228 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

"Make themselves nondangerous"? That's rather absurd because every species is dangerous. The Krogan already have a DMZ forced upon them, is a Genophage heaped ontop of that just? Humans have a 'litany of bloodshed' to our name as well, are we next? Should we be next?

Human aggression isn't inherently linked to an absurdly high birthrate. Off of Tuchanka, the krogan are a biologically invasive species that cannot live adequately in foreign environments without destroying them, as they're too freakin' tough to have their birthrates trimmed by anything other than Tuchanka's natural hazards.

Left unchecked, the rachni have the capability to wipe out the Citadel species. Allowing them to secretly develop this capability and then hoping they will not develop the intent to use it is dangerously irresponsible to say the very least.

Recall that in the Rachni Wars, the Council lacked a terribly militarily-capable species until they uplifted the krogan. Now, they have both turians and humans. Yes, their power could be a threat, but this leads to the idea that part of politics is making sure that no one ever ascends to your level of power if you're on top, and I find this idea dubious. Especially if it's ensured by genocide.

If you cannot see the potential for future conflict here then you are a fool. Your idea that you can have a chat with a leader and confidently predict peace reminds me of Chamberlain and FDR cozying up with Hitler and Stalin.

First of all, this is historically absurd; Britain was not at all militarily capable when Hitler was rising to power, and a war right then would have been disastrous and terribly unpopular. In fact, Chamberlain used the peace he was given to start a major military buildup so that when the time to fight Hitler came, Britain was actually capable of fighting.

Second, and again, I have no reason to believe that she will be aggressive. I won't wipe out an entire species based on little-known threat potential.

[CaptainZaysh]

Despite my last post about how releasing the rachni is such a terrible idea, I actually think Bioware is largely playing it right by being scarce with punishments for making the "wrong" decisions. Renegades: is it *really* sensible game design to punish Paragons for making questionable judgement calls?



I think the way we have it now is pretty good. I get no rachni threat, Xili gets the rachni as his happy space friends, and we both get to enjoy the game rather than be taught a lesson.

[Xilizhra]

"Her" happy space friends. Otherwise I agree with you.

[Arijharn]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
Renegades: is it *really* sensible game design to punish Paragons for making questionable judgement calls?

The only thing we want is a bit of balance between the gameplay philosophies. As it is, I feel that the paragons have made so many blind leaps of faith that they really need some decision to turn out, if not biting them in the ass outright, then resulting in a less satisfactory outcome, if only because the real world doesn't work like that either.

Obviously, I don't think all decisions should turn out like that, but I think a nice sort of example that a pure paragon decision that backfires would be (wait for it) higher than expected losses when fighting any remnant Geth forces if Nirali Bhatia's body wasn't kept for study or higher than expected losses (although counterbalanced somewhat by the sheer mass of forces available) if the Collector Base was destroyed. The idea is that everyone has sweated and bled together, but the cost in life was huge, but comraderie is strong amongst the survivors. Obviously there'd be flip sides to the extreme's or Renegade's 'suffer' in some other manner as well.

The thing is, I can't help but feel as if in ME2 that BioWare seems to want to make it so rainbows shine out of a paragon's ass.

[Xilizhra]

Erm... first of all, the decision about Bhatia's body isn't a Paragon one; you can get Paragon or Renegade points for either outcome. Second, I don't believe that most of these leaps of faith have been blind; there are numerous logic-based explanations for all Paragon decisions that I know of, plenty of which I've provided myself.

[CaptainZaysh]

Xilizhra wrote...

Second, I don't believe that most of these leaps of faith have been blind; there are numerous logic-based explanations for all Paragon decisions that I know of, plenty of which I've provided myself.

Xili, you are going to have to accept that your logic isn't sound for some of us.

[Xilizhra]

I don't really care if you agree with my logic so long as you acknowledge that I'm using logic and not simple faith.

[CaptainZaysh]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't really care if you agree with my logic so long as you acknowledge that I'm using logic and not simple faith.

Sorry but to be logically sound an argument must be based only on warranted assumptions (i.e. assumptions that are not false or questionable).

For example, your Balak argument is (I think) based on the false assumptions that (1) since he is the architect of a failed terrorist attack, he will not have enough influence to mount a follow up attack in the future and (2) he is now on a watch list.

If those assumptions were warranted then your argument - that it's safe to let Balak escape - would indeed be logically sound.  However since we know those assumptions to be false (because 9/11 was Khalid Sheik Mohammed's second attack on the World Trade Centre, and that attacks have been carried out by terrorists who are on watch lists) your conclusion is based on unwarranted assumptions and is therefore not logically sound.

Not saying your conclusion is necessarily wrong, but it's not supported by logic.

EDIT typo

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 28 novembre 2010 - 05:55 .

[Xilizhra]

Actually, it was based on the assumption that he's the architect of a failed, unsupported, impromptu terrorist attack based largely on lucky timing.

[CaptainZaysh]

Yes, which is obviously a premise based on several questionable assumptions. For your argument to be logically sound you would need to demonstrate your assumptions were correct.

[PauseforEffect]

It could be argued the same way for renegade decisions relying on assumptions than logic. Xilizhra has cited some very well explained reasons, and though some people may not agree, it has made sense beyond just blind faith.

[CaptainZaysh]

The Renegade arguments seem to rely on fewer leaps of faith in general. Staying with X57, the typical Paragon argument is that it's safe to let Balak escape. The typical Renegade argument is that it's dangerous to let Balak escape.



The Paragon argument is built on the belief that Balak will not be in a position to carry out further terrorist attacks after escaping X57. To justify this belief you need to invent lots of justifications (because the idea that a freed and unrepentant terrorist will live peacefully in the future is unlikely on the surface).



The Renegade argument is built on a much safer belief, which is that terrorists commit acts of terror until they are apprehended. Ergo Balak, who is a terrorist, will strike again.



You need much more blind faith to accept the Paragon position than you do the Renegade one.



Same with the rachni queen. Paragon position: the rachni can be trusted not to invade us in the future. Renegade position: we have no idea whether or not they'll invade us in the future.



You need blind faith to accept the Paragons are right about the rachni. The Renegade position doesn't require that.



I'm not saying the Renegade actions that follow are necessarily right - I'm especially doubtful about the X57 one, and I can accept that completing the genocide of the rachni is a harsh response to having a lack of data - but you need to make more leaps of faith to be a Paragon.

[Encarmine]

im nolt sure if this is the right place to post, but i think in ME3 we will be using the Shadow Brochers forces/recources to get everything done.



I think Shep will walk from Cerberus, the Alliance will have tarnished him due to cerb connections so he will become Co-Leader of the extreamly powerfull SB network. And using those contacts, it will be down to shep to Unite the Mass Effect Nations against the Reapers, all while running around trying to unlock the secret of the Protheans 'Anti Reaper Gun Thingy'. It wouldnt surprise me, if it turns out the protheans made humans for the specific purpose of defeating the Reapers one day. I bet Earth turns out to be a big anti reaper las0r

[CaptainZaysh]

I really hope ME3 is not yet another game about persuading people the Reapers are real. I'd like it to start with the Reaper invasion and for the whole game to be about defeating them directly, against a backdrop of a desperate galactic war with billions of casualties.

[Xilizhra]

I wish we knew more about how batarian terrorists worked from the game, but the lack of information does make me think that this isn't a Hegemony-supported policy, and that Balak was acting on his own.

As for the rachni queen, the Paragon path can acknowledge that the decision is a risk, but simply think that it's not big enough to justify wiping out an entire species.

[Dean_the_Young]

The lack of information about how the Batarians have long had a policy of supporting slavers and pirates who have made a number of attempts and sacked and razed entire colonies?

[Xilizhra]

The ones conspicuously missing any information on planet-sized terrorist attacks, yes.

[Theoristitis]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
Same with the rachni queen. Paragon position: the rachni can be trusted not to invade us in the future. Renegade position: we have no idea whether or not they'll invade us in the future.

Actually, the general position is that we have no idea whether or not they'll invade us in the future. This is fact, not really one side or the other, and is irrelevant to morality.
The difference between Paragon and Renegade is that a full Paragon will never commit genocide even if it risks war later (never do "wrong", period), and a full Renegade will commit genocide if it means avoiding the risk of war later (a sacrifice for the "greater good"). Each is based on each's own system of logic. Pure logic would dictate that, without any further available information, you cannot make a "correct" action, and neither is truly logical, both requiring certain elements of "faith". One decision or the other can be considered logical depending on what you believe, with the key word here being "believe".
The Queen could be telling the truth; the Queen could be lying. I don't believe there's an objectively logical choice (if that makes sense), because any being with a moral compass will think, process logic, in a direction skewed by that compass.

[Archereon]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd want my Paragon to see the devastation he caused by being too idealistic, I want to see planets burn and entire people get indoctrinated. Though he'd win and the galaxy would be at peace (with everybody praising Shepard), I'd like to know that the galaxy suffered for my choices.

On the other side of the spectrum, I want my Renegade to be the ultimate hero in terms of stopping the Reapers. A lot less damage but with a more fragile universe in the end.

Some decisions that should backfire

Rewriting the heretics: The Reapers deploy a new virus that converts all Geth to heretics.  While the Geth turn evil either way (or seemingly remain evil if you didn't recruit legion/do his loyalty mission), if you blew them up, you have quite a few less geth to worry about.

Saving the Rachni: The Reapers capture the queen and indoctrinate her, you have to fight Rachni now.

Leaving Zaeed to "die" (yes, I know its technically renegade): He survives the explosion, and is PISSED!

[CaptainZaysh]

Theoristitis wrote...

Actually, the general position is that we have no idea whether or not they'll invade us in the future. This is fact, not really one side or the other, and is irrelevant to morality.
The difference between Paragon and Renegade is that a full Paragon will never commit genocide even if it risks war later (never do "wrong", period), and a full Renegade will commit genocide if it means avoiding the risk of war later (a sacrifice for the "greater good"). Each is based on each's own system of logic. Pure logic would dictate that, without any further available information, you cannot make a "correct" action, and neither is truly logical, both requiring certain elements of "faith". One decision or the other can be considered logical depending on what you believe, with the key word here being "believe".
The Queen could be telling the truth; the Queen could be lying. I don't believe there's an objectively logical choice (if that makes sense), because any being with a moral compass will think, process logic, in a direction skewed by that compass.

Thanks, this post actually helped me clarify my thinking on this issue.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

The ones conspicuously missing any information on planet-sized terrorist attacks, yes.

The Skyllian Blitz and Torfan are two known examples of the affects of an environment and conditions that the Batarian Hegemony supports. 

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Theoristitis wrote...

Actually, the general position is that we have no idea whether or not they'll invade us in the future. This is fact, not really one side or the other, and is irrelevant to morality.
The difference between Paragon and Renegade is that a full Paragon will never commit genocide even if it risks war later (never do "wrong", period), and a full Renegade will commit genocide if it means avoiding the risk of war later (a sacrifice for the "greater good"). Each is based on each's own system of logic. Pure logic would dictate that, without any further available information, you cannot make a "correct" action, and neither is truly logical, both requiring certain elements of "faith". One decision or the other can be considered logical depending on what you believe, with the key word here being "believe".
The Queen could be telling the truth; the Queen could be lying. I don't believe there's an objectively logical choice (if that makes sense), because any being with a moral compass will think, process logic, in a direction skewed by that compass.

Thanks, this post actually helped me clarify my thinking on this issue.

One minor correction: a Paragon won't do genocide until they've convinced themselves upto it. The Thorian, the Collectors, and (going by various considerations of how reprogramming the Heretics is effectively killing them), the Heretic Geth are all groups any Shepard has genocided the hell out of. Preparations for the Reaper genocide(s) are also ongoing.

[Xilizhra]

The Skyllian Blitz and Torfan are two known examples of the affects of an environment and conditions that the Batarian Hegemony supports.

The Blitz was whipped up by a human Terminus crime lord whose name escapes me at the moment; I admit I don't know as much about Torfan.

One minor correction: a Paragon won't do genocide until they've convinced themselves upto it. The Thorian, the Collectors, and (going by various considerations of how reprogramming the Heretics is effectively killing them), the Heretic Geth are all groups any Shepard has genocided the hell out of. Preparations for the Reaper genocide(s) are also ongoing.

The Thorian was a purely defensive action, as opposed to the aggression potentially shown to the rachni queen. The Collectors are only as alive as husks. The heretic geth weren't actually killed (more makes up an individual than its position on one thing). The Reapers... well, my Shepard is only planning on doing what's necessary for defense.

[Xilizhra]

Though, regarding the Collectors... technically, you might be right about their being another solution, but we'd need to call in a fleet of Cerberus ships to capture and relocate as many Collectors as possible before blowing up the base. Then again, it would be possible and might even produce interesting results, though it seems unlikely that the race can be saved; I suppose neither Shepard nor Bioware thought about that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Skyllian Blitz and Torfan are two known examples of the affects of an environment and conditions that the Batarian Hegemony supports.

The Blitz was whipped up by a human Terminus crime lord whose name escapes me at the moment; I admit I don't know as much about Torfan.

I don't think he was actually human: he has slightly sharper ears and a strange skin tone we never see on any other human. I think the implicatation was that he was a minor Terminus alien.

Torfan was nearly razed by Batarian slavers, to the Alliance's inability to stop.

Regardless, the Batarians have a policy of supporting and maintaining the environment and climate for catastrophic attacks on Alliance colonies. X57 is just a another in a long series of events from that climate: the Javeline Missile Crises in ME2, where half a colony gets blown away no matter what you do, is another.

One minor correction: a Paragon won't do genocide until they've convinced themselves upto it. The Thorian, the Collectors, and (going by various considerations of how reprogramming the Heretics is effectively killing them), the Heretic Geth are all groups any Shepard has genocided the hell out of. Preparations for the Reaper genocide(s) are also ongoing.

The Thorian was a purely defensive action, as opposed to the aggression potentially shown to the rachni queen. The Collectors are only as alive as husks. The heretic geth weren't actually killed (more makes up an individual than its position on one thing). The Reapers... well, my Shepard is only planning on doing what's necessary for defense.

I love how I can so totally call it.