Aller au contenu

Photo

Thoughts on the lead up to ME3: Shepard, the Paragon & Idealist (Spoilers)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
228 réponses à ce sujet

#176
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

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.


I do wonder, in this case, why none of his crew knew about it. In addition to the fact that the attack could never have been carried out had X57 not been getting moved back to the planet already, right then and there.



I love how I can so totally call it.


Well... yeah. The alternative is to choose actions based on completely intrinsic morality, and even I think that's misguided.

#177
LadyJaneGrey

LadyJaneGrey
  • Members
  • 1 647 messages
@OP  Both paragon and renegade endings should leave the player with both regrets and vindications.  I'm curious to see how it turns out for all my differently-aligned characters.B)

#178
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Xilizhra wrote...


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.

I do wonder, in this case, why none of his crew knew about it. In addition to the fact that the attack could never have been carried out had X57 not been getting moved back to the planet already, right then and there.

Are you referring to Balak's crew? Why should they have known in advance? They're just slavers who signed on for a job Balak was offering, they aren't Balak's own personal cell of commited Batarian government commandos.
 
That's actually how a lot of such piracy expeditions used to work: a captain with a ship could go in, find people willing to put in for a job, and leave without even telling them the who/what/when/where. Think of it as a more vile form of someone hiring day laborers on a street corner: it doesn't matter who, and the who don't really care about the specifics in advance so much as that they'll have a job and get a profit out of that. If the hirer springs a surprise task for them later on...

X57's movement was hardly spontanious: it was pre-planned well in advance, to start with, and was hardly a secret. It also wasn't exactly the fastest mover either: there's no barrier to Balak and/or his backers hearing about it, formulating a plan, and hire an unsuspecting crew of slavers to carry out the attack. Nothing suggests against that Balak didn't know or intend this from the start: only that his hired band didn't. By the time they found out, they were already committed.

I love how I can so totally call it.

Well... yeah. The alternative is to choose actions based on completely intrinsic morality, and even I think that's misguided.

Or, the alternative would have been just admitted that Paragons will conduct genocide when they think it's best, and leave it at that. Because you totally did.
 
And you know who else commited genocide? Hitler.

#179
CaptainZaysh

CaptainZaysh
  • Members
  • 2 603 messages
Image IPB 

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 30 novembre 2010 - 03:54 .


#180
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

That's actually how a lot of such piracy expeditions used to work: a captain with a ship could go in, find people willing to put in for a job, and leave without even telling them the who/what/when/where. Think of it as a more vile form of someone hiring day laborers on a street corner: it doesn't matter who, and the who don't really care about the specifics in advance so much as that they'll have a job and get a profit out of that. If the hirer springs a surprise task for them later on...


Then the crew apparently plots to kill him and escape. Was Balak's subordinate just particularly treacherous, in that case?



Or, the alternative would have been just admitted that Paragons will conduct genocide when they think it's best, and leave it at that. Because you totally did.


I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. Honestly, I didn't even want to kill the Thorian, but it forced the issue. The rachni queen hasn't forced anything.

#181
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Image IPB 

Nothing takes a topic onto the silly train like the H-man.

#182
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Xilizhra wrote...



That's actually how a lot of such piracy expeditions used to work: a captain with a ship could go in, find people willing to put in for a job, and leave without even telling them the who/what/when/where. Think of it as a more vile form of someone hiring day laborers on a street corner: it doesn't matter who, and the who don't really care about the specifics in advance so much as that they'll have a job and get a profit out of that. If the hirer springs a surprise task for them later on...

Then the crew apparently plots to kill him and escape. Was Balak's subordinate just particularly treacherous, in that case?

They weren't plotting to kill him and escape. They (or, rather, some under one particular leader) just wanted to escape now that the fuzz (Shepard) was there, and were willing to sell him (Balak) out for it. What you did with Balak was your problem, they just didn't want to be involved anymore.

That's a old issue with hiring by the job, and not having an established raport. It can't be called particularly treacherous because there was never any loyalty in the first place: no personal loyalty to Balak, or professional loyalty to a job they didn't sign up for.


Or, the alternative would have been just admitted that Paragons will conduct genocide when they think it's best, and leave it at that. Because you totally did.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. Honestly, I didn't even want to kill the Thorian, but it forced the issue. The rachni queen hasn't forced anything.

If you don't catch it, it's because it already flew over your head, past the outfield, and is currently approaching escape velocity.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 30 novembre 2010 - 04:15 .


#183
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

That's a old issue with hiring by the job, and not having an established raport. It can't be called particularly treacherous because there was never any loyalty in the first place: no personal loyalty to Balak, or professional loyalty to a job they didn't sign up for.


And this is an instutitionally encouraged policy with sensitive terrorist missions?



If you don't catch it, it's because it already flew over your head, past the outfield, and is currently approaching escape velocity.


Then redirect it back or something. Actually say what you mean instead of trying to trap me.

#184
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Xilizhra wrote...


That's a old issue with hiring by the job, and not having an established raport. It can't be called particularly treacherous because there was never any loyalty in the first place: no personal loyalty to Balak, or professional loyalty to a job they didn't sign up for.

And this is an instutitionally encouraged policy with sensitive terrorist missions?

What's sensitive? It's not like Balak's mission was going to stay secret after a major human colony was wiped out. If the batarian pirates responsible are caught and go 'We didn't know! We just signed up for a slaving mission!', well they can point a finger at Balak and no one else. That's a good thing, whether Balak's sponsor is the Batarian government itself, a hidden agency of the Hegemony, some ideological corporations, or whoever. Vaguely plausible deniability strikes again.


If you don't catch it, it's because it already flew over your head, past the outfield, and is currently approaching escape velocity.

Then redirect it back or something. Actually say what you mean instead of trying to trap me.

Whoosh.

Actually, it's more like whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Complete with a sputnik beeping at this point.

#185
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

What's sensitive? It's not like Balak's mission was going to stay secret after a major human colony was wiped out. If the batarian pirates responsible are caught and go 'We didn't know! We just signed up for a slaving mission!', well they can point a finger at Balak and no one else. That's a good thing, whether Balak's sponsor is the Batarian government itself, a hidden agency of the Hegemony, some ideological corporations, or whoever. Vaguely plausible deniability strikes again.


So is the Hegemony launching open attacks on the Alliance or not?



Whoosh.



Actually, it's more like whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Complete with a sputnik beeping at this point.


I think you're reaching troll territory by this point. Do you have anything of substance here at all?

#186
thegreateski

thegreateski
  • Members
  • 4 976 messages
Oh @#$% you people and your gray and gray morality. Paragon Shepard is going to save the day and everything will be butterflies and rainbows and there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.



So there!

#187
-Skorpious-

-Skorpious-
  • Members
  • 3 081 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you don't catch it, it's because it already flew over your head, past the outfield, and is currently approaching escape velocity.



Dean_the_Young wrote...

Whoosh.

Actually, it's more like whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Complete with a sputnik beeping at this point.


Dean, I am disappoint. I thought you were above using insults to achieve success in a debate.

And besides, Paragons commit genocide when the game forces them too.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 30 novembre 2010 - 05:57 .


#188
PauseforEffect

PauseforEffect
  • Members
  • 1 022 messages
Should there be more advocates for making the paragon options more logical than just wishing for them to backfire?

Careful now, if Bioware's feeling particularily spiteful, the next paragon option to hug Tali may backfire with her slapping Shepard (kidding, just kidding)

#189
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you don't catch it, it's because it already flew over your head, past the outfield, and is currently approaching escape velocity.



Dean_the_Young wrote...

Whoosh.

Actually, it's more like whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Complete with a sputnik beeping at this point.


Dean, I am disappoint. I thought you were above using insults to achieve success in a debate.

And you would be right: that's hardly an insult you just quoted, and very much lighthearted needling.

And besides, Paragons commit genocide when the game forces them too.

You're always welcome to stand back and 'await reinforcements' for any given situation.

#190
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages
[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]What's sensitive? It's not like Balak's mission was going to stay secret after a major human colony was wiped out. If the batarian pirates responsible are caught and go 'We didn't know! We just signed up for a slaving mission!', well they can point a finger at Balak and no one else. That's a good thing, whether Balak's sponsor is the Batarian government itself, a hidden agency of the Hegemony, some ideological corporations, or whoever. Vaguely plausible deniability strikes again.[/quote]
So is the Hegemony launching open attacks on the Alliance or not?[/quote]No. Because the policy of supporting instability in the traverse allows them to launch covert attacks while retaining plausible deniability, without triggering a direct war.

Here's plausible deniability warfare in a nutshell: if pirates/terrorists/insurgents did it, pirates/terrorists/insurgents did it and you can't hold me accountable. If I might have done it while looking like a pirate/terrorist/insurgent and you can't prove it, you can't hold me accountable either.

[quote]

[quote]Whoosh.

Actually, it's more like whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Complete with a sputnik beeping at this point.[/quote]
I think you're reaching troll territory by this point. Do you have anything of substance here at all?[/quote][/quote]No, but you shouldn't take it personally. It would have sounded extremely patronizing for a semantic point, so teasing you was, believe it or not, the kinder option.

If you really, really want it explained:

I disputed a previous claim that Paragons never commit genocide and pointed out that Paragons would just as well commit the awful crime of genocide, right after they rationalized it to themselves. Your immediate response was in the tone of a denial followed by, well, rationalizing the morality of a number of genocides, then followed a post later by an admission that genocide wasn't inherently bad to start with. In the space of two posts you effectively demonstrated and agreed with the very point you quoted to dispute. Without realizing it.

And this was funny, but writing out how feels a lot meaner than poking fun at you for not realizing it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 30 novembre 2010 - 10:02 .


#191
-Skorpious-

-Skorpious-
  • Members
  • 3 081 messages

-Skorpious- wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you don't catch it, it's because it already flew over your head, past the outfield, and is currently approaching escape velocity.



Dean_the_Young wrote...

Whoosh.

Actually, it's more like whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Complete with a sputnik beeping at this point.


Dean, I am disappoint. I thought you were above using insults to achieve success in a debate.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And you would be right: that's hardly an insult you just quoted, and very much lighthearted needling.

The first time yes, but when Xilizhra admitted cluelessness you continued to make a second joke at his/her expense - I wouldn't exactly call that "lighthearted needling".

Skorpious wrote...

And besides, Paragons commit genocide when the game forces them too.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You're always welcome to stand back and 'await reinforcements' for any given situation.


In real life yes, but I thought the whole point of this argument was deciding if paragon Shepard was justified in his/her committing genocide. Real life logic is irrelevant in a videogame that forces the player to make certain decisions to advance the story.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 30 novembre 2010 - 10:43 .


#192
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

I disputed a previous claim that Paragons never commit genocide and pointed out that Paragons would just as well commit the awful crime of genocide, right after they rationalized it to themselves. Your immediate response was in the tone of a denial followed by, well, rationalizing the morality of a number of genocides, then followed a post later by an admission that genocide wasn't inherently bad to start with. In the space of two posts you effectively demonstrated and agreed with the very point you quoted to dispute. Without realizing it.


Ah, yes; perhaps I believed that you were arguing for total moral equivalence when you actually weren't. All I'm saying here is that killing the Thorian while it's spitting zombies at you isn't the same thing as killing the utterly helpless rachni queen.

#193
Theoristitis

Theoristitis
  • Members
  • 100 messages
CaptainZaysh, you're welcome :)

Dean_the_Young, thank you for the correction. Yes, even a full Paragon will "commit genocide", I suppose. In the case of the Collectors and Reapers, the only way to avoid "committing genocide" would be to allow the utter destruction of humanity/all organic life respectively, which I would argue is also "committing genocide" (xenocide, I think it actually is, but semantics are semantics), because there is a quote out there that says something like "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". If Shepard has the power to do something, he has the responsibility to do something. This is the logic of the game, it's why he was made a Spectre, it's why certain paths have only one road.

With regards to the Thorian, I personally didn't "rationalize" anything to myself. I didn't have time to think through pros and cons and morality. I simply fought (also worth noting, as other posters have, that this "decision" for genocide is not one that the gamer controls - would all full Paragons stay to fight, as you point out?) to survive.

Yes, full Paragons are probably "rationalizing genocide" after a fashion. After the fact, in the case of the Thorian. In every case but the Thorian, they are avoiding galaxy-wide xenocide (and not the potential threat, mind you, but the very real and logical outcome if these enemies aren't stopped). Perhaps I should have stated, "full Paragons will never commit genocide if there is another option to take". The Thorian CAN be considered an exception from a story perspective, but NOT from a gameplay perspective, because there's no other option. It's forced. And while I'd like to avoid this road, I think we've seen that gameplay trumps story where there's conflict (dare I say every time? Maybe, I don't remember).

One more thing - with regards to the heretic geth, may I ask how reprogramming them is "genocide"? The species itself is still alive - Vigil does not call the genocide of the Protheans "complete" until all the slaves have died (which I believe is the only time that the game brings up the topic so explicitly). In fact, one could counter that, in rewriting the heretic geth, a full Paragon was freeing an enslaved race. After all, their natural state was NOT under Reaper control; Sovereign introduced a virus to enslave them. If it were possible to "rewrite" the Collectors (removing the error, not taking control of the implants), turning them into Protheans, would that be "genocide"?

I rambled here, so I apologize for any incoherency.

#194
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Xilizhra wrote...

I disputed a previous claim that Paragons never commit genocide and pointed out that Paragons would just as well commit the awful crime of genocide, right after they rationalized it to themselves. Your immediate response was in the tone of a denial followed by, well, rationalizing the morality of a number of genocides, then followed a post later by an admission that genocide wasn't inherently bad to start with. In the space of two posts you effectively demonstrated and agreed with the very point you quoted to dispute. Without realizing it.

Ah, yes; perhaps I believed that you were arguing for total moral equivalence when you actually weren't. All I'm saying here is that killing the Thorian while it's spitting zombies at you isn't the same thing as killing the utterly helpless rachni queen.

It is, however, genocide all the same.

Mind you, I dislike calling the Rachni decision genocide, because it's more akin to a single murder. You aren't wiping out hundreds of Rachni (that's the neutron purge), you're killing one, to prevent her from having bad children. Activating the neutron purge fits the general concept of genocide far more than the Rachni Queen decision, which is genocide by the same standard that killing or sterilizing any woman is murdering the unborn generations that would have followed. The Krogan genophage is infinitely more damaging in that respect than the Rachni Queen decision, and that was applied to an entire species, not just one individual.

It fits the letter, but not the spirit, of the idea of genocide.

#195
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages
The neutron purge doesn't count as genocide primarily because it's not an act aimed at wiping out a race; the continued existence of the rachni queen means that you're ensuring that the species survives. Also, it's another wholly defensive action, unlike the aggressive murder of the rachni queen.

Also, "preventing her from having bad babies," completely, is very much the spirit of genocide.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 01 décembre 2010 - 02:39 .


#196
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Theoristitis wrote...
-skiping to the relevant point to respond to-
One more thing - with regards to the heretic geth, may I ask how reprogramming them is "genocide"? The species itself is still alive - Vigil does not call the genocide of the Protheans "complete" until all the slaves have died (which I believe is the only time that the game brings up the topic so explicitly).

Genocide doesn't need to be totally successful across a species to be genocide all the same: in fact, most historic genocides weren't. Infact, genocide doesn't need to be of a race at all, by UN standards: it's more or less the destruction of a community and identity, even by non-lethal means.

Yes, the UN definition of genocide is broad enough that you don't actually need to kill someone to count as genocide.

In the context of the Heretics, rewriting the Heretics is killing who and what they were: their thoughts, their identities, their culture and beliefs, such as they were. Here's the UN's standard of genocide:

///

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group
, as such:

  • (a) Killing members of the group;
  • (B) Causing serious bodily or mental
    harm to members of the group;

  • © Deliberately inflicting on the
    group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
    destruction in whole or in part;

  • (d) Imposing measures intended to
    prevent births within the group;
  • (e) Forcibly transferring children of
    the group to another group
    .
Rewriting the Heretics is intended to destroy the Heretics as a faction, and leads into definitions b (forcibly altering the minds of the group), c (removing the Heretics from the universe), d (preventing the propegation/production of any more Heretics), and e (mind-wiping all Geth, new and old, and transfering them to the 'true' geth).


In fact, one could counter that, in rewriting the heretic geth, a full Paragon was freeing an enslaved race. After all, their natural state was NOT under Reaper control; Sovereign introduced a virus to enslave them.

No, Sovereign did not. Legion specifically refutes this if Shepard asks. It doesn't even make sense, because there would be no logical reason Sovereign couldn't or wouldn't have used the virus to capture the rest of the Geth at the same time.

Legion, both post-recruitment and post-loyalty, is clear about it. Heretics came to their own conclusions that were accurate for them. Two is less than three, versus three is less than four. It was a frame of reference difference: the virus only existed now, as the Heretics finally finished it. You aren't freeing an enslaved race: you're killing millions/billions because they disagree with you and want to kill you. It is genocide. It's also not especially morally reprehensible to defend yourself. As Legion put it, they chose a path that made co-existence possible.

If it were possible to "rewrite" the Collectors (removing the error, not taking control of the implants), turning them into Protheans, would that be "genocide"?

It would certainly be a genocide of the Collectors. It would be the beginning of something new and better, but who and what the Collectors were would be gone forever. That's a genocide. That's also a good thing in this case. It's also a genisis of something else, which is even better.

#197
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Xilizhra wrote...

The neutron purge doesn't count as genocide primarily because it's not an act aimed at wiping out a race

Sure it is. Especially if you do it after the Queen decision. Genocide doesn't have to wipe out an entire race to be genocide all the same, it's about wiping out a lot of people based on their group.

; the continued existence of the rachni queen means that you're ensuring that the species survives. Also, it's another wholly defensive action, unlike the aggressive murder of the rachni queen.

You could simply avoid them and leave them alone, remember.

Also, "preventing her from having bad babies," completely, is very much the spirit of genocide.

We'll have to differ. In my mind, genocide is and should be thought of as focusing on killing the people who are alive now. In many, most, cases, genocide is a tool to get people away from lands you don't want them to be on. Your own, your coveted, whatever. It's less about the population itself, and more about wanting what others have, and the genocided group is in the way. Cases like the Holocaust where an ethnic group is wanted dead in all places forever are the exception , not the norm.

'Preventing from babies' also opens genocide into ridiculous and unsustainable avenues of consideration, because it counts potential generations that don't yet exist. By taking that standard, any action that inhibits procreation is effectively genocide, because it stops/delays more births, which affects having more births, which is just as effectively killing/stopping the births of those future generations.

Naturally this isn't a sustainable standard of genocide. It inflates the word to be meaningless, and genocide is already stretched in places as it is.

#198
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Sure it is. Especially if you do it after the Queen decision. Genocide doesn't have to wipe out an entire race to be genocide all the same, it's about wiping out a lot of people based on their group.


"Group" in this case being "those trying to kill everyone in the facility." Just because they're all members of one species doesn't make it genocide.



You could simply avoid them and leave them alone, remember.


In which case the facility would be nuked from orbit, thus having them all die anyway, plus any civilians left alive in the place.



'Preventing from babies' also opens genocide into ridiculous and unsustainable avenues of consideration, because it counts potential generations that don't yet exist. By taking that standard, any action that inhibits procreation is effectively genocide, because it stops/delays more births, which affects having more births, which is just as effectively killing/stopping the births of those future generations.


You missed the operative word "completely," meaning that the purpose of this action is to prevent any rachni from being born ever again.

#199
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 683 messages

Xilizhra wrote...

Sure it is. Especially if you do it after the Queen decision. Genocide doesn't have to wipe out an entire race to be genocide all the same, it's about wiping out a lot of people based on their group.

"Group" in this case being "those trying to kill everyone in the facility." Just because they're all members of one species doesn't make it genocide.

Actually, it does. Genocide carries a lot of moral weight, but it's definition is rather impartial to context. Genocide on the basis that the genocided group is actively trying to kill you is still genocide.


You could simply avoid them and leave them alone, remember.

In which case the facility would be nuked from orbit, thus having them all die anyway, plus any civilians left alive in the place.

That's someone else's call to commit genocide (if they didn't evacuate the civilians: I neither know nor is it relevant). You, Shepard, are in that case under no obligation or impetus to commit genocide.

'Preventing from babies' also opens genocide into ridiculous and unsustainable avenues of consideration, because it counts potential generations that don't yet exist. By taking that standard, any action that inhibits procreation is effectively genocide, because it stops/delays more births, which affects having more births, which is just as effectively killing/stopping the births of those future generations.

You missed the operative word "completely," meaning that the purpose of this action is to prevent any rachni from being born ever again.

Didn't miss, changed tracks slightly onto a weakness in the argument. Genocide doesn't need to be complete to be genocide, remember, and the same would apply by the logic you were providing (that those prevented from being born would be counted as part of the genocide as well).

#200
-Skorpious-

-Skorpious-
  • Members
  • 3 081 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

. It's also not especially morally reprehensible to defend yourself. As Legion put it, they chose a path that made co-existence possible.



Are you trying to say that defending yourself from a race that seeks genocide against you and their own kind is not deserving of hostile action? That is completely and utterly insane.