233 réponses à ce sujet

[hc00]

Nimrodell wrote...

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

Of course I wouldnt be happy, but that is an emotional response, I was operating on a purely hypothetical numbers of losses now vs numbers of potential losses later.

If you are claiming that causing mental or physical pain is always wrong regardless of the outcome, which to me is what you are claiming.  Then every single thing shephard does is wrong as it hurts someone.

[hc00]

Ahglock wrote...

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.  

Yes but the thing is, she is an asari commando, which is stated many, many times in the canon as being nigh unstoppable supersoldiers.

What do you think a few mental institution guards are going to be able to do to stop her?

She is comparable in danger even without an amp to a powerful human biotic, she is trained to kill easily with her hands.  She is a danger if there is a possibility of the brainwashing relapsing.

And you have no idea how the brainwashing might relapse, it may be a progressive thing, where those around her notice and can help, or it could be an instant thing.  You dont know, NO one knows.

Or there is the other option which I forgot to mention at first which is her brainwashing hasnt  worn off and she is just lieing to you in order to get free, you find out later that that is not the case, but my point is WHILE YOU ARE MAKING THE DECISION, you dont know.

And it is the level of knowledge you have, or your character should have, at the time of the decision that the relative worth of choices should be judged.

So rather than leaving many people vulnerable to a potential ticking, superleathal biotic timebomb, killing her is right.

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 05:06 .

[Bearcut]

Anarchy!!!
ANARCHY!!!

I don't know what it is but i love it!!

Ok... I've been reading the many, many posts on this thread, and I think I've come to a conclusion of sorts. Renegade players are feeling the the weight of their decisions are heavier than those of paragon players. A good example would be, waking up Legion and having him screw the crap outta the normandy. I know if it were real life, I would be pretty wary about waking up a geth. Yet, a renegade option, to sell it, seems to be the worst way to go.

Also, who in their right mind would bring Jack aboard? She just tore apart the whole goddamn space station!

However! Think of this. If Bioware starting making an old-school adventure type game with consequences around every corner that could end the game... it would drive players crazy.

[hc00]

Bearcut wrote...

Anarchy!!!
ANARCHY!!!

I don't know what it is but i love it!!

Ok... I've been reading the many, many posts on this thread, and I think I've come to a conclusion of sorts. Renegade players are feeling the the weight of their decisions are heavier than those of paragon players. 

Why have you come to that conclusion?  I have reread this thread 4 times and come to a completely different one.

Bearcut wrote...
However! Think of this. If Bioware starting making an old-school adventure type game with consequences around every corner that could end the game... it would drive players crazy.

If you had to start from the start again every time   Damned right

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 05:09 .

[Bearcut]

hc00 wrote...

Bearcut wrote...

Anarchy!!!
ANARCHY!!!

I don't know what it is but i love it!!

Ok... I've been reading the many, many posts on this thread, and I think I've come to a conclusion of sorts. Renegade players are feeling the the weight of their decisions are heavier than those of paragon players. 

Why have you come to that conclusion?  I have reread this thread 4 times and come to a completely different one.

Sir, I just think that implies our different view points.
I'm not sure why my conclusion is different than yours.

[hc00]

Bearcut wrote...

Sir, I just think that implies our different view points.
I'm not sure why my conclusion is different than yours.

That is why I asked you how you came to it

Explain the steps leading up to you assuming your opinion, if you can of course, then I can see where they differentiate from mine.

[Bearcut]

hc00 wrote...

Bearcut wrote...

Sir, I just think that implies our different view points.
I'm not sure why my conclusion is different than yours.

That is why I asked you how you came to it

Explain the steps leading up to you assuming your opinion, if you can of course, then I can see where they differentiate from mine.

I would but I have to get but to work : /

I'll be on later to reiterate!

[Ahglock]

hc00 wrote...


Yes but the thing is, she is an asari commando, which is stated many, many times in the canon as being nigh unstoppable supersoldiers.

What do you think a few mental institution guards are going to be able to do to stop her?

She is comparable in danger even without an amp to a powerful human biotic, she is trained to kill easily with her hands.  She is a danger if there is a possibility of the brainwashing relapsing.

And you have no idea how the brainwashing might relapse, it may be a progressive thing, where those around her notice and can help, or it could be an instant thing.  You dont know, NO one knows.

Or there is the other option which I forgot to mention at first which is her brainwashing hasnt  worn off and she is just lieing to you in order to get free, you find out later that that is not the case, but my point is WHILE YOU ARE MAKING THE DECISION, you dont know.

And it is the level of knowledge you have, or your character should have, at the time of the decision that the relative worth of choices should be judged.

So rather than leaving many people vulnerable to a potential ticking, superleathal biotic timebomb, killing her is right.

She is fully cooperating and giving you any information you ask for, so the lieing part while possible seems to be just looking for an excuse to kill her.  As for she is a asari commando, um so what.  I doubt she is the first commando that needed to be locked up in the history of the asari.  There clearly has to be ways to restrain them.  Being practical is one thing, but if I kill everyone they can't hurt people seems to be going to far in your arguments.  Why don't you just kill everyone in the galaxy, then there wont be any murders after all.  You got to be safe, the perfectly reasonable person might be indocrinated at any moment, you don't know how it works after all.  

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Please, was this really necessary?

[Aumata]

I must be noticing things differently because I barely noticed things different for renegades and paragons. The game goes about it's business like usual whether the last council is dead or not. Some few mentions about the galaxy happenings here and there, but life continues on. Will have to wait till ME3 to see what change.

[Dave of Canada]

I don't get it, the usual Paragons keep saying "deal with the consequences of your actions". Easy to do when yourselves don't have any, no? I can deal with the consequences, I just can't deal when the other side of the bar doesn't.

How is asking for a balanced game in terms of morality "crying", wouldn't people normally want a game they can replay on both sides and experience different events instead of everything going right vs everything going wrong?

Alas, the forums are usually "paragon or gtfo".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 17 mai 2011 - 05:53 .

[Ahglock]

Aumata wrote...

I must be noticing things differently because I barely noticed things different for renegades and paragons. The game goes about it's business like usual whether the last council is dead or not. Some few mentions about the galaxy happenings here and there, but life continues on. Will have to wait till ME3 to see what change.

I think most of the complaints are for what they think is going to happen in ME3.  Personally while the "consequences" were non-existent for paragons in ME2 and renegades lost a few small scenes and maybe a few hundred XP, they got more interupts a lot more.  I am perfectly happy with how I was treated in ME2 given that virtually all my big decisions were renegade decisions.  I still wracked up more paragon points since I wasn't a random, prejudiced jerk.  

[alx119]

Deal with the consequences of your actions.
That's it, if you kill Wrex, he won't be on ME2 or 3, because you ****ing killed it, so much for being "badass".
If you decide to be a jerk to everyone, don't call it badassery, don't confuse yourself, it takes much more to actually stand the council hypocrites AND save them, than to just let them rot in space.
Paragon have consequences, of course, but the outcome of a Paragon is better, because their actions are better. That is all. You decide to shot that guy, don't cry about it if in the next game that guy gives you a weapon if you didn't kill it.

Deal with it.

It becomes "crying" when you cry about it, and I see nothing but a whole full of cry here. Besides, in Mass Effect 2, Renegades have chances to do "badass" stuff much more often than paragons, especially on interruptions. Now, again, it all have consequences. If you want to be a "badass" and be all alone and treat everyone like ****, then you'll get no rewards, just that, you'll be a badass renegade but you'll be lonely or with a crew that hates you. That's what the word means anyways, renegade.

Think about this, if you have a job, you'd like your boss to be nice to you, and not to be a jerk, sure firm at times, but not a jerk all the time. If your boss is a jerk, you won't "reward" them with friendship, am I right?

Talk about "balance" on morals, but assume that the good guy will always be better looked than the bad guy. There's no balance in that, is just how the world works.

[hc00]

Ahglock wrote...

She is fully cooperating and giving you any information you ask for, so the lieing part while possible seems to be just looking for an excuse to kill her.  As for she is a asari commando, um so what.  I doubt she is the first commando that needed to be locked up in the history of the asari.  There clearly has to be ways to restrain them.  Being practical is one thing, but if I kill everyone they can't hurt people seems to be going to far in your arguments.  Why don't you just kill everyone in the galaxy, then there wont be any murders after all.  You got to be safe, the perfectly reasonable person might be indocrinated at any moment, you don't know how it works after all.  

So you are claiming that if I think that it is right to kill dangerous people, then I should think it is right to kill everyone.  That is a pretty ****** poor reductio ad absurdum ( I love that term ).

She is cooperating yes, so are you saying that everyone who cooperates with the police is immediately innocent?  Because that is the same kind of logic you applied to my statement regarding killing her.

She is cooperating, and she does give you information, however at the time, the information does nothing (your shephard even says that it doesnt help him at all immediately afterwards).  So why would you assume she actually helped you rather than using Shephards hilarious gullibility to take a peek into his mind.  And even though she does give you some information, it is hardly groundbreaking.  As far as you are aware at the time. she has given you nothing.

Remember, the decisions should only be judged on the amount of information that was available at the time the decision was made.

Every ex asari commando you meet in the game is either a criminal boss, or a contributing member of society.  (Remember asari huntresses and asari commandoes are different).  You never meet one prison. 

Regardless, the ASARI may be able to restrain commandoes, I honestly dont know, but what you suggested was just leaving her on Feros, and if she starts going loopy the colonists will notice and then somehow the situation will resolve itself positively.

Also, the one thing we do know about indoctrination is that it requires proximity to reapers, or reaper tech, (as if it didnt thee Vanguard would just immidiately indoctrinate everything) so again your last sentence was another reductio ad absurdum.

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 06:17 .

[hc00]

alx119 wrote...
If you decide to be a jerk to everyone, don't call it badassery, don't confuse yourself, it takes much more to actually stand the council hypocrites AND save them, than to just let them rot in space.

It doesnt?

Saving them has no negative effect and and a positive effect, every species in the galaxy loves you for some reason. (read into that it takes nothing)
Killing them, has a negative effect (everyone hates you, even those who hated the original council) and no positive effect

So how does it take more?

If they both had a negative and a positive, it would be fine, but as it stands paragon choices are always positive, and renegade are almost always negative (elnora is the only time when paragon is negative and renegade positive in the entire series, and what are the odds of that having ANY repercussions in ME3?)

And it is nothing to do with paragon choices being inherantly more "right"  That is just bioware apologism niether choice is inherantly better.

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 06:23 .

[Nimrodell]

hc00 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

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

Of course I wouldnt be happy, but that is an emotional response, I was operating on a purely hypothetical numbers of losses now vs numbers of potential losses later.

If you are claiming that causing mental or physical pain is always wrong regardless of the outcome, which to me is what you are claiming.  Then every single thing shephard does is wrong as it hurts someone.

Sorry, I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming one simple thing - none of us can see the future, and you can try to predict it following your own experience, knowledge, convictions, but it's only a prediction, it doesn't make renegades or paragons right, 'cause they are not prophets... there are so many variables, so many coincidences involved, that it is arrogant to be convinced that one's pathway is the only one logical and correct (that's why I quoted Duffy, the logic part) - both renegades and paragons are making risks by deciding (at least they are capable of making decisions, not like majority that just lets others decide for them) and tis just pompous from renegades on this topic to assume they got the knowledge on future and outcomes.

And there's another reason why I keep reacting when someone recklessly uses term 'collateral damage' - it's easy to speak  about faceless, don't know their names innocent bystanders as collaterals from the comfy chair in warm room... but when you loose dear ones and friends and those you knew, also innocent ones labeled as collateral damage by those that were and still are in power, well, that tends to teach you thing or two (I am speaking from personal experience, no hypotheticals this time) - so, tis all good to theorize but even in theory those things should not be taken lightly. And true renegades actually don't kill without a good reason nor they are so moraly ambiguous... and BW did give renegades options to sort out many situations without killing. So, dear renegades if you want extra content in shape of cameos - stop killing people around, intimidate them just as paragons charm them. So much about paragons are self-righteous sheits... what does that make renegades? Even more self-righteous 'cause they even more frequently decide who should smell the grass from the bottom. Not to mention the fact that all these renegades claim to be pragmatic by claiming they are good seers, prophets of some kind... I'll acknowledge that to them when they prove me that they are made of 4 or 5 dimensions and can actually do time-travel with the power of their minds... otherwise, keep theorizing on what might certain decisions bring but stop acting like that's the god's honest true, pre-determined by the Fate itself.

The whole point of my posting on these 'renegade whining' threads is simple - no one can predict exactly which decisions are right or wrong ones - each situation is unique, stop with arrogant assumptions that there's only one path of solving problems, yes there are risks, but both outcomes in ME case are valid, it really might have happened both ways. And what's worst, I'm not even defending paragons, just trying to say that no player should assume that his path is the only one logically valid and 'cause of that attacking the wrong thing. Tis not problem in outcomes, problem is in how paragon/renegade system was executed in the first place and players that assume that upper or bottom choices are always to be used by pre-determined path (true renegade would never side with Cerberus, true renegade doesn't give a fig for rules and organisations, meaning that keeping or destroying the base should not be regarded as BW did - paragon/renegade decision - it has nothing to do with morality, just what Shepard knows and feels in that moment), Unfortunately, the final dialogue between Shepard and TIM was poorly done for both sides - paragon and renegade. That's the real issue for me and not some supposed outcomes. Hope I'm clear on this now.

[Ahglock]

hc00 wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

She is fully cooperating and giving you any information you ask for, so the lieing part while possible seems to be just looking for an excuse to kill her.  As for she is a asari commando, um so what.  I doubt she is the first commando that needed to be locked up in the history of the asari.  There clearly has to be ways to restrain them.  Being practical is one thing, but if I kill everyone they can't hurt people seems to be going to far in your arguments.  Why don't you just kill everyone in the galaxy, then there wont be any murders after all.  You got to be safe, the perfectly reasonable person might be indocrinated at any moment, you don't know how it works after all.  

So you are claiming that if I think that it is right to kill dangerous people, then I should think it is right to kill everyone.  That is a pretty ****** poor reductio ad absurdum ( I love that term ).

She is cooperating yes, so are you saying that everyone who cooperates with the police is immediately innocent?  Because that is the same kind of logic you applied to my statement regarding killing her.

She is cooperating, and she does give you information, however at the time, the information does nothing (your shephard even says that it doesnt help him at all immediately afterwards).  So why would you assume she actually helped you rather than using Shephards hilarious gullibility to take a peek into his mind.  And even though she does give you some information, it is hardly groundbreaking.  As far as you are aware at the time. she has given you nothing.

Remember, the decisions should only be judged on the amount of information that was available at the time the decision was made.

Every ex asari commando you meet in the game is either a criminal boss, or a contributing member of society.  (Remember asari huntresses and asari commandoes are different).  You never meet one prison. 

Regardless, the ASARI may be able to restrain commandoes, I honestly dont know, but what you suggested was just leaving her on Feros, and if she starts going loopy the colonists will notice and then somehow the situation will resolve itself positively.

Also, the one thing we do know about indoctrination is that it requires proximity to reapers, or reaper tech, (as if it didnt thee Vanguard would just immidiately indoctrinate everything) so again your last sentence was another reductio ad absurdum.

But she isn't a bad person, that is the whole point.  She is no more bad than the people of zhu's hope are bad, she was bring controlled.  So if you are going to make a claim that you have to kill her because she may still be under controll because geeze you don't really know how this control thing works, then what about everyone else.  The enitre citadel might be indoctrinated, how long was he docked there, how long were pieces of him in the citadel, we know even dead reapers have indoctrination power.  So at what point do you stop the I kill everyone who might be dangerous chain, shouldn't you have to kill everyone on the citadel at least?  Hell how long have you been around reaper tech, are you sure you aren't indoctrinated?

And as for just leaving her there, you are not just leaving her there.  You are sending messages to the citadel, they can have a ship or ships there in no time.  So she isn't some super huge danger that only the colonists have to notice.    

[hc00]

Nimrodell wrote...

Sorry, I'm not claiming that, ... Unfortunately, the final dialogue between Shepard and TIM was poorly done for both sides - paragon and renegade. That's the real issue for me and not some supposed outcomes. Hope I'm clear on this now.

So your whole point was "I am not muddling up what should be as much as possible a mathematical decision with emotions, I am muddling up what should be as much as possible a mathematical decision with emotions."

Both renegades and paragons are making risks by deciding (at least they are capable of making decisions, not like majority that just lets others decide for them

But that is the problem that I have seen renegade players complain about time after time.

They are both taking risks, and one choice seems better to them (each choice can be arrived at depending on what logic you apply to it), however the paragon choices are the only ones where the risk pays off, even though they are both capable of being the right choice.

If each choice has a positive and negative effect, there would be no complaints (well there would be still, I cant lie)  But as it is now Renegade is always (bar 1 exception I can think of) negative, and paragon is always (bar that same exception) positive.  And that is not right when both choices are as correct as eachother.

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 06:46 .

[K3lg4r]

alx119 wrote...

Deal with the consequences of your actions.
That's it, if you kill Wrex, he won't be on ME2 or 3, because you ****ing killed it, so much for being "badass".
If you decide to be a jerk to everyone, don't call it badassery, don't confuse yourself, it takes much more to actually stand the council hypocrites AND save them, than to just let them rot in space.
Paragon have consequences, of course, but the outcome of a Paragon is better, because their actions are better. That is all. You decide to shot that guy, don't cry about it if in the next game that guy gives you a weapon if you didn't kill it.

Deal with it.

It becomes "crying" when you cry about it, and I see nothing but a whole full of cry here. Besides, in Mass Effect 2, Renegades have chances to do "badass" stuff much more often than paragons, especially on interruptions. Now, again, it all have consequences. If you want to be a "badass" and be all alone and treat everyone like ****, then you'll get no rewards, just that, you'll be a badass renegade but you'll be lonely or with a crew that hates you. That's what the word means anyways, renegade.

Think about this, if you have a job, you'd like your boss to be nice to you, and not to be a jerk, sure firm at times, but not a jerk all the time. If your boss is a jerk, you won't "reward" them with friendship, am I right?

Talk about "balance" on morals, but assume that the good guy will always be better looked than the bad guy. There's no balance in that, is just how the world works.

again...can you people read? Cause if after 8 pages you still think this is about the badass choices like "why punching the journalist in the face didn't reward me?" you really missed the point of the whole thread and you should just not post at all. thank you.

[hc00]

Ahglock wrote...
But she isn't a bad person, that is the whole point.  She is no more bad than the people of zhu's hope are bad, she was bring controlled.  So if you are going to make a claim that you have to kill her because she may still be under controll because geeze you don't really know how this control thing works, then what about everyone else.  The enitre citadel might be indoctrinated, how long was he docked there, how long were pieces of him in the citadel, we know even dead reapers have indoctrination power.  So at what point do you stop the I kill everyone who might be dangerous chain, shouldn't you have to kill everyone on the citadel at least?  Hell how long have you been around reaper tech, are you sure you aren't indoctrinated?

And as for just leaving her there, you are not just leaving her there.  You are sending messages to the citadel, they can have a ship or ships there in no time.  So she isn't some super huge danger that only the colonists have to notice.    

Jesus Christ (I dont even beleive in the guy but I am begging him to make you actually read this damned post rather than skimming and applying your own logic to it) please make this guy read this one.

She is no more bad than the colonists no, however she is a potential risk, just like they are, however the colonists ARENT members of the most powerful group of soldiers in the entire galaxy.  Shiala is.  The colonists could be restrained and quarantined, wheras shiala may not be restrainable.  Remember the damage Jack caused to the prison ship, Asari commandoes are comparatively powerful biotically (Not 100% as powerful as jack but in the same league) but have decades of weapons, unarmed and tactical combat training.

She says she wants to stay on feros, there is no "F*ck that, your going into custody" option on the conversation wheel while talking to her, and you cant mention her to the council.

So the only options in the game are leave the potential timebomb with a bunch of vulnerable civilians, or kill her.

Which option is best.

Besides, why are you constantly assuming she is actually not still indoctrinated?  She may be lieing, and even if she isnt right now it can effect people after they gain control (look at beneziah, though that isnt a perfect example)

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 06:37 .

[Nimrodell]

hc00 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

Sorry, I'm not claiming that, ... Unfortunately, the final dialogue between Shepard and TIM was poorly done for both sides - paragon and renegade. That's the real issue for me and not some supposed outcomes. Hope I'm clear on this now.

So your whole point was "I am not muddling up what should be as much as possible a mathematical decision with emotions, I am muddling up what should be as much as possible a mathematical decision with emotions."

Both renegades and paragons are making risks by deciding (at least they are capable of making decisions, not like majority that just lets others decide for them

But that is the problem that I have seen renegade players complain about time after time.

They are both taking risks, and one choice seems better to them (each choice can be arrived at depending on what logic you apply to it), however the paragon choices are the only ones where the risk pays off, even though they are both capable of being the right choice.

Well I still don't see which renegade choices are worse than paragon ones - renegade decides to keep the fleet back (not talking about concentrate fire on Sovereign) and if renegade wasn't stupid, he chose Anderson over Udina and in ME2 got spectre status back. As for vendors biatching, renegade doesn't care about their opinion anyway (and those are aliens, call them short-sighted fools, but who cares?).

Rachni queen? We still don't know which choice was better and renegade that decided to kill her should not mind missing asari message, after all, even paragon Shepard is not sure if the asari is mind-controlled and tis uneasy situation.

Blowing up/re-writing geth? We don't know which decision was correct either, but Legion is clear on that issue, moral standards don't apply anyway, they think differently.

Keeping/destroying the base - we don't know who was right on this one... might as well turn out some ridiculous scenario like - Shepards who destroyed the base, angered Cerberus and healthy Cerberus full-strenght body charges on them, while Shepards who kept the base for Cerberus actually got it on lucky side now, those base explorers became indoctrinated or huskified and every next Cerberus vessel gets eaten by them this significantly weakening Cerberus... I mean any stupid or smart scenario might happen, we don't know yet.

And as I said, renegade very often doesn't have to kill those random joe 'helpers' thus geting those precious cameos... so again I don't see the validity of these arguments. There is one injust thing toward renegades tho - true renegade would do what Jack proposes, piracy, and would not risk his/hers arse on the suicide mission, and would send others to die behind the relay... that's pragmatic, if there's a claim that only renegades are pragmatic.

[Ahglock]

hc00 wrote...

Jesus Christ (I dont even beleive in the guy but I am begging him to make you actually read this damned post rather than skimming and applying your own logic to it) please make this guy read this one.

She is no more bad than the colonists no, however she is a potential risk, just like they are, however the colonists ARENT members of the most powerful group of soldiers in the entire galaxy.  Shiala is.  The colonists could be restrained and quarantined, wheras shiala may not be restrainable.  Remember the damage Jack caused to the prison ship, Asari commandoes are comparatively powerful biotically (Not 100% as powerful as jack but in the same league) but have decades of weapons, unarmed and tactical combat training.

She says she wants to stay on feros, there is no "F*ck that, your going into custody" option on the conversation wheel while talking to her, and you cant mention her to the council.

So the only options in the game are leave the potential timebomb with a bunch of vulnerable civilians, or kill her.

Which option is best.

Besides, why are you constantly assuming she is actually not still indoctrinated?  She may be lieing, and even if she isnt right now it can effect people after they gain control (look at beneziah, though that isnt a perfect example)

What gives anyone the idea that she is unrestrainable.  While commandos are bad asses, nothing ever implies they can't be restrained as far as I can tell.  So in the end she is no more of a immenent threat than any one else.  And while it may not be a conversation option, you send full reports to the council after every mission, where is this weird assumption that you leave out all the possible future dangers coming from.  While the options are binary, you seem to want to infer the paragon choices are done in as dumb of a way as possible so it is only blind luck and bioware's handwavium that mkaes them work out.  Really, you don't think you'd mention a former follower of Beneziah is on the planet and she was being brainwashed in some fashion whcih you don't fully understand yet in your report?  And when the council got the report, they'd just ignore it and assume hey everything will work out, no worries, no need to send anyone to even quesiton her? 

.  

[hc00]

Nimrodell wrote...

And as I said, renegade very often doesn't have to kill those random joe 'helpers' thus geting those precious cameos... so again I don't see the validity of these arguments. There is one injust thing toward renegades tho - true renegade would do what Jack proposes, piracy, and would not risk his/hers arse on the suicide mission, and would send others to die behind the relay... that's pragmatic, if there's a claim that only renegades are pragmatic.

Most of your post is correct except for this.  You are doing that same damned thing that everyone does.  Assuming renegade = evil.

Renegade doesnt mean evil, renegade means does everything to win, a paragon may risk failing the mission to save someone, a renegade will not, a paragon will sacrifice resources that should be used to ensure the success of the mission on good causes, such as feeding the poor, a renegade will not.

Niether is inherantly good or bad, a paragon that helps some people but fails at a mission and ultimately harms more people would be a bad person, a renegade which ruins a few thousand peoples lives to save a few hundred million would be a good person.

Although, come to think of it even this statement is inherantly flawed, due to the massive subjective nature of good or bad.

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[hc00]

Ahglock wrote...

What gives anyone the idea that she is unrestrainable.  While commandos are bad asses, nothing ever implies they can't be restrained as far as I can tell.  So in the end she is no more of a immenent threat than any one else.

 

Have you ever played a game called Mass Effect 2?

Have you gotten up to the bit where you "rescue" a character called Jack?

I neednt say more.

And while it may not be a conversation option, you send full reports to the council after every mission, where is this weird assumption that you leave out all the possible future dangers coming from.  ...  And when the council got the report, they'd just ignore it and assume hey everything will work out, no worries, no need to send anyone to even quesiton her? 

Do the council ever mention that they will check her out?  No, so while I am assuming that they wont bother to check up on her, you too are assuming they will.  Both of our assumptions have nothing to base them on, so both are equally as correct.

And while it would be the competant thing for the council to keep thier eye on her, at no point whatsoever in ME1 do the council show anything even remotely like competance.

[alx119]

hc00 wrote...

alx119 wrote...
If you decide to be a jerk to everyone, don't call it badassery, don't confuse yourself, it takes much more to actually stand the council hypocrites AND save them, than to just let them rot in space.

It doesnt?

Saving them has no negative effect and and a positive effect, every species in the galaxy loves you for some reason. (read into that it takes nothing)
Killing them, has a negative effect (everyone hates you, even those who hated the original council) and no positive effect

So how does it take more?

If they both had a negative and a positive, it would be fine, but as it stands paragon choices are always positive, and renegade are almost always negative (elnora is the only time when paragon is negative and renegade positive in the entire series, and what are the odds of that having ANY repercussions in ME3?)

And it is nothing to do with paragon choices being inherantly more "right"  That is just bioware apologism niether choice is inherantly better.

Do they help you? Do your efforts, and all the human lives wasted for them actually did any good? Sure galaxy loves you and all that, well duh, but they don't help you in fact, they tell you to gtfo of their faces, basically you don't win anything but a spectre range (which is pretty much symbolic). Negative effects? Hell if it had negative effects as it is, then what a waste of lives. Now what it takes is to stand their ****ing faces, when you wasted so many lives to actually get "Ah yes the Reapers"... I mean come on :/ Is really easy to say, nah **** them, but is harder to say, ok, they questioned all my actions and never were happy with anything I did, but still they are important for the people on the citadel, they are a symbol of unity and justice, I should save them.

And you can't blame Bioware for that, what do you want, them to rate the game 18+ just cause you want them to incentivate bad actions? I'm sorry but as I said, bad will always be bad, good will always be good.