131 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Agamo45 wrote...

Saving humanity is worth more than one man's conscience. That's how I see it.

Ah, but that's the trick to it isn't it? Are the actions necessary to save humanity, or are the risks to humanity (real or perceived) just an excuse to take the easier path?

[InvincibleHero]

Golden Owl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

AK404 wrote...

Of course, the results of Arrival pretty much put an end to any clean conscience Shep might have kept throughout the two games...

Something that is unavoidable shouldn't weigh that heavily on the mind. if I had to push a button to save the rest of the Earth at a cost of 300,000 I'd press it right away. We're talking a small percentatge vs hundreds of billions of other lifeforms that would be reaped. A pittance to pay really.

No, I disargree...It would still weigh heavily on the concience, his still responsible for the deaths of 300,000, despite having no choice, he did what he had to, but I can't see how that would make anthing easier on his conscience,

Any wounds would be self-inflicted. No choice is just that. Sure it wouldn't be anywhere near pleasant to do it, but it had to be done. I think it would be foolish to overly wallow in slfl-pity and destroy himself over something that was unchangeable. After all the job is not yet done.

As another factor there was little closeness to the actions. All the deaths were of the faceless kind like bombers dropping payloads on buildings sure you know people are dying, but it said to be harder to kill one person with a knife up-close by those that were military.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Ah, but that's the trick to it isn't it? Are the actions necessary to save humanity, or are the risks to humanity (real or perceived) just an excuse to take the easier path?

Considering recent history and more ancient history I don't know how you could question that TIM's fears for humanity are not justified. Should we stand by and allow what happened to the krogan, the rachni, the quarians, or the batarians to happen to us? We've already been the focus of attacks by three alien species with superior training/technology/population in just the last twenty years.

So you are saying that if we attempt genocide offering no quarter we might have reason to fear the same done against us? That is what happened in the other cases and is more of a case against radical pursuit of supremicy in that everyone else who has tried it in the past has lost big time (including Sovereign, btw).

The only thing that happened to the Batarians was us, and they were actually the agressors. There was no actual war against them either, just a skirmish in which we easily had air superiority and fended off the ground assault with civilians backed with a mere handful of troops. They didn't stand a chance and rather than engage us in an actual war, they went to the council, WHO BACKED US, and then they backed off from an area they never actually controlled. Note we never ordered them out of the Terminus systems other than by retaliating after the Skylian Blitz.

So which are the three 'superior species?' The Turians, who backed off simply because we asked nicely, the Batarians, who weren't even remotely a threat and backed off as soon as we fired back (do they even count as a 'superior species?'), and the Reapers, who are a threat to everyone?

Note that it turned out the Collectors could have been stopped by a single DN group firing on the stationary collector ship from outside its sensor range, using a decoy ship to provide telemetry. Prove that any of Cerberus' experiments other than (maybe) lazarus are neccessary to defeat the Reapers.

[100k]

Here's the thing I don't get:

How the hell does Para-Shep justify destroying the collector base, when mere days before, he/she justified keeping Mordin's research so that he could cure the genophage? Isn't it the exact same thing?

[Moiaussi]

100k wrote...

Here's the thing I don't get:

How the hell does Para-Shep justify destroying the collector base, when mere days before, he/she justified keeping Mordin's research so that he could cure the genophage? Isn't it the exact same thing?

Not completely. In my case I usually destroy the base on the grounds I can't secure it. We do not know the Reaper ETA and cannot be certain (regardless of records in the base) that the Collectors had only the one ship. If they returned with a fleet, we would lose the base back to them.

If we destroy the base, we still have the data EDI extracted from it, but it is no longer available to the Collectors or Reapers in the future.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

100k wrote...

Here's the thing I don't get:

How the hell does Para-Shep justify destroying the collector base, when mere days before, he/she justified keeping Mordin's research so that he could cure the genophage? Isn't it the exact same thing?

The same way he justifies blowing up the Alpha Relay despite the fact he wasn't willing to make that sacrifice in the Battle of the Citadel. That was the exact same situation too.

So in sort, Para-Shep never attempts to justify anything.

Wait, Shepard had an asteroid handy to slam into the Citadel timed so that it would have been able to prevent an already docked Sovereign from bringing the Reapers through? Oh wait, he didn't.

The Citadel is in a nebula with no asteroids or planets handy at all, let alone any conveniently rigged with propulsion, but you aren't the type to let mere facts get in the way of your version of reality, are you?

[GodWood]

Arcian wrote...

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

Wow, someone needs to desperately replay the Illium part and talk to the Queen's envoy.

Oh wait, you always kill the queen. Bummer.

He meant when you're actually making the decision to release it or not.



Context is key bro

[Dean_the_Young]

Arcian wrote...

Seboist wrote...

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.

Wow, someone needs to desperately replay the Illium part and talk to the Queen's envoy.

Oh wait, you always kill the queen. Bummer.

Unless your Shepard claims to be able to see the future, how in the least does that factor into the decision to spare the Rachni based upon what you know then and there?

[Golden Owl]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

AK404 wrote...

Of course, the results of Arrival pretty much put an end to any clean conscience Shep might have kept throughout the two games...

Something that is unavoidable shouldn't weigh that heavily on the mind. if I had to push a button to save the rest of the Earth at a cost of 300,000 I'd press it right away. We're talking a small percentatge vs hundreds of billions of other lifeforms that would be reaped. A pittance to pay really.

No, I disargree...It would still weigh heavily on the concience, his still responsible for the deaths of 300,000, despite having no choice, he did what he had to, but I can't see how that would make anthing easier on his conscience,

Any wounds would be self-inflicted. No choice is just that. Sure it wouldn't be anywhere near pleasant to do it, but it had to be done. I think it would be foolish to overly wallow in slfl-pity and destroy himself over something that was unchangeable. After all the job is not yet done.

As another factor there was little closeness to the actions. All the deaths were of the faceless kind like bombers dropping payloads on buildings sure you know people are dying, but it said to be harder to kill one person with a knife up-close by those that were military.

Yes, it would be foolish to wallow in self pity, if Shep can't hack it he shouldn't be a soldier, my point more being I don't expect him to be callous about it either...it would be one of those things that I guess he would have to compartmentalize and not carry the burden, a soldier in action needs to be able to do that....though that said I also have a number of Vietnam Veteran friends who now suffer nightmares and horrors, they question themselves....so maybe that one is something unanswerable in regards to far reaching effects.

As for the closeness of action thing....yes, a number of tests conducted over the years have proven time and time again, give the majority of people distance from the act and they are more able to perform it, though they are aware of the ramifications to the victims....As I said, this refers to the majority of test subjects, I am one who falls into the minority, I remain acutley aware....so I guess by extention, my Shep remains acutely aware.

[Barquiel]

Rachni are a sapient, organic race. Thus it is not surprising that the queen has an interest to stop the reapers. The rachni survived one genocide (if spared), I guess the queen is not eager to risk another (from the reapers).

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Unless your Shepard claims to be able to see the future, how in the least does that factor into the decision to spare the Rachni based upon what you know then and there?

Our inability to see the future is precisely why we need to be cautious in our decisions, to weigh that evidence we do have carefully.

For me, trusting the Queen isn't based strictly on her assurances, but on her tone and choice of words and contrasting them to what we know of the Rachni war. Tough judgement calls happen every day, and those that make them often can't know the outcome, but have to go on instinct and experience. Just because I spared her in my first game didn't make it an easy choice. It was the toughest decision I have ever made in a game, actually.

There is a legitimate arguement for simply killing her. I just felt that, on balance of probabilities, the arguement to spare her was stronger. The fact that said decision isn't vindicated until the next game doesn't mean it isn't vindicated.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Unless your Shepard claims to be able to see the future, how in the least does that factor into the decision to spare the Rachni based upon what you know then and there?

Our inability to see the future is precisely why we need to be cautious in our decisions, to weigh that evidence we do have carefully.

For me, trusting the Queen isn't based strictly on her assurances, but on her tone and choice of words and contrasting them to what we know of the Rachni war. Tough judgement calls happen every day, and those that make them often can't know the outcome, but have to go on instinct and experience. Just because I spared her in my first game didn't make it an easy choice. It was the toughest decision I have ever made in a game, actually.

There is a legitimate arguement for simply killing her. I just felt that, on balance of probabilities, the arguement to spare her was stronger. The fact that said decision isn't vindicated until the next game doesn't mean it isn't vindicated.

One one hand you have the demonstrated, recorded history of hundreds of years of contact, warfare, and the last few hours of being attacked by Rachni who have continued to wantonly massacre people.

On the other hand, you have the Queen's words that none of that was their fault, that she isn't directing the Rachni in the labs, and that she'll chart a completely different policy if only you let her go free and not kill her.


...and people say persuasion checks are unrealistic.

[lovgreno]

A person with a clean consience is a person who follows some kind of morals. This means they are more trustworthy and that is something very valuable and in the long run even essential. If you go around making victims rather than making friends you will soon be very alone. And alone means loser in the long run.

[Seboist]

The ideal choice would have been to keep her captive somewhere until it could be determined if it's safe to release her into the "wild".

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Unless your Shepard claims to be able to see the future, how in the least does that factor into the decision to spare the Rachni based upon what you know then and there?

Our inability to see the future is precisely why we need to be cautious in our decisions, to weigh that evidence we do have carefully.

For me, trusting the Queen isn't based strictly on her assurances, but on her tone and choice of words and contrasting them to what we know of the Rachni war. Tough judgement calls happen every day, and those that make them often can't know the outcome, but have to go on instinct and experience. Just because I spared her in my first game didn't make it an easy choice. It was the toughest decision I have ever made in a game, actually.

There is a legitimate arguement for simply killing her. I just felt that, on balance of probabilities, the arguement to spare her was stronger. The fact that said decision isn't vindicated until the next game doesn't mean it isn't vindicated.

One one hand you have the demonstrated, recorded history of hundreds of years of contact, warfare, and the last few hours of being attacked by Rachni who have continued to wantonly massacre people.

On the other hand, you have the Queen's words that none of that was their fault, that she isn't directing the Rachni in the labs, and that she'll chart a completely different policy if only you let her go free and not kill her.


...and people say persuasion checks are unrealistic.

Shepard is not the only one who mastered the art of talk-jutsu!

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

One one hand you have the demonstrated, recorded history of hundreds of years of contact, warfare, and the last few hours of being attacked by Rachni who have continued to wantonly massacre people.

On the other hand, you have the Queen's words that none of that was their fault, that she isn't directing the Rachni in the labs, and that she'll chart a completely different policy if only you let her go free and not kill her.


...and people say persuasion checks are unrealistic.

A war in which we were the invaders into their space and in which communications seemed impossible to both sides and which they lost. There may also have been Reaper involvement, although that is less certain.

Here on Earth, Germany once seemed to be winning for a while too and were involved in genocide (although we didn't actually even know that until late in the war). Even immediately as of the end of the war, they were considered allied again. We had communications, so they were able to surrender. So far there hasn't seemed to be any negative consequences to our accepting their surrender.

In the Rachni war, we were fighting a race that doesn't even use sound to communicate. and the only means the Queen had to communicate on Noveria was by animating a dying Asari, something one wouldn't be given a chance to do on the battlefield.

The situation is very different now. We are able to communicate. The Queen does know this, does know they lost (and were nearly completely eliminated), and speaks rationally rather than as the kill-crazy race they seemed to be in the war. Communications mean diplomacy is possible. That they lost coupled with rationality means they have incentive to take diplomatic options seriously. And the Queen's value system seemed to value artistic concepts over militaristic concepts, which suggests that they do not have the warrior culture of the Krogan.

There may have been an outside influence too, but even if the Queen is honest about the 'sour note from space' that could still just have been a Rachni call to arms in paranoia over intruders in their space. The point is that they tried once, paid heavily, and know better now. They also have perfect memories, so they won't forget the magnitude of their loss or mercy showed them.

All that is evidence. It isn't conclusive, but neither is a past war conclusive evidence that there will be another.

There is also the fact that there is a common threat comming, and one that eclipses the Rachni. Having another race out there knowing of the threat and standing ready to fight it is a benefit. As the pro Cerberus crowd are fond of saying, in the face of that level of threat sometimes you need to take more risks. Strange that saving the Rachni never seems to be on their list of acceptable risks....

[Moiaussi]

By the way, I do acknowledge that there was reason to consider the Queen a threat and to simply kill her too. I just maintain that there was more than just her promise of peace to judge her fate on.

[Montana]

To me being renegade means putting your objectives first, maximizing your chances of success. By doing this you sacrifice some of your "clean consious", you make the hard choises so that others can reap the benefits.
It also means being a hot headed douche at times.

Being Paragon means you have a code of conduct that you're not willing to sacrifice, even if it jeopardizes the mission. You're basically taking bigger chances for bigger rewards (saving the council, not killing the racni queen, etc).

The only thing I can think of that deviates from this formula is whether or not to destroy the collector base. In that case renegade Shep takes a risk in order to gain an advantage.
(Looks like ME3 is a little Paragon slanted to begin with since Cerberus isn't as friendly to Shep).

Since Shep is so badass, he/she succeeds in both cases.

I presonally think that a renegade Shep is more interesting and fun to play.

[Moiaussi]

The Rachni Queen is independant of your mission against Saren, the Geth and the Reapers though. If anything, she has as much reason to hate them as you. You were merely set up as having botched the mission on Eden. The Queen was kept captive and experimented on with an acid-tank gun to her head.

Many of the side missions in ME1 are irrelevant to the main mission regardless of paragon or renegade approach.

All the loyalty missions in ME2 are irrelevant to the main mission, other than by virtue of a lack of sufficient leadership skill on the part Shepard to keep the team's morale up without them. Regardless they are not neccessary for the success of the primary mission.

Situations such as Vido escaping because you save workers instead of ignoring them to catch him shouldn't even be issues for a renegade, since a true renegade wouldn't even be there.

[Seboist]

Moiaussi wrote...

The Rachni Queen is independant of your mission against Saren, the Geth and the Reapers though. If anything, she has as much reason to hate them as you. You were merely set up as having botched the mission on Eden. The Queen was kept captive and experimented on with an acid-tank gun to her head.

Many of the side missions in ME1 are irrelevant to the main mission regardless of paragon or renegade approach.

All the loyalty missions in ME2 are irrelevant to the main mission, other than by virtue of a lack of sufficient leadership skill on the part Shepard to keep the team's morale up without them. Regardless they are not neccessary for the success of the primary mission.

Situations such as Vido escaping because you save workers instead of ignoring them to catch him shouldn't even be issues for a renegade, since a true renegade wouldn't even be there.

That didn't stop Shep from killing the Thorian.