93 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

That's strange.

[aimlessgun]

Mykel54 wrote...

There are many types of Renegades, for
example there is the human supremacist (which may be friendly to
cerberus) and there is the Saren renegade (the spectre get the job done
at all costs), there is also the antisocial renegade (don´t care about
anyone, not even squadmates). I modelled my shepard after the other
spectres (my favourite organization of ME) like Nihlus, Saren or Vasir.
He always get the job done no matter the cost, and put the mission above
all else, getting his hands dirty when necessary. That said, he don´t
make use of pointless cruelty when it is more advantegous to be
friendly, and he has friends (specially renegade Garrus) that he cares
about and try to help whenever possible.

PS. About the rachni my shepard says: Too many variables! Too many variables! "drop acid tank"

Yeah, there are definitely other types of renegade. But I was getting the feeling the "antisocial jerkface" renegade was becoming the face of all renegades, via stuff like the youtube vids "Commander Shepard is Still a Jerk" etc, and that bothered me.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Because it's a galactic mess that the Galactic Council must address, or must unshackle the Alliance to address. If the Turians address it on their own,

No, it is a galactic mess in humanity's backyard and we know what the Council did the last two times we had one of those.

Why do you say it's in humanity's backyard?

[aimlessgun]

And you're assuming she can't be moved/persuaded to go somewhere more convenient?

Lastly the conception of the galaxy like some map of europe with contiguous territory that had borders and crap always struck me as bizarre. It would be based entirely on relay connections. I'm not familiar with the relay connections out of Noveria's system, but do you know for sure that it connects mostly to human systems?

Modifié par aimlessgun, 04 mai 2011 - 01:02 .

[aimlessgun]

Saphra Deden wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

And you're assuming she can't be moved/persuaded to go somewhere more convenient?

How are you going to persuade her to do anything? She ran and hid, remember?

The Council has never been inclined to face galactic problems in a timely manner. You know what. Why you are both now putting so much faith in the Council's willingness to take action is beyond me.

I suppose you think Maelon was right, that a krogan horde would have kept Eden Primse safe from the geth?

If the council was literally attacked by rachni, I would think they'd take action.

Anyways, the viability of directing the queen relies on how much you want to take the in-game cutscenes as canon. I'm pretty flexible with contradicting/editing the exact conversation and release scene shown to me in the game, but I understand that most people are not.

[2kgnsiika]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Whenever I let the Rachni go free, it's always for indisputably non-Paragon reasonings.

In the game there are no such things as Paragon reasonings. There are only Paragon/Renegade actions. If you want to call something Paragon/Renegade that is not in the system itself, you are giving your own, subjective and arbitrary opinion on what is Paragon/Renegade.

[Dean_the_Young]

2kgnsiika wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Whenever I let the Rachni go free, it's always for indisputably non-Paragon reasonings.

In the game there are no such things as Paragon reasonings.
There are only Paragon/Renegade actions. If you want to call something Paragon/Renegade that is not in the system itself, you are giving your own, subjective and arbitrary opinion on what is Paragon/Renegade.

Paragon and Renegade are continually differentiated not by action, but by Shepard's reasoning in making the choice. The are a number of separate cases in which the same action is construed as Paragon at one point and Renegade the next (interrupts to shoot things, punch people, avoid/spur a fight), as well as cases in which there are both Paragon AND Renegade options to achieve the same result via the same basic actuion only differed by tone and rational (dialogue especially)..

An example would be the Bhattia body delimma in ME1: you can persuade either Bhattia or the Alliance rep to give up their position on the body, and you can do both actions either Paragon or Renegade persuasion. Same action, the difference is in tone and rational. Similarly, there's the nature of every single Paragon/Renegade persuasion choice in the game in which the persuades do the same action (avoid a fight, convince someone to talk, etc.).

Paragon/Renengade isn't action dependent (as disproven by the number of times when the same sort of action/intent is reached by both Paragon and Renegade), but in the tone and rational Shepard adopts in the choice.

[2kgnsiika]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

2kgnsiika wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Whenever I let the Rachni go free, it's always for indisputably non-Paragon reasonings.

In the game there are no such things as Paragon reasonings.
There are only Paragon/Renegade actions. If you want to call something Paragon/Renegade that is not in the system itself, you are giving your own, subjective and arbitrary opinion on what is Paragon/Renegade.

Paragon and Renegade are continually differentiated not by action, but by Shepard's reasoning in making the choice. The are a number of separate cases in which the same action is construed as Paragon at one point and Renegade the next (interrupts to shoot things, punch people, avoid/spur a fight), as well as cases in which there are both Paragon AND Renegade options to achieve the same result via the same basic actuion only differed by tone and rational (dialogue especially)..

An example would be the Bhattia body delimma in ME1: you can persuade either Bhattia or the Alliance rep to give up their position on the body, and you can do both actions either Paragon or Renegade persuasion. Same action, the difference is in tone and rational. Similarly, there's the nature of every single Paragon/Renegade persuasion choice in the game in which the persuades do the same action (avoid a fight, convince someone to talk, etc.).

Paragon/Renengade isn't action dependent (as disproven by the number of times when the same sort of action/intent is reached by both Paragon and Renegade), but in the tone and rational Shepard adopts in the choice.

Yes, intentions can also be Paragon/Renegade things, but only when they result in Paragon/Renegade points. No matter what your reasons for saving the rachni, they don't give you Paragon/Renegade points (or require any). Therefore, only the saving of the rachni is a Paragon thing.

Another example: Shepard can let the Council die, because he says he doesn't want to sacrifice human lives (gives Renegade points). He can also decide to concentrate on Sovereign as a tactical choice, which unfortunately means letting the Council die (gives both Paragon and Renegade). The important thing here is, however, that the game recognizes such motives and intentions through the Paragon/Renegade system.
If you make the Renegade choice because you not only wish to spare human lives, but also because you hate the current Councilors or because you want humans to dominate the galaxy, then that is something that exists only inside your head.

Only later during the epilogue discussion with Anderson and Udina can you say something about your motives, but that is another Paragon/Renegade choice.

Modifié par 2kgnsiika, 04 mai 2011 - 02:32 .

[Dean_the_Young]

2kgnsiika wrote...

Yes, intentions can also be Paragon/Renegade things, but only when they result in Paragon/Renegade points. No matter what your reasons for saving the rachni, they don't give you Paragon/Renegade points (or require any). Therefore, only the saving of the rachni is a Paragon thing.

You're contradicting yourself and missing the point: what your rational would categorize under isn't what the game presupposes (by Shepard's statement). That does mean your rational only is only Paragon or Renegade based on the action.

The game neither addresses or cares what your personal rational is: the Paragon/Renegade morality system is based about what Shepard's rationals are, and those are (for many reasons) set in stone. But they neither force or exclude other rationals, paragon or renegade, for choices, and in a number of instances embraces them. Defending Tali with a persuade is neither Paragon or Renegade: it's the nature of the persuade that determines whether the action is Paragon and Renegade.

Saying it exists only in our own heads and not the game and therefore is meaningless is itself a meaningless statement by its own logic: your own argument isn't claimed in or by the game either.

Only later during the epilogue discussion with Anderson and Udina can you say something about your motives, but that is another Paragon/Renegade choice.

You get neither Paragon or Renegade points between Anderson and Udina, it's a reflection of the dialogue wheel format. It's no more Paragon/Renegade than starting a relationship with someone or accepting a quest, when the 'no' option is always the bottom right.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 mai 2011 - 02:44 .

[2kgnsiika]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The game neither addresses or cares what your personal rational is: the Paragon/Renegade morality system is based about what Shepard's rationals are, and those are (for many reasons) set in stone. But they neither force or exclude other rationals, paragon or renegade, for choices, and in a number of instances embraces them. Defending Tali with a persuade is neither Paragon or Renegade: it's the nature of the persuade that determines whether the action is Paragon and Renegade.

Motives and intentions that are not explicitly mentioned in the game do not exist in the game. They can only exist in the mind of the player. Therefore, they should not be called Paragon motives, because Paragon is only defined by that which gives (or requires) Paragon points. When you say your reasons for sparing the rachni are non-Paragon, you are taking something that is inside your head and associating it with the word non-Paragon.

Let's look at your Tali example:

You get Paragon points by being charismatic and persuasive (my subjective opinion). You get Renegade points by being intimidating and imposing (my subjective opinion). In this case, being nice gives you Paragon points. That doesn't mean, however, that being nice is  Paragon in and of itself. If killing kittens gave you Paragon points, then that would be a Paragon thing to do.

Paragon and Renegade are too confused concepts to have anything to do with actual morality or attitudes. They are only terms used within this game mechanic. Therefore, they should not be used to describe attitudes or reasoning outside of the context of the Paragon/Renegade system.

If your Shepard is (in your mind) a ruthless human supremacist, for example, that doesn't make him a Renegade by itself. Only a full Renegade bar (and an empty Paragon bar) makes a "pure" Renegade.

You get neither Paragon or Renegade points between Anderson and Udina, it's a reflection of the dialogue wheel format. It's no more Paragon/Renegade than starting a relationship with someone or accepting a quest, when the 'no' option is always the bottom right.

You're correct, I didn't remember that the  game doesn't save after that. 

Modifié par 2kgnsiika, 04 mai 2011 - 03:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

2kgnsiika wrote...



Motives and intentions that are not explicitly mentioned in the game do not exist in the game. They can only exist in the mind of the player.

Since this is not stated in the game, should I also simply dismiss your points because they exist only in your mind?

Therefore, they should not be called Paragon motives, because Paragon is only defined by that which gives (or requires) Paragon points. When you say your reasons for sparing the rachni are non-Paragon, you are taking something that is inside your head and associating it with the word non-Paragon.

This is an entire blind-sight of why Paragon/Renegade points are given, and is completely ignorant of the basis of a morality system in the first place, which is that of general trends that are applied to varying situations.

Let's look at your Tali example:

You get Paragon points by being charismatic and persuasive (my subjective opinion). You get Renegade points by being intimidating and imposing (my subjective opinion). In this case, being nice gives you Paragon points. That doesn't mean, however, that being nice is  Paragon in and of itself. If killing kittens gave you Paragon points, then that would be a Paragon thing to do.

Except sadistically killing kittens does not give you Paragon points. You're putting the cart before the horse: you put the points before the intent, when the game goes on about the intent and then gives points which reflect the intent given by Shepard.

Paragon and Renegade are too confused concepts to have anything to do with actual morality or attitudes. They are only terms used within this game mechanic. Therefore, they should not be used to describe attitudes or reasoning outside of the context of the Paragon/Renegade system.

No 'therefor' about it: simply because it confuses you does not mean that the categories and classifications don't exist.

Paragon and Renegade do follow themes and various elements: in so much as these are inconsistently upheld, it's because these elements can come into contradiction. This is normal, and this is the entire basis of this discussion. It does not mean they do not exist.

[Shepard needs a Vacation]

I like, excite!

[2kgnsiika]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since this is not stated in the game, should I also simply dismiss your points because they exist only in your mind?

To paraphrase my statement: that which is not in the game is not in the game. This is a logical tautology. Logical tautologies are universally true. Therefore, no, you should not dismiss my point. Your personal reasons behind Paragon/Renegade actions are not in the game. Therefore, they are not in the game and are not Paragon/Renegade in the same sense as Paragon/Renegade actions in the game.

This is an entire blind-sight of why Paragon/Renegade points are given, and is completely ignorant of the basis of a morality system in the first place, which is that of general trends that are applied to varying situations.

How is this blind-sighted? The writers give Paragon points for certain actions because they feel that this is a Paragon thing to do. That's it. Paragon is not defined to us players through a certain ideology but by the way certain actions give Paragon points.

Except sadistically killing kittens does not give you Paragon points. You're putting the cart before the horse: you put the points before the intent, when the game goes on about the intent and then gives points which reflect the intent given by Shepard.

This is not true. The player mostly knows whether something gives Paragon points or not if it is the upper side choice in the wheel. At certain times I think I would not have had any idea what the Paragon choice was had it not been the upper side choice. If it were as you say, then by claiming that the player's intentions in and of themself are "Paragon", you are presupposing that certain things outside the game are actually Paragon in the same technical sense as certain choices in Mass Effect give Paragon points.

Paragon and Renegade do follow themes and various elements: in so much as these are inconsistently upheld, it's because these elements can come into contradiction. This is normal, and this is the entire basis of this discussion. It does not mean they do not exist.

Then what are these themes? You are presupposing that they actually fit into a real world moral system. You would also be assuming that the writers of Mass Effect have a consistent and logical world view (which, I assure you, they do not). You admit yourself that these themes are inconsistently upheld. But it does not make sense to say being rude to the Illusive Man all the time or curing the genophage is not "really" Paragon, or that exposing Rael'Zorah experiments or blowing up the geth heretics is not really "Renegade". Paragon and Renegade are what they are in the game, and your complaining about this inconsistency does not change it. The writers are, in a sense, infallible when deciding what Paragon and Renegade are. In the context of Mass Effect morality, they can mean nothing else than what the writers say.


This is why the only true Renegade is the one who has as many Renegade points as possible and these discussion about supposed "true" or "pure" Renegades are meaningless. This is not to say that you can't roleplay in Mass Effect. Just don't call these personalities, intentions or motives "Paragon" and "Renegade" since these words have a very technical meaning and don't have a lot to do with the everyday usage of these terms. Even if you don't agree with me about the utter lack of consistency in the system, you have to admit that calling the players outside motives "Paragon" can be very confusing.

EDIT: An afterthought:


The Paragon/Renegade system (or any morality system in any video game I know, for that matter) reminds me of the divine command theory, which says that morality is arbitrary and only the will of God (i.e. the devs) makes a "good" action good.

Modifié par 2kgnsiika, 04 mai 2011 - 06:31 .

[Dean_the_Young]

2kgnsiika wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since this is not stated in the game, should I also simply dismiss your points because they exist only in your mind?

To paraphrase my statement: that which is not in the game is not in the game. This is a logical tautology. Logical tautologies are universally true. Therefore, no, you should not dismiss my point. Your personal reasons behind Paragon/Renegade actions are not in the game. Therefore, they are not in the game and are not Paragon/Renegade in the same sense as Paragon/Renegade actions in the game.

This is not in the game. Therefore, you have no point.

Etc. etc.


It's rather apparent we're just going, and going to keep on going, in circles. You don't think this thread is in any way logical. I don't think your argument is logical. Whale and shark.

Whether you wish to continue in response to this is, of course, up to you, but I'm just going let you know I'm bowing out now.