWood]

Pfftt, paragons...

[Moiaussi]

Suprez30 wrote...

Paragon use diplomacy before violence.Your point fail!

1:You stab a mechanic in the back . He's not a direct threat to you . You don't know the future.You stab him and possibly kill him with the belief that the ship might endanger your own life.It's like beating the crap out of someone because he know some secret about you and you don't want other people to know it.

2:Same thing.You kill someone in the middle of a conversation.Not very diplomatic.

3: See 2



Now assume this.You're in a diplomatic conversation with another country  .. You take the initiative first and send nuclear warhead to blow them up before the conflict's resolved through negociation .

Not very diplomatic.

I play mostly paragon, and don't buy this arguement. When someone does have a gun pointing at you, and you have already attempted any available diplomatic channels, there is nothing wrong with shooting first. The mechanic was a direct threat to you by way of the gunship. It is not like you stopped to chat with any of his buddies, nor for that matter did you simply run past them instead of shooting the first one in the back on your way in.

You also never use anything remotely resembling a nuke (other than maybe the cain) pre-emptively, and there are no interrupts using the cain. First strikes are only renegade if it is not clear that the enemy would attack or if there is potential civilian loss (such as shooting someone who has a gun to the head of a hostage). In the middle of an already hostile situation, with no hostages, it is simply good tactics.

[Zan Mura]

Moiaussi wrote...

I play mostly paragon, and don't buy this arguement. When someone does have a gun pointing at you, and you have already attempted any available diplomatic channels, there is nothing wrong with shooting first. The mechanic was a direct threat to you by way of the gunship. It is not like you stopped to chat with any of his buddies, nor for that matter did you simply run past them instead of shooting the first one in the back on your way in.

You're murdering a mechanic. A mechanic. Not a soldier. Not a warrior. Not a person who is one trigger pull away from killing you and your family, but a mechanic who's just doing his job.

Killing him to prevent the gunship from being at peak performance is essentially exactly the same as killing innocent women and children because they provide your enemy with food, sustenance and new generations of warriors 10 years from now. The only way you can justify that as a paragon option is by not thinking it far enough. And blinding your eyes to the truth has never been a justification.

It is a renegade option, there's no way around that. That's not to say that your character as a whole cannot be paragon despite choosing options such as that, as pointed out before. But that particular choice is definitely renegade. The ultimate paragon will harm no-one unless they absolutely have to, and never kill innocents simply because it's the easiest way to get the job done.

So like said, this is more about people wanting to feel paragon and purely good, while still leaving the backdoor open for badassery. The truth is that the 100% paragon is someone so good, so holy and pure and so naivély diplomatic that they would never, EVER, sacrifice anyone they didn't absolutely have to. That mechanic is by no means someone you absolutely have to kill because you have no choice. You do have a choice, the choice is to leave that civilian rations transport alone, knowingly letting your enemy be better prepared, because you would rather face a stronger enemy, than murder civilians.

[Aradace]

stewie1974 wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

There are certain renegade interrupts in the game that make wonder why someone would not take them. Some people say that a pure paragon is hardly "stupid good" in this game. In my opinion, not taking these interrupts are either what someone could consider a case of "honor before reason" at best or "stupid good" at worst.

1. Not stabbing Cathka
-You are going into a large battle with only three people and you don't even know who the fourth guy is. You know a gunship is going to make your life harder. Why worry about stabbing a guy who is working for the enemy?

is there a bug in THE or MY game.????. I stab him... yet a gunship still turns up... I don't stab him... gunship still turns up...

I seriously don't get the point of stabbing him at all..

You're obviously not paying attention then (not meaning that in an negative way).  If you DONT stab him, when the gunship shows up it's at full health.  If you DO stab him, when it shows up, its only at HALF health.  It's a matter of making the gunship battle go a little faster.  (and is logical IMO)

[Moiaussi]

Zan Mura wrote...

You're murdering a mechanic. A mechanic. Not a soldier. Not a warrior. Not a person who is one trigger pull away from killing you and your family, but a mechanic who's just doing his job.

Killing him to prevent the gunship from being at peak performance is essentially exactly the same as killing innocent women and children because they provide your enemy with food, sustenance and new generations of warriors 10 years from now. The only way you can justify that as a paragon option is by not thinking it far enough. And blinding your eyes to the truth has never been a justification.

It is a renegade option, there's no way around that. That's not to say that your character as a whole cannot be paragon despite choosing options such as that, as pointed out before. But that particular choice is definitely renegade. The ultimate paragon will harm no-one unless they absolutely have to, and never kill innocents simply because it's the easiest way to get the job done.

So like said, this is more about people wanting to feel paragon and purely good, while still leaving the backdoor open for badassery. The truth is that the 100% paragon is someone so good, so holy and pure and so naivély diplomatic that they would never, EVER, sacrifice anyone they didn't absolutely have to. That mechanic is by no means someone you absolutely have to kill because you have no choice. You do have a choice, the choice is to leave that civilian rations transport alone, knowingly letting your enemy be better prepared, because you would rather face a stronger enemy, than murder civilians.

He is a mechanic, but also as I recall he is a Lt. In addition to fixing the gunship, he is also the field coordinator, the soldier you are asked to report to. He isn't fixing his personal car, he is fixing an enemy gunship. He is unarmed, but not a non-combatant. If you consider him too innocent to take down, then you should walk away from the entire mission, since if he is considered 'civilian,' so are all the other mercs there.

If there was a clean, safe way to knock him unconscious or otherwise take him captive, that would be different. If there was a reasonable chance to talk him into walking away, that would also be different. There aren't.

It is also still not a given that the weapon used constituted lethal force. It looked a lot like a stun gun. It was held against him no longer than a stun gun would have been (i.e. just long enough to knock him out, not long enough to ensure he died). Even if it was lethal, though, I stand by his being a combatant. There was no other way to prevent repairs to the gunship, and even damaged, the Gunship was enough to severely wound Garrus later.

[Zan Mura]

Well technically it's around half *armor*, but still.

[Aradace]

Habelo wrote...

A paragon wouldnt kill someone in their sleep.

Thats not pacifism, that is a sense of honor.

Ive never undestood "honor" when it comes to combat.  When someone starts screaming about honor, I just smile to myself and put those people on the "Easy win" list if ever confronted.  Why? Because usually, someone who is preaching "honor" isnt going to kick a guy while he's down (which kicking him is logical) or throw dirt in the other person's eyes if the opportunity arises (which again is logical because if a man cant see they cant fight.) Or stab them in the back.  Honor in combat is just an excuse that the weak lean on when they were out smarted, and outwitted, and lost because of it.  "But, he didnt REALLY beat me, he threw dirt in my eyes...Thats not fair." Hello!!! It's combat, it's not SUPPOSED to be fair.  Fight smarter, not harder.  How does that apply to stabbing Cathka? Simple, you're fighting "smarter" by stabbing the guy in the back and killing him, thus weakening the gunship, and thus making getting through the gunship fight even easier. 

"But I dont want to do that....It's more "glorious" or "honorable" to fight it at full strength...."
Uh huh.....To any replies of that nature I say this:  Would you say the same thing if you were being timed during this whole event and the ONLY way to guarantee that you would be able to destroy the gunship in time and still complete the goal was to kill Cathka and weaken the gunship?  It's hypothetical yes, but the principle is still there.  It's simply a more "effecient" or "logical" way of getting from point A to B. 

[Zan Mura]

Moiaussi wrote...

He is a mechanic, but also as I recall he is a Lt. In addition to fixing the gunship, he is also the field coordinator, the soldier you are asked to report to. ...

Even if it was lethal, though, I stand by his being a combatant. There was no other way to prevent repairs to the gunship, and even damaged, the Gunship was enough to severely wound Garrus later.

A fair point with him being more than a mere mechanic. But in that case your action is comparable to an assassination. Whether or not such a thing even can be paragon depends on the context and is honestly a debate I'd rather leave for another time and place. Still, using the future events as a justification becomes metagaming. Shepard's alignment is a character-dependant feature. You cannot use future events you know as a player, to justify Shepard's negative or positive actions in the game. Similar to the Thane recruitment mission, when you run into the murderer. It's a renegade option to choose to kill her. Even knowing that you will later find out she was the murderer instead of the innocent girl she played herself to be won't change that, because at the time Shepard couldn't know that. Regardless of Pitne For reminding you that all Eclipse mercs have to commit murder to earn their uniform, some vague statement like that is not enough for shooting someone down.

Of course tbh, that situation is a borderliner considering she raises her weapon to you at the time of the renegade interruption which might constitute a self-defense. Oh well. Simple and easy arguments would be pointless anyway, always more fun when there's room left for interpretation.

[Zan Mura]

Aradace wrote...

Habelo wrote...

A paragon wouldnt kill someone in their sleep.

Thats not pacifism, that is a sense of honor.

Ive never undestood "honor" when it comes to combat.  .... Honor in combat is just an excuse that the weak lean on when they were out smarted, and outwitted, and lost because of it.  "But, he didnt REALLY beat me, he threw dirt in my eyes...Thats not fair." Hello!!! It's combat, it's not SUPPOSED to be fair. 

Spoken like directly out of one of Sirlin's articles. I don't disagree, mind you, but it's never really as simple as that. Few people would disagree on that philosophy when taken to extremes, it's the middle ground that gets hazy. When you're fighting for the future of the entire galaxy, it's rather easy to justify shortcuts and morally questionable choices for the sake of the greater good, for instance. In a war, where the price for failure is your life, it's easy to forget honour. In fact, usually the only people who will swear by honour even there, are those who have some reason to believe in a spiritual afterlife or greater force of good of some kind. Which makes their choice more about believing that the REAL war and real loss isn't the one they're waging on the physical battlefield.

But when everything that you are and stand for is hanging on the balance, practically anyone understands the idea that you do anything and everything, to win.

The play to win philosophy is far more difficult in hobbies though. Do you throw honour out of the window while playing soccer with friends? Tripping them and abusing every damn trick to the fullest - knowing it will ****** them off and break your relationships with them -, just to win a stupid game? Sure, that might give you the victory, but it's complete idiotism socially, and will damage you far more where it actually counts. When you're playing a random board game with children, do you brutally squash them like bugs just because you can? Because giving them even the tiniest bit of leeway means you have a sense of "honour", meaning you're not playing to win. That makes you a scrub, a noob, or a loser depending on who you ask.

Ultimately the rules of paragon vs. renegade are just guidelines used and enforced by BW's game. Don't try to apply too much moral reality into it, this reality that itself is too complex to be agreed upon by any group of people known to man. Picking them apart will serve as a great topic for discussion, but they were really never meant to stand to careful philosophical scrutiny from every existing moral and ethical angle, and then some. Why should they have been? I'd rather have the budget spent on something that mattered.

Modifié par Zan Mura, 20 septembre 2010 - 12:23 .