437 réponses à ce sujet

[lolwut666]

@Nyoka

I'm not deciding anything for them; I'm withholding information. It won't affect them if they don't know about it. They're still the ones ruling the quarians.

Way to blow things out of proportion. Running out of arguments?

[PMC65]

My friend (Tali) asked for my help .. ok
I took a ride to her "home" where I found a political **** storm happening ... ok
My friend was further set up by having an idiot (me) set to represent her ... what? uh, ok
We find out that her dad was into some "not really legit" stuff ... crap, ok
She begs me not to tarnish his name which will result in her losing everything she loves ... double crap, ok
Without blue-red options my friend is made an outcast ...
To be honest, this wasn't about the 'law' ... it was all political maneuvering regarding the geth.
That was how my Shepard saw it, so Shep protected his friend and used the blue (paragon) option.

[PMC65]

mrsph wrote...

This argument has been suitable beaten to death. Perhaps we should try whether or not Garrus was right in abandoning his duties to fight a hopeless war against a bunch of mercenaries.

It's a reason I've seen people hate Garrus anyway.

Look, my Shepard tried to get Garrus on the right path. He tried to show Garrus that rules & regulations were there for a reason and once I go and die ... all is forgotten? What you didn't see was my Shepard taking Garrus' helmet and hitting him a few times upside the head. Or was that my female Shepard? I get my two Sheps confused.

[jacobOriley]

mrsph wrote...

This argument has been suitable beaten to death. Perhaps we should try whether or not Garrus was right in abandoning his duties to fight a hopeless war against a bunch of mercenaries.

It's a reason I've seen people hate Garrus anyway.

+10..wait, let me go get some more popcorn and pop. I'll be right back.

[lolwut666]

Nyoka wrote...

You have decided they shouldn't be able to know what Tali's father was doing. They shouldn't be able to know the truth, because you (or Tali) know better. You are subverting democracy by hiding information, and plainly lying to the quarians with a straight face. You are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve your goal. Pure Renegade reasoning.

You are giving them the data just so you will sleep well at night. As long as your conscience is clean, it doesn't matter if the world burns.

You can tell yourself whatever you want, but when nobody will come to harm by an action that could possibily save many people - even if it's an underhanded one - it's only logical to take it.

I didn't realize lacking common sense was a pre-requisite to being a Paragon.

Your reasoning reminds of this: http://tvtropes.org/...in/LawfulStupid

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 10:07 .

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

Denial won't make your arguments any more valid.

Denial of WHAT? Here's another commonly used debate tactic: just say the other person is in 'denial'. Instant discredit.

If you mean that by denying that Shepard and Tali's collusion is somehow Paragon, you're right, I deny that. I'll deny it until the cows come home. It's not a Paragon action. You're breaking the law, concealing war crimes, committing perjury, all because you think it's the best thing for Tali, and possibly for the quarian people. Sorry, but that's not the action of a champion of justice and integrity. That's the action of someone who wants what he wants, and will do whatever unethical or morally questionable thing he feels necessary to achieve that goal. You cannot say that PERJURY, CONCEALING WAR CRIMES, or GOING BACK ON YOUR WORD are Paragon actions under any circumstances. If that's 'denial', then you've got an odd definition of the word denial. One might even say you're in denial yourself.

You are ignoring all the hints BioWare gave us about what could - and likely will - happen to the quarians in favor of imposing your own views of what'll happen to them in the game, and then basing your arguments out of that.

Everything you said after that is pure speculation. I'll admit that I've speculated much myself, but at least my speculations have some basis to them.

Everything is speculation until it happens. All of Shepard's decision-making criteria are speculation, whether for or against concealing the evidence. What's your point? MY point is that if Shepard truly wishes to uphold the principle of justice, he's not going to do it by committing perjury or concealing war crimes from an alien government.

And before you promised anything to the Admiralty Board, you promised to help Tali on her trial. You can accomplish that without using the evidence.

Well, that's one way to look at it. If you're a Renegade, that is. And all you intially promised Tali was to give her a ride to the Migrant Fleet, it was only after you boarded the Rayya that you got roped into participating in the trial itself. But once you agreed to participate, you agreed to follow quarian law, whether you meant to agree to that or not, whether you intend to do that or not. The Admirals aren't asking for your judgement, they're asking for your observation. THEY are the ones who are tasked with making the judgement. You decide to lie to them, after they flat-out ask you about what you saw on the Alarei, and you think that's somehow the shiny, happy, bunnies and kittens option? Nope. It's the "I'll do whatever I want to get what I want" option. All of these arguments about what's best for the quarian people are just sound and fury—they don't conceal the fact that you're committing a CRIME by doing as Tali wishes. PERIOD. A CRIME. As in, illegal. Unlawful. Not Paragon.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of, anyway? That I'm wrong to dislike Tali because of her very flexible interpretation of the law and how it pertains to her and those she cares about? Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that Tali is somehow a quarian saint or martyr because she wants Shepard to lie to her own government for reasons that may include her opinion of what's best for the quarian people, "BioWare's hints" notwithstanding.

And I really can't see the logic behind not doing the right thing just because you have ulterior motives.

Telling the truth is "not doing the right thing"?
Doing what you agreed to do for the Admiralty Board is "not doing the right thing"?
Acting in accordance with quarian law is "not doing the right thing"?

Really?

Here's what your definition of doing the right thing is:

Perjury: Giving false statements in a legal proceeding.
Concealing War Crimes: Not giving information when asked by legal authorities to provide it.

Regardless of your motives, you're still committing perjury, and you're still concealing war crimes. No amount of dressing that up in flowery rhetoric is going to wash that stain away. If the end justifies the means for you, that's fine. But for me, it doesn't.

[PMC65]

jacobOriley wrote...

mrsph wrote...

This argument has been suitable beaten to death. Perhaps we should try whether or not Garrus was right in abandoning his duties to fight a hopeless war against a bunch of mercenaries.

It's a reason I've seen people hate Garrus anyway.

+10..wait, let me go get some more popcorn and pop. I'll be right back.

Can you bring two bags of popcorn? ... I already have a soda

[PMC65]

mrsph wrote...

PMC65 wrote...
Look, my Shepard tried to get Garrus on the right path. He tried to show Garrus that rules & regulations were there for a reason and once I go and die ... all is forgotten? What you didn't see was my Shepard taking Garrus' helmet and hitting him a few times upside the head. Or was that my female Shepard? I get my two Sheps confused.

Vigilantism is a crime. Garrus should report himself to the nearest C-Sec officer and be forced to do 300 hours of community service. Which I assume is the penalty in the future. 

That is harsh! I thought the whacks upside his head was enough. Could you imagine having to clean graffiti off the walls with him? He would ****, complain, gripe the whole time! That is why I hate him!

[Siansonea]

PMC65 wrote...

My friend (Tali) asked for my help .. ok
I took a ride to her "home" where I found a political **** storm happening ... ok
My friend was further set up by having an idiot (me) set to represent her ... what? uh, ok
We find out that her dad was into some "not really legit" stuff ... crap, ok
She begs me not to tarnish his name which will result in her losing everything she loves ... double crap, ok
Without blue-red options my friend is made an outcast ...
To be honest, this wasn't about the 'law' ... it was all political maneuvering regarding the geth.
That was how my Shepard saw it, so Shep protected his friend and used the blue (paragon) option.

And everything you state sounds exactly like what a Renegade would do. "What's the best course of action that benefits me and my friend?" That's not the question a Paragon asks himself. The Paragon holds himself to a higher standard, a standard whereby everyone, including himself, is held accountable. People don't get to circumvent the law just because it's convenient or because they sincerely believe it will benefit some nebulous "greater good".

[jacobOriley]

mrsph wrote...
Vigilantism is a crime. Garrus should report himself to the nearest C-Sec officer and be forced to do 300 hours of community service. Which I assume is the penalty in the future. 

Ahhh, but is it a crime on Omega, where the only law is not to fu*k with Aria?

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

1) Your definition of Paragon is not absolute;

2) I'm not trying to convince you to like Tali; I'm explaining why I think withholding the evidence is a better option. I'd call that a strawman, but you'd use your "instant discredit" gag, which already made you lose a lot of credit in my eyes;

3) You are doing the "right thing" to yourself, not to others.

I tire of this.

kthxbye

[jacobOriley]

mrsph wrote...

jacobOriley wrote...
Ahhh, but is it a crime on Omega, where the only law is not to fu*k with Aria?

Vigilantism ****s with Aria.

Damn. Well I can't hate him anyway, he's my Bro. I'm back to my popcorn.....

[Siansonea]

mrsph wrote...

PMC65 wrote...
Look, my Shepard tried to get Garrus on the right path. He tried to show Garrus that rules & regulations were there for a reason and once I go and die ... all is forgotten? What you didn't see was my Shepard taking Garrus' helmet and hitting him a few times upside the head. Or was that my female Shepard? I get my two Sheps confused.

Vigilantism is a crime. Garrus should report himself to the nearest C-Sec officer and be forced to do 300 hours of community service. Which I assume is the penalty in the future. 

Citadel Security does not have jurisdiction on Omega. There is no recognized lawful government on Omega, Aria T'Loak's posturing notwithstanding. She's a glorified warlord. It's a lawless place. Therefore the law cannot be broken on Omega. Regardless, Garrus is a Renegade as well, as he is operating outside of a lawful authority. And he may have done a great deal of good in the process. But he's not a Paragon just because he's helping people. To Garrus, the ends justify the means. He does whatever he thinks is best. If Shepard does the same, if Shepard thinks he's helping people, if Shepard actually IS helping people—great, fine, terrific. But he's still a RENEGADE. Why is that so hard to understand?

[JaerWolfe]

mrsph wrote...

This argument has been suitable beaten to death. Perhaps we should try whether or not Garrus was right in abandoning his duties to fight a hopeless war against a bunch of mercenaries.

It's a reason I've seen people hate Garrus anyway.

Eh, I'll bite. I have an hour to kill.
I don't care that Garrus wanted to play vigilante/village idiot and go up against a bunch of mercs. He wants to get himself killed, it's his business. A bunch of well meaning morons want to join him, good for them. Cleaning the gene pools of their respective species is probably doing them a favor.
Garrus wants my Shepard to help him murder an unarmed turian in a public venue...now we have a problem.
That bit of cowardice gets Garrus stuck in C-Sec like a wall flower waiting for someone to ask him to dance whenever I play ME1 now. I actually resent the fact I have to recruit Garrus to advance my game in ME2. As it is, the only time I talk to him is when I need the upgrade. Oh, and yes, he usually dies on the SM.

[PMC65]

Siansonea II wrote...

PMC65 wrote...

My friend (Tali) asked for my help .. ok
I took a ride to her "home" where I found a political **** storm happening ... ok
My friend was further set up by having an idiot (me) set to represent her ... what? uh, ok
We find out that her dad was into some "not really legit" stuff ... crap, ok
She begs me not to tarnish his name which will result in her losing everything she loves ... double crap, ok
Without blue-red options my friend is made an outcast ...
To be honest, this wasn't about the 'law' ... it was all political maneuvering regarding the geth.
That was how my Shepard saw it, so Shep protected his friend and used the blue (paragon) option.

And everything you state sounds exactly like what a Renegade would do. "What's the best course of action that benefits me and my friend?" That's not the question a Paragon asks himself. The Paragon holds himself to a higher standard, a standard whereby everyone, including himself, is held accountable. People don't get to circumvent the law just because it's convenient or because they sincerely believe it will benefit some nebulous "greater good".

Wait, let me put my popcorn down .... Having my friend made an "outcast" or being railroaded into a trial by politics is not what my Shepard was expecting. Thank God I could take the paragon option .... The Admiralty board admitted that they were wrong in putting Tali through that and Tali was not made an outcast. The father was still dead ... so everyone was held accountable to each their own sin.
Why didn't you just choose the paragon (blue) response?

[PMC65]

jacobOriley wrote...

mrsph wrote...

jacobOriley wrote...
Ahhh, but is it a crime on Omega, where the only law is not to fu*k with Aria?

Vigilantism ****s with Aria.

Damn. Well I can't hate him anyway, he's my Bro. I'm back to my popcorn.....

I don't really hate him either ... just cleaning grafitti off the walls with him.

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

1) Your definition of Paragon is not absolute;

2) I'm not trying to convince you to like Tali; I'm explaining why I think withholding the evidence is a better option. I'd call that a strawman, but you'd use your "instant discredit" gag, which already made you lose a lot of credit in my eyes;

3) You are doing the "right thing" to yourself, not to others.

I tire of this.

kthxbye

In your opinion, withholding the evidence is the better option.
In my opinion, withholding the evidence is a Renegade act, and I don't like it.

Are these two ideas actually contradicting each other?

[jacobOriley]

JaerWolfe wrote...

Eh, I'll bite. I have an hour to kill.
I don't care that Garrus wanted to play vigilante/village idiot and go up against a bunch of mercs. He wants to get himself killed, it's his business. A bunch of well meaning morons want to join him, good for them. Cleaning the gene pools of their respective species is probably doing them a favor.
Garrus wants my Shepard to help him murder an unarmed turian in a public venue...now we have a problem.
That bit of cowardice gets Garrus stuck in C-Sec like a wall flower waiting for someone to ask him to dance whenever I play ME1 now. I actually resent the fact I have to recruit Garrus to advance my game in ME2. As it is, the only time I talk to him is when I need the upgrade. Oh, and yes, he usually dies on the SM.

You have entered the right arena! Prepare your flame shield.

[Siansonea]

PMC65 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

PMC65 wrote...

My friend (Tali) asked for my help .. ok
I took a ride to her "home" where I found a political **** storm happening ... ok
My friend was further set up by having an idiot (me) set to represent her ... what? uh, ok
We find out that her dad was into some "not really legit" stuff ... crap, ok
She begs me not to tarnish his name which will result in her losing everything she loves ... double crap, ok
Without blue-red options my friend is made an outcast ...
To be honest, this wasn't about the 'law' ... it was all political maneuvering regarding the geth.
That was how my Shepard saw it, so Shep protected his friend and used the blue (paragon) option.

And everything you state sounds exactly like what a Renegade would do. "What's the best course of action that benefits me and my friend?" That's not the question a Paragon asks himself. The Paragon holds himself to a higher standard, a standard whereby everyone, including himself, is held accountable. People don't get to circumvent the law just because it's convenient or because they sincerely believe it will benefit some nebulous "greater good".

Wait, let me put my popcorn down .... Having my friend made an "outcast" or being railroaded into a trial by politics is not what my Shepard was expecting. Thank God I could take the paragon option .... The Admiralty board admitted that they were wrong in putting Tali through that and Tali was not made an outcast. The father was still dead ... so everyone was held accountable to each their own sin.
Why didn't you just choose the paragon (blue) response?

Actually, some of my Shepards did. And some of them chose the Renegade response. Some just stood their shuffling their feet. I role-play each Shepard differently, based on that character's concept that I've been building throughout the game. That's not the point of this discussion. The point is, and always has been, that Tali's approach to the situation on the Alarei does not sit well with me. I don't like the fact that in order to win her loyalty (which really ought to be a given, after all that happened in the first story) I have to commit a crime, i.e., perjury, by concealing her father's war crimes. I can either just say I have no evidence, a lie of commission, or I can distract them with a rousing speech about what douchebags they all are for picking on poor li'l Tali, which is a misdirection, a deflection, a lie of omission. I don't like doing that while roleplaying as a Paragon, and I have pretty Lawful tendencies in real life, so naturally characters that favor the Renegade end of the spectrum tend to be less desirable to me.

[PMC65]

jacobOriley wrote...

JaerWolfe wrote...

Eh, I'll bite. I have an hour to kill.
I don't care that Garrus wanted to play vigilante/village idiot and go up against a bunch of mercs. He wants to get himself killed, it's his business. A bunch of well meaning morons want to join him, good for them. Cleaning the gene pools of their respective species is probably doing them a favor.
Garrus wants my Shepard to help him murder an unarmed turian in a public venue...now we have a problem.
That bit of cowardice gets Garrus stuck in C-Sec like a wall flower waiting for someone to ask him to dance whenever I play ME1 now. I actually resent the fact I have to recruit Garrus to advance my game in ME2. As it is, the only time I talk to him is when I need the upgrade. Oh, and yes, he usually dies on the SM.

You have entered the right arena! Prepare your flame shield.

Betrayel makes people do terrible things... add murder to that, oh doggie! 
Garrus saw his team killed and is looking for the Judas. If someone had done that to my Shepard and killed off the ME2 crew, can't say that the Reapers wouldn't fall to the 2nd place of "must kills". Especially if it was someone that Shep trusted. Double ZAP! 

But I think that my Shep would want to look that Judas in the eye as she pulls the trigger on the Collector Particle Beam. Is that wrong? 

P.S. Garrus sucks at cleaning grafitti off walls.