Aller au contenu

Photo

If you're a spectre, shouldn't you make decisions based on that status, and not your personal morals?

Débuté par tommyt_1994 , oct. 07 2010 03:36

  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
296 réponses à ce sujet

#26
mosor
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:21

mosor
  • Members
  • 1 372 messages

Shandepared wrote...

Zaeed's mission is one of the few cases where I feel the paragon option is as valid as the renegade one, even more so, perhaps.

One might decide that Zaeed's initiative that lead to the fire is a disturbing tendency that Shepard doesn't need on his team. With that in mind Shepard might opt to save the workers. In the process of-course a paragon-enough paragon can convince Zaeed he was in the wrong.


The one paragon option I always take is on Feros by using the anti-thorian gas and try to save as many colonists as I can. I think it's silly not  to even try the gas, and just shoot people dead right away.

#27
StarcloudSWG
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:23

StarcloudSWG
  • Members
  • 2 659 messages
But yes.. in general, I agree. A Spectre can't actually do whatever the heck he or she feels like. She should be working for the greater good of the Council space and the galaxy in general if possible.



Which is why even my Renegades, who take a more ruthless approach, save the Council and appoint Anderson and not Udina. Udina is too human-centric, too much "Humanity first" to really be a good Councilor in my Shepard's opinion.

#28
tommyt_1994
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:26

tommyt_1994
  • Members
  • 737 messages

Shandepared wrote...

Zaeed's mission is one of the few cases where I feel the paragon option is as valid as the renegade one, even more so, perhaps.

One might decide that Zaeed's initiative that lead to the fire is a disturbing tendency that Shepard doesn't need on his team. With that in mind Shepard might opt to save the workers. In the process of-course a paragon-enough paragon can convince Zaeed he was in the wrong.

This is something I'll have to put more thought into. Zaeed acted foolishly and didn't follow Shepard's orders. Which not only brought about the possible deaths of many workers (the objective of the mission was to free them by the way) but alos jeopardised the mission. That kind of behavior could prove to be fatal in a mission. My Shep wouldn't tolerate that. He'd probably save the workers and ditch Zaeed if he couldn't persaude him. 

But one could also argue, after knowing why Zaeed was there, that this was a one time mistake he made out of pure rage. He saw the man who put a bullet in his head and lost it. This is actually supportable, considering Zaeed doesn't disregard Shep's orders at any other time. Plus, I like Zaeed B)

#29
tommyt_1994
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:29

tommyt_1994
  • Members
  • 737 messages

StarcloudSWG wrote...

But yes.. in general, I agree. A Spectre can't actually do whatever the heck he or she feels like. She should be working for the greater good of the Council space and the galaxy in general if possible.

Which is why even my Renegades, who take a more ruthless approach, save the Council and appoint Anderson and not Udina. Udina is too human-centric, too much "Humanity first" to really be a good Councilor in my Shepard's opinion.

Why save the council? Wouldn't you agree that saving all life in the known galaxy is in the galaxy's best interest? You don't  know that you have enough ships to beat Sovereign and taking the risk to save the council isn't worth it IMO.

It's glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks this way. It seems like most people on these boards are mostly paraon, not that that's a particually bad thing.Arguments can be made for each side.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 07 octobre 2010 - 06:29 .

#30
StarcloudSWG
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:40

StarcloudSWG
  • Members
  • 2 659 messages
Again, it goes to the question of Galactic stability, and whether you have faith in everything being able to blow Sovereign and the rest of the geth fleet up or not. Really, all you're doing is shifting *when* the geth ships are destroyed. Either you do that before they blow up the Destiny Ascension, the biggest dreadnaught and also one of the ships that can help destroy Sovereign, or you do it after.



And if you save the Council in the process, so much the better. Continuity, and stability, are important.

#31
Spectre_907
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:44

Spectre_907
  • Members
  • 384 messages

Inverness Moon wrote...

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?

Sovereign did not have control of the Citadel at the time you were asked to make a decision regarding the Ascension nor could it regain control of the Citadel without assuming control of Saren and taking it by force.

As for the quesion the OP posted. I agree. Being a purist paragon/renegade or making choices based on one's inner moral convictions would be detrimental to galactic stability. I see it as a matter of preserving equality among the all races or destabilizing the other races and advancing human interests.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 07 octobre 2010 - 06:55 .

#32
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:54

Guest_Shandepared_*
  • Guests

mosor wrote...

The one paragon option I always take is on Feros by using the anti-thorian gas and try to save as many colonists as I can. I think it's silly not  to even try the gas, and just shoot people dead right away.


I agree, though my Shepard kills them. It's more in line with his initial skepticism about the reliability and safety of the grenades. After all these were rigged by a few Exo-Geni researchers, not military weapons specialists. I suppose he fears the nerve gas might affect him or his squad or that it might wear off once his team is behind enemy lines, leaving them surrounded.

It's also a milestone for him as a character. I think after that part he's a little bit more cynical and violent. Deep down he hates what he did. It fits the theme for the Butcher of Torfan though.

Plus if you let Shiala live you can get a really nice line from her about it (if the colonists died). When she asks if yesterdays problems always coming back in some new form Shepard can say that things would be simpler if the colonists were all dead. Shiala then says, "Is that how it was for you, gunning down the colonists the Thorian sent to stop you? I could never be that cold..." Then she walks off...

The other paragon choice I support is rewriting the Heretics. Personally it is not a decision I ever make because I'm just not comfortable with empowering the geth like that. They haven't done enough to demonstrate themselves as real allies beyond mere convenience. That said, the logic in rewriting them is sound as I am sure the geth will help us fight the Reapers and rewriting the Heretics is the more efficient solution to the problem.

This is one renegade decision I don't like... and that's the "Let them die..." option with the Council. It is simply the wrong frame of mind for that battle. The Reaper invasion is imminent at that point and so your focus should be on stopping Sovereign (thus, "Focus on Sovereing), not human supremacy.

Besides, it doesn't gell too well with Mass Effect 2. When you talk to Al'Jilani and use the intimidate option Shepard seems genuinely offended that she is using all of those deaths as a way to increase ratings. It is possible that Shepard is just lying... but I don't like it. Frankly, I find it more interesting if Shepard sacrifices the Council to be pragmatic and the whole Alliance take-over is the unexpected consequence of it. It's a nice plot twist and I like the dialog you get from Udina if Shepard is (at least initially) hostile to the notion of humanity taking over.

"Noble words, but your actions tell the real story..." - Udina

#33
Wolverfrog
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:58

Wolverfrog
  • Members
  • 635 messages
That's how Saren thought.

#34
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 06:59

Guest_Shandepared_*
  • Guests

tommyt_1994 wrote...


But one could also argue, after knowing why Zaeed was there, that this was a one time mistake he made out of pure rage.


Or you could agree with Zaeed that the fire was a good way to even the odds against Vido and his mercs. Keep in mind as well that whatever Zaeed's contract might be his actual reason for being there is to kill Vido. The first time I did this mission I had no idea what would happen and I decided to go after Vido. I did it because Zaeed made it clear that he would not help me if I let Vido get away. His reputation is enough to convince me that he's an asset to the team and so I want him on my side. My Shepard basically had it boil down to this, "My mission is to put together a team to go after the Collectors and Zaeed is part of that team..." Thus he did what Zaeed wanted.

I also love how the renegade solution to this mission is eerily similar to Anderson and Saren's mission on Camala.

#35
mosor
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:05

mosor
  • Members
  • 1 372 messages

Wolverfrog wrote...

That's how Saren thought.


Nihlus too, and probably Vasir. I personally feel operations like spectres are geared more toward ruthless people willing to do anything it takes to get the job done. They give you immunity from legal consequences for a reason you know. If they wanted someone who plays by the rules to do the job, they would have just sent a C-SEC officer.

#36
ReluctantMind
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:07

ReluctantMind
  • Members
  • 166 messages
It is always possible to come up with logic to support a particular action, whether or not a particular person agrees with that logic. Saving the Destiny Ascension could be justified not as saving the council, but as saving the largest, most powerful warship in Citadel space. It could even still be helpful in destroying Sovereign if the pressure is relieved and it can maneuver to put its main gun on Sovereign. Plus, what happens to all the Geth ships you destroy saving the Ascension? If you hold back they would still be intact to support and protect Sovereign without the distraction of firing on the Ascension. Having played the game we know that the Geth seemed to play no real role in the attack on Sovereign, but Shepard wouldn't know that and might well see that as a tactical reason to save the Ascension and the Council along with it.

#37
Spectre_907
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:10

Spectre_907
  • Members
  • 384 messages

mosor wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Zaeed's mission is one of the few cases where I feel the paragon option is as valid as the renegade one, even more so, perhaps.

One might decide that Zaeed's initiative that lead to the fire is a disturbing tendency that Shepard doesn't need on his team. With that in mind Shepard might opt to save the workers. In the process of-course a paragon-enough paragon can convince Zaeed he was in the wrong.


The one paragon option I always take is on Feros by using the anti-thorian gas and try to save as many colonists as I can. I think it's silly not  to even try the gas, and just shoot people dead right away.

It's a permutation of the outcomes of Jeong, Shiala, survivors, and completed tunnel assignments (transmitter, etc.) that determine the colony's survival. In a renegade playthrough, I did the tunnel missions, intimidated Jeong, purged the colonists, and killed Shiala and the colony was still saved.

#38
Fiery Phoenix
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:15

Fiery Phoenix
  • Members
  • 18 965 messages
Shand, is it just me or do you really do zero metagaming?

Spectre_907 wrote...

It's a permutation of the outcomes of Jeong, Shiala, survivors, and completed tunnel assignments (transmitter, etc.) that determine the colony's survival. In a renegade playthrough, I did the tunnel missions, intimidated Jeong, purged the colonists, and killed Shiala and the colony was still saved.

That's exactly how I dealt with Feros with my Renegade as well.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 07 octobre 2010 - 07:17 .

#39
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:20

Guest_Shandepared_*
  • Guests

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Shand, is it just me or do you really do zero metagaming?


I try not to meta-game to justify any of my decisions. That said, my ultimate goal is to have consistent and satisfying narrative.

Spectre_907 wrote...

It's a permutation of the outcomes of Jeong, Shiala, survivors, and completed tunnel assignments (transmitter, etc.) that determine the colony's survival. In a renegade playthrough, I did the tunnel missions, intimidated Jeong, purged the colonists, and killed Shiala and the colony was still saved.


Interesting. I didn't realize that. My latest playthrough I didn't do the tunnels or anything, purged the colonists, kill Jeong, and didn't kill Shiala. Naturally the colony died. Perhaps the next time I play ME1 I'll do this. Perhaps.

You're certain that if you do the tunnels quests (water, food, ect) (and Perhaps convince Jeong?) that the colony will be counted as saved even if you gun down the colonists and Shiala?

Modifié par Shandepared, 07 octobre 2010 - 07:24 .

#40
mosor
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:23

mosor
  • Members
  • 1 372 messages

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Shand, is it just me or do you really do zero metagaming?

Spectre_907 wrote...

It's a permutation of the outcomes of Jeong, Shiala, survivors, and completed tunnel assignments (transmitter, etc.) that determine the colony's survival. In a renegade playthrough, I did the tunnel missions, intimidated Jeong, purged the colonists, and killed Shiala and the colony was still saved.

That's exactly how I dealt with Feros with my Renegade as well.


I did the same but saved the colonists. Personally, even as a renegade player I try to save lives if the only thing I risk by it is my own life and nothing else.

#41
Commander Kurt
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:35

Commander Kurt
  • Members
  • 1 201 messages
I don't know if you guys have leadership positions in real life, but I can assure you it's rarely as simple as "doing what it takes" vs "personal morals". If you look at galactic issues in such a simplistic matter, chances are alot of the decisions you make are going to bite you in the ass. Look at the UN for instance, and how lightly they tread. There is a reason for that.

If we are talking real life, both paragon and renegade are of course jokes in their purest form. Now this is a game, and we have very limited information and control. There is no "more logical" choice in the context we're given, both alternatives have good justifications in the situations I can remember at the moment.

To answer your question; what's best for galactic stability is never black and white. Ever. It's always a matter of opinions, values, and in the end comes down to personality.

Modifié par Commander Kurt, 07 octobre 2010 - 07:35 .

#42
Fiery Phoenix
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 07:36

Fiery Phoenix
  • Members
  • 18 965 messages

mosor wrote...

I did the same but saved the colonists. Personally, even as a renegade player I try to save lives if the only thing I risk by it is my own life and nothing else.

I also saved the colonists. Sorry; forgot to mention that.

Basically, you can mess up stuff on Feros and still save the colonists and the colony itself. That's how my Renegade got through Feros.

#43
Spectre_907
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 08:45

Spectre_907
  • Members
  • 384 messages

Shandepared wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Shand, is it just me or do you really do zero metagaming?


I try not to meta-game to justify any of my decisions. That said, my ultimate goal is to have consistent and satisfying narrative.

Spectre_907 wrote...

It's a permutation of the outcomes of Jeong, Shiala, survivors, and completed tunnel assignments (transmitter, etc.) that determine the colony's survival. In a renegade playthrough, I did the tunnel missions, intimidated Jeong, purged the colonists, and killed Shiala and the colony was still saved.


Interesting. I didn't realize that. My latest playthrough I didn't do the tunnels or anything, purged the colonists, kill Jeong, and didn't kill Shiala. Naturally the colony died. Perhaps the next time I play ME1 I'll do this. Perhaps.

You're certain that if you do the tunnels quests (water, food, ect) (and Perhaps convince Jeong?) that the colony will be counted as saved even if you gun down the colonists and Shiala?


I know for certain that convincing Jeong and doing the tunnel quests both is enough to ensure the colony's survival. Killing Shiala and the colonists does not affect the outcome. I'm not sure what is the least number of tunnel quests needed but you would definitely need to persuade Jeong in order to purge the colonists and kill Shiala and still keep the colony.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:46 .

#44
jojon2se
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 09:07

jojon2se
  • Members
  • 1 018 messages
Of course "the colony" can mean either the individuals that it's comprised of, or the settlement, in which individuals can be replaced - either way you can be said to have "saved the colony", having ensured a future for either, whilst sacrificing the other. It's all a matter of mindset and the purist paragon player will try to save both.

With Balak type individuals and the movements they represent, the best thing one can do in the long run, imho, is to prove them wrong. Living up to their accusations and creating a martyr is certainly not going to help.

#45
Jebel Krong
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 09:55

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages
Spectres are given free reign to handle things how they see fit, so whichever way is justified.

#46
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 10:43

Guest_Shandepared_*
  • Guests
Only problem with saving Feros is that Tali's romance dialog doesn't flow as well, IMHO.



#47
lovgreno
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 10:48

lovgreno
  • Members
  • 3 523 messages
The thing is that making decisions based on your own morals are part of the job as a spectre. You are supposed to act free from other peoples laws, rules and morals for the greater good for council space more efficently. The goal is political and economical stability in council space using your own means and opinions and these are and are supposed to be different for all spectres.

#48
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 11:18

Guest_Shandepared_*
  • Guests

lovgreno wrote...

The thing is that making decisions based on your own morals are part of the job as a spectre. You are supposed to act free from other peoples laws, rules and morals for the greater good for council space more efficently. The goal is political and economical stability in council space using your own means and opinions and these are and are supposed to be different for all spectres.


Yes, but the thing is a lot of Paragon decisions are decisions made primarily with faith, not logical reasoning.

#49
scotchtape622
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 11:20

scotchtape622
  • Members
  • 266 messages

Shandepared wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

The thing is that making decisions based on your own morals are part of the job as a spectre. You are supposed to act free from other peoples laws, rules and morals for the greater good for council space more efficently. The goal is political and economical stability in council space using your own means and opinions and these are and are supposed to be different for all spectres.


Yes, but the thing is a lot of Paragon decisions are decisions made primarily with faith, not logical reasoning.

Oh gosh.

#50
lovgreno
Posté 07 octobre 2010 - 11:22

lovgreno
  • Members
  • 3 523 messages

Shandepared wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

The thing is that making decisions based on your own morals are part of the job as a spectre. You are supposed to act free from other peoples laws, rules and morals for the greater good for council space more efficently. The goal is political and economical stability in council space using your own means and opinions and these are and are supposed to be different for all spectres.


Yes, but the thing is a lot of Paragon decisions are decisions made primarily with faith, not logical reasoning.

Since you and your Shepards don't know how their own morals and decisions will affect the future either that is just your own opinion, not some superiour logic.

Modifié par lovgreno, 07 octobre 2010 - 11:23 .

Retourner dans Story, Campaign, and Characters


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Mass Effect
  3. → Mass Effect 2
  4. → Story, Campaign, and Characters