296 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

I think it's natural honestly to place one's survival slightly above someone else's. However, I doubt he'd want to see other species exterminated for the simple reason perhaps that humanity's continued strength depends on trade with other species.

[Schneidend]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Okay, maybe that was a bad example, but you get the idea.  He puts human survival ahead of everyone else's.  And you really can't deny it.

And salarians put the survival of salarians ahead of everyone else's. Turians, krogan, asari, they all value their own race's people more than others. Illusive Man is in no way unique in this aspect. That's nature.

[RiouHotaru]

Schneidend wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Okay, maybe that was a bad example, but you get the idea.  He puts human survival ahead of everyone else's.  And you really can't deny it.

And salarians put the survival of salarians ahead of everyone else's. Turians, krogan, asari, they all value their own race's people more than others. Illusive Man is in no way unique in this aspect. That's nature.

I'll argue that only because there's no evidence that the other Council races have a clandestine, terrorist organization whose doctrine is "Pro-<Insert own race here>" group.

[Arijharn]

I don't think it'd be very interesting honestly if we were to learn about it. I mean, Erinya can't be the only racist alien in the galaxy inheriting that belief after Saren died.

[Inverness Moon]

It is highly improbable that all races don't have their own groups that place emphasis on their own race above others. But those groups probably don't have the benefit of being former black-ops organizations for their governments like Cerberus.

Cerberus was formed as a result of the jarring shock that humanity received during the First Contact War. There is an upcoming comic that will be exploring TIM's background. I think I remember a piece of promotional artwork that seems to be showing a younger TIM holding a pistol to some turian's face on Shanxi.

More information, including that picture, here: http://comics.ign.co.../1106020p1.html

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:58 .

[Arijharn]

Wouldn't it be sorta nice knowing what we know about the ME universe if it turned out that TIM before he became TIM was the one who shot and killed Saren's brother as part of the First Contact War? On the other hand, it would make the universe so much smaller too...

[anmiro]

So your proposing that morality should play no part in a Spectre's decisions? 

[brfritos]

Cheese Elemental wrote...

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?

This is a very good point.

In LotSB Liara gives Shepard some eyebrows if he/she chooses the Paragon answer, because in a lot of them the commander preach about morals.

Because I belive in something doesn't mean that I should try to indocrinate some people with these beliefs.

[Arijharn]

anmiro wrote...

So your proposing that morality should play no part in a Spectre's decisions? 

Yes, you should make decisions based purely upon logic, even if it's cold and dispassionate. Let other people debate the pros and cons of your decisions down the line, because by then they'll have the freedom (and the benefit of hindsight) to see if it was essential or not... but as is morality seems to only compromise you because it's your duty to ensure the survival of galactic stability, not to engage in discourse about the various merits of philosophy (I know, ironic really)

[Dean_the_Young]

wiggles89 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
Yes, you should make decisions based purely upon logic, even if it's cold and dispassionate. Let other people debate the pros and cons of your decisions down the line, because by then they'll have the freedom (and the benefit of hindsight) to see if it was essential or not... but as is morality seems to only compromise you because it's your duty to ensure the survival of galactic stability, not to engage in discourse about the various merits of philosophy (I know, ironic really)

You know nothing of the field of morality if you think it's intrinsically removed from logic.

I (somewhat) agree.

Logic itself is moral: it orders priorities and reason, and unlines the basis of justification for all other moralities to stand upon.

[Arijharn]

wiggles89 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
Yes, you should make decisions based purely upon logic, even if it's cold and dispassionate. Let other people debate the pros and cons of your decisions down the line, because by then they'll have the freedom (and the benefit of hindsight) to see if it was essential or not... but as is morality seems to only compromise you because it's your duty to ensure the survival of galactic stability, not to engage in discourse about the various merits of philosophy (I know, ironic really)

You know nothing of the field of morality if you think it's intrinsically removed from logic.

I see what you mean, however I still think you have to sometimes step outside your beliefs to see the larger picture. You can not afford to sit within your comfort zone and automatically dismiss things that could be to your benefit. I guess the trouble then would be to think to check at the 'right' time.

[SnakeStrike8]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

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.

Problems with this argument:
Balak doesn't have the 'ability' to kill billions. He got lucky on X-57, because he came across an undefended asteroid being towed toward an inhabited planet. Three soldiers managed to wipe the floor with his merry band. Granted, these were eltie soldiers, the best of the best, but the X-57 asteroid drop was a doomed proposition from any angle, given that Alliance doctrine emphasizes quick troop mobilization to vulnerable areas. It wouldn't (or shouldn't) take long for an Alliance frigate to drop an assault force onto X-135 if Balak tries something like that again, and it's unfair to say that the Alliance won't learn from this one attempted attack. They will, and they'll post larger security teams on other asteroids, or set up soem sort of remote detonation equipment that can stop a rogue asteroid. Saving the hostages is not, therefore, the 'wrong call'. It's just the renegade call.

The Blue Suns aren't evil. They run slaving operations and smuggle goods around, sure, but that doesn't make them evil. Santiago was certainly a wicked man, and yes, he does deserve death, but that doesn't also mean that his death takes priority over the lives of several dozen innocents- especially when you were on that planet in the first place to save the workers, on contract for Eldfell-Ashland. Well, Zaeed was, but you were with him, so... yeah. And killing Santiago wouldn't have lopped the head off of the blue Suns. At best, you'll start a war between sub-leader of the Suns who all want to run the entire organization, and that'll be far worse for galactic stabilty than a few smuggling operations or slaving raids. And the end result will be a new Suns leader who'll likely be just as bad as Santiago was, who really wasn't that bad to begin with. So he hires batarians and betrays his partner and takes over refineries. Hardly issues worthy of a Specture ,but definitely issues worthy of a moral individual.

End words: The paragon decisions really are the 'right' ones to make- no matter how you look at it.

[Frybread76]

Arijharn wrote...

anmiro wrote...

So your proposing that morality should play no part in a Spectre's decisions? 

Yes, you should make decisions based purely upon logic, even if it's cold and dispassionate. Let other people debate the pros and cons of your decisions down the line, because by then they'll have the freedom (and the benefit of hindsight) to see if it was essential or not... but as is morality seems to only compromise you because it's your duty to ensure the survival of galactic stability, not to engage in discourse about the various merits of philosophy (I know, ironic really)

Pretty dicey stuff.  Logic and morality are never totally seperate, unless one is a sociopath.

[RiouHotaru]

Yeah, Smudboy likes to argue that you have to make decisions by removing emotional bias and preference and being objective...despite the fact that emotion and morality are intrinsically a part of EVERY decision you make, whether you realize it or not.

[lovgreno]

Some people like to imagine themselves as members of a superiour breed of humans that are above things like emotion, morality and subjectiveness.

[Moiaussi]

Schneidend wrote...

Riou, that's ridiculous. If Illusive Man lets the reapers gain enough ground to actually start making more reapers, then everybody has already lost, humanity included.

Given the degree to which Cerberus believe in gene manipulation and were looking at rachni and thorians with respect to making better human 'super-soldiers', it is not a given that Humanity ruling the galaxy in the form of human reapers is outside of TIM's definitions of supremicy.

[Moiaussi]

The problem with some of the major renegade choices (kill the Rachni, hand Legion over to TIM) is that they only deal with obvious dangers. Kill the queen and you seem safe from the Rachni (only 'seem' because she might turn out not to be the last queen). Hand legion over and you seem safer from the Geth.



However, you don't and cannot know if the Rachni would be strategicly neccessary for humanity's survival sometime in the future. Ditto friendly Geth. By the way it is interesting that the common renegade position of supporting the Quarian belief that AI's have different needs than organics therefore will rebel, but EDI (just as much an AI as any Geth and able to evacuate the ship to vaccuum any time she wants) is perfectly alright.



Sometimes the obvious risks are so strong that they need to be dealt with immediately, but no side, renegade or paragon, should ever be completely certain they have made the right choice. Only time can answer that.



If the renegade choices were the only ones that were in the Council's best interests, there would already be a police state.

[knightnblu]

Forgive my long response, but you did ask the question. First, morality exists to bring order to society. When there is no common agreement on a generalized code of conduct then chaos reigns and society cannot exist. Therefore, when the stakes are normal and all other factors are considered the appropriate course of action is to abide by these standards of conduct.



However, in the Mass Effect universe the stakes are nowhere near normal. The Specter is placed outside of law and morality in order to deal with such circumstances. The numbers of these individuals is low and the Council oversees their activities to insure that they do not become a destabilizing force. While some do indeed take the path of least resistance, i.e. killing a troublesome person rather than convincing him to change, that is not always a desired course of action from a purely governmental standpoint.



This is because if the majority of Specters took this course then the ultimate effect of their operations would be destabilizing to the administration of Council space. The reason why the few like Saren are allowed to get away with it is because it generates fear of the Specters. That fear can bring a government in line without actually doing anything hostile. The Hegemony Mirror Array is an excellent example of this tactic. The mere rumor of a Specter being deployed to handle the situation brought the Hegemony into line.



Where time is not an issue I always try to take the Paragon path because that is the path that leads to order. When I assisted Miranda on her loyalty mission I took the renegade path because it was the best tactical move. The person I was speaking with was a subordinate to Captain Enyala and would not violate her order nor would he allow his subordinates to violate them. Therefore there was no choice, but to engage and I did so on my terms. Underhanded? Sure it was, but that is fighting and only a fool gives a fair fight.



Where the collector base was concerned I destroyed it because it was the best strategic move I could make. This is because of the following reasons: a) the reapers want us to use their technology in order to establish a predetermined outcome, the collectors traded their (reaper) technology in order to promote that objective, c) by utilizing the reaper technology found in the collector base we would not be breaking that strategy, but strengthening it. Also, it is doubtful that any useful offensive technology would have fallen into our hands as the base was primarily a manufacturing site for new reapers and the one piece of weapon technology that we do possess we cannot figure out (collector particle beam). This lead me to believe that our best course of action was to destroy the base and not to travel further down a path that was designed to make our destruction easy.



The real question for those who chose the Specter path as you and I did is who is your character as a person? Are we, all the species of the galaxy, in this together or not? Is a Salarian life more or less valuable than a human life or not? I view the other races as equals and I treat them no differently than I would treat another human. Further, if we stand alone then we will all perish and the best way to unite is as equals and not as master and subordinate.



Who we are as people determines our course in the game for those of us who play as if we were in Shep's shoes. This is why the RPG side of the game is so important, it allows us to make those decisions and to live with the consequences. In this respect, I believe that Bioware and the writers outdid themselves. Could things be better? Sure, but I don't know anybody or anything that is perfect. That having been said, I would do in real life exactly as I have done in the game if real life and the game had a situation that was identical. That is who I am and how I play. Other people see it differently and that works for them and I hope that they enjoy the game as much as I have.



Just my .02.

[Flamewielder]

Spectres exists to to the Council's bidding, whatever that may be. Presumably, like any political creature, it seeks to saveguard its own existence and that implies safeguarding Council space and its inhabitants. Like any goverment official, you can do it out of a desire to be of service to your fellow galactic citizens or you may just do it because you enjoy the perks (i.e. finacial backing and a license to kill, as long as you can justify it was for :"the greater good"). Most do it for a little of both. All the Council cares for is that the end result of your actions is beneficial to the Council (and, presumably, you avoid killing/maiming people you are not required to kill/main in order to fulfill your mission). HOW you go about accomplishing these goals is up to the Spectre's personal preference.

It works great from a metagaming perspective, as it allows you to choose whatever moral path you prefer and still "win the game". The concept is, however, not always well-balanced. Some paragon options make no logical sense (even from a paragon perspective), some renegade options are downright counter-productive (from the renegade=the ends justify the means perspective).

As for Zaeed, he told me he'd been hired by Eldfell-Ashland Energy to liberate its refinery from the Blue Suns. That's what the contract is for and that's what Cerberus promised him we would help him do. Saving the refinery (and workers) is what we're paid to do. If we let it burn, we don't get paid. That's my take on it... and since fighting Reapers requires funding beyond what's already provided, I'll save the refinery every time (and, as it turns out, the rewards are indeed greater). And I'll pilfer, pillage, slavage whatever cash I can along the way (being a paragon and using an omni-tool for all transactions, I can allways reimburse the deceased's next of kin through a Cerberus/Council expense account and the legal dept. handle the formalities...)

Mercs like the Blue Suns operate mostly outside Council Space and observe Council law when working in it. While C-Sec is likely aware of their many illegal activities, they cannot prosecute those as they happen outside of their jurisdiction. Likewise, wearing Blue Suns colors inside Council Space is no more illegal than wearing Hell's Angels biker colors on Earth... it won't make you popular with local authorities, but it's still legal.

Eliminating Vido may rid the galaxy of a bloodthirsty sonofa****, but in the grand scheme of things, he's not so important (and I can always ask the Shadow Broker to hunt him down for me, or something... I'm planning to get Zaeed something nice for Christmas anyway...).

Modifié par Flamewielder, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Spectre_907]

The rachni queen is indeed the last of her kind and killing her would ensure the galaxy's protection from the dangers of another war with the rachni. But what I cannot grasp is the reasoning behind killing the queen as being little more than fear of the rachni turning on the galaxy. The rachni queen is explicit in that she has no intentions of making war and that the rachni war was not of their own doing but that of an external factor. I see more benefits for the galaxy, the main one being that of aquring an ally, than those of killing the rachni queen. Liara is the one who gives the dialogue suggesting that even if one was to make the decision without resorting to morals, there is some benefit from a logical standpoint from that of the paragon choice of letting her go. A paragon Spectre making a decision on this ground would be acting in the interests of galactic stability and not by morals.

An underlying element here is that a paragon Spectre (or one that at least leans towards a paragon in specific choices) can also utilize diplomactic abilities rather than total neutralization by force (which is more in line of a renegade Spectre) of developing situations and I think the situation of the rachni queen reflects this.

Letting the rachni queen go is both the ethical and diplomatic thing to do ensuring galactic stability. There are cases when the stabilization of developing situations in the galaxy are in agreement with moral convictions.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:25 .

[Schneidend]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'll argue that only because there's no evidence that the other Council races have a clandestine, terrorist organization whose doctrine is "Pro-" group.

Two things:

1) Cerberus isn't a terrorist organization. Terrorists use intimidation and violence as a form of coercion to encourage a change in a society or government. You can't be clandestine and be a terrorist group, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Terrorists broadcast themselves, their intentions, and the acts they commit or intend to commit in the hopes that fear of them will create change. Ceberus' goal is to strengthen humanity's ability to defend themselves against any possible attacker. They don't blow up subway stations or crash commercial jets and then claim responsibility for it over the extranet. No, they develop technologies and weapons for use by humans, and quietly eliminate those they perceive as enemies. That isn't terrorism, that's just good business.

2) The salarians had the now defunct League of One and now the Special Tasks Group. The turians and the asari aren't mentioned to have specific organizations to fit this purpose, but it is pure naivete to suggest that they don't exist. The turians are extremely militaristic and the asari are just as reliant on subtle machinations as the salarians. No nation that is a major player in the world around it doesn't look out for its own interests through espionage.

[Spectre_907]

Cerberus is the unbounded human equivalent of the salarian Special Task Group. Should the Council make Cerberus another arm of their governing entity, they would be no different than the STG aside from being all human. The terrorism brand, as I see it, only comes from the fact that Cerberus does not consider itself bounded by Citadel authority or acts as if not bounded. Like that of the Special Task Group.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:11 .

[mosor]

Frybread76 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

anmiro wrote...

So your proposing that morality should play no part in a Spectre's decisions? 

Yes, you should make decisions based purely upon logic, even if it's cold and dispassionate. Let other people debate the pros and cons of your decisions down the line, because by then they'll have the freedom (and the benefit of hindsight) to see if it was essential or not... but as is morality seems to only compromise you because it's your duty to ensure the survival of galactic stability, not to engage in discourse about the various merits of philosophy (I know, ironic really)

Pretty dicey stuff.  Logic and morality are never totally seperate, unless one is a sociopath.

Some morality is based on better logic than others. Whats better? Some ruthlessness now to ensure the security of millions, or some compassion now and possibly risk that security for millions? Neither is sociopathic, but it basically is what separates paragons from renegades.

Modifié par mosor, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:57 .