296 réponses à ce sujet

[Spectre_907]

mosor wrote...

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.

Or diplomacy versus neutralization by force. I thought that was an underlying element in the rachni queen situation.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 08 octobre 2010 - 10:22 .

[Moiaussi]

The problem with logic is that it is only as good as the premises on which it is based, and the risk is that the premises can be too subjective to achieve clearly accurate results.

[Godeskian]

One should also consider that 'some ruthlesness now to ensure the security of millions' is not an event that happens in isolation. That ruthlesness has a ripple-effect all it's own, in the exact same way that not being ruthless has ripple effects.



Those that die, may have effected the universe one way had they not died to ensure the security of millions, and those that lived, might have better off been dead.



Plus trying to base a decision on pure logic pre-supposed the incredibly naive situation that your logic is flawless, your information is completely accurate, and that you can accurately predict both the long term and short term outcomes from your decisions.

[Godeskian]

Moiaussi wrote...

The problem with logic is that it is only as good as the premises on which it is based, and the risk is that the premises can be too subjective to achieve clearly accurate results.

Don't know why I bothered posting a very wordy couple of paragraphs when I could have just said, 'what Moiaussie' wrote

[Spectre_907]

Renegade and paragon decisions are moral actions in themselves and have underlying moral assuptions. It would seem then that all decisions are moral decisions. Even basing one's decision on calculating the best possible outcome would assert that it is morally necessary to do that particular action.

[tommyt_1994]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

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.

I understand where you're coming from here and you actually made a logical argument. But the bold portions is a matter of opinion. You don't see slavers as evil people? I sure do

[Flamewielder]

mosor wrote...
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.

One must not assume that ALL compassionate choice put the security of millions at risk, just that SOME compassionate may do so. Some renegade choices seem cold but are ultimately made in the best interest of the majority, others are expedient and solve the immediate problem but have negative longer-term effects. The Spectre will approach each situation differently, making the more logical choice for the greater good of Council space (assuming he's taking his Spectre responsibilities seriously). When neither renegade/paragon option appears superior, he will pretty much decide according to his personal moral compass.

Spectres are not usually confronted with a problem like the Reapers, where failure = death for all... So some morally difficult choices are to be expected, perhaps more so than usual.

If we take an example of a more "typical" spectre mission:

A charismatic Terminus system warlord is threatening an attack on Council space. Diplomatic efforts to avert the crisis have failed, due to the warlord's apparent irrational behavior and his recent alliance with the Batarian Hegemony. The Council would prefer to avoid military action too close to the border, which would further inflame the Terminus Systems distrust of the Citadel council (and encourage further hostilities with the Hegemony). A Spectre is assigned to the case. The Spectre can:

1) Assasinate the warlord (more or less cleanly), hoping that his successor will prove more amenable to reason
2) Compromise the Batarian backing of the warlord (rendering him harmless) through subversion.

Both options are viable, option 1 may be more renegade than option 2 but the Spectre will be making several paragon/renegade choices along the way. Option 2 may involve plenty of renegade choices, Option 1 may allow many paragon choices along the way. That's realistic and it's also desirable from a metagaming standpoint where Paragon/Renegade choices are intended to be balanced.

Dealing with a unique, extreme threat like the Reapers tend to skew this balance in favor of renegade(i.e. expedient) options, like keeping vs destroying the Collector Base (but that's discussed on another thread).

Modifié par Flamewielder, 09 octobre 2010 - 12:01 .

[GGRush]

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.

This analogy is incorrect. A closer one would be: a nuke is about to go off in 24 hours. Would you spend two hours trying to rescue the UN council in a nearby building in New York, or go directly to the nuke and disarm it? I might also add that the nuke is in UK, where the head of the UN comes from.

That is the situation in the end of ME1. I'm surprised how ungrateful others are if you did not save the council: you simply choose to go after your most important objective rather than a few politicians; you saved the citadel--and the galaxy but was not able to save the council.

And who the hell told you that there are more than 10,000 people on Destiny Ascension?

[GodWood]

GGRush wrote...

And who the hell told you that there are more than 10,000 people on Destiny Ascension?

I believe its said in the interview with Khalisah Bint Sinan al-Jilani .

[mosor]

Flamewielder wrote...

mosor wrote...
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.

One must not assume that ALL compassionate choice put the security of millions at risk, just that SOME compassionate may do so. Some renegade choices seem cold but are ultimately made in the best interest of the majority, others are expedient and solve the immediate problem but have negative longer-term effects. The Spectre will approach each situation differently, making the more logical choice for the greater good of Council space (assuming he's taking his Spectre responsibilities seriously). When neither renegade/paragon option appears superior, he will pretty much decide according to his personal moral compass.

Spectres are not usually confronted with a problem like the Reapers, where failure = death for all... So some morally difficult choices are to be expected, perhaps more so than usual.

If we take an example of a more "typical" spectre mission:

A charismatic Terminus system warlord is threatening an attack on Council space. Diplomatic efforts to avert the crisis have failed, due to the warlord's apparent irrational behavior and his recent alliance with the Batarian Hegemony. The Council would prefer to avoid military action too close to the border, which would further inflame the Terminus Systems distrust of the Citadel council (and encourage further hostilities with the Hegemony). A Spectre is assigned to the case. The Spectre can:

1) Assasinate the warlord (more or less cleanly), hoping that his successor will prove more amenable to reason
2) Compromise the Batarian backing of the warlord (rendering him harmless) through subversion.

Both options are viable, option 1 may be more renegade than option 2 but the Spectre will be making several paragon/renegade choices along the way. Option 2 may involve plenty of renegade choices, Option 1 may allow many paragon choices along the way. That's realistic and it's also desirable from a metagaming standpoint where Paragon/Renegade choices are intended to be balanced.

Dealing with a unique, extreme threat like the Reapers tend to skew this balance in favor of renegade(i.e. expedient) options, like keeping vs destroying the Collector Base (but that's discussed on another thread).

Probelm is most of the paragon big choices are not presented the way of your example. It usually involes trusting someone or not trusting someone. Letting a terrorist go, and hope you get them another day (Before they ochestrate a successful attack) or killing them now. Sure, the flavor paragon choices are nice like helping a down on their luck quarian and some of the renegade options like encouraging Jack to kill Aresh are on the sociopathic side. However, for the bigger ones, Paragons almost always cross their fingers and hope and Renegades just deal with it now.

[Moiaussi]

GGRush wrote...

This analogy is incorrect. A closer one would be: a nuke is about to go off in 24 hours. Would you spend two hours trying to rescue the UN council in a nearby building in New York, or go directly to the nuke and disarm it? I might also add that the nuke is in UK, where the head of the UN comes from.

That is the situation in the end of ME1. I'm surprised how ungrateful others are if you did not save the council: you simply choose to go after your most important objective rather than a few politicians; you saved the citadel--and the galaxy but was not able to save the council.

And who the hell told you that there are more than 10,000 people on Destiny Ascension?

Actually in this case, Shepard is already on the Nuke and saving the UN Council involves taking out those attacking the UN building (with its symbolism, not to mention everyone in it), who if you ignore will be shooting you in the back while you are trying to disarm the bomb.

The symbolism of the DA is evident in ME2 when the Asari abandon naval construction entirely. meaning one less empire worth of production preparing for the reapers. This is what I was saying earlier in terms of obvious threats vs longer term or less obvious consequences.

[Spectre_907]

mosor wrote...

Probelm is most of the paragon big choices are not presented the way of your example. It usually involes trusting someone or not trusting someone. Letting a terrorist go, and hope you get them another day (Before they ochestrate a successful attack) or killing them now. Sure, the flavor paragon choices are nice like helping a down on their luck quarian and some of the renegade options like encouraging Jack to kill Aresh are on the sociopathic side. However, for the bigger ones, Paragons almost always cross their fingers and hope and Renegades just deal with it now.

Electing to save the Council is just as strategically sound as letting the Council die. There is no cross your fingers and hope assumption there. In fact it is more of a risk to Concentrate on Sovereign. While it does involve trust, letting the rachni queen go does not involve crossing one's fingers and hoping either. The queen is explicit in her future plans and intentions and one must understand how the rachni think to see that they can indeed be allies.

Larger paragon choices, with the exception of letting Balak go and destroying the Collector base, is not a matter of pure luck but rather a full understanding of the situation beyond what is immediate. It requires forethought. Renegade choices tend to lack this. Choices like letting the Coundil die, destroying the geth heretics, and killing the rachni queen demonstrate this.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 09 octobre 2010 - 02:17 .

[Inverness Moon]

Spectre_907 wrote...

Electing to save the Council is just as strategically sound as letting the Council die. There is no cross your fingers and hope assumption there. In fact it is more of a risk to Concentrate on Sovereign. While it does involve trust, letting the rachni queen go does not involve crossing one's fingers and hoping either. The queen is explicit in her future plans and intentions and one must understand how the rachni think to see that they can indeed be allies.

If you're suggesting that the queen couldn't just flat-out lie to you, then I would disagree.

I also don't see why you would say its more of a risk to concentrate on sovereign. It might be more of a risk to the people in the ships, but that is to be expected. The point here it is more of a risk not to put everything you have into stopping Sovereign, because if you don't, then your extinction will have begun.

Saving the Council won't mean crap if Sovereign succeeds.

Larger paragon choices, with the exception of letting Balak go and destroying the Collector base, is not a matter of pure luck but rather a full understanding of the situation beyond what is immediate. It requires forethought. Renegade choices tend to lack this. Choices like letting the Coundil die, destroying the geth heretics, and killing the rachni queen demonstrate this.

There is no lack of forethought in killing the rachni queen. It was purely a decision based on whether or not you could trust the rachni queen not to start a war again. The reapers were not part of the risk vs. reward equation at the time.

[Spectre_907]

Shandepared wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

Electing to save the Council is just as strategically sound as letting the Council die. There is no cross your fingers and hope assumption there. In fact it is more of a risk to Concentrate on Sovereign.

How so? Saving the Council weakens your forces and not much else. The Destiny Ascension is badly damage and is not going to help you in the fight. It was already trying to flee and if you save it that is what it will do. At the same time I gaurantee it is not going to fly off by itself in such a sorry state, instead it is going to take an escort, meaning several more cruisers/frigates that aren't heping you.

Saving the Council gains you NOTHING in the battle against Sovereign.

And it could simply request turian cruisers and let the Arcturus fleet, which is in better shape to fight, deal with Sovereign. We don't know. But we do know that there are defending geth ships near it that will destroy it once the Citadel arms are open.

Like I said before, there is no guarantee that those attacking geth ships will just sit there and not flank your reinforcements by the time the Ascension is destroyed. And when it is destroyed, Sovereign will be exposed fighting a large fleet with geth ships free of opposition from the Ascension. Saving the Ascension runs the risk of loosing reinforcements but concentrating on Sovereign runs the risk of being flanked by the remaining geth ships.

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

Spectre_907 wrote...

Electing to save the Council is just as strategically sound as letting the Council die. There is no cross your fingers and hope assumption there. In fact it is more of a risk to Concentrate on Sovereign.

How so? Saving the Council weakens your forces and not much else. The Destiny Ascension is badly damage and is not going to help you in the fight. It was already trying to flee and if you save it that is what it will do. At the same time I gaurantee it is not going to fly off by itself in such a sorry state, instead it is going to take an escort, meaning several more cruisers/frigates that aren't heping you.

Saving the Council gains you NOTHING in the battle against Sovereign.

Based on other posts of yours, you completely discount the value of the Asari fleet anyway. WIth that as an opening premise, of course the DA isn't worth saving. Your conclusion is only as good as your initial premise.

Also, whether it turned out to matter or not, the Geth would have been hiting rear shields of the Alliance fleet and been in ideal position against them. Engaging them out on the way in (which incidentally saves the DA) is also good tactics.

[Arijharn]

I save the DA because I reason that should my attack on Sovereign fail and I didn't save the DA then the Reapers would have accomplished what they intended to do anyway. If however the DA is successfully evacuated then the Reapers are denied their chance for decapitating the heads of state, presumably allowing for a greater chance of a unified response to be formed.

[Spectre_907]

Inverness Moon wrote...

If you're suggesting that the queen couldn't just flat-out lie to you, then I would disagree.

I also don't see why you would say its more of a risk to concentrate on sovereign. It might be more of a risk to the people in the ships, but that is to be expected. The point here it is more of a risk not to put everything you have into stopping Sovereign, because if you don't, then your extinction will have begun.

Saving the Council won't mean crap if Sovereign succeeds.

Sovereign did not have control of the Citadel at the time the Ascension sent the distress signal. The only way it could gain control was by having an associate manually activate it from the master control unit yet there were none. It could also be deduced that there were geth ships what would be free of opposition at the time Sovereign was exposed. I would prefer to concentrate on the defending ships first and not run the risk of having to fight both Sovereign and the geth simultaneously.

There is no lack of forethought in killing the rachni queen. It was purely a decision based on whether or not you could trust the rachni queen not to start a war again. The reapers were not part of the risk vs. reward equation at the time.

The queen is explicit in that there was an external factor in the rachni wars at the time you are forced to make a decision. This leaves one to consider that the rachni may not be inherently aggressive or warlike. I will agree that it may be safer kill the queen in order to avoid the risk but I find no logic in killing the queen other than doing it purely out of fear of trust to assess whether there truly is a threat.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 09 octobre 2010 - 03:49 .

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

No, the geth are busy fighting off the Citadel fleet.

For how much longer? And why are there so many Alliance casualties then since sovereign doesn't really shoot back yet?

I notice you didn't respond to the point regarding the value of the Asari fleet generally....

Modifié par Moiaussi, 09 octobre 2010 - 03:05 .

[Lumikki]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

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

Basicly if you play role of Specter, you should make you choise based what you think is best for galaxy, but that doesn't mean you can't do it your own personal ways. Meaning there isn't allways just one way to get something done, but multible ways. Also there is some filosophical issues. If you do harm to others, don't expect that others don't try to harm you. Violence often cause more violence. Other hand not everyting can be solved peacefully. It's long list of compromizes how to get it done. No solution is ever perfect. Then there is also how far you think you solution work, some solutions are good for short time solutions, while others are more long term solutions, but more slow to happen.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 octobre 2010 - 03:25 .

[Sajuro]

Letting the council die is a short sided and emotional response on the part of the renegade, and I was idiot enough to let the council die the first time since I thought it would end the battle with sovereign faster (though you still waited until the arms opened up) There was no way the Shepard would know that the Citadel Fleet wouldn't come and help him deal with sovereign when the arms opened up, and it is best to use your resources rather than just letting the heads of state get slaughtered. So short of meta gaming, you can't say that Shepard could choose to let the DA die since he knew the Citadel fleet would not help him when the arms opened up... but you would also know that the Fleet would still be able to defeating Sovereign so there is no reason to let the Council die other than being misinformed or being spiteful because they didn't believe you that your dreams told you giant space ships were coming to kill everyone.

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

For the first question: I don't know and it doesn't matter. The fleets are dispersed all over the nebula. I could destroy the geth attacking the DA but as I said that won't accomplish anything. The DA will flee and it will take several Citadel ships with it (there are several ships around it). I gain nothing.

You will have destroyed ships that should be relatively easy prey since they are concentrating on taking down the DA. Those ships would now be out of the battle.  You gain the flagship (which has huge symbolic and political value), greater galactic stability, and goodwill towards humanity.

If I let it blow up it dies and the ships that were escorting it continue fighting the geth. If any geth survive they'll come at our flanks but this is space: the ships can spin around while still flying towards Sovereign and gun down the geth.

From the cut scene, the DA is in serious trouble. It is barely holding on let alone fighting back. Why do you assume significant Geth casualties there?

To the second question: what in the hell are you talking about?

I made two points in the post you responded to. One was regarding the tactical situation, taking that battle as an isolated incident. The other was regarding the strategic situation, namely the political value and strategic value of the DA. This is a reaper. We need to beat it to survive, but just beating it does not ensure survival. There are a lot more out there and the theory that Humanity can somehow handle them alone is questionable at best.

I don't care how much of a threat you consider the other races. Presumably the Reapers are a much greater threat. If they are less defended it doesn't make it an easier war but a harder one, since the reapers can subvert and convert races efficiently.

The theory that the DA has strategic value is vindicated in ME2 since the Asari give up on fielding a navy if it goes down. There is also a lot more suspician of humanity, meaning less cooperation and likely much greater vulnerability to indoctrination (since reaper agents can hide the effects under the guise of scapegoating humanity).