131 réponses à ce sujet

[aimlessgun]

There's been a lot of furor over whether paragons or renegades get punished, or if one side gets better outcomes, if one side is favored by Bioware etc.

One important question I want to ask is, how much do people value a clean conscience when looking at outcomes?

I think coming out with a clean conscience has real value. Which is why I sometimes get annoyed by how the game treats (some) paragon decisions.

Let's take Zaeed's loyalty mission as an example. You initially get what seems like a choice: save the workers or get Zaeed's loyalty. However, at the end of the day, both paths get Zaeed's loyalty.

Now you may say, hey aimless, the outcome is the same, you get Zaeed's loyalty either way. And since renegade = douchebag, why do you care the workers burned?

Renegade to me does not = douchebag. It means maximizing your chances of stopping the reapers regardless of moral concerns. But it still hurts to make immoral decisions, even if you are making them for the greater good. Choosing Zaeed over the workers was a tough decision. Then I find out the workers burn for nothing.

At the end of the mission, the outcome does not look equal to me. Renegades get Zaeed's loyalty. Paragons get Zaeed's loyalty PLUS a clean conscience. I think a clean conscience has real value, and thus I see those outcomes as unequal.

Now, many para/ren decisions don't apply to this. And obviously Bioware cannot go through the game having paragons get inferior results just to feel good about themselves. But I think some decisions should play out that way, to make the choices seem more real, to make them actual choices. The choice in Zaeed's LM is a false choice. I want less of those.

[cast2007]

Even though i play as a paragon, I always let the workers die.

Why? Because I know that if Vido escapes, then he'll be able to inflict harm on even more innocents. I figure that the number of innocents that are stuck on the planet is far less than the innocents that he's going to harm if he isn't stopped.

Is it cruel. Of course it is. But it's objective analysis to see what generates the best outcome for the future. Purely cold hearted calculation.

Will it haunt my Shepard. Most definitely. But he'll sleep at night knowing that he made the best choice out of two horrible ones and that a man who would otherwise be out there terrorizing innocents is dead and gone.

[Dean_the_Young]

A clean conscience has value, and shout be its own reward, but that does work both ways as well. I've never felt bad about leaving the Council to die for just that reason, and the political fallout is really just an afterthought most of the time (except for role playing purposes).

But I do agree that it should be balanced in other respects as well.There are times a clear conscience, in both directions, should be rewarded. And there are times it should be the only reward you can claim.

[Sarcastic Tasha]

I agree, renegade Shep doesn't have to be evil for the sake of being evil she's just willing to make the tough decisions to get the job done. But paragon Shep is probably laughing at renegade Shep because she got to save the innocents AND get the job done. At least renegade Shep would get a renegade trigger pop up and headbutt paragon Shep in the face.

[Calamity Abounds]

cast2007 wrote...

Even though i play as a paragon, I always let the workers die.

Why? Because I know that if Vido escapes, then he'll be able to inflict harm on even more innocents. I figure that the number of innocents that are stuck on the planet is far less than the innocents that he's going to harm if he isn't stopped.

Is it cruel. Of course it is. But it's objective analysis to see what generates the best outcome for the future. Purely cold hearted calculation.

Will it haunt my Shepard. Most definitely. But he'll sleep at night knowing that he made the best choice out of two horrible ones and that a man who would otherwise be out there terrorizing innocents is dead and gone.

^^^
This is why I always end up playing Paragade. I take all actions as I see fit while staying just enough Paragon to mediate some members of the crew (what a joke that is sometimes). My Shep will for sure be haunted by this, he also struggles with the Garrus killing Sidonis or even a big one being the destruction of the Collector Base.  I never play with an "ends justify the means" attitude but simply a "lesser of two evils" one and hope that my actions in ME 1 and 2 if even done just to satisfy my conscience come back to bite me in the quad as well as reward me.

[Calamity Abounds]

Double post, so sorry

Modifié par Calamity Abounds, 12 mai 2011 - 08:02 .

[aimlessgun]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That's not an easy question to answer. When can I say I don't have a clean conscience? If I feel that sacrificing the hostages to stop Balak or letting the workers burn on Zorya was really the best option then obviously I'm okay with it. Sometimes I might wish there was another way, but I 'know' that there wasn't.

Also as far as Zaeed's LM is concerned, Paragon's get his loyalty, more money, and (arguably) a better upgrade.

That's a good point, if you really are focused on the greater good, your conscience is arguably cleaner even if your short term actions are messy.

cast2007 wrote...

Even though i play as a paragon, I always let the workers die.

Why?
Because I know that if Vido escapes, then he'll be able to inflict harm
on even more innocents. I figure that the number of innocents that are
stuck on the planet is far less than the innocents that he's going to
harm if he isn't stopped.

Is it cruel. Of course it is. But it's
objective analysis to see what generates the best outcome for the
future. Purely cold hearted calculation.

Will it haunt my
Shepard. Most definitely. But he'll sleep at night knowing that he made
the best choice out of two horrible ones and that a man who would
otherwise be out there terrorizing innocents is dead and gone.

That's another way to look at it, it's true. Instead of the choice being about Zaeed vs. Workers, it's about Workers vs. Vido.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But I do agree that it should be
balanced in other respects as well.There are times a clear conscience,
in both directions, should be rewarded. And there are times it should be
the only reward you can claim.

Definitely. I think it would make things more interesting, to see if you're really willing to give up a tangible in game reward to do the 'right' thing. And yeah, now that I think about it, it can go in both directions.

[Vengeful Nature]

cast2007 wrote...

Even though i play as a paragon, I always let the workers die.

Why? Because I know that if Vido escapes, then he'll be able to inflict harm on even more innocents. I figure that the number of innocents that are stuck on the planet is far less than the innocents that he's going to harm if he isn't stopped.

Is it cruel. Of course it is. But it's objective analysis to see what generates the best outcome for the future. Purely cold hearted calculation.

Will it haunt my Shepard. Most definitely. But he'll sleep at night knowing that he made the best choice out of two horrible ones and that a man who would otherwise be out there terrorizing innocents is dead and gone.

Unless, of course, Zaeed finds Vido before or during ME3. In which case, the issue sorted itself out and you've let those people burn to death for no reason.

I'ma futzin with your mind.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 12 mai 2011 - 08:19 .

[gogman25]

"Renegade to me does not = douchebag. It means maximizing your chances of stopping the reapers regardless of moral concerns."

I agree, killing off a species which may help you is certainly maximising our chances. So is giving a space station with ultra dangerous tech to a bunch of clowns with a serious case of the derps.

[AdmiralCheez]

aimlessgun wrote...

That's another way to look at it, it's true. Instead of the choice being about Zaeed vs. Workers, it's about Workers vs. Vido.

That's how I always thought of it.

To be honest, I don't know if making a character's loyalty exclusive to Shepard's moral alignment is a good idea.  It seems to me that they were trying to avoid nerfing gameplay for half the players, hence why both paragons and renegades can get everyone loyal.

[cast2007]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

cast2007 wrote...

Even though i play as a paragon, I always let the workers die.

Why? Because I know that if Vido escapes, then he'll be able to inflict harm on even more innocents. I figure that the number of innocents that are stuck on the planet is far less than the innocents that he's going to harm if he isn't stopped.

Is it cruel. Of course it is. But it's objective analysis to see what generates the best outcome for the future. Purely cold hearted calculation.

Will it haunt my Shepard. Most definitely. But he'll sleep at night knowing that he made the best choice out of two horrible ones and that a man who would otherwise be out there terrorizing innocents is dead and gone.

Unless, of course, Zaeed finds Vido before or during ME3. In which case, the issue sorted itself out and you've let those people burn to death for no reason.

I'ma futzin with your mind.

Hindsight is as accurate as it is useless.

[Dean_the_Young]

gogman25 wrote...

"Renegade to me does not = douchebag. It means maximizing your chances of stopping the reapers regardless of moral concerns."

I agree, killing off a species which may help you is certainly maximising our chances.

A species which has only had one individual not try and kill everything that moves, and that easily explained by the fact that the individual in question can't do anything but beg to be released, has no intelligent basis for being called a likely asset as opposed to likely trouble.

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

"Renegade to me does not = douchebag. It means maximizing your chances of stopping the reapers regardless of moral concerns."

I agree, killing off a species which may help you is certainly maximising our chances.

A species which has only had one individual not try and kill everything that moves, and that easily explained by the fact that the individual in question can't do anything but beg to be released, has no intelligent basis for being called a likely asset as opposed to likely trouble.

The Queen doesn't even offer any future assistance either.

[Thompson family]

The original post was the best case yet made for the complaint that Renegades are treated unfairly.

Two arguments:

First, if I were Shepard, I wouldn't want a loose cannon like Zaeed on my team unless he could be brought under control. In fact, that's the line of reasoning I pursued in the game. When I discovered he was willing to forget the real mission and let a bunch of people die so he could drag his squadmates off on a vengence chase, my Shep punched the SOB in the face with the Paragon interrupt and didn't get his loyalty in my first playthrough. The tough rascal survived the suicide mission anyway, as I recall.

Second, letting Vido get away — and making a personal enemy of the particularly vicious leader of the Blue Suns — is a negative consequence you fail to mention.

Renegade to me does not = douchebag. It means maximizing your chances of stopping the reapers regardless of moral concerns.

But moral concerns are central to stopping the Reapers. They can't be stopped — or at least they will be harder to stop — without someone who can convince the Organics to fight together, however briefly.

Edited P.S. As somebody who played ME1 and is doing a complete playthrough, I also have to say that letting Balak the terrorist go was frustrating.

Modifié par Thompson family, 12 mai 2011 - 09:47 .

[Nixter Shepard]

I just want reasonable conscequences that acknowledge at least a degree of logic that will affect you positively or negatively based on that decision.
I have one full paragon character. If everything in ME3 worked out perfectly for me because I made every good boy decision, I would be dissappointed.

[Clonedzero]

i dont think ive ever let the workers die in the zaeed mission.

however i do always kill the rachni queen, cus honestly i cant see that working out very well in the long run.

[BlackwindTheCommander]

The thing that always bugs me about people bringing up Zaeed's loyalty is that both sides get their own rewards. Both get Zaeed's loyalty but each get their own specific reward.

Paragon- Zaeed's loyalty and saved the workers. Vido gets away.

Renegade- Easier Zaeed loyalty and you kill the leader of the Blue Suns, possibly opening up options in the future. Civilians die.

There are up sides and down sides to each decision you make in ME and ME2.

Rachni Queen- Alive is a new ally but more husk fodder for the Reapers. Dead is a lost ally but also less enemies to worry about.

Council- Alive more united council races, but less power for humans. Dead more power for humans but political turmoil and distrust.

Base- Destroyed lost possible advantage over the Reapers but destroyed possible tool of mass indoctrination. Kept powerful advantage over the Reapers but also devastating in the wrong hands.

No side has actually benifited or lost over the other side. At least not yet.

Modifié par BlackwindTheCommander, 12 mai 2011 - 10:10 .

[88mphSlayer]

paragon has always been "easy" button fluff

there are very few good grey choices in mass effect 2 imo, even dragon age 2 has that game beat pretty easily on this front despite basically screwing over replays to do so (tho i would blame that more on a rushed act 3 than the choices themselves which are getting tons of debate)

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 12 mai 2011 - 10:17 .

[Alamar2078]

I suspect that Paragons will get bit by Rana Theoptis (sp?) ... The Eclipse Merc that you let you in ME2 that turns out to be a murderer could come back to bite you more than it already has ...

I don't suspect tooooo many other Paragon choices will realistically bite you.

[aimlessgun]

@Alamar: Elnora is a good example of something that goes against paragons, without crippling their game or anything. More of that, Bioware!

AdmiralCheez wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

That's another way to look at it, it's true. Instead of the choice being about Zaeed vs. Workers, it's about Workers vs. Vido.

That's how I always thought of it.

To be honest, I don't know if making a character's loyalty exclusive to Shepard's moral alignment is a good idea.  It seems to me that they were trying to avoid nerfing gameplay for half the players, hence why both paragons and renegades can get everyone loyal.

Well, you wouldn't need renegade points to get Zaeed's loyalty. You just need to be willing to compromise your principles. I think it presents an interesting choice. (I also don't rate killing Vido very highly as a 'moral reward' since I suspect his underlings will duke it out in a messy bloodbath for a few months, one will win and everything will go back to normal).

Thompson family wrote...
But moral concerns are central to
stopping the Reapers. They can't be stopped — or at least they will be
harder to stop — without someone who can convince the Organics to fight
together, however briefly.

I don't buy the idea that being a saint would work any better than hardheaded renegade realpolitik.

BlackwindTheCommander wrote...

Paragon- Zaeed's loyalty and saved the workers. Vido gets away.

Renegade-
Easier Zaeed loyalty and you kill the leader of the Blue Suns, possibly
opening up options in the future. Civilians die.

No side has actually benifited or lost over the other side. At least not yet.

As I say above, I don't really see killing Vido as much of a benefit (and really I don't think the paragon check is high enough to say the renegade option is 'easier'). But you're right, we won't know until ME3.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 12 mai 2011 - 11:43 .

[Thompson family]

I don't buy the idea that being a saint would work any better than hardheaded renegade realpolitik.

That's your preogative, aimlessgun, but there's a difference between being a saint and simply being trustworthy. Giving people some basis to trust you is also a vital component to realpolitik. Chancellor Bismarck, for instance, made a friend and ally of Austria-Hungary after Prussia whipped them in the Seven Weeks War. Similarly, Shep should use all the force needed -- and stop.

The secret of politics is twofold: To make friends faster than you can make enemies, and to never make an open enemy of someone you can't crush.

"Help. I need you to attack these invincible machines in a seemingly hopeless counter-attack to save my home planet."

(Ponders the fact that the person making the plea was willing to make a firey sacrifice of a whole refinery crew just to gain the loyalty of a merc for one mission.)

"No, we think not. We'll come up with our own plan. Thanks for your time."

Modifié par Thompson family, 13 mai 2011 - 12:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

A Paragon Shepard isn't particularly trustworthy vis-a-vis a Renegade, though. A Paragon Shepard is nice, but not any more trustworthy by default. A Paragon will willingly and freely ruin an investigation by trying to arrest a suspect up front, a Paragon Shepard will cover up war crimes as a favor for a friend, a Paragon Shepard will ignore calls to duty and obligation for moral satisfaction.

It's just as easy to turn that discussion around as well:

"Hey, I need to send your fleets to defend my home planet against a hoarde of super-advanced machines that may be impossible to stop. We must fight to the last for the innocents on Earth."

(Recipient pauses, recalls that this is the same person who was willing to gamble the entire galactic existence on throwing away reinforcements to save the Council before Sovereign.)

"No, we think we'll make a more sensible plan than you. Bye."

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 13 mai 2011 - 12:09 .

[Thompson family]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A Paragon Shepard isn't particularly trustworthy vis-a-vis a Renegade, though. A Paragon Shepard is nice, but not any more trustworthy by default. A Paragon will willingly and freely ruin an investigation by trying to arrest a suspect up front, a Paragon Shepard will cover up war crimes as a favor for a friend, a Paragon Shepard will ignore calls to duty and obligation for moral satisfaction.

Shep covers up war crimes for Tali's father, that's true, but the evidence is all there on the Alari. Shep didn't destroy it — and didn't bring it forward in a public trilal. At Tali's request, they took the risk of not revealing  that information.

Which, when you think about it, is a Renegade act, isn't it?

The Quarian Admiralty Board had a terrible secret and Shep kept it — that most definitely builds trust.

But what about the Geth? Even in the confrontation between Legion and Tali, Legion recognizes the wisdom of Shep's actions.

My Shep's never blown an investigation by trying to arrest a suspect up front. Is that in reference to ME1 and the purchase of the illegal mods?

I also don't get the duty and obligation for moral satisfaction reference. Sorry.

[Thompson family]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's just as easy to turn that discussion around as well:

"Hey, I need to send your fleets to defend my home planet against a hoarde of super-advanced machines that may be impossible to stop. We must fight to the last for the innocents on Earth."

(Recipient pauses, recalls that this is the same person who was willing to gamble the entire galactic existence on throwing away reinforcements to save the Council before Sovereign.)

"No, we think we'll make a more sensible plan than you. Bye."

Can't agree with that one at all, Dean_the_Young. Now everybody knows that Shep's not a nut and that the Reapers would have come through the Citadel if Shep hadn't stopped Saren. Everybody would have been better off if they'd only listened. Also, Shep proved humanity was willing to make sacrifices for the good of the whole. That's what Shep will be asking for in ME3.

Modifié par Thompson family, 13 mai 2011 - 12:19 .