296 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Going back to BDtS, I actually kill Balak's 2IC, because despite his misgivings about Balak's command, he's still a slave trader.

[lovgreno]

It is superiour logic from your point of wiev Shand and that is all it is. Sure Paragons take risks but so are renegade. You can twist those arguments around to support the opposite if you want to try seeing things from both the paragon and renegade options. This is a fictional adventure written to be able to see from many points of wiev. But you don't want that, you just want to say your choices are superiour even though the game isn't even over yet.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Saving the hostages is a pretty stupid thing to do in BDTS imo, it's one of the few renegade decisions that i agree with. Balak is obviously a rogue Batarian slave trader who has a sever grudge on humanity. Letting him escape to try the same thing again would be absolutely foolish. Not to mention that one of the hostages sacrificed her own brother to make sure that shepard makes it to Balak before the asteroid hits. I feel like i would be betraying her if i were to save them instead of taking a down a mental slave trader who would most likely attempt an attack like this again.

[jbblue05]

I think its stupid to let Balak's second-in-command go.

Just think about it if Shepard never shows up they would've went along with Balak's plans

They are still slavers.

Balak would do the same thing to other human colonies if you let him go.and you can't hope that Shepard would be their in time.

Letting Balak and his second-in-command go should bite Paragons in the ass but Bioware makes it so Paragons can do no wrong

[Barquiel]

I think pure paragons AND pure renegads are terrible spectres.



But the pure paragon universe is definitively more stable than the pure renegade universe.

[Commander Kurt]

Shandepared wrote...
If you don't know if the queen is telling the truth don't let her go. If you don't know whether Balak is on his own or if he has friends and allies then capture him now. If you don't know if the fleet will be able to take down Sovereign and save the Council then focus only on Sovereign.

If you don't know if the queen is necessary for stopping the Reapers don't kill her. If you don't know whether Balak is a future threat save the hostage. If you don't know if the Council races will back you up against the Reapers without the Council then try to kill Sovereign while saving the council. If you don't know whether the Collector Base is a threat or an opportunity just blow it up.

Or keep it.

[Xilizhra]

How good a Spectre you are can easily be assessed by how much **** you get done. Paragon Shepard gets just as much **** done as Renegade does.

[LadyJaneGrey]

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.

If Shepard completely embraces the (for lack of a better phrase) spectre's code, Council-defined galactic stability is of course the overriding deciding factor.  But simply because Shepard accepts the position does not mean he/she automatically becomes programed with "proper spectre reactions."  Shep still has personal experiences, views, and goals that inform all choices, leading to different conclusions even when following the spectre's code.

Also, Shepard may have other overriding goals or values besides the Council-approved perfect spectre's "what's best for the galaxy" ideal.  Shepard may be championing equality and rights for different groups, human dominance, or personal control and survival, just to name a few.  Different people have different definitions of "best for the galaxy."

[Spectre_907]

Shandepared wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

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.

It is superior logic. It is safer to kill the rachni queen, safer to kill Balak, safer to concentrate on Sovereign, safer to keep the Collector base.

The fact that I base my decisions around not knowing the future is what makes my logic superior.

If you don't know if the queen is telling the truth don't let her go. If you don't know whether Balak is on his own or if he has friends and allies then capture him now. If you don't know if the fleet will be able to take down Sovereign and save the Council then focus only on Sovereign.

Agreed that killing Balak and saving the Collector base are safer approaches. But one can reason that it is better to take out the defending geth ships around the Ascension first and then go after Sovereign. We still had control of the station and all geth/krogan were eliminated. Sovereign needed someone on the Citadel to transfer control to it. The geth ships that destroyed the Ascension if the fifth fleet focues directly on Sovereign could have flanked the Alliance ships. You risk loosing ships from having to fight on two fronts. Taking out the defending geth ships by saving the Ascension would leave the fleet less vulnerable to flanking maneuvers by the geth. I think it is a risk either way.

I think the Rachni queen is pretty clear on her intentions and the true cause behind the Rachni wars.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:48 .

[Spectre_907]

Shandepared wrote...

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

The ExoGeni personnel could count as colonists. You do risk your life to save them by killing the thorian, geth, and the colonists.

[brfritos]

It's interesting that a lot of arguments in this thread use the same logic Saren applies when joining with the Reapers.

Why caring about freedom, why caring if some people die, why caring if the galaxy will be annihilated?
It's all for the greater good in the end.

And the problem isn't really Paragon or Renegade, but the way Bioware gives us this.
In Noveria you have to espionage for a Asari and you can persuade her to give you more money, using Renegade or Paragon.
It doesn't matter the way you convince her, you always gain Renegade points.

I hope I never become a hostage with some "negotiators" here, I pretty much have to start my prayers then. LOL

[Inverness Moon]

lovgreno wrote...

It is superiour logic from your point of wiev Shand and that is all it is. Sure Paragons take risks but so are renegade. You can twist those arguments around to support the opposite if you want to try seeing things from both the paragon and renegade options. This is a fictional adventure written to be able to see from many points of wiev. But you don't want that, you just want to say your choices are superiour even though the game isn't even over yet.

Well go ahead and twist some of them around then. I would like some examples.

[Bad King]

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. 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.

Yeah, Spectre ideals in ME are similar to Grey Warden ideals in DA:O. They are supposed to do whatever it takes to get the job done (nothing can jeopardise the overall goal of defeating the reapers). This includes sacrificing the council for the greater good, keeping the collector base, not risking saving the Feros colony, ignoring all side quests etc.

The ME2 default Shep seems to represent true Spectre Ideals (in terms of the decisions s/he made during ME1).

[Bad King]

Xilizhra wrote...

How good a Spectre you are can easily be assessed by how much **** you get done. Paragon Shepard gets just as much **** done as Renegade does.

Except Paragon Shepard takes bigger risks. So far, none of the major Paragon choices have bitten us in the ass. Hopefully in ME3 more of the Paragon decisions will go wrong.

[Cheese Elemental]

I think plenty of the Paragon and Renegade arguments are reasonable, but I Paragons tend to attract more hate because the implementation is so half-arsed. Going pure Paragon pushes your character into 'Lawful Stupid' territory.
Paragon choices are generally just as viable as Renegade choices, but the writing messes it up. I mean, why couldn't I tell TIM "No, I'm not giving the Collector base to a known terrorist and human supremacist"? Why did I have to spout a corny line about personal ethics?

Modifié par Cheese Elemental, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:55 .

[noobzor99]

Spectre_907 wrote...

Agreed that killing Balak and saving the Collector base are safer approaches.

Wait, keeping the technology that is known to infect and control all sentient species is safe now?

[Cheese Elemental]

noobzor99 wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

Agreed that killing Balak and saving the Collector base are safer approaches.

Wait, keeping the technology that is known to infect and control all sentient species is safe now?

Okay, let's get this out of the way.

The primary risk of keeping the Collector base is NOT indoctrination, it's the fact that you're giving extremely powerful technology to a human-supremacist group that might not even be able to put it to any good use.

[Markinator_123]

Cheese Elemental wrote...

noobzor99 wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

Agreed that killing Balak and saving the Collector base are safer approaches.

Wait, keeping the technology that is known to infect and control all sentient species is safe now?

Okay, let's get this out of the way.

The primary risk of keeping the Collector base is NOT indoctrination, it's the fact that you're giving extremely powerful technology to a human-supremacist group that might not even be able to put it to any good use.

My problem is not with destroying it per se (although I support keeping it) but it is the fact that Shepard says such a self-righteous line when doing it, "I won't let fear compromise who I am." I hate that line so much. They should have just had Shepard say that the Illusive man would just make things worse. Unfortunately, Shepard had to say such a self-righteous line.

[Elite Midget]

Meh, doing whatever it takes and accepting every risk is what lead to the downfall of Saren. He thought he was doing good for the Galaxy and thought that he, and his sources, could handle Reaper technology just like how TIM believes he can as well(Ignoring the fact that every time Cerberus handled Reaper Technology is always ended in failure). Saren failed and you know the funny thing?



A Renegade Shepard is just a Human Saren.

[Bad King]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Cheese Elemental wrote...

noobzor99 wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

Agreed that killing Balak and saving the Collector base are safer approaches.

Wait, keeping the technology that is known to infect and control all sentient species is safe now?

Okay, let's get this out of the way.

The primary risk of keeping the Collector base is NOT indoctrination, it's the fact that you're giving extremely powerful technology to a human-supremacist group that might not even be able to put it to any good use.

My problem is not with destroying it per se (although I support keeping it) but it is the fact that Shepard says such a self-righteous line when doing it, "I won't let fear compromise who I am." I hate that line so much. They should have just had Shepard say that the Illusive man would just make things worse. Unfortunately, Shepard had to say such a self-righteous line.

I agree, that line just makes Shep appear selfish and stubborn.

[Elite Midget]

His Ruthlessness and tampering with Reaper Technology was what lead to his descent into Indoctrination. He was so afraid of the Reapers that he thought he could use their Technology against them. He failed.



A Renegade Shepard does the same exact thing in ME2.

[Bad King]

Elite Midget wrote...

Meh, doing whatever it takes and accepting every risk is what lead to the downfall of Saren. He thought he was doing good for the Galaxy and thought that he, and his sources, could handle Reaper technology just like how TIM believes he can as well(Ignoring the fact that every time Cerberus handled Reaper Technology is always ended in failure). Saren failed and you know the funny thing?

A Renegade Shepard is just a Human Saren.

Not really, Saren's indoctrination was inevitable as he was investigating something that he knew nothing about. Before then he was widely known as one of  the Council's top agents, and was a ruthless but successful Spectre. So until his incident with Sovereign, doing whatever it took had treated him well.

Also the collector base is not a reaper but a reaper factory that housed cybernetic slaves. It didn't need indoctrination and it's likely that it cannot indoctrinate.