228 réponses à ce sujet

[Count Viceroy]

Renegade != Human dominance

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

As a pure Paragon, I can think of no situation in which I haven't considered ends. I simply desire the ends of galactic harmony over that of human dominance.

Harmony is achieved via order, and order is achieved via dominance. Ask the Reapers about that.

[Xilizhra]

And we have an established order, with no one species claiming full dominance. Obviously it's not perfect, but better than humanity's single-species dominance.

[Zulu_DFA]

We have an established order with the Reapers' dominance.

[Rekkampum]

Elite Midget wrote...

Those are Renegade options. It's easier to compare a Renegade with Renegade Options since a true Renegade picks all of the Renegade Options anyway.

In your opinion, which is perfectly valid but not definitive. I however, prefer more complexity to both types of characters I have over partisanship.

Modifié par Rekkampum, 23 novembre 2010 - 10:30 .

[Xilizhra]

Alas, that would lead to far too much death.

[rma2110]

Renegades get get all the funny dialogue and literally get away with murder. Isn't that enough? Let Paragon Shepard be the big damn hero he is supposed to be. The Renegade can be the badass who shops the reapers single handed while the paragon gets a little help from friends.

[Arijharn]

ReiSilver wrote...

Addressing the council and collector base ending, this is exactly what I meant when I said these decisions are setting up for renegade=human dominance, paragon=try and save all species.

The problem is this though; that doesn't work. You can be an otherwise full paragon and save the base, you can be an otherwise full paragon and destroy the base, you can be an otherwise full renegade and save the base and you can be an otherwise full renegade and destroy the base.

All of these should reward the player in some capacity. I'm a paragade if anything with a full paragon bar, a half full renegade bar, I have saved the council, saved the rachni, kept the genophage cure, put an autistic boy back into a creepy machine, will seek a resolution to the geth-quarian conflict (if able), placed Anderson on the throne (for what good that's worth) and yet I keep the base.

The problem is this as well; being a renegade doesn't (or rather; shouldn't) automatically shoe-horn you into being a pro humanist Cerberus sympathiser. What it should mean is that a renegade doesn't get swayed (or tries not to get swayed) by the moral high ground. If the choice is between saving a cute puppy or saving a cute kitten, the renegade will save the drowning boy.... He wont try to save the cute puppy, the cute kitten and save the drowning boy. I'm exaggerating somewhat of course, but while a renegade does get the best lines in the game, the Renegade isn't going to just kowtow to people who he feels is wasting his time.

[Elite Midget]

Than that makes you a Paranade or a Renegon.



In Bioware's made it clear what a Renegade and a Paragon option was. Red and Blue. Thus when you consider a Renegade, in Bioware terms, it's those that always pick the Renegade option and vice versa for Paragons.

[ReiSilver]

Arijharn wrote...

ReiSilver wrote...

Addressing the council and collector base ending, this is exactly what I meant when I said these decisions are setting up for renegade=human dominance, paragon=try and save all species.

The problem is this though; that doesn't work. You can be an otherwise full paragon and save the base, you can be an otherwise full paragon and destroy the base, you can be an otherwise full renegade and save the base and you can be an otherwise full renegade and destroy the base.

All of these should reward the player in some capacity. I'm a paragade if anything with a full paragon bar, a half full renegade bar, I have saved the council, saved the rachni, kept the genophage cure, put an autistic boy back into a creepy machine, will seek a resolution to the geth-quarian conflict (if able), placed Anderson on the throne (for what good that's worth) and yet I keep the base.

The problem is this as well; being a renegade doesn't (or rather; shouldn't) automatically shoe-horn you into being a pro humanist Cerberus sympathiser. What it should mean is that a renegade doesn't get swayed (or tries not to get swayed) by the moral high ground. If the choice is between saving a cute puppy or saving a cute kitten, the renegade will save the drowning boy.... He wont try to save the cute puppy, the cute kitten and save the drowning boy. I'm exaggerating somewhat of course, but while a renegade does get the best lines in the game, the Renegade isn't going to just kowtow to people who he feels is wasting his time.

The problem there is the cherry picking, people obviously want to do that but when arguments about renegade vs paragon come up one has to assume all the choices on either side. The game rewards people for playing to the extreme one side or the other so the writes have to be cosistent in the veiws of each extreme so that people can know what to expect when making their choice
My main is a paragon but I'm still going to head-butt a krogan because the circumstance shows it as an appropriate thing to do and it makes sense for the shepard I'm playing.
You can play your shepard any way you want but if you want to play in a way that encourges human dominance your going to be choosing renegade options, the writers want to put that in there and it doesn't fit in paragon and it is too extreme a view to put in the middle, so yes while the renegade gives you the option of snubbing your nose at authority and violently eliminating people you feel need to be, it is also the route you take if you want to set humans up for dominance and things like giving the base to cerberus and getting a human lead council point to that being on the table in the future.

Just to be clear I hope bioware is going to have way more then two possible endings, I hope there will be many that can reflect people who want to play to extremes and people who want to mix it up.  I hope there are different scenarios for people who saved the council but killed the rachni and vice versa. I hope that Bioware continues to operate in a way where as long as you do enough preperation beforehand the Reapers will be stopped no matter if the council lived or died, no matter whether the base was saved or destroyed thereby no one can say which was 'obviously the right choice'. The choices from previous games should affect different amounts of casualties, shep alive/dead, characters we know and care about alive/dead and with different political and galactic stability posibilities after the fact.

[PauseforEffect]

There are moments in ME2 where it is necessary to take renegade actions. Several instances like Archangel's recruitment where sabotaging stacked odds made sense, Tuchanka, Miranda's loyalty mission, Interrogating Kelham, need I say more?

The paragon options are not naive. Shepard would never make it as a soldier if one wanted to be an idealist. The definitions of a paragon/renegade were made clear and if one wanted to be violent more often, fine, nothing wrong with that.

But backstabbing a fellow teammate like Samara for a serial killer? I can understand how someone's just trying to save their own hide, but that's pure cowardice to me.

Sometimes paragons seem to have more backbone than the renegades

[PauseforEffect]

Sorry, double post

Modifié par PrimalEden, 26 novembre 2010 - 02:37 .

[Arijharn]

Maybe it's the fault for BioWare for putting all those 'cherry picking' options in, but they did so (fully cognizant of the difficulties I'm sure) so I'll hold them to it.



While it's true that the extreme decisions are usually renegade or paragon decisions, they aren't all like that. I remember when you encounter the possibility of the genophage cure you get 4 response options, two paragon type responses (I believe on the the 'right' side of the wheel? Or the top... can't remember) and two renegade type responses as well.



My point being is that because they've already given us the power of choice, it would make sense for them, despite it's difficulty, to continue that trend.

[Nimrodell]

Just one question for those who choose to keep the CB... how do you know that Cerberus teams won't finish like dr Chandana's one, indoctrinated? I just can't forget that one entry from Reaper IFF mission where you hear that even the dead god can dream and ofc last entries from dr Manuel Cayce that he is being indoctrinated too on Prothean dig site.



I always destroy the CB - my renegade is not Cerberus guy nor Alliance one and I always do that for the reason stated above. To be honest, I don't even see where's logic in making either decision being paragon or renegade for that matter, it just has no sense for me... fast choosing either option has nothing to do with morality for me. Shepard has no knowledge on Greyson, but Shepard has his/hers own knowledge from Rana Tanoptis, Saren, Reaper IFF, Firewalker missions and Vigil and when TIM contacts my renegade or paragon Shepard I never think about - I like Cerberus or I don't like 'em or I'm gonna make a big moral stand... my thoughts are always: What the sheit? I know this could help but I've seen what indoctrination does and I ain't going to make the same mistake as Protheans or Cerberus playing with fire, having sleeper Reaper agents like dr O'Loy... not going to happen, period. No one gives me assurance it won't happen with future Cerberus teams dispatched there... so I simply destroy that base because I consider it dangerous with not even one thought on human dominance or galactic harmony. So, basically, that's the stupid thing with either paragon or renegade choices, some of them just can't be considered as determination of your moral stands. That bothered me with final choice in ME1 too, forcing stupid moral stands when decision on survival has to be made in a split second... many paragons would choose to save lives of billions by sacrificing one ship like Destiny Ascention in RL not because they have some 'evil' genes after all in them or they wish for human dominance... it's just, there's desperate battle going on with species that is highly superior, many of my forces are already destroyed and since I want to save organic life and I can't see the future my intentions on sacrificing the Council can be noble actually, because I was concerned, lost the nerve for one second, all seemed lost... Same goes for saving the Council and renegades, it has nothing to do with moral stands... maybe renegade Shepard made that decision to show that bastard of Sovereign that he wasn't joking on Virmire, and that s/he is not even afraid of Reapers, teasing him thus sacrificing many human lives just in spite.



If you ask me, last major decisions should not be marked by paragon or renegade pathways because it doesn't work that way in RL.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

rma2110 wrote...

Renegades get get all the funny dialogue and literally get away with murder. Isn't that enough? Let Paragon Shepard be the big damn hero he is supposed to be.

No, the title of big damn hero can only apply to a paragade/renegon like Mal Reynolds

[Xilizhra]

If you ask me, last major decisions should not be marked by paragon or renegade pathways because it doesn't work that way in RL.

Thankfully, this is not RL, but a video game.

That aside, Paragon and Renegade are simply ways to describe actions, not universal moral labels.

[mosor]

Xilizhra wrote...

And we have an established order, with no one species claiming full dominance. Obviously it's not perfect, but better than humanity's single-species dominance.

Last time we had that on earth was 1913. You know balance of power and all that crap. The result? Two world wars and 100 million dead.

[DarkSeraphym]

PrimalEden wrote...

There are moments in ME2 where it is necessary to take renegade actions. Several instances like Archangel's recruitment where sabotaging stacked odds made sense, Tuchanka, Miranda's loyalty mission, Interrogating Kelham, need I say more?
The paragon options are not naive. Shepard would never make it as a soldier if one wanted to be an idealist. The definitions of a paragon/renegade were made clear and if one wanted to be violent more often, fine, nothing wrong with that.
But backstabbing a fellow teammate like Samara for a serial killer? I can understand how someone's just trying to save their own hide, but that's pure cowardice to me.
Sometimes paragons seem to have more backbone than the renegades

Having a Renegade kill Samara over Morinth makes sense. Samara is bound by her Justicar Code to kill those who break her code, which it is highly likely that Renegade Shepard would be doing on a daily basis. As a result, Samara's code would demand her to kill Shepard once the mission is over. Likewise, Samara also represents a threat to the crew given some of the "loose" morals of the crew like Thane, Garrus, and Jack after the mission is complete.

Morinth, on the other hand, is an Ardat Yakshi and as such has a much looser spectrum of moral ethics, Likewise, the only interest she has in harming Shepard is by melding with him and the only way you are even going to get the option is if she lacks the power to dominate Shepard from the start. She might have an interest in harming some of the crew given the fact that some of them are definitely fascinating and unique individuals, but as she mentions in the game "They aren't you." so it's likely she'll just avoid them as you are the true prey that she is interested in.

Thus, as a Renegade, I am forced to choose between two people who want to kill Shepard: one of which will attempt to do it with her biotics and the other by sleeping Shepard. Given the fact that the Renegade speech options for Shepard hint at an arrogance that she cannot touch Shepard as he will not sleep with her, it makes logical sense as to why ReneShep would choose Morinth over Samara.

EDIT: I also couldn't help but notice your choice of words towards Morinth as being a serial killer. While I am by no means going to dispute this, Samara is definitely not any "higher" of an individual so to speak. She eliminates people who break a code that is known only to a select few known as Justicars without question and regardless of the consequences of her decisions, for example when she attempted to kill Nihlus after he killed an unarmed civilian, despite his legal right to do so. Samara is the Mass Effect equivalent of Light from Deathnote, mercilessly slaughtering people that break a draconian moral code that for all intents and purposes is her own without question. Criminal justice systems based upon such ideals today are generally not seen in a positive light by humanitarian groups.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[Xilizhra]

mosor wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And we have an established order, with no one species claiming full dominance. Obviously it's not perfect, but better than humanity's single-species dominance.

Last time we had that on earth was 1913. You know balance of power and all that crap. The result? Two world wars and 100 million dead.

It helps when the balance isn't held by people who hate each other, correct.

[mosor]

Xilizhra wrote...

mosor wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And we have an established order, with no one species claiming full dominance. Obviously it's not perfect, but better than humanity's single-species dominance.

Last time we had that on earth was 1913. You know balance of power and all that crap. The result? Two world wars and 100 million dead.

It helps when the balance isn't held by people who hate each other, correct.

Well in all fairness, the English, Germans, Italians,  Russians and Austrians didn't hate each other pre WW1. The only nation states that had any animosity toward each other were the Germans and French over the Franco Prussian war. Nation states were competitive, but there wasn't any hatred. Hell, the rulers of Great Britian, Germany, and Russia all had Queen Victoria as a grandmother.

[AdamNW]

You say that like all Paragon options are bad.

[PauseforEffect]

DarkSeraphym, thank you. I do agree that the Justicar Code is up for debate in its effectiveness in modern society. I remain stubborn that Morinth is a worse choice compared to Samara.

Can't help but notice a sense of foreboding in Samara's last words of Shepard coming to regret that decision.

Nice comparison, by the way.

Bioware's done excellent work if people are debating this months from now

[PauseforEffect]

Darn these double posts!!!

Modifié par PrimalEden, 26 novembre 2010 - 02:34 .

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
As a pure Paragon, I can think of no situation in which I haven't considered ends. I simply desire the ends of galactic harmony over that of human dominance.

And what if "galactic harmony" is incompatible with survival? I get the impression quite a few Paragons would rather ignore such a contradiction should it exist and pretend to live in a delusional reality...

[RiouHotaru]

I find this argument somewhat tedious. Renegades beat up, shoot, intimidate, threaten, and otherwise act like jerkwads towards EVERYONE, and want the same things the Paragons get? Excuse me? Don't expect pats on the back and praise for acting like a snob.