233 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Sweet merciful crap, hardly anyone is complaining about not being liked in ME2, why do you people keep bringing that up as though it's some sort of valid response? I'm fine with consequences and I am fine with my Shep being hated, especially by that turian in the gun shop on the Citadel. He's hilarious! What I don't like is not feeling any repercussion of some of the larger decisions in a game that's supposedly all about seeing how your decisions shape the world. And no, I don't think being told the new Council doesn't want to see Shepard is a consequence; it feels like a cop-out and a cut corner, like Bioware just didn't want to spring for voice actors and character designs.

Modifié par marshalleck, 17 mai 2011 - 05:50 .

[JBONE27]

Why are people saying it's soul crushing to be a paragon? Maybe I'm just too morally uptight (though my views are liberal, and my moral code is basically just increase happiness and reduce suffering), but I would have thought that hugging Tali, telling TIM to go to hell, and releasing the lobster queen were things that made everyone feel good.
I can comprehend that people would find the paragon option dull for the same reason some people find Spider-man or Night Owl dull, but it hurt your soul?

[Manic Sheep]

marshalleck wrote...
I don't think being told the new Council doesn't want to see Shepard is a consequence; it feels like a cop-out and a cut corner, like Bioware just didn't want to spring for voice actors and character designs.

I agree with that one, the council thing was a cop out and lazy. It wasn't a huge deal tho so long as bioware gets their act together in ME3.  The decisions from ME1 didn't really make that much impact on ME2.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 17 mai 2011 - 06:44 .

[Seboist]

The lack of a human dominated council showing up in ME2 is flat out inexcusable. They would have logically also appeared in ME3 as well, so no excuse for not hiring new voice talent.

That and everyone without exception scolding Shepard for keeping the collector base are the two biggest grievances with Renegade decisions.

Modifié par Seboist, 17 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Dave of Canada]

In short:  Less cameos, less references, equal rewards, scolded for your decisions, forced to spend more resources and more.

There's no point in being a Renegade when Paragon exists, it seems to be carrying over into Mass Effect 3 with magazines almost outright calling Renegades idiots.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 17 mai 2011 - 07:09 .

[Admoniter]

Because what is the point of having to ways of doing something when both ways work out, and one option leads to more cameos, more dialogue options, etc... The Battle of the Citadel example has already been brought up but I will do so again. The Renegade looks at the big picture in this case, and follows through with the most logical action. If you divert part of your fleet to protect the DA you might not have enough ships to stop Sovereign. But what does it matter which choice you make, no one really acknowledges the difference except for some people going off at you (fair enough.) The paragon is needlessly putting everyones life in danger because they believe that all life is sacred, there are enormous stakes riding on this gamble. But that doesn't matter because everything is all unicorns and rainbows at the end so Renegades are just ****s that only take the easy way out. Shame on you renegades for being pragmatic, why can't you be blindly idealistic like everyone else wants you to be.

[marshalleck]

Seboist wrote...

The lack of a human dominated council showing up in ME2 is flat out inexcusable. They would have logically also appeared in ME3 as well, so no excuse for not hiring new voice talent.

Unless the plan was to not have them in ME3 either? Maybe they're still refusing to see Shepard. 

[Seboist]

marshalleck wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The lack of a human dominated council showing up in ME2 is flat out inexcusable. They would have logically also appeared in ME3 as well, so no excuse for not hiring new voice talent.

Unless the plan was to not have them in ME3 either? Maybe they're still refusing to see Shepard. 

They might as well continue to cut corners in ME3. They should have been in ME2 from the get-go shaking my Shepard's hand for refusing to sacrifice human lives for a bunch of hostile alien bureaucrats and putting them in power.

[Ieldra]

Nyoka wrote...
Hard choices are sometimes necessary. The rachni queen is a hard choice, isn't it? She's very dangerous, after all. Heavy risk. And as long as the rachni queen is alive, it will be a latent risk, a bomb waiting to go off (this is at least what renegades who freed it would think).

It isn't a hard choice if Paragon players can trust that their decision to let the Rachni queen live will have mostly positive consequences.  Taking risks with Paragon decisions will increasingly not be a hard choice for Shepard as every and all Paragon decision he takes turns out to have only positive consequences. Learning by experience. If taking risks actually risks nothing, then you can always take them.
Granted, we don't yet know how that will turn out in the end, but ME2 gave us a pretty good hint.

Balak is a conflict between the intuitive good and the necessary, too.

Yes. And it's a very good example for what I'm talking about. If you let the Engineers die, you'll get that news item on Omega telling you about the anniversary of the attack. It will bring home to you that Kate Bowman is dead. Nothing about Balak but that's OK since he's dead. If you save the Engineers, you'll get a different news item about the same event, bringing home to you that Kate Bowman is alive. Nothing about Balak again, but this time it is NOT OK - he should've been mentioned as being still at large.

Thus: there are no negative consequences to letting a terrorist go. The Renegade get the zero consequence - no Kate Bowman, but also no Balak, and the Paragons get the +1 consequence - Kate Bowman lives, but Balak doesn't do anything bad again. They should've gotten both the +1 and the -1 consequence, resulting in a zero sum and balanced consequences.

Not that I'm saying every decision should be balanced. But the consequences of Paragon decisions, summed up over the whole game, should be approximately zero instead of positive infinity. And the consequences of Renegade decisions, summed up over the whole game, should be approximately zero instead of negative infinity.

In ME2, you can let Elnora go in Illium, and that backfires. She was the murderer the police was after, so the intuitive good does not always work out.

That's no gamble. Speak with Pitne for and you'll know in advance that Eclipse earn her uniform by killing someone. So you know that Elnora lies. Whether that justifies killing her can be argued, but this decision is not a gamble.

In Zaeed's mission, it's more difficult for paragons to get his loyalty, because they'll have to be extraordinarily persuasive. Quite a few paragons won't be able to do it, whereas not even one renegade will have any kind of problem with Zaeed's loyalty.

You can't be serious. That's just another example of Paragons being able to wriggle out of the consequences of their actions. There shouldn't have been an option to convince him in the first place. It isn't even that difficult. I could do it with my neutral Shepard. If you play a 70% Paragon / 30% Renegade path, it should be no problem at all.
In the end, the Paragons again have their cake and eat it: they save the workers and get Zaeed's loyalty.

You save the council in ME1, and in ME2 what recognition do you get from them? Are you received as the hero you are? No, you are dismissed and told to get out of the way. Not only they don't show appreciation, they think you are trouble. What? I'm sure others can bring up more examples.

And what do Renegades get? About the same treatment, PLUS that everyone hates you. You can't sell that to me as balanced.

It's logical Paragons will often times get desirable consequences. They are not dumb. They won't do stupid things most of the times. Most things paragons do are likely to bring over desirable consequences before they do it. For instance, if you save the quarian in Haestrom, you can expect he'll be on your side later then you go to the flotilla in Tali's mission. If you take Veetor to Cerberus, and they interrogate him, you can expect him to be against you once in the flotilla. I don't see these are unfair consequences, nor I see the game is unfair to renegades in general either.

I have no problems with the consequences of these decisions. As I said, I don't say every single decision should be balanced. But every decision where Paragons get the best outcome should be balanced by another where Renegades get the best outcome.

DAMN IT! Why can't people get it into their heads that I'm talking about PATTERNS of consequences summed up over several decisions, not consequences for single ones.

As for pragmatic benefits, there are examples of that, too. In Virmire, you can turn on the alarms in another part of the building so your enemies go for Kirrahe, so you don't have to bother. Kirrahe could die, but you get a strategic, pragmatic benefit. In Feros, killing everyone with the assault rifle is way easier
strategically than using gas grenades. When you recruit Archangel in
ME2, you can kill the mechanic who is repairing the gunship so the fight
is easier later on. (I'm sorry, you can't tell me you don't want me to
mention easier fights and at the same time complain about not having
strategic, pragmatic advantages).

I'm getting really fed up with thIs.

IT IS THE DECISIONS AFFECTING THE BIG PICTURE THAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A few less enemies in some plot mission - that doesn't count. It serves only to illustrate your character's behaviour and I'm fine with that. It may even be that the system is reasonably balanced with regard to the small things. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, THRICE DAMN IT! These small decisions don't have any long term impact. As soon as the mission is done, it won't matter anymore. It doesn't matter that the fight was a little easier, the long term impact is either nothing (Virmire) or that Feros isn't viable as a colony any more. Long term, story-wise, the Paragons reap all the benefits while the Renegades get scrap.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2011 - 08:15 .

[TheBlackBaron]

JBONE27 wrote...

Why are people saying it's soul crushing to be a paragon? Maybe I'm just too morally uptight (though my views are liberal, and my moral code is basically just increase happiness and reduce suffering), but I would have thought that hugging Tali, telling TIM to go to hell, and releasing the lobster queen were things that made everyone feel good.
I can comprehend that people would find the paragon option dull for the same reason some people find Spider-man or Night Owl dull, but it hurt your soul?

Mainly it's the painful naiveity that Paragon Shepard exhibits at times, as well as a couple of occassions where the he turns infuratingly self-righteous and holier-than-thou - the Paragon dialogue during Mordin's loyalty is especially egregarious with this. 

I get good feelings from hugging Tali too, and since this a role-playing game, my Renegade can still do that and be "in character" (although "in character" for him is basically just doing what I would do). He just doesn't see the benefit in sacrifcing much-needed firepower to save some obstructive bureaucrats or setting loose some murderous bugs with only the word of an individual backed into a corner that they'll be good. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 17 mai 2011 - 08:17 .

[Nimrodell]

Seboist wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The lack of a human dominated council showing up in ME2 is flat out inexcusable. They would have logically also appeared in ME3 as well, so no excuse for not hiring new voice talent.

Unless the plan was to not have them in ME3 either? Maybe they're still refusing to see Shepard. 

They might as well continue to cut corners in ME3. They should have been in ME2 from the get-go shaking my Shepard's hand for refusing to sacrifice human lives for a bunch of hostile alien bureaucrats and putting them in power.

Seboist, it's all 'cause this is renegade's fate... Renegade Fate is Heartbreaking

[Seboist]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Why are people saying it's soul crushing to be a paragon? Maybe I'm just too morally uptight (though my views are liberal, and my moral code is basically just increase happiness and reduce suffering), but I would have thought that hugging Tali, telling TIM to go to hell, and releasing the lobster queen were things that made everyone feel good.
I can comprehend that people would find the paragon option dull for the same reason some people find Spider-man or Night Owl dull, but it hurt your soul?

Mainly it's the painful naiveity that Paragon Shepard exhibits at times, as well as a couple of occassions where the he turns infuratingly self-righteous and holier-than-thou - the Paragon dialogue during Mordin's loyalty is especially egregarious with this. 

I get good feelings from hugging Tali too, and since this a role-playing game, my Renegade can still do that and be "in character" (although "in character" for him is basically just doing what I would do). He just doesn't see the benefit in sacrifcing much-needed firepower to save some obstructive bureaucrats or setting loose some murderous bugs with only the word of an individual backed into a corner that they'll be good. 

The perfect example of Paragon Shepard's painful self-rightousness and holier-than-thou arrogance is with destroying the collector base. His argument for it is to satisfy his ego and moral conscious not anything to do with not trusting Cerberus or thinking the tech is too dangerous,which is reflected by the squadmates who argue against keeping it.

[Jebel Krong]

Seboist wrote...

The perfect example of Paragon Shepard's painful self-rightousness and holier-than-thou arrogance is with destroying the collector base. His argument for it is to satisfy his ego and moral conscious not anything to do with not trusting Cerberus or thinking the tech is too dangerous,which is reflected by the squadmates who argue against keeping it.

the self-righteousness is the best reason to avoid paragon at all. as for the base - i blew it up because i wouldn't trust anyone (particularly cerberus, the alliance and even the council) not to abuse it, if i couldn't keep it for myself. i aslo let the rachni queen live because i'd already run into rachni on other worlds and she may well be the best short-cut to controlling them in the future.

[Bozorgmehr]

lovgreno wrote...

Bullies and jerks are usualy losers in real life so why should it be different in this game? Then again there is no real "punishment" or "reward" for any renegade or paragon decisions. Both options usualy involves a heavy risk... But the priiize! In short, both renegade and paragon choices are gambles, deal with it if it bites back.

What gambles? If you had to make a gamble, the system would be good - i.e. not knowing the consequences. This is NOT the case in ME2 and it's the reason why the Par/Ren system is a total fluke.

You already know the consequences before making any decision at all. Sparing the Rachni Queen is a paragon option thus you'll know the Queen isn't going to bite back later on; on the contrary, you can be pretty sure, if the time comes, she will be useful.

There is no choice between taking out dangerous criminals / terrorists OR saving hostages; when saving the hostages is the Paragon option, you know those criminals / terrorists (who will escape b/c you're saving the hostages) will likely become the next Mother Theresa or something.

The whole Paragon-Renegade system is nothing more than a pathetic points system to allow future par/ren responses and - worst of all - it's one massive spoiler. It ought to be about choice - not 'right' or 'wrong' / good versus evil. A good system would offer (hard) choices and sooner or later you're confronted with possible consequences, whether for the good or bad. Maybe the Rachni Queen did speak the truth and saving her life will grant you an ally in ME3; but the Queen could also be lying which might result in the Rachni joining the Reaper cause or wipe out a possible ally - in which case you'd be better off killing her when you had the chance.

[Soahfreako]

 The good guys always win! 

[Bozorgmehr]

I though only the good die young

[K3lg4r]

The whole Paragon-Renegade system is nothing more than a pathetic points system to allow future par/ren responses and - worst of all - it's one massive spoiler

I agree. More than paragon/renegade sometimes it's a right/wrong choice system. Why keeping the collectors' base to fight the reaper should be renegade? It's not like you tell the IM to use it to conquer the galaxy or kill innocent people to finish the human reaper. And, if anything, the paragon option in this case is the "I don't wanna take any chances" one by destroing a possibile resource for the incoming war. But every other time it's the opposite (reprogramming the heretics, freeing the rachni queen, keeping the cure for the genophage), so the game is basically just telling you which choice is the right one to make for the sake of the universe.
It's ok if choices I make blow back in my face or don't get the outcome I expected (that's what happens in life too), but I shouldn't know before I even start thinking about them.
I hope Bioware reads this thread and, if it's too late for ME3, takes note of the many interesting suggestions for future games based around choices.

[hc00]

Some**** wrote...

*renegades act like douchebags, kill people to the left and right, help criminals and terrorists and suffer the realistic consequences for this*
Renegades: Why.jpg, why am I being punished for this?
*paragons help people and stay on the right side of the law*
Renegades: Why aren't they being punished?

You mean the terrorist that renegades help by shooting most of his internal organs to mush and then letting him bleed to death?
And the people that paragons help by allowing a terrorist who had almost completed an attack that would have killed billions to leave and carry out another attack even though you seem to be the only person in the galaxy capable of stopping him, and the chances of you finding out about his next plan and being in a position to prevent it are slim.
 
Or the Criminals that renegades help by killing them and all of thier men?
While Paragons help people by letting those same criminals go as long as they ask pretty please and promise to be good?



What mass effect did you play?!

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 03:02 .

[Someone With Mass]

Yeah, let's judge the game we know virtually nothing about months before it's released! Because that's the most logical thing to do!

[hc00]

Mesina2 wrote...

Why would I ever kill Shiala with exception of being complete dick?
Also why I wouldn't push that survivor in Jacob's LM?

Well with Shiala, she is under the control of 2 different organisms, A reaper and the Thorian.  Now you have no idea how those kinds of control work, what depths it goes to (IE is she really herself now or is she lieing) or even if it was indoctrination that made her do it or if she actually agreed with Sarens goals.

Now if you kill her you have removed a threat, not just to yourself but to every human on Feros. 

If you let her go, you are unleashing a powerful biotic supersoldier, whos motives are a complete unknown, with info on how much of Sarens plan you know (as she can see into your mind when she melds with you).

Seriously, if you think killing her ISNT the right thing there is something wrong with you.


As for the survivor in Jacobs LM, yeah I see no point in letting her die either tbh, but letting her die isnt renegade, it is neutral so has no bearing here.

Mesina2 wrote...

What are you talking about?
Rachni Queen didn't killed anyone in ME1 and only her children, that were insane do to not hearing her songs, killed people who were doing experiments on them and were on Saren's payroll.

Yes because every lie told by a killer to try to save themselves is true isnt it?

Oh wait that guy said it was something to do with the song too didnt he? Well a killer and a clueless guy = insurmountable proof

Mesina2 wrote...

Vido is not a leader of Blue Suns, it's Solem Del'Serah. Death of Vido may do heavy damage to Blue Suns but his death is not good enough to kill off innocents.

Vido is leader, Solem is only his head of operations.

Also Vido's passtimes seems to be mass murder and mass slavery so yeah, killing him will save alot of innocents.

And how many were in the plant on zorya when it blew? You never find out? Tens or Hundreds? Either is acceptable losses compared to stopping Santiago

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 03:22 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

In short:  Less cameos, less references, equal rewards, scolded for your decisions, forced to spend more resources and more.

There's no point in being a Renegade when Paragon exists, it seems to be carrying over into Mass Effect 3 with magazines almost outright calling Renegades idiots.

Seboist wrote...

The lack of a human dominated council showing up in ME2 is flat out inexcusable. They would have logically also appeared in ME3 as well, so no excuse for not hiring new voice talent.

That and everyone without exception scolding Shepard for keeping the collector base are the two biggest grievances with Renegade decisions.

All I heard when I read that was this.

Jesus, some people don't even deserve what they're demanding, because they're so inexcusably stupid.

[hc00]

Nyoka wrote...

What they are writing, however suggests that they want to make inmoral decisions and be loved for it. They want the best of both worlds.

Then bluntly you arent reading properly.  Maybe you are noting key words and making up what you think the message probably was.  Or maybe you are just making it up completely... Who knows.

Nyoka wrote...They want to let a terrorist kill a group of hostages and be congratulated for it, or to take over the galactic government and expect the other races to be okay with that.

When do renegades let terrorists kill a group of hostages?  I guess if you stretched your idea of terrorists Zaeeds mission could be what you claim but even then you are stopping a greater threat, at the cost of some collateral damage.  Though, then again, that was Zaeed killing them, not the Suns so...

If you are talking about BDtS, then you are letting the terrorist go, who tells you to your face that he will try it again.  Now this time you stopped him, next time you wont, and you seem to be the only person capable of stopping him.

So killing him = 6 or so deaths, not killing him = a ****load more.  (Cause even if he just goes to the normal pirate stuff of taking ships he will still kill more than 6 people)

And no, we arent complaining because we are getting hate for taking over the galactic government.  We are getting hate because we have no advantage from it.

By letting the other races slug it out to the bitter end with the geth while we take out sovereign, then wiping up the damaged, disorganised remnants, we should have a military superiority over the other races, which we dont.

And we dont even have control of the government.  IE the only human concil member we know of has absolutely no authority and is disregarded no matter what council you end up with.

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 03:32 .

[Ahglock]

hc00 wrote...


Well with Shiala, she is under the control of 2 different organisms, A reaper and the Thorian.  Now you have no idea how those kinds of control work, what depths it goes to (IE is she really herself now or is she lieing) or even if it was indoctrination that made her do it or if she actually agreed with Sarens goals.

Now if you kill her you have removed a threat, not just to yourself but to every human on Feros. 

If you let her go, you are unleashing a powerful biotic supersoldier, whos motives are a complete unknown, with info on how much of Sarens plan you know (as she can see into your mind when she melds with you).

Seriously, if you think killing her ISNT the right thing there is something wrong with you.

She is a victim of brainwashing.  You generally don't kill them unless they are current threats.  You don;t kill them when they are rational and maybe, might fall victim to the brainwashing again.  At most you put them in a  mental institute for observation. It is not like you aren't giving reports to the authorities after every mission.  Killing her is fairly pointless because everyone knows she was brainwashed and they can and will keep an eye on her, letting her go is a bit different in this context than some others.  She isn't exaclty fleeing the planet, authorities who can check her out can be there well before she can get away  There has to be a bit more plausible of a risk than that to justify killing her.  

[Minister of Sound]

DPSSOC wrote...

Minister of Sound wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Ok people can we be realistic for a moment.  Bioware is not going to create a new enemy that some players will never encounter.  Paragon or Renegade are all going to have Rachni Husks to deal with it will not be a result of the choice in ME1.

To answer the title question it's because Renegades are beaten over the head with the negative consequences of their actions while the positives are kind of muted (they are there though).  Where as Paragons are, at best, the opposite.  The positive consequences of Paragon decisions are thrown out and lauded and advertised remarkably openly while the negatives (if any exist) are harder to notice.  You really need to pay attention to see the benefits of Renegade decisions and I assume vice versa, and since most of us don't (there's things to kill after all) we miss them and as such Renegades feel like they're getting a raw deal.

I actually like how Renegade decisions turned out and wish/hope that Bioware did/does Paragon the same.  In ME2 Renegades get the desired outcome with an unintended/unexpected drawback.  Thus far Paragons only seem to get the desired outcome and that's boring (which has always been my main reason for not going pure Paragon, it's dull).

The idea Rachni Husks of potentially not appearing in some playthroughs isn't unprecendented because there have been games with enemies that players never encountered. Therefore, it isn't unrealistic to think Rachni may not appear.

Could you name some of these games (actually interested)?  In my gaming experience there's never been an enemy I can't encounter.  There are some I haven't but that's because I wasn't in a certain area at a certain level (Fallout 3 comes to mind), but I could have.  What you propose is that Bioware will put time and resources into an enemy that some players can't encounter (rather than might not).

I suppose it's possible but I find it highly unlikely; what, for example, would they replace the Rachni with for Renegade players in the same sections of the game?  Would they just create another new enemy to fill the gap?  Well why don't the Paragons see that?  What if a player doesn't meet the criteria for either enemy what do they get?  And on, and on, and on, it's just a logistics nightmare much simpler, and less costly, to use the plausible explanation for those who did kill the Rachni Queen to still run into Rachni husks.

lovgreno wrote...
In short, both renegade and paragon choices are gambles, deal with it if it bites back.

No.  Because this isn't a game of chance we're playing it's a game where the decisions we've made were planned out by human beings with intent.  Bioware screwed up the balance, not for the Renegade players but the Paragons.  You take the same gambles Renegades do, face the same choices, and suffer no negative consequences for doing so.

I've said it time and again both sides do get what they sought out to achieve; human dominance of the Council, a galaxy free of the threat of another Rachni War, a drastic reduction in the galaxy's criminal population; Renegades get it all.  However our dominance is hollow because we cannot actually compel the races to stand with us and as such stand alone, stronger than we were, but alone.  Our victory against the Rachni is bitter (for the player not Shepard) knowing we killed a certain ally.  Last the criminals are meaningless because as always there are more scum to replace them.  Renegade victory is amazingly, deliciously, bitter-sweet and I would have it no other way.

However one must look to the Paragons, who gain much and lose nothing.  You sacrifice human lives to save ungrateful alien bureaucrats, and no one expresses outrage.  You ressurect one of the most dangerous species the galaxy has ever known, and no one seems to care.  You let career criminals run free, and none of them ever re-offend.  Throwing a coin in a machine knowing it will always give you double your money is not gambling my friend.

A couple of the later Might and Magic games come to mind, along with several other RPGs.

[Nimrodell]

When do renegades let terrorists kill a group of hostages? I guess if you stretched your idea of terrorists Zaeeds mission could be what you claim but even then you are stopping a greater threat, at the cost of some collateral damage. Though, then again, that was Zaeed killing them, not the Suns so...

Wonder if you would agree with that estimation if you were that 'some collateral damage'? lol Just imagine, you're trapped there and roasting while Shepard is passing by you and saying - sorry, dude, nothing personal, you're collateral damage, but that's an honorable profession to be... We're off to kill Vido thus hypothetically saving many lives! I am a prophet, my little collateral damage, and your sacrifice won't be forgotten. I'll mention you as 'some collateral damage' that bended for Zaeed! lol

Tis good to see that there are prophets walking amongst us plain mortals still. And tis good that people are actually so easy with sacrificing lives for what they perceive as greater good (tis like in Bugs Bunny Abominable Snowman episode - Duffy Duck says nicely there: Poor old Bugs. But, anyway you look at it, it's better HE should suffer. After all, it was me or him, and obviously it couldn't be me. It's a simple matter of logic. I'm not like other people, I can't stand pain, it hurts me. Bless the human kind.) lol (Sorry, I can't stop laughing.)