296 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Pacifien has activated moderator mode; let's go back on-topic.

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

Aren't we working outside Shepard and company's frame of mind by assuming that?

Maybe, but then the entire "Saving the Council is the best tactical option" is all about that.

As far as the situation is conveyed to Shepard letting the Council die is the tactically superior choice. As I said earlier in the thread without any of us actually knowing the details of the battlefield we can't judge for ourselves what is better. Thus we have to rely on the narrative.

Those of you saying that saving the Council is the smarter choice are just writing fan fiction.

So you have the full battle results of both scenarios then to post?

And so you are calling the in game fact that the Asari abandon operating a Navy if the DA is destroyed 'fan fiction' even though it is in game?

[Moiaussi]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Pacifien has activated moderator mode; let's go back on-topic.

If it is just that we have ended up focused on one decision, feel free to bring up others. More examples is better.

The point is that 'what is best for the council, or for the council races' isn't as clear cut as some claim, and just like RL political decisions, can't always be predicted clearly in advance.

[Pacifien]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...
Pacifien has activated moderator mode; let's go back on-topic.

Just to clarify, the topic of the Council decision itself is fine in its own thread. Just focusing on it for an extended period of time on this particular thread alters this thread's original intent.

[The_Numerator]

Oh, I'm sorry. Well that's easy then. A Spectre is just a public servant, and a public servant's job is to serve the public interest within the parameters of their particular vocation. Furthermore, employment screening is intended to ensure that those who are considered for hire are psychologically suitable for the demands of the profession.

The question presents a false dichotomy-- The implicit assumption is that, by virtue of the fact that you are a Spectre, you have already demonstrated that you possess a psychological profile suitable to the competent execution of your professional duties. In brief, that your personal morals have already been judged to be ones which are conducive to the best interests of the public you serve.

Modifié par The_Numerator, 09 octobre 2010 - 05:45 .

[Icinix]

Pacifien wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...
Pacifien has activated moderator mode; let's go back on-topic.

Just to clarify, the topic of the Council decision itself is fine in its own thread. Just focusing on it for an extended period of time on this particular thread alters this thread's original intent.

SHIALA....PACIFEN?? MY GOD!! YOUR TEXT!!??

ITS GREEN??!!!

On topic :

There seems to be an illusion that doing something by your own moral compass is putting the security of the galaxy as a secondary motive.

Seriously?  Why can't the two be one and the same?

What if...and I'm just throwing this out there...what if...following your moral compass....actually is the better choice for Galactic stability and security?
Saying something is 'clearly' the better choice is because of your own opinions and thoughts, we had a wonderfully delightful debate in the collector base thread about this exact thing a few hours back.
It comes down to your own thought processes and views.  

There isn't a definite right or wrong, just a different thought process, action, and outcome.

[tommyt_1994]

You guys are discussing the logical and tactical aspects of that decision though, not the morality.

Since I'm the OP, I'll make a new topic for discussion.

Let's look at Zaeed's loyalty mission. Going in, you believe Zaeed's reason to be there is that he had a contract to liberate the refinery. But soon you learn Zaeed's real reason for taking th emission, to take revenge out on the leader of the Blue Suns. Zaeed let's his own goals take over and acts on his feelings and severely endangers the initial mission (liberate the refinery). You are faced with the choice of saving the workers or listening to Zaeed; keeping in mind that the goal of loyalty missions is to clear everyone's minds so that your ultimate goal can have better chances of success. (it is a SM, and Zaeed may prove to be vital in stopping the collectors) You have to make sure to not approach the decision here like it's a video game, you don't know that if you save the workers Vido will get away, or if you don't save them he won't get away. If your personal morals would urge you to save the workers, should you not listen to them because the ultimate goal here is to stop the collectors? (and thus greatly improve the galaxy's chances against the reapers) Sheps' goal is to get everyone clear-headed to combat the reapers because if they're not, your chance of completing this near-impossible mission are even worse. Oh and add all that to the fact that if you're a spectre, killing a major merc boss probably falls into the region of a "necessary sacrifice for the grater good".

So do you go with your personal morals? Or do you put them to the side and focus on the big picture? Whether it be your spectre obligations or completing the Suicide mission.

By the way, thanks Pacifen for getting this thread under control. No one appeared to listen when I brought it up and this thread was quickly becoming the CB thread, but instead of the CB it was the council decision.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 09 octobre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Pacifien]

tommyt_1994 wrote...
*snip*Oh and add all that to the fact that if you're a spectre, killing a major merc boss probably falls into the region of a "necessary sacrifice for the grater good".

Does it really, though? A major merc boss who's been around for years is the evil you know, the evil you can predict. Creating a power vacuum leads to chaos and the victor could be even worse than the guy you offed.

[Icinix]

If we start allowing innocents to suffer for 'the greater good'. Then what the hell are we fighting to save exactly?

[tommyt_1994]

Icinix wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...
Pacifien has activated moderator mode; let's go back on-topic.

Just to clarify, the topic of the Council decision itself is fine in its own thread. Just focusing on it for an extended period of time on this particular thread alters this thread's original intent.

SHIALA....PACIFEN?? MY GOD!! YOUR TEXT!!??

ITS GREEN??!!!

On topic :

There seems to be an illusion that doing something by your own moral compass is putting the security of the galaxy as a secondary motive.

Seriously?  Why can't the two be one and the same?

What if...and I'm just throwing this out there...what if...following your moral compass....actually is the better choice for Galactic stability and security?
Saying something is 'clearly' the better choice is because of your own opinions and thoughts, we had a wonderfully delightful debate in the collector base thread about this exact thing a few hours back.
It comes down to your own thought processes and views.  

There isn't a definite right or wrong, just a different thought process, action, and outcome.

It depends on your Shep's morals really. But let's take a suprt-duper Paragon Shep. This Shepard would undoubtedly save the hostage in BDtS. But concerning at galactic stability, are 3 innocent lives worth lettinga terrorist go? I don't believe this can really be debated to be honest. Making decisions based upon galactic stability means making choices which do just that, maintain or improve the stability of the galaxy. Having a terrorist with the desire to kill billions on the loose is certainly more of a risk towards galactic stability IMO.

[Icinix]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

(SNIPPIES!)

Icinix mumbled...

(SNIPPIES!)
What if...and I'm just throwing this out there...what if...following your moral compass....actually is the better choice for Galactic stability and security?
Saying something is 'clearly' the better choice is because of your own opinions and thoughts, we had a wonderfully delightful debate in the collector base thread about this exact thing a few hours back.
It comes down to your own thought processes and views.  

There isn't a definite right or wrong, just a different thought process, action, and outcome.

It depends on your Shep's morals really. But let's take a suprt-duper Paragon Shep. This Shepard would undoubtedly save the hostage in BDtS. But concerning at galactic stability, are 3 innocent lives worth lettinga terrorist go? I don't believe this can really be debated to be honest. Making decisions based upon galactic stability means making choices which do just that, maintain or improve the stability of the galaxy. Having a terrorist with the desire to kill billions on the loose is certainly more of a risk towards galactic stability IMO.

It was that exact situation that I said earlier, with the same argument that Pacifen made.  You know Balak, you know his face, his voice, now his methods. He'll be easier to follow.  Killing him just nets innocent lives lost, and someone else steps up to take his place.  Someone who you don't know, and will be harder to find.

Modifié par Icinix, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:04 .

[tommyt_1994]

Pacifien wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...
*snip*Oh and add all that to the fact that if you're a spectre, killing a major merc boss probably falls into the region of a "necessary sacrifice for the grater good".

Does it really, though? A major merc boss who's been around for years is the evil you know, the evil you can predict. Creating a power vacuum leads to chaos and the victor could be even worse than the guy you offed.

What you proposed could happen as a result, I certainly don't see it as a stretch. But couldn't killing Vido also lead to massive infighting of major people in the oganization itself over who should step up and take his place? Which would lead to Mercs killing off other mercs which is fine with me.

I don't know which situation is more likely, they both hold weight IMO. But they both require a lot of speculation, no one knows what'll happen. My main argument for sacrificing your own morals was the argument about gaining Zaeed's loyalty to raise your chances of completing a mission most believe to be impossible.

Don't get me wrong though, I do not think any choice is better than any other. They all hold weightand frankly I don't know what I'll do until I get there on my canon shep.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:06 .

[Moiaussi]

Pacifien wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...
*snip*Oh and add all that to the fact that if you're a spectre, killing a major merc boss probably falls into the region of a "necessary sacrifice for the grater good".

Does it really, though? A major merc boss who's been around for years is the evil you know, the evil you can predict. Creating a power vacuum leads to chaos and the victor could be even worse than the guy you offed.

Actually the likely person to step into that vacuum is Zaheed himself, and given his approach at the refinery (torch the entire place workers and all), he certainly doesn't seem better.

It isn't the 'evil merc leader' jeapordizing the workers to slow you down.

Then there is the related question of Zaheed himself. If you do get his loyalty (which can be done while still saving the workers), he doesn't end up betraying you again and actually seems to be rather effective. Of course we don't know for sure what will happen in ME3, whether he will just go back to being freelance, will reform under Shep's leadership, or will prove a liability who should have been left (or shot) back at the refinery.

[Spectre_907]

The Suns is a mercenary gang. They sell their services to the highest bidder. If I had the choice, I would hire them myself as a private army. I don't really consider them a threat to galactic stability so long as they do not, as a whole, support a cause that could be threatening to which I have not seen. That said, it becomes a matter of focusing on the mission. However, despite me wanting to save the workers, I need my team free of distractions or unfinished business. Not to mention it is his mission, not mine. If it was mine, Zaeed would quickly learn how to obey me. Additionally, Cerberus agreed to his mission. It would be prudent to not interfere. Vido dies.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:11 .

[Kasen]

There will always be another Balak or Vido Santiago. Killing one doesn't stop others from taking their place.

On the topic of the refinery in Zaeed's loyalty mission though... Zaeed was blinded by revenge and put the people in that refinery in peril (edited to correct spelling) to begin with. As the Commander, that means that those people are your responsibility, their fate is directly in your hands because your man made a bad call. I could not justify going after someone like Vido, as bad as he is, when it's the fault of MY squadmember that the place is going down in flames. I'm not the biggest Zaeed fan though, so take that as you will.

Modifié par Kasen13, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:15 .

[Moiaussi]

Spectre_907 wrote...

The Suns is a mercenary gang. They sell their services to the highest bidder. If I had the choice, I would hire them myself as a private army. I don't really consider them a threat to galactic stability so long as they do not, as a whole, support a cause that could be threatening to which I have not seen. That said, it becomes a matter of focusing on the mission. However, despite me wanting to save the workers, I need my team free of distractions or unfinished business. Not to mention it is his mission, not mine. If it was mine, Zaeed would quickly learn how to obey me. Additionally, Cerberus agreed to his mission. It would be prudent to not interfere. Vido dies.

The actual mission, though, was to save the refinery, not to take out Vido. Taking down Vido was Zaheed's personal goal and had nothng to do with the mercenary contract Zaheed agreed to or that Cerberus agreed to help with.

So endangering the refinery in an attempt to kill Vido, Zaheed is actually betraying his employers, not merely disobeying Shepard's orders. It is interesting how many seem to miss that...

[tommyt_1994]

^The contract was to liberate the workers, but the mission (why Zaeed asked for your help here) was to kill Vido. Zaeed just didn't tell you this until you were already there. And yes Zaeed is betraying his employers, but he quite frankly doesn't care.

Oh and about the BDtS choice, Shepard is assuming that this madman terrorist is going to be truthful to his word. This is my biggest problem with taking the paragon choice. Shep is basically saying "Ok terrorist, you can go, but promise you wont blow them up once your away." While stopping Balak isn't taking him at his word.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:24 .

[Chuvvy]

I make my decisions based on solely on which one makes me look more badass. So if there's an explosion you can bet your ass I'll be walking away from it slowly without looking at it.

[Moiaussi]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

^The contract was to liberate the workers, but the mission (why Zaeed asked for your help here) was to kill Vido. Zaeed just didn't tell you this until you were already there. And yes Zaeed is betraying his employers, but he quite frankly doesn't care.

Oh and about the BDtS choice, Shepard is assuming that this madman terrorist is going to be truthful to his word. This is my biggest problem with taking the paragon choice. Shep is basically saying "Ok terrorist, you can go, but promise you wont blow them up once your away." While stopping Balak isn't taking him at his word.

That was why Zaheed was there, yes, but if it was the mission Cerberus agreed to, why didn't they inform you in advance? In fact, Zaheed was wanting to kill Vido because Zaheed was co leader until betrayed. There is no reason to believe he wouldn't simply take over again afterwards, and I repeat, Zaheed is the one who endangered the workers. Vido did no such thing.

As for BStS the only reason I let Balak go was that I didn't expect him to be able to magically disappear into thin air regardless of the time it would have taken to get to the docking bay and the Normandy not mentioning any ships in the vicinity. In otherwords, I didn't expect the writers to give him a magical gate potion (or transporter tech, take your pick).

[tommyt_1994]

^I quite frankly hate the BDtS choice. I would save the hostages, but that requires that I believe that a human-hating, madman terrorist won't blow the charges as soon as he get's outside, thus killing not only the hostages but quite easily myself. (which would encourage Balak even more)

Edit: I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about Zaeed's mission. Zaeed kept his real motives from Shepard secret for some reason. I think my Shep would take the paragon route and ditch Zaeed if I couldn't persuade him because I wouldn't want someone like him on my ship. That attitude could very well get people killed. I think there are enough reasons to let Vido walk, even though you don't know he'll get away. (why oh why can't you ditch him pre-SM?).

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:45 .

[Spectre_907]

Moiaussi wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

The Suns is a mercenary gang. They sell their services to the highest bidder. If I had the choice, I would hire them myself as a private army. I don't really consider them a threat to galactic stability so long as they do not, as a whole, support a cause that could be threatening to which I have not seen. That said, it becomes a matter of focusing on the mission. However, despite me wanting to save the workers, I need my team free of distractions or unfinished business. Not to mention it is his mission, not mine. If it was mine, Zaeed would quickly learn how to obey me. Additionally, Cerberus agreed to his mission. It would be prudent to not interfere. Vido dies.

The actual mission, though, was to save the refinery, not to take out Vido. Taking down Vido was Zaheed's personal goal and had nothng to do with the mercenary contract Zaheed agreed to or that Cerberus agreed to help with.

So endangering the refinery in an attempt to kill Vido, Zaheed is actually betraying his employers, not merely disobeying Shepard's orders. It is interesting how many seem to miss that...

But he says that Cerberus made an arrangement and that the liberation on Zorya was that arrangement. I thought that Cerberus agreed that they would help Zaeed in it's liberation and with payment in exchange for Zaeed's help with the suicide mission.

Nevertheless, stopping the Collectors/Reapers would make me choose to help Zaeed.

[Maera Imrov]

I do make all my decisions based on the personality I've crafted for my Shepard. They tend to be largely Paragon choices, but I have never tried to metagame them. Was a bit hard to, as I intentionally put myself into information blackouts at the game launches, so I couldn't bend my decisions for certain outcomes. Or even know what decisions were coming at me. Metagaming, as I have always known it, is only when you RP based on things you cannot possibly know IC. I always adhere to not doing that.  Attaching one's own morality to their character has never been metagaming. It might be self-insertion, but it isn't metagaming. At worst, you're just rping yourself in Shepard's skin at that point. Nothing wrong with that, really.

My Shepard honestly doesn't think it was wise to hand a power like Reaper tech into the hands of a man she does not trust. She is aware of the fact that it could have been a major benefit in the short-term, for the war against the Reapers, but the later risks to the galaxy from that megalomaniac were too great, in her opinion. There's also the fact that even had they kept it, they may not have figured out what to do with it properly, or in time. A gamble, yes, but giving it to TIM is a gamble, too. I did have to think over it for a while before I chose, however.

The Geth was another long-thinking session. I rewrote them. Allies for the war, hopefully. What comes after, comes after. One threat at a time. We don't survive the Reapers, then what the Geth may or may not do is utterly irrelevant.

The Council saved, because she thought stability and having the Destiny Ascension around would be of benefit. Going into a war, it's usually best if there aren't massive power shakeups. That makes people more nervous.

These were my harder choices, but I can honestly say I followed through on my Shep's own mindset in them. Paragon Shep *has* been rather lucky so far, I do agree with that, though. A lot of the choices my Shep has made are gambles, acts of faith, and other things that a Renegade would not do. The Renegade would have less come back to bite him than the Paragon, if their respective decisions went awry. But I kind of like the acting on faith mentality. It fits my Shep quite well. Does it make a good Spectre? I dunno. It's worked so far, but... you never know.

But I don't think people playing Paragons are inherently metagaming. Some of us really are just playing a character with that mindset, and are trying to RP it just as much as a Renegade player is.

Hell, if I was attaching my own reactions, there were quite a few Renegade interrupts I would've taken. Like with that Batarian going on about Stripper's Quarters. I would've punched him. That's just me. But my Sheppie is more the type to just let things like that roll and ignore it.

Modifié par Maera Imrov, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:20 .

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

And so you are calling the in game fact that the Asari abandon operating a Navy if the DA is destroyed 'fan fiction' even though it is in game?

That doesn't matter in the context of defeating Sovereign. If the relay is opened the asari fleet isn't gonna do ****.

But if the relay isn't opened and the Reapers just take 10 years  or 20, or 50 years longer to get here (long enough to prepare for them properly incl using new tech found from Sovereign and elsewhere) then it might matter a great deal.

By this stage we should have reports that the Citadel fleet have not even dented Sovereign. We also likely know about Sovereign literally ignoring them. It is a lot easier to get enough coordinated firepower when you don't have enemy vessels on your six, espeically in a nebula where all combat is close range.