127 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

Zan Mura wrote...

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.

I wouldnt go to those extremes with people I know, especially on something as simple as a soccer game etc.  Not because it's something as pedestrian as a soccer game, but because it is people I know that I am playing with.  Now, if it were with complete strangers, I might reconsider.  Secondly, I dont play board games with children simply for that reason lol.  Not to mention Im not a big fan of children to begin with .  However, looking at it from the perspective that you put there of "Spirituality".  Then I suppose I can understand.  I dont agree with it, but I understand it.  Im not going to openly rip on anyone's religion here but in a nutshell, Im not a religious person lol

[Zan Mura]

Aradace wrote...

I wouldnt go to those extremes with people I know, especially on something as simple as a soccer game etc.  Not because it's something as pedestrian as a soccer game, but because it is people I know that I am playing with.  Now, if it were with complete strangers, I might reconsider.  Secondly, I dont play board games with children simply for that reason lol.  Not to mention Im not a big fan of children to begin with .  However, looking at it from the perspective that you put there of "Spirituality".  Then I suppose I can understand.  I dont agree with it, but I understand it.  Im not going to openly rip on anyone's religion here but in a nutshell, Im not a religious person lol

Well religion is just one possible goal for holding on to those beliefs and principles. By no means the only one. Most people - even when they play online against strangers - are not 100% playing to win for similar reasons. Not because their religion forces them, but because eventually the motive for that sense of honour can be something as simple as simple sympathy. Say you play Street Fighter 4, you can label people who don't abuse every last trick, exploit and dubious tactic / overpowered move as scrubs who don't do it because they're carebear. But really in their case, their religion means it's a part of their personality to treat others with respect, and part of their image of that respect means letting the opponent to stand up and fight back, to cut down on their own behaviour in favor of making it more fun for the other person. This does NOT mean that the scrub in question would actually be good as hell if they tried, vice versa. Usually they never even become good, because their own brand of morals, their own sympathy, prevents them from ever developing past their own restrictions.

In that sense, the playing to win philosophy applies rather well in competitive games. It is illogical to agree upon vague senses of honour and good conduct, that vary from person to person. The only constant are the rules of the game, anything within those bounds MUST be accepted, otherwise the numerous different opinionated interpretations would make it impossible to determine who wins and who loses. This is part of the reason why in asian cultures, with games such as Go for example the sense of "honour" is far more than some vague idea. It's an extremely deep, well defined system of rules, actions and responses that are as precise and as deep as a book of law. With them, honour or good conduct isn't that undefined and blurred feeling people cling on to in Street Fighter 4 or CSS, but it's something that has at least as clearly defined rules and borders as the actual game itself. Effectively making the whole concept merely another layer withing the game's own rulesystem, which you are bound to follow.

All in all the whole subject is rather interesting tbh. But hmm, personally when I play SF4, I play with my own brand of honour. I'm a human of course, so I do get pissed off from time to time and don't always adhere to my own rules of honour myself either... but ultimately I accept the fact that my fun is not the same as someone else's fun. So when I lose because of cheap tactics and exploitish moves, it's a choice. My choice. The losing is simply the price I must pay for my particular style of gaming, it's balancing between those losses and sufficiently bending my own rules, within the confines of my own skill, that creates the experience I have of the game. If it isn't good enough enough, I quit. Simple as maths really.

Modifié par Zan Mura, 20 septembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[snfonseka]

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.  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...

They talk about honor because a game is the only place they can practice that. In real life they are same as others...

[Moiaussi]

Zan Mura wrote...

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.

That an enemy gunship that the enemy you are talking to tells you will be used against you if you are not otherwise killed requires metagaming to be considered a clear and present danger?

As for the Thane recruitment mission, you are told in advance of that encounter that all members of that merc group are required to commit murder to become members. She identifies herself as a member, so even if she hadn't committed the murder you were investigating there was evidence that she was a murderer. Ideally she should have been stripped of her omnitool and handcuffed to something, but Shepard doesn't seem to be equiped with any non-lethal means of restraint (which given the Spectres are supposedly law enforcement seems like a noteworthy oversight to me). The point is, though, that you did have reason in advance to consider pulling the trigger. It is arguably renegade though in that she was unarmed and not guarding any gunships.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.  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. 

Funny. Just the other day I heard from a man who fights real fights far, far more than you or I do that people who rest on claims that 'they fight dirty' and think that covers it all and so such tend to be the people who don't actually know how to fight. Like, say, that skinny teen in college who immediately plans to go for the nutshot or eyegouging, and promptly has his face beaten into the ground and then gets curbstomped. Deliberately handicaping yourself is one thing, but losing sight of personal control and reasons for it is another and thinking it works is another.

Honor in fighting and wars does have a practical application: reciprococity. Fighting in general is nasty, but it doesn't have to be: wars can be much, much worse for everyone if certain things aren't used or done. Aggreements not to do certain things are self-serving as well. All too often what happens is if one person thinks it's foolish and does it anyway, the other side retaliates in kind and soo neither side gets an advantage out of it and everyone is worse off. The advantage of unilateral 'cheating', whatever that means, is often fleeting at best.

Now, stepping back, I don't see any issue with that Renegade interrupt in particular. But opening fire when someone's talking? Yes, I can think of reasons and cases I'd prefer people let me finish talking before acting, and why I wouldn't want to dissuade them from that course.

[Aradace]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.  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. 

Funny. Just the other day I heard from a man who fights real fights far, far more than you or I do that people who rest on claims that 'they fight dirty' and think that covers it all and so such tend to be the people who don't actually know how to fight. Like, say, that skinny teen in college who immediately plans to go for the nutshot or eyegouging, and promptly has his face beaten into the ground and then gets curbstomped. Deliberately handicaping yourself is one thing, but losing sight of personal control and reasons for it is another and thinking it works is another.

Honor in fighting and wars does have a practical application: reciprococity. Fighting in general is nasty, but it doesn't have to be: wars can be much, much worse for everyone if certain things aren't used or done. Aggreements not to do certain things are self-serving as well. All too often what happens is if one person thinks it's foolish and does it anyway, the other side retaliates in kind and soo neither side gets an advantage out of it and everyone is worse off. The advantage of unilateral 'cheating', whatever that means, is often fleeting at best.

Now, stepping back, I don't see any issue with that Renegade interrupt in particular. But opening fire when someone's talking? Yes, I can think of reasons and cases I'd prefer people let me finish talking before acting, and why I wouldn't want to dissuade them from that course.

There are far more places on the human anatomy that acheive the same effect as a "nutshot" or "eye gouge" lol.  I agree though, if you go in planning to do that it usually ends up badly.  But if you know enough of the human anatomy, you also know that at any give moment in a confrontation that at least 2-3 of these "vulnerable" spots are exposed.  Im not saying one should go in with "fighting dirty" in mind...Im saying that if the opportunity presents itself to exploit a weakness, it should be taken advantage of.  That's the principle of fighting smarter rather than harder.

[Zan Mura]

Moiaussi wrote...

That an enemy gunship that the enemy you are talking to tells you will be used against you if you are not otherwise killed requires metagaming to be considered a clear and present danger?

No, knowing that Garrus is almost killed and using that as a justification for the decision, is metagaming. The only information Shepard has at that point is that the gunship will be in worse condition if she murders the mechanic, and that so far she's overcome all such obstacles easily enough in her past.

As for the Thane recruitment mission, you are told in advance of that encounter that all members of that merc group are required to commit murder to become members. ....

Yes I mentioned this in my previous post already (the one you quoted btw, ), and said what I had to say about it.

[Xilizhra]

No, knowing that Garrus is almost killed and using that as a justification for the decision, is metagaming. The only information Shepard has at that point is that the gunship will be in worse condition if she murders the mechanic, and that so far she's overcome all such obstacles easily enough in her past.

Do we really know that Cathka is dead, though? Also, what would you consider the Renegade interrupt of sniping that one mech to be?

[Aradace]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, knowing that Garrus is almost killed and using that as a justification for the decision, is metagaming. The only information Shepard has at that point is that the gunship will be in worse condition if she murders the mechanic, and that so far she's overcome all such obstacles easily enough in her past.

Do we really know that Cathka is dead, though? Also, what would you consider the Renegade interrupt of sniping that one mech to be?

My only other comment on the whole "paragon" and "renegade" system is that some of it may be "clarified" if people read the medical explanation of how "agressive actions" affect Shepard's cybernetics and thus the whole "terminator" look.  But then, you have the crowd that gets on the bandwagon of "Then everytime you kill an enemy you should be getting renegade points"  In which case, yes, you should.  However, and unfortunately, the way the game works isnt always congruent with cut scenes etc.  We can expect them to act the same all we want, but it just isnt going to happen.

[Habelo]

As the wisest man on the planet, i always win in anything i want to win in. However i do not consider pyrrhic victories *real* victories. Unless i cant win a competition as it was meant to be won and played there is no point in winning becuse winning doesnt prove anything if the system to prove anything has become corrupt. The only thing you really gain from winning something like that is fame or a positive reaction from those around you, but as the god that is me i do not care that much for a fools glory. And only fools praise the undeserved.

With that said, honor is in its most basic form a means of easier coperation admist humans. Scenario: Two countries that are exactly the same (lets call em country X and country Z) but the only difference is that one of em has honor(country X) and one of em do not (country Z). In a war (a game in which you prove who is the best of the two) country X would win over country Z becuse of them having superior coperation.

So i guess that the notion i am trying to explain is that i would rather be a winner amongst winners even if this means me being a loser amongst losers. This is why some people (that you cannot fanthom why, i know i didnt) turn to the way of honor, having a bigger ego then the standard ego

Modifié par Habelo, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[MaaZeus]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, knowing that Garrus is almost killed and using that as a justification for the decision, is metagaming. The only information Shepard has at that point is that the gunship will be in worse condition if she murders the mechanic, and that so far she's overcome all such obstacles easily enough in her past.

Do we really know that Cathka is dead, though? Also, what would you consider the Renegade interrupt of sniping that one mech to be?

That thing Shepard stabbed him with is apparently some kind of electric welder, so it obviously packs an incredible amount of volts and amps. So yes I believe Cathkas heart is pretty much fried.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:47 .

[Habelo]

Not using nukes in war is considered dishonourble. The only ones who threatens with it are the weakest ones, why? Cause they are the weakest.

[phantomrachie24]

Zan Mura wrote...

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.

I 100% agree with this

[khevan]

I will attempt to post this without it being a pure "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It may appear that way to some, but this also comes from personal experience, so it's more than a mental exercise.

I served in the US Army for over 7 years. For many of those years, I was a mechanic, working on tanks. We were often told that we were high priority targets for conventional enemies, because we were the support structure that kept the tanks fighting. Same with the supply guys that carried food, fuel and ammo. For our part, the supply structure of the enemy's military was also a high priority target. It's much easier to destroy their fuel trucks and watch their tanks run out of fuel than it is to go head to head in a tank on tank battle.

As a mechanic, yes I wasn't a direct combatant. But I was a soldier. I fully expected to be attacked in time of war. There was no question of it being dishonorable or wrong to be attacked because we weren't the guys in the tanks.

In the same vein, Cathka is totally a valid target of opportunity. He's a member of a mercenary unit intent on killing the person we're here to collect. His work on the gunship could mean the difference between life and death for Shepard, Shepard's squad, and Archangel. He's not some innocent civilian. This is where the difference lies.

It may be a Renegade interrupt, but it's one that I'm frankly amazed that some people don't take. This is the ultimate in "lawful stupid" Paragon decisions, in my opinion.

Overall, I play mostly Paragon. I save the council, save the Rachni Queen (although I see both sides of this argument), take all of the Paragon interrupts. But there are certain Renegade interrupts/choices that are truly the smart thing to do.

All of this is my opinion, YMMV.

Modifié par khevan, 20 septembre 2010 - 03:29 .

[MaaZeus]

khevan wrote...

I will attempt to post this without it being a pure "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It may appear that way to some, but this also comes from personal experience, so it's more than a mental exercise.

I served in the US Army for over 7 years. For many of those years, I was a mechanic, working on tanks. We were often told that we were high priority targets for conventional enemies, because we were the support structure that kept the tanks fighting. Same with the supply guys that carried food, fuel and ammo. For our part, the supply structure of the enemy's military was also a high priority target. It's much easier to destroy their fuel trucks and watch their tanks run out of fuel than it is to go head to head in a tank on tank battle.

As a mechanic, yes I wasn't a direct combatant. But I was a soldier. I fully expected to be attacked in time of war. There was no question of it being dishonorable or wrong to be attacked because we weren't the guys in the tanks.

In the same vein, Cathka is totally a valid target of opportunity. He's a member of a mercenary unit intent on killing the person we're here to collect. His work on the gunship could mean the difference between life and death for Shepard, Shepard's squad, and Archangel. He's not some innocent civilian. This is where the difference lies.

It may be a Renegade interrupt, but it's one that I'm frankly amazed that some people don't take. This is the ultimate in "lawful stupid" Paragon decisions, in my opinion.

Overall, I play mostly Paragon. I save the council, save the Rachni Queen (although I see both sides of this argument), take all of the Paragon interrupts. But there are certain Renegade interrupts/choices that are truly the smart thing to do.

All of this is my opinion, YMMV.

Agreed. Cathka is a mercenary, a soldier and he knows very well he might be a target despite his job being "just a mechanic" ATM. He knew very well what he had signed for and what he is going to do when joining Blue Suns, and even climbed up the ranks to Officer levels! And he is not just mechanic either.

Now, if he would have been some Average Joe the Mechanic from Omega who was hired to fix the Gunship, then we would have a serious moral and honor dilemma. I atleast wouldnt be able to kill him.


Shooting the Krogan in Mordins loyalty mission is another. I keep listening him up to the making Salarian eggs delicacy before shooting. At that point, combined with his other rambling, its quite obvious he is mad from bloodthirst and not listening reason but a clear threat to not just you but to all galaxy if Weyrloc succeeds.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:17 .

[khevan]

MaaZeus wrote...

Agreed. Cathka is a mercenary, a soldier and he knows very well he might be a target despite his job being "just a mechanic" ATM. He knew very well what he had signed for and what he is going to do when joining Blue Suns, and even climbed up the ranks to Officer levels! And he is not just mechanic either.

Now, if he would have been some Average Joe the Mechanic from Omega who was hired to fix the Gunship, then we would have a serious moral and honor dilemma. I atleast wouldnt be able to kill him.

Exactly.  If he was a civilian hired to fix the gunship, we'd have a much different scenario.  As it stands, there's no moral quandry in killing Cathka.

MaaZeus wrote...

Shooting the Krogan in Mordins loyalty mission is another. I keep listening him up to the making Salarian eggs delicacy before shooting. At that point, combined with his other rambling, its quite obvious he is mad from bloodthirst and not listening reason but a clear threat not just you but all galaxy if Weyrloc succeeds.

I started to listen to him on my first playthru, but you're right.  About the time I heard him talking about eating Salarian eggs I realized that no diplomacy or anything other than direct violence would deal with the situation.  Even if I'd let him finish his speech, I'd have had to kill him, so the Renegade interrupt simply seemed convenient.

Now, I take the interrupt as soon as it appears, simply because I'm tired of hearing that guy talk.  I just pretend I waited until he started talking crazy. 

edit:  because grammar and spelling > me

Modifié par khevan, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Nightwriter]

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.

I take all three of these, every time. I don't see it written anywhere that paragons don't or can't take renegade interrupts.

There will always be interrupts it's stupid not to take. I consider it stupid for someone not to take the paragon interrupt on Aeia that pushes the woman out of the line of fire.

But I know a lot of people's reasons for not taking those three.

1. The gunship is barely damaged by electrocuting Cathka.
2. If some riflemen have got lasers trained on you, best to not make sudden moves.
3. Half of the people that don't take this interrupt simply prefer to actually kill this guy themselves in battle.

[Crespire]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You don't stab him, you taze him. A perfectly humane and viable way to disable a target.

If you're such a pacifist that you can't even do that... why the hell did you join the military?

Don't taze me bro.

[Dave of Canada]

So essentially it falls into another one of the Honor before Reason scenarios?

Habelo wrote...

Not using nukes in war is considered dishonourble. The only ones who threatens with it are the weakest ones, why? Cause they are the weakest.

What is this I don't even

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 septembre 2010 - 01:01 .

[Nightwriter]

A man almost said "only the weak use guns" to me once. I say almost because I shot him before he could finish the sentence.

[Dave of Canada]

Nightwriter wrote...

A man almost said "only the weak use guns" to me once. I say almost because I shot him before he could finish the sentence.

Pretty much. Bigger guns solve everything.

[Kusy]

There is this situation in Mass Effect 2, in the Krogan Hospital.

I once tried to play it without the renegade interrupt and I failed at it... the longest I lasted was that part about eating Salarian eggs. Blasted the moron before he finished the sentence. And from what I hear you kill him anyway...

Also with the interogation on Citadel... it's just me or the only way of doing it sucessfully WITHOUT messing up that guy's face is to start with the high renegade optoin "I'm a spectre"?

Just do add - I think ME3 needs more situations where you have a fast choice between paragon and renegade interrupts. Also there should be some reall diffrence between the dialogue choices... they are not actual choices - you don't choose how you kill a guy, you only pick if you want to kill him for the right reason or do it because you are badass.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 21 septembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Arijharn]

I shoot Elnora when she pulls a gun on you. I think in that situation when someone is talking to you presumably under the banner of peace and she makes a sudden movement to grab her weapon, it'd be moronic to not retaliate. Besides, you have to kill someone to get her uniform and this was eventually confirmed later on.