904 réponses à ce sujet

[Jzadek72]

Yep, it's one of those threads... except this time it's written by a paragon.

Basically, I've been thinking about the two moralities, and I think that at it's core, renegade is about minimising risk at the expense of morality, while paragon is about choosing not to sacrifice morality, but take more risks in the process.
It seems to me that it makes that choice more meaningful if some of those risks blow up in your face.

Take Balak. You can either make sure he's captured, but have the blood of innocents on your hands. Or, you can let him go to save their lives. Naturally, this should have repercussions, and makes the choice seem more difficult if it is. Keeping your morality shouldn't be an easy task.

And please, don't let this become a flamewar. I'd like to approach this more objectively this time.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

All of the drama does get sucked out of the Renegade/Paragon dillema once you realise that the whole thing is pretty one-sided.

[CroGamer002]

Reapers make necromorph Pregnant out of Rachni.

[Jzadek72]

Lizardviking wrote...

All of the drama does get sucked out of the Renegade/Paragon dillema once you realise that the whole thing is pretty one-sided.

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to address here.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

All of the drama does get sucked out of the Renegade/Paragon dillema once you realise that the whole thing is pretty one-sided.

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to address here.

But it needs to stressed. Because I think most the paragon-players who argues that Renegade-players should shut up are forgetting this.

In a game about choices and moral dillemas. Having the ability to choose between two diffrent ideologies only having one always be the right one just screams less-than-stellar storytelling to me.

[Manic Sheep]

I agree. For my one of  characters who is mostly paragon I end up intently failing speech checks because when everything is going swimmingly its boring to me. I kind of wanted to play his uncompromising morality as a’ flaw’ in some cases but that really doesn’t work when everything is turning out well. Arrival helped fix this because now he has done something that would be devastating to him but I would still like to see at least one of his choices backfire in a major way. Letting Balak go would be a nice one but since that’s a DLC it probably won’t be addressed again.

Lizardviking wrote...

All of the drama does get sucked out of the Renegade/Paragon dillema once you realise that the whole thing is pretty one-sided.

^That too. It's not a hard choice to make if you know which one is going to be the best anyway and I was under the impression that that was meant to be a major part of the game.

It is worth noting tho that we don’t have the full affects of some of the choices. untill ME3 comes out we don’t what is actually going to happen. Tho you talked to her in ME2 it sounds like the Rachni choice could backfire.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 10 mai 2011 - 09:46 .

[mcsupersport]

So far what have the Renegades lost but a few emails and a few Cameos?? Sure punish the paragons but you also have to get after the Renegades as well, meaning maybe severe punishment for killing council, ie executed for murder sometime at the end of ME3, or some such. Why should you basically killing or being "expedient" be rewarded more than being Morally "Just".


So far their hasn't been much in the way of huge consequences for either other than a flavor of the story change. So what is the big deal, play the way you want and get the feel from the game you want.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

mcsupersport wrote...
Why should you basically killing or being "expedient" be rewarded more than being Morally "Just".

When have anyone ever stated this anyway? People are not asking renegades to get more content that paragons. But simply to get own cameos instead.

[Cosmar]

Well, one possibly negative repercussion of a paragon choice is from letting the Rachni Queen live...yes, we might have a cool new ally for the final battle, but a few ME3 articles said there will be Rachni husks...I'm not sure if these huskified Rachni were able to be gathered by the Reapers as a result of this choice, or whether the Reapers already collected some specimens from before they went extinct, but either way...those Rachni husks sound awful and if Shep had just let the Queen die, there might be less, if not none, of the Rachni husks to deal with in the end.

But I agree; in general, there should be more consequences for all those risks the paragons take. I think in ME3 there ought to be some situations when the obvious 'paragon' choice will also obviously result in immediately negative consequences.

[mcsupersport]

^ lol, since most of ME1 renegade was about being expedient and killing people, I doubt you will ever see the cameos. You could get one from the taking over the syndicate quest, but most others being renegade involves death.

Maybe they will do something but to just say punish paragons because you don't like the flavor of the game a renegade gives is silly.

[Ryzaki]

...I want to see some renegade and neutral punishments.

Since we're gonna punish people for how they play the game.

[Saaziel]

mcsupersport wrote...

So far what have the Renegades lost but a few emails and a few Cameos??

If you Renegade all the way you forgo Legion's Loyalty for 50k credits (Which , by that time, is utterly useless anyways). To me this is a problem . The rest is overreaction at the CB decision impacting ME3.

I'd like for decisions to have more impact on the game ; That said if i were in charge ,the story would be linear. Adding decisions to the game is only asking for nerd rage on the forums.

Modifié par Saaziel, 11 mai 2011 - 12:52 .

[Mykel54]

I´m hoping that letting the Rachni go will make them be indoctrinated by the reapers, unless at some point shepard intervenes to save them in place of X race. That would make the choice is still valid (you get the rachni if you help them) but by doing that you lose the help of other race. Here´s hoping that ME3 makes Paragons suffer the cost of sticking to their morals.

[Ryzaki]

thurmanator692 wrote...

nobody should be "punished" but reasonable reactions should follow actions

Now this I agree with. 

[Wulfram]

I don't think Renegades are inherently any more pragmatic than Paragons. They generally seem to assume that being a jerk to everyone and killing anyone who gets in their way will always work out great.

Having said that sensible consequences for decisions are good, whether those decisions are blue or red, and whether those consequences are good or bad.

[Nimrodell]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think Renegades are inherently any more pragmatic than Paragons. They generally seem to assume that being a jerk to everyone and killing anyone who gets in their way will always work out great.

Having said that sensible consequences for decisions are good, whether those decisions are blue or red, and whether those consequences are good or bad.

Ah, agreed 100% and tis just an illusion that renegades r more pragmatic... I'm tired of writing about that issue and reading BS on renegade vs paragon. Both sides have valid and invalid arguments. So, suck it up and take responsibility for your actions, be those moral or not, simple as that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Putting space so no one thinks I'm responding to anyone in particular.








Ok. Here goes:

Paragon and Renegade should be 'equal' in terms of relative content at the very least, with 'flavor' cameos being equal for both sides. There's really no good reason why only sparring people should allow for cameos, because by and large there's no reason that 'spared' people should be the primary reflectors of choices. There are alternatives that can be used.

To take an example, I strongly dislike the Rachni Queen ambassador cameo setup. Not, to clarify, that it isn't good for the Paragons... but because there's no equivalent for the Renegades, even though it would have been painfully simple to do so. Simply a stand in, perhaps some similar no-name from Noveria, who stands by to thank us for our prior help in saving the galaxy from the Rachni breakout. It doesn't even have to be a Noveria corporate suite: it could be some Krogan who lost his father in the Rachni Wars, and he wants to shake Shepard's hands and perhaps offer a trinket of thanks. That's neither hard to write up, nor does it counter the overriding benefit of saving the Rachni (a later ally in ME3).

The Rachni Ambassador cameo is flawed on the basis that there is no reason in that sort of scenario why we can't have alternative cameos to reflect the other side of choices we make.


Another case is the Shiala cameo. If you spared Shiala, she returns. If you didn't, nameless colonist. But... why? There were actual colonists you couldn't kill even if you wanted to: why limit the cameo's personal tie-in to just the person who could die? Shiala's presence on Illium, as a repentant, good intentioned, willful woman who wants to make up for her past harm to the colonists, and has a touch of interest in the Commander, is just as applicable to ANOTHER Feros-character: Elizabeth. Remember her, the young woman who went back into the ExoGeni headquarters to blow the story on the Thorian experiments, and wanted to make up for her actions? Does that sound familiar? Killable persons making cameo returns is fine, but cameos by people who couldn't die should at least be supplementary.

The Feros cameo is flawed in the sense that there's no reason to give a personal tie in to only half the decision-points, and a generic tie-in to the rest, when there's a potential tie-in for the entire audience just sitting there. On Feros, that's Shiala to her Elizabeth counterpart. With Giana Parsini from Noveria, we had the Turian Lorik who could never die.


From Virmire, the absence of Rana from Grunt's loyalty is jarring if you killed her, because Rana actually gave relevant information about the story and context of the mission. At the very least, that's definitely the sort of point you'd want a generic stand in to be present.


Killable cameos have a place, but that should be a small place, and especially when reflecting major choices from the story of the previous game. While's it's better to have a generic stand-in in lieu of a cameo, it's even better to have alternate-standins to reflect both sides of the choices, or even to have the cameo characters be those who can't die regardless. Either of those would provide balance to story-fluff content, and non-killables would be easier to write and plan around as well.

[Lapis Lazuli]

KOTOR is perfect in this regard. light side choices weaken darkside powers, dark side choices weaken light side powers. You can't do that in mass effect because powers related to morality is not a part of the narrative or dynamic.

[Sarcastic Tasha]

The punishment for paragons is to see the renegade trigger begging to be pressed. Even though I found playing renegade more fun (got to 100% renegade easily) I still couldn't kill the rachni or Shiala.

If ME3 comes along and it turns out all the paragon choices help and all the renegade hinder I wouldn't be impressed (although my renegade Shep did make some paragon choices). I'd be happy if some decisions bit Shep in the arse and some helped. But I think it would be best if the decisions just made things different.

[Golden Owl]

Sarcastic Tasha wrote...
........... But I think it would be best if the decisions just made things different.

^This^

[mcsupersport]

On the Rachni Cameo, I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone past your crew and the Council and Alliance knew that the Rachni were ever on Noveria. If you went full renegade everyone there who did know should be dead, and thus leadership would do everything they could to NOT scare the living daylight out of the Galaxy by letting it be known that the Rachni may NOT be extinct. So if you killed her it would have been put in a huge black box marked extra top secret and filled in a warehouse full of likewise sensitive info. You average Grunt/mid-level executive will never know they came close to being revived. Some places a stand-in would have been a good idea, maybe on Grunt's recruitment, and a bit more, but again most of Renegades actions revolve around killing everyone in his way and basically telling everyone to f-off in general. SO even if you did have a cameo of a thankful guy, your probable responses are bullet to face or gun to face and telling him to leave.

I am sorry you don't like the flavor being a d--k brings to the game, but then it is the same flavor you generally get in real life for that attitude as well.

[The Spamming Troll]

mcsupersport wrote...

So far what have the Renegades lost but a few emails and a few Cameos?? Sure punish the paragons but you also have to get after the Renegades as well, meaning maybe severe punishment for killing council, ie executed for murder sometime at the end of ME3, or some such. Why should you basically killing or being "expedient" be rewarded more than being Morally "Just".


So far their hasn't been much in the way of huge consequences for either other than a flavor of the story change. So what is the big deal, play the way you want and get the feel from the game you want.

what if i want to do a greyed out choice? unfortunately,  theres only one option ill have in order to be able to have that choice. so im not really playing the way id want to play regarless.

[Lucifer_Cheney]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

what if i want to do a greyed out choice? unfortunately,  theres only one option ill have in order to be able to have that choice. so im not really playing the way id want to play regarless.

Now thats the problem! I believe those that want a "shades of grey" Shepard get the shortest straw in terms of story.