296 réponses à ce sujet

[tommyt_1994]

Most people around here make decisions based off of their own personal morals, which is what I used to do as well. But spectre's vow to do what's necessary to maintain and keep galactic peace, spectre's exist to get thier hands dirty and do the things that are best for the galaxy. Whether you're paragon or a renegade, shouldn't you make decisions based on what is best for the galaxy and not your own personal morals? When Shepard accepts spectre status, he/she agrees to do what's best for the galaxy.

This makes certian situations pretty black and white for spectre's. Take BDTS and Zaeed's loyalty for example, the renegade choices are clearly what's best for galactic stability. While my Shepard would prefer to save the hostages, it's his job to maintain stability an do what's best for the galaxy. lopping the head off of one of the largest Merc operations and stopping a terrorist with the ability and want to kill billions is certainly what a Spectre should do is it not? I believe that personal morals shouldn't get in the way of this.

This way of thinking also leads to many other renegade choices as well, such as sacrificing the council and keeping the Collecotr base. If your Shep denies spectre status in ME2 however, this is all thrown out the window and you're free to do as you please.

Am I the only one wh thinks like this? Am I the only one who puts galactic stability over my Shep's personal morals?

PS; Now that I typed all this up, I'm considered quite the renegade aren't I? Always thought of myself as a paragon but typing all this out kinda sorted out my thoughts.

[StarcloudSWG]

Right, galactic *stability*. Exactly how *stable* would the galaxy be if Cerberus got their hands on Reaper/Collector technology and started spreading it around to the Alliance? Even assuming nothing goes wrong, the human supremecist hawks in the Alliance would start pushing their weight around, wouldn't they?



And letting the Council die doesn't exactly lend itself to galactic stability, does it? It increases unrest and makes the majority of other nations nervous, especially when humanity takes over the Council.

[Spornicus]

He's not saying the renegade choice is always the right one, he's just using renegade choices as examples.

[MrnDvlDg161]

No --- this is like saying if your suddenly someone of authority, you should be able to do anything that is necessary to complete your mission. That is how despots are created and corruption occurs.

Plus --- is one individual going to be right all the time? No. My own theory is that a Specter with loose rules of engagement is a bad situation waiting to happen. Saren in his own mind thought that he was doing the right thing for the galaxy too --- but we see what he was going for.

Modifié par MrnDvlDg161, 07 octobre 2010 - 03:47 .

[tommyt_1994]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Right, galactic *stability*. Exactly how *stable* would the galaxy be if Cerberus got their hands on Reaper/Collector technology and started spreading it around to the Alliance? Even assuming nothing goes wrong, the human supremecist hawks in the Alliance would start pushing their weight around, wouldn't they?

And letting the Council die doesn't exactly lend itself to galactic stability, does it? It increases unrest and makes the majority of other nations nervous, especially when humanity takes over the Council.

I was just using those as examples I believe in, let's please not turn this thread into a debate over those 2 very stressed topics.

Let me try and be clear, Spectre's exist to maintain galactic stability. The council, who created the Spectre's, tell you that you will have to make sacrifices to do whats best for the big picture. My Shep would prefer to saved the hostages in BDTS, but when he accepted the role of spectre, he accepted to do what's best to maintain and improve the galaxy. Personal morals shouldn't get in the way of doing your job. Your job is to make sacrifices for the good of the galaxy. Looking at the big picture, stopping a terrorist with  the ability to kill billions is undoubtedly better for the galaxy than saving three lives. I didn't put the hostages there, Balak did. I'm just doing what I agreed to do when I accepted spectre status. Forpeople who can't do this, should they really be Spectre's?

[AntiChri5]

The BDtS hostage situation is completely different to Zaeeds loyalty mission.

In BDtS Balak is the instigator of the situation. He tricked and manipulated his troops into doing it, and even his second in command is looking for an opportunity to bail. If Balak is killed he will not simply and easily be replaced.

Vido is the leader of an organised group, with a heirarchy and chain of command with different ranks. Someone else would simply step into position. The only thing that changes is a name on the paperwork.

[Inverness Moon]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

And letting the Council die doesn't exactly lend itself to galactic stability, does it? It increases unrest and makes the majority of other nations nervous, especially when humanity takes over the Council.

If you end up saving he Council at the expense of Sovereign succeeding and opening the relay, then galactic stability and security is about to go down the toilet. That is something you have to consider when making decisions like that. Is it worth the risk?

[brfritos]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Most people around here make decisions based off of their own personal morals, which is what I used to do as well. But spectre's vow to do what's necessary to maintain and keep galactic peace, spectre's exist to get thier hands dirty and do the things that are best for the galaxy. Whether you're paragon or a renegade, shouldn't you make decisions based on what is best for the galaxy and not your own personal morals? When Shepard accepts spectre status, he/she agrees to do what's best for the galaxy.

This makes certian situations pretty black and white for spectre's. Take BDTS and Zaeed's loyalty for example, the renegade choices are clearly what's best for galactic stability...

There is the other side of the question too.

Saving the hostages let you know that the Batarians are divided and it seems that a rebellion is going on in their society.
Alright, you don't need to save the hostages to know this, you only need to talk to Balak instead of just attack him, but there's a point in the mission: if you are willing to do ANYTHING to complete a mission because "it's for the best of the galaxy", why then Saren is so wrong?
After all, he believe his mission is for the good of the galaxy and will do ANYTHING to accomplish it.

Spectres also are more subtle, because they maintain galatic stability that affects the Council, not the entire galaxy.
The Council don't care about the Traverse or the Terminus systems, for example.

But in what way Zaeed's mission contribute to galaxy stability? 8O
Is revenge between two people and nothing more. 

[Inverness Moon]

brfritos wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Most people around here make decisions based off of their own personal morals, which is what I used to do as well. But spectre's vow to do what's necessary to maintain and keep galactic peace, spectre's exist to get thier hands dirty and do the things that are best for the galaxy. Whether you're paragon or a renegade, shouldn't you make decisions based on what is best for the galaxy and not your own personal morals? When Shepard accepts spectre status, he/she agrees to do what's best for the galaxy.

This makes certian situations pretty black and white for spectre's. Take BDTS and Zaeed's loyalty for example, the renegade choices are clearly what's best for galactic stability...

There is the other side of the question too.

Saving the hostages let you know that the Batarians are divided and it seems that a rebellion is going on in their society.
Alright, you don't need to save the hostages to know this, you only need to talk to Balak instead of just attack him, but there's a point in the mission: if you are willing to do ANYTHING to complete a mission because "it's for the best of the galaxy", why then Saren is so wrong?
After all, he believe his mission is for the good of the galaxy and will do ANYTHING to accomplish it.

Spectres also are more subtle, because they maintain galatic stability that affects the Council, not the entire galaxy.
The Council don't care about the Traverse or the Terminus systems, for example.

But in what way Zaeed's mission contribute to galaxy stability? 8O
Is revenge between two people and nothing more. 

You have to be willing to do anything true, but that doesn't mean you should do things like blow up that factory and kill innocent people like Saren did because he didn't want to do things to hard way.

In other words, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes if there is no other choice. That also means you need to be in your right mind to be able to figure out if there are other choices and weigh them with all your options. Saren's mind was compromised by Sovereign, I don't think he was of right mind to be able to realize that his plan wouldn't work.

[tommyt_1994]

brfritos wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Most people around here make decisions based off of their own personal morals, which is what I used to do as well. But spectre's vow to do what's necessary to maintain and keep galactic peace, spectre's exist to get thier hands dirty and do the things that are best for the galaxy. Whether you're paragon or a renegade, shouldn't you make decisions based on what is best for the galaxy and not your own personal morals? When Shepard accepts spectre status, he/she agrees to do what's best for the galaxy.

This makes certian situations pretty black and white for spectre's. Take BDTS and Zaeed's loyalty for example, the renegade choices are clearly what's best for galactic stability...

There is the other side of the question too.

Saving the hostages let you know that the Batarians are divided and it seems that a rebellion is going on in their society.
Alright, you don't need to save the hostages to know this, you only need to talk to Balak instead of just attack him, but there's a point in the mission: if you are willing to do ANYTHING to complete a mission because "it's for the best of the galaxy", why then Saren is so wrong?
After all, he believe his mission is for the good of the galaxy and will do ANYTHING to accomplish it.

Spectres also are more subtle, because they maintain galatic stability that affects the Council, not the entire galaxy.
The Council don't care about the Traverse or the Terminus systems, for example.

But in what way Zaeed's mission contribute to galaxy stability? 8O
Is revenge between two people and nothing more. 

I understand where Saren is coming from, but sacrificing 3 hostages isn't comparble to siding with a race of sentient machines that want to exterminate all life. Saren thought he was doing what was best, he was just wrong.

And I'm not recommending doing anything necessary to complete the job, I'm just saying that as a spectre you should be able to make sacrifices when you have no other choice for the betterment of the galaxy

And on the second point, who's to say that Balak isn't a threat to council space? And even if his actions weren't directly in council space, do you think the killing of billions of people on Terra Nova wouldn't negatively affect the council races?

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 07 octobre 2010 - 04:28 .

[brfritos]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

brfritos wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Most people around here make decisions based off of their own personal morals, which is what I used to do as well. But spectre's vow to do what's necessary to maintain and keep galactic peace, spectre's exist to get thier hands dirty and do the things that are best for the galaxy. Whether you're paragon or a renegade, shouldn't you make decisions based on what is best for the galaxy and not your own personal morals? When Shepard accepts spectre status, he/she agrees to do what's best for the galaxy.

This makes certian situations pretty black and white for spectre's. Take BDTS and Zaeed's loyalty for example, the renegade choices are clearly what's best for galactic stability...

There is the other side of the question too.

Saving the hostages let you know that the Batarians are divided and it seems that a rebellion is going on in their society.
Alright, you don't need to save the hostages to know this, you only need to talk to Balak instead of just attack him, but there's a point in the mission: if you are willing to do ANYTHING to complete a mission because "it's for the best of the galaxy", why then Saren is so wrong?
After all, he believe his mission is for the good of the galaxy and will do ANYTHING to accomplish it.

Spectres also are more subtle, because they maintain galatic stability that affects the Council, not the entire galaxy.
The Council don't care about the Traverse or the Terminus systems, for example.

But in what way Zaeed's mission contribute to galaxy stability? 8O
Is revenge between two people and nothing more. 

I understand where Saren is coming from, but sacrificing 3 hostages isn't comparble to siding with a race of sentient machines that want to exterminate all life. Saren thought he was doing what was best, he was just wrong.

And on the second point, who's to say that Balak isn't a threat to council space? And even if his actions weren't directly in council space, do you think the killing of billions of people on Terra Nova wouldn't negatively affect the council races?

Well, the council pretty much don't care about humans, why they will care about our colonies?
They didn't cared about Eden Prime, remember?

Regardless the fate of the hostages you save Terra Nova, wich is your main objective, so the question is purelly about Shepard's morals.
And the human race knows about Balak now, so they will be more alert for him, he can't openlly fly no more in human space.
Just remember that it seems that he aren't acting on behalf of the batarian government.

Regarding the moral choice, what's the difference between a cop chasing a armed person?
The armed person don't care about the others around him, so he shot regardless the consequences, but the cop don't fire because of it, he could hit someone.

[tommyt_1994]

Regardless the fate of the hostages you save Terra Nova, wich is your main objective, so the question is purelly about Shepard's morals.

I don't really understand this, care to elaborate a little? It's a spectre's job to protect and maintain galactic stability, (I'm really getting tired of that phrase) I don't believe that letting a terrorist with the desire to kill millions go is purely a moral choice. Balak could easily affect galactic stability could he not?

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 07 octobre 2010 - 04:41 .

[pf17456]

Perhaps Spectre's are selected because of their demonstrated ability to make judgements based on their own morals

[brfritos]

tommyt_1994 wrote...



Regardless the fate of the hostages you save Terra Nova, wich is your main objective, so the question is purelly about Shepard's morals.

I don't really understand this, care to elaborate a little? It's a spectre's job to protect and maintain galactic stability, (I'm really getting tired of that phrase) I don't believe that letting a terrorist with the desire to kill millions go is purely a moral choice. Balak could easily affect galactic stability could he not?

Your primary objective is shut down the fusion torches and save Terra Nova. Point.
You do this by sacrificing the hostages or not, but in the end the planet is saved, no matter what decision you take.

So sacrificing the hostages is a moral question.

Remember, Balak was not acting on behalf of the batarian government, nor have high amounts of resources.
Now he's well known in human space and every batarian certainly will be looked suspicious, so he can't act freely on our systems.

Is really necessary sacrificing the hostages?

Modifié par brfritos, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:27 .

[mosor]

If the council wanted to neuter threats to the galaxy by preaching and moralizing to the enemy, they'd have made hanar spectres ages ago.



I always saw the job as taking out the garbage, and let civilian authorities deal with the aftermath. As a result, it left me with generally renegade playthroughs. Heh, in a sense, my Shepard is starting to look like the human version of Saren. Sweet irony! Makes for a great story though.

[Sombrero Bandit]

Lets compare this to a real life situation. Lets say Shepard works for the CIA. He kills the UN council not purposefully, but because if he doesn't 5 guys in the CIA will die. The head of the UN happens to be from the UK this time If he were to do that, there would be instability everywhere. Civil wars would happen, the US would be in the boiling pot, and lots of other things would happen. Basically, what the CIA guy did wasn't best for the world, only best for him, so yes Shepard should be doing things based on what's best for the galaxy and not what is best for himself or the Alliance.

[mosor]

Sombrero Bandit wrote...

Lets compare this to a real life situation. Lets say Shepard works for the CIA. He kills the UN council not purposefully, but because if he doesn't 5 guys in the CIA will die. The head of the UN happens to be from the UK this time If he were to do that, there would be instability everywhere. Civil wars would happen, the US would be in the boiling pot, and lots of other things would happen. Basically, what the CIA guy did wasn't best for the world, only best for him, so yes Shepard should be doing things based on what's best for the galaxy and not what is best for himself or the Alliance.

Not a correct analogy. The proper situation would be, do you risk saving politicians at the expense of your chances of saving the entire planet?

Modifié par mosor, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:37 .

[tommyt_1994]

Shandepared wrote...

brfritos wrote...

So sacrificing the hostages is a moral question.

Wrong. You have no guarantee Balak will not try to kill you anyway. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he does. If you let him go he sends more men to try and kill you before you can disarm the bombs. Additionally, it would be prudent to interrogate Balak to try and learn what you can about his movement. Is he acting alone or does he have benefactors? This kind of information could save lives but if you let him go you'll never find out.

I agree with Shandepared? . On a serious note this was also a big reason I stopped Balak from escaping, he may know vital intel about the Batarians and interrogating him would be important. People who sacrifice the hostages but kill Balak though make an unwise decision IMO, he could have valuable information.

[Sombrero Bandit]

^^In real life a person would sacrifice hostages for the greater good.

[mosor]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

I agree with Shandepared? . On a serious note this was also a big reason I stopped Balak from escaping, he may know vital intel about the Batarians and interrogating him would be important. People who sacrifice the hostages but kill Balak though make an unwise decision IMO, he could have valuable information.

Ha! Welcome to the dark side!

When you have the mentality of solving problems now lest they become bigger problems, of being pragmatic, and not automatically trusting people unless they give you a good valid reason. Then don't be suprised that your renegade bar is pretty high.

[tommyt_1994]

mosor wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

I agree with Shandepared? . On a serious note this was also a big reason I stopped Balak from escaping, he may know vital intel about the Batarians and interrogating him would be important. People who sacrifice the hostages but kill Balak though make an unwise decision IMO, he could have valuable information.

Ha! Welcome to the dark side!

When you have the mentality of solving problems now lest they become bigger problems, of being pragmatic, and not automatically trusting people unless they give you a good valid reason. Then don't be suprised that your renegade bar is pretty high.

I believe that once I finish my canon playthrough (I'm about to hit Virmire) I'll be about 50/50 renegade/paragon. My Shep is one who always makes the most logical/tactially sound option, but he won't sacrifice lives unless theirs is no other way and the choice is of great importance. He's also very supportive of all the races working together, he helps people for the good of it, and isn't a d*ick like pure renegades.

Regarding the way Spectre's should approach missions, (being able to make sacrifices for the greater good of the galaxy) what do you guys think about Zaeed's loyalty mission? Someone brought up the point that someone else would take Santiago's place, but would it be that simple? Or do you make your chocie based upon the reaper threat? Zaeed may prove to be vital in stopping the collectors and you need him clear headed and focused on the mission to have any shot at succeeding. Based on that alone do you think the renegade option is the best choice?

[mosor]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

mosor wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

I agree with Shandepared? . On a serious note this was also a big reason I stopped Balak from escaping, he may know vital intel about the Batarians and interrogating him would be important. People who sacrifice the hostages but kill Balak though make an unwise decision IMO, he could have valuable information.

Ha! Welcome to the dark side!

When you have the mentality of solving problems now lest they become bigger problems, of being pragmatic, and not automatically trusting people unless they give you a good valid reason. Then don't be suprised that your renegade bar is pretty high.

I believe that once I finish my canon playthrough (I'm about to hit Virmire) I'll be about 50/50 renegade/paragon. My Shep is one who always makes the most logical/tactially sound option, but he won't sacrifice lives unless theirs is no other way and the choice is of great importance. He's also very supportive of all the races working together, he helps people for the good of it, and isn't a d*ick like pure renegades.

Regarding the way Spectre's should approach missions, (being able to make sacrifices for the greater good of the galaxy) what do you guys think about Zaeed's loyalty mission? Someone brought up the point that someone else would take Santiago's place, but would it be that simple? Or do you make your chocie based upon the reaper threat? Zaeed may prove to be vital in stopping the collectors and you need him clear headed and focused on the mission to have any shot at succeeding. Based on that alone do you think the renegade option is the best choice?

I've always said it's better to put Vido down.  We defintiely know Vido is still going to continue being a murdering pirate. Do the N7 missions, and you'll see he's already been on a murderous rampage on other locations. Will the next Blue Suns leader (If Zaeed doesn't manage to take it over) be just as bad? Maybe, maybe not. The Blue Suns are a legal organization. A new leader doesn't automatically mean that they will be just as bad as Vido.