179 réponses à ce sujet

[Sherbet Lemon]

Dexi wrote...

If I destroy that data, EVERYONE that died, DIED IN VAIN. They died for nothing...

By keeping the data, their deaths have a reason... they at least died for a greater good.
 

Not only died, but SACRIFICED.  While we only see one dead Krogan woman, I would bet that there were more Clan Weyrloc women who probably volunteered to participate.  That exchange between paragon Shepard and Mordin when you discover her body is one of my three favorite moments in Mass Effect 2.  Very touching.

I see where you're coming from OP but I will tell you how my main Paragon approached the decision.  She looked at it as something she owed Wrex.  She saw the taintedness of it and decided that she couldn't bear the thought of destroying a potential cure for the genophage again.  She didn't want to justify Maleon's (sp?) methods, but to destroy would mean that so many died for the sake of nothing.

Here's the thing.  Principle is fine and dandy and certainly a strong moral compass is necessary to navigate the world; but choosing good get mired down in the reality of the situation.  If you believe in a metaphysical and symbolic soul, the good choices, the choices of virtue often get sullied by our very nature, by the fallacy of human behavior. 

Humanity is certainly  not infallible and is certainly subject to self-centeredness and selfishness.  I see that imperfection and corrosion mar a good deal of what we touch so therefore I think the paragon choice in this decision one those moments where principle and virtue become a good deal more complex than initially perceived.

[JrayM16]

Village Idiot wrote...

Dexi wrote...

If I destroy that data, EVERYONE that died, DIED IN VAIN. They died for nothing...

By keeping the data, their deaths have a reason... they at least died for a greater good.
 

Not only died, but SACRIFICED.  While we only see one dead Krogan woman, I would bet that there were more Clan Weyrloc women who probably volunteered to participate.  That exchange between paragon Shepard and Mordin when you discover her body is one of my three favorite moments in Mass Effect 2.  Very touching.

I see where you're coming from OP but I will tell you how my main Paragon approached the decision.  She looked at it as something she owed Wrex.  She saw the taintedness of it and decided that she couldn't bear the thought of destroying a potential cure for the genophage again.  She didn't want to justify Maleon's (sp?) methods, but to destroy would mean that so many died for the sake of nothing.

Here's the thing.  Principle is fine and dandy and certainly a strong moral compass is necessary to navigate the world; but choosing good get mired down in the reality of the situation.  If you believe in a metaphysical and symbolic soul, the good choices, the choices of virtue often get sullied by our very nature, by the fallacy of human behavior. 

Humanity is certainly  not infallible and is certainly subject to self-centeredness and selfishness.  I see that imperfection and corrosion mar a good deal of what we touch so therefore I think the paragon choice in this decision one those moments where principle and virtue become a good deal more complex than initially perceived.

[BaneTheSpecTRe]

I strongly disagree with the OP. Not in an "I'm so offended" way of being in strong disagreement, simply a "I don't agree", but it's strong. =P



Anyway, to not use this data COULD send a message to anyone else saying "don't do this kind of research, because we won't even use the data", the sacrifices of the people, the victims would go to waste. Perfectly valid data that could prevent sickness or other bad things, and we won't use it because people were harmed in the discovery of it? I'd be mad. As a victim, I'd be mad because whatever I sacrificed is sure to have been terrible, and it shouldn't have been done. But, it was done and if nothing comes of it, it was done for nothing.



Regardless, I've seen some perfectly valid points in this topic, and can easily see the other side of the argument. I don't agree, but I can see how I might.

[Destroy Raiden_]

You're assuming Mordin's student was trying to wipe out the human test subject via those experiments that would later be used to wipe out all of human kind or alter their genetic code to be more in line with whatever his student thought to be the better gene pool so comparing Melon to any experimentation done by the **** party is out and out blowing it out of proportion.

[Inverness Moon]

I completely disagree with OP, and I've also read several of his posts where he keeps trying to push his argument claiming people are missing the point while not listening to others. This discussion is not mature and is going nowhere.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 08 février 2011 - 04:30 .

[Crackle06]

***Maybe Spoilers Sorry if so***


Okay here is my out look on all this. This Paragon, Renegade option is set up in the exact way as your final decision at the Suicide Mission but with opposite effects. The side effects for both are the same but give opposite points so my question is who saved data and then used Renegade later and vise versa. Because its the same theme and morality issue in my opinion.(I realise my original post was a major spoiler sorry been awake for 26 hours.)

Modifié par Crackle06, 08 février 2011 - 05:44 .

[TCBC_Freak]

TowranPeter wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

TowranPeter wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

But here's the thing - yes, the way of gaining the knowledge should have been different, the barbarism should have never taken place.
However by destroying the data, all you're doing is making sure that it's repeated somewhere else, or you punish innocent people by not making the data available to improve their lives.

You didn't read my supporting logic. I pre-countered this anticipated argument.  But I'll shorten it for you.

By using the data, you give a green light to every corrupt scientist that torture & horrid scientific experiments on a sapien species is paragon as long as it benefits the majority.  But I'm here to remind you it is NOT paragon, it is renegade. 

... You said 'repeated'. If it is repeated, then the scientist dies.  Eventually word spreads that if you conduct means of torture to achieve a scientific result, you will be killed and your data destroyed.  It sends a clear message to the population that torture is not condoned in ANYWAY. Get it? 

Now I remind you.  I'm not here to JUDGE your decision. I'm simply stating what is paragon and what is renegade.

Well I can definately see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Yes it does send the signal that renegade research is okay if it produces good results. All you need to do though is, if you find such research, is imprison the perpetrators. That sends the message that it's not okay. Your research will be used, but you'll be in prison for the rest of your life.

By doing this you're following the rule of law, whilst making peoples lives better. That makes it paragon to me.

Like I said, if you carefully read my supporting logic, you've just justified the use of torture to achieve scientific results and the only consequence is life in prison.  There are sick scientists out there who would gladly take life in prison if they "think" they are helping humanity.

Then the question is, what if the person tortured was you?  The paragon route protects you from torture, but the renegade route ensures you're vulernable to such chaotic violence.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm just trying to declare what is paragon and what is renegade. I read all your text.

Paragon & Renegade is about how you treat yourself first, followed by how you treat others.  You don't want to be tortured, therefore others probably don't want to be tortured as well.

To this last statement I would say Paragon and Renegade are about how you treat others first followed by how you treat yourself but that is not the issue.

And my argument against you is simple; you assume these people (aliens or otherwise) where tortured. If that is the case then you are right, there is always another way to learn the same date, your WWII example is a perfect one of this.

However, if that same scientist in you dramatic example was not mad; if he has a plan to cure something but it will cause pain, possible even death, to all those who partake in it so he can implement the cure, but it could save billions of lives - now lets say he asks for volunteers which brings a group of willing people, then it is not torture. True it would be better if it was a painless thing and given time there always is a better way to learn, but torture it is not as they agreed to the method used on them. By the way, I precluded the rape which was pure hyperbole on your part if i may say so as something no sane scientist would do.

That is my argument, you assume torture thus your argument is flawed. Torture by definition is not volunteered for and even in the ME example you used, unless I'm mistaken, they volunteered. True some did so not knowing the full motives of the people testing on them. This does in the ME example muddy the water of valid research which does make this a much less clear cut example (more like something in real life as it were).

After all many new drugs go in a human test phase, as a student in school I almost participated in one for money but decided not to. Some people would say this could be torture; the side effects are unknown and when you sign up you tell them you are willing to die to learn if the drug works as it should. I didn't do it because of the possible side effects they knew about. But many people did go on to work as test subjects. Those reaserchers did not torture anyone.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 08 février 2011 - 06:20 .

[Dexi]

Oh, and one thing I didn't say.



If I see something fit to do ( and I'm usually right ), not for now, and not for the sake of people calling me a paragon/renegade, I'll do it, be it renegade or paragon. Sometimes it requires a **** to get things straight.

[kill_switch_423]

I got to page 3 before I stopped and had to add my input.



OP, you keep saying that is the data is kept, more crazy/unethical scientists will be willing to do so, despite being killed/incarcerated for their crimes.



While this is a possibility, what you fail to realize is that the same thing will happen if you destroy the data. Look at it this way:



A) Crazy Scientists torture 1k - 2k subjects, make reasonable progress towards cure. Shepard comes along, incarcerates/kills scientists. Shepard keeps data, leading to the increased chance of a certain race's survival. Crazy scientists continue to be crazy scientists and justify their own means in the future.



Crazy Scientists torture 1k - 2k subjects, make reasonable progress towards cure. Shepard comes along, incarcerates/kills scientists. Shepard destroys data, preventing the chance of a certain race's survival. Crazy scientists continue to be crazy scientists and justify their own means in the future.



Future crazy scientists, if they are crazy enough to not care if they die for their work, are crazy enough to do it regardless on their own. Shepard's actions would be irrelevant. Stripping that fact down, you're left with:



A) Keep data, help a certain race survive.

Destroy data, condemn that race to extinction.

[Daryst]

That is a very logical yet black and white approach. The outcome would be clear if it were being done by a machine. The problem resides in the fact is how would Shepard (you) feel about using that data knowing how it was obtained. Its a very moral situation and personal thoughts play a much bigger role in a situation like this.

[Lotion Soronarr]

This is why I give TIM the base. Greater Good.



The game is not consistent with the paragon/renegade decisions....

[PantokratorII]

Interesting topic. One of the many cruel experiments performed in the camps was measuring how long it took for people to freeze to death when immersed in icewater. These experiment were (obviuosly) cruel, BUT the data obtained are still used by every navy/coastguard/rescue agency around the world for search and rescue (SAR) purposes. These data have been vital in saving countless lives in SAR-operations since WWII. Now for obvious reasons we cant recreate the experiments because it would mean freezing people to death. But we can (and do) use the data to save lives. 

My point is that it seems to me a gray area, my first instinct is to agree with OP (i blow up a certain base EVERY time) but this realworld example (im in a navy, and our knowledge of hypothermia is based upon those (evil)data) makes me think that if the data can be used for something that is without a doubt good (saving lives) wouldnt it give a purpose to these poor souls suffering untold horrors?

If an evil scientist tortures 1000 people to death and invent a cure for cancer/AIDS ect. should the troops disposing of said scientist also destroy the cure - I dont think so.

Modifié par PantokratorII, 08 février 2011 - 02:05 .

[Encarmine]

People, the best way to look at Renegade and Paragon, are as 'attitude' responces, they are not Political responces, Paragons are not signed up to the Geneva Convention, and Renegades do not listen to Al'Queda videos on the Internet.



Paragon = the nice guy attitude

Renegade = the super cool bad guy attitude



This doesnt mean either have to be perfectly in line with a particular way of thinking, this is why many people here have noted that the red/blue decisions are blurred to a degree, paragons mainly somtimes doing things that doesnt fit the moral code that players have invented themselves.



Stop taking red/blue so seriously, its mearly attiudes, the difference between John Mclain and Jean LucPicard, both good guys but with different attitudes.

Others have already said it, but you need to understand MUCH of what was learnt by the ****s is used today in science/medical/technical worlds. **** technology took NASA to the moon, it made leaps in the understanding of the human brain. Yes it was evil, but the allied powers 'captured the base' and made use of what they learnt.

[pezit]

I'd say either decision could be made by a paragon. If there was an option to let the crazy scientist continue his evil research for the greater good that would clearly be the renegade option though.



And to the above poster i really can't say i agree, it's not just attitude. Paragon and renegade sheppard has completely different values, paragon shep will try to save the lives of even the worst criminals while the renegade version kills them or even sacrifices innocents to reach his goals (Zaeeds loyalty mission).

[Daryst]

Encarmine wrote...

Stop taking red/blue so seriously, its mearly attiudes, the difference between John Mclain and Jean LucPicard, both good guys but with different attitudes.
Others have already said it, but you need to understand MUCH of what was learnt by the ****s is used today in science/medical/technical worlds. **** technology took NASA to the moon, it made leaps in the understanding of the human brain. Yes it was evil, but the allied powers 'captured the base' and made use of what they learnt.

Interresting look you have there. But in the situation you discribed, the faction in question was  "destroyed". While in ME the organization is still up and running. And you are pretty much on the other end of the people you discribed who captured the base. (in game that is ofcourse)

There are always multiple outcomes to any given situation and sadly its pretty do or do not in Mass Effect. There is not really a grey area in the game sadly.

[Soapy010]

Inverness Moon wrote...

I completely disagree with OP, and I've also read several of his posts where he keeps trying to push his argument claiming people are missing the point while not listening to others. This discussion is not mature and is going nowhere.

This

[SalsaDMA]

Condemming an entire species to a slow extinction purely for a selfish desire to display a 'holier-than-thou' attitude certainly seems like a renegade choice to me.



And letting ones own desires and emotions be secondary in order to save a species from genocide certainly seems like a paragon choice to me.



I fail to see the issue with the choices as they are rewarded in the game.

[Bailyn242]

TowranPeter wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

But here's the thing - yes, the way of gaining the knowledge should have been different, the barbarism should have never taken place.
However by destroying the data, all you're doing is making sure that it's repeated somewhere else, or you punish innocent people by not making the data available to improve their lives.

This.

The methods used to get the data were terrible, but refusing to use the data changes nothing. It also gives meaning to those who died in the research, like that female krogan.

Then you've justified the use of torture to achieve a scientific means.  This is renegade. That's all I'm saying.  When word gets out that valuable scientific data acquired through means of torture is "still used", then every scientist will continue to do it.   All I'm saying is it's renegade because you're encouraging other scientists to do the same thing.

Nope, that is incorrect. After the torture has been done all you can do is punish the guilty. By destroying the data you are creating a situation where the only way to recreate it is to replicate the original experiments. Now you've just doubled the number of people who have been subjected to the experiments and torture.

There are plenty of times in history where horrible experiments were reviled but the data from the experiments after they were shut down were used to better the lives of many people.

As long as you punish the guilty and make it known that they have paid the ultimate price for what they have done any further transgressions will have that much more deterrent. In simple terms, "You want me to do what? Well I ain't gonna ****** of Shepard, do it yourself!"

[Bailyn242]

TowranPeter wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Keeping the data is NOT renegade. But noone will ever convince you of it, because you are obviously set in your ways, unwilling to listen to well reasoned and logically informed arguments, simply because of your personal distaste of the subject matter.
Contrary to your initial post, this is not a mature discussion on the subject. Its you making your point, then sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalalala" until everyone else either gives up, or agrees with you.

Bogsnot: "I'm publicly announcing that we will be using this tainted data despite it's origins of torture".

*10 years later*

Corrupt Scientist Larry: "Remember 10 years ago when Bogsnot still used the data despite using torture as a means of acquiring scientific data?"

Corrupt Scientis Ted: "Yup, and there is no chance I want Shepard and his dirty dozen hunting me for the rest of my life, get stuffed! I ain't taking the chance, now get outta my lab and start running while I place this call." ***

*** edited to reflect the effect of DETERRENT in crime and punishment. Something you completely ignore.

[Bailyn242]

TowranPeter wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

I don't recall Mordin or Shepard or the STG making any public announcement in ME2, they made sure to keep things quiet because creating a cure for the genophage is still controversial in the galaxy.

Shadow broker, need I say more? Information like this always leaks out in game and in real life.

Shadow Broker is Shepard's friend/LI/squaddie. 

How about this?

Corrupt Scientist Ted: "Well lets get this data off to the Shadow Broker."

** two weeks later**

Shepard: "Hello Ted, I saw the data and how you obtained it."

Ted: "Oh ****! Sheppard?"

Shepard: "Time to pay the piper me boyo. Jack, Samara, Mordin? You guys wanna handle this one?"

Pull

Throw

Incinerate

**down the street** Ooo MOMMY!! look at the pretty fireworks!

Modifié par Bailyn242, 08 février 2011 - 09:27 .

[Bailyn242]

TowranPeter wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

What cycle? Tell me step by step how this data will end up supporting further corruption or torture or whatever label you want to throw on it. Step by step, no "it just will" excuse.

Wow, I must of explained that 20 times so far.   Here it goes again.

Scientist Bob uses torture/abduction to find a cure for HIV.

Government uses cure and sentences Bob to life in prison for his crimes.

Scientist Larry decides to use torture too since he doesn't care if he goes to jail. 

Scientist Larry discovers cure to cancer but at the expense of torturing, abducting and experimenting on 1271 human subjects.

Scientist Larry is never caught but submits the data anonymously to the government.

Government uses the cure.

Scientist Jacob hears that government still uses data even if acquired through immoral means.

Scientist Jacob begins testing on human subjects against their will.

The cycle continues......

A true paragon will stop that cycle:

1) Destroy data publicly
2) Send a clear message that any research data acquired through torture of a sapient species will be destroyed.

You must send a message to deter corrupt inviduals from pursuing these actions. You have to protect future people from being abducted and tortured for scientific gain.

Just destroy the data, then! A renegade +20 isn't going to kill you.

No way! I'm playing pure paragon. 

What you cannot seem to see past your intentional blinders is that there will always be people willing to do these things. You present it as if by using the data the people willing to this would feel justified or that someone previously unwilling would be willing to cross that line. That is simply not true. People are either willing or unwilling, the deterrent of catching the criminals and punishing them will keep the borderliners (people who could convince themselves it would be ok) will think twice or even three times before attempting it. The people already willing to cross the line might even be discouraged if the punishments are seen to be effective and active. The people who could care less will always cross the line and no amount of destroying data will stop them.

[SalsaDMA]

Bailyn242 wrote...
The people who could care less will always cross the line and no amount of destroying data will stop them.

It might actually even encourage them.

Nutjob researcher: "Oh... So this kind of data was possible to get by this nefarious way, but the data was destroyed when the previous dude got caught? I guess that means I just have to recreate his experiements to get the data and just not get caught then, cause we really need those data..."

[Bailyn242]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...
The people who could care less will always cross the line and no amount of destroying data will stop them.

It might actually even encourage them.

Nutjob researcher: "Oh... So this kind of data was possible to get by this nefarious way, but the data was destroyed when the previous dude got caught? I guess that means I just have to recreate his experiements to get the data and just not get caught then, cause we really need those data..."

And because if I get the data I can patent it and be rich!

[Shotokanguy]

Oh jeez, this is a complex issue. I have to follow up on my post on the last page, since I thought of some more stuff to say.



First off, I don't think there's anything wrong with the TC's line of thinking. My post may have implied that.



Now, did someone mention Garrus' mission in Mass Effect in this topic? I know I was reading something somewhere about one of Shepard's quotes in that mission: "You can't predict how people will act. But you can control how you respond."



This idea that "oh it doesn't matter if I destroy the data, there will be more crazy scientists anyway!" is Renegade, in a way. If the possibility that less people will attempt crazy experiments that get people killed is there, there is nothing wrong with taking it. That is the very heart of being a Paragon.



None of us knows what the right thing is. Is there even a "right thing"? There is only what we choose to do. You can't let other people, such as the other crazy scientists, influence you. You take each situation into careful consideration, and decide. The way I see it, there are three situations that fall into discussion in this topic:



Saleon's experiments

The genophage data

The Collector base



Each one is it's own situation, despite the similarities.