1768 réponses à ce sujet

[GoG ToXiC]

You know, I tried playing renegade once. I couldn't bring myself to do a good 80% of the renegade options. So now I play paragon with a few exceptions. In ME1 on Eden Prime, I always knock that crazy doctor out because it's funny, and in ME2, I occasionally do the renegade right trigger things. So if ME3 made paragon bad, I would be screwed. I think the reason paragon tends to fare better is for people like me who can't bring themselves to play renegade.

[In Exile]

Apollo Starflare wrote...
As some other posters have pointed out, the way a Paragon does buisness should mean that sometimes the mission falls by the wayside, with doing The Right Thing coming first. History has proven that sometimes the grim and Renegade-y action gets results, however unpleasant that might seem. I hope that is reflected in ME3 where we have already been told whole civilisations could be at stake depending on Shepard's actions and choices.

But a consequentialist would say "The Right Thing," is totally doing the pragmatic thing with the best long term consequences. Bioware's never had a choice like that.

[upsettingshorts]

GoG ToXiC wrote...

You know, I tried playing renegade once. I couldn't bring myself to do a good 80% of the renegade options. So now I play paragon with a few exceptions. In ME1 on Eden Prime, I always knock that crazy doctor out because it's funny, and in ME2, I occasionally do the renegade right trigger things. So if ME3 made paragon bad, I would be screwed. I think the reason paragon tends to fare better is for people like me who can't bring themselves to play renegade.

That's why I've always argued that the ingame rewards for Paragon/good decisions should be minimal, or even not exist.  Because your conscience is rewarded.

Renegade should produce tangible rewards, but no warm fuzzies.

[BioWareM0d13]

If it were up to me, I'd make grey morality (Paragades and Renegons) a win and anyone who fell too far towards the extremes a loser. Only Paragades & Renegons would save Earth.

It would play out like this:

Full on Renegade? You are a sociopathic ass that pissed in one too many bowls of Cheerios to be able to successfully rally the galaxy behind you. You might defeat the Reapers in the end, but lukewarm support from other species ends up leaving Earth uninhabitable. The anti-alien go-it-alone stance you pushed is remembered by other species, and what is left of humanity are now outcasts, forced to surivive on the junk and cast offs of your betters. Humans are the new Quarians. Your quest for human dominance is an epic fail.

Full on Paragon? You were too much of a nice guy for the job you were tasked with, and your unwillingness to get dirty and make tough calls has cost humanity dearly, leaving Earth uninhabitable. You might defeat the Reapers in the end but you cowtowed to aliens far too often along the way. What is left of your species is now forced to turn to those aliens for protection. Humans are the new Volus. Say hello to your Turian overlords.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:37 .

[GoG ToXiC]

I'm fine with that. Pretty much every human character in ME seems to be a jackass. Besides, according to Liara, our short lifespans make us more determined then any other race. We'd rebuild someway or another.

[Raiil]

In Exile wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...
As some other posters have pointed out, the way a Paragon does buisness should mean that sometimes the mission falls by the wayside, with doing The Right Thing coming first. History has proven that sometimes the grim and Renegade-y action gets results, however unpleasant that might seem. I hope that is reflected in ME3 where we have already been told whole civilisations could be at stake depending on Shepard's actions and choices.

But a consequentialist would say "The Right Thing," is totally doing the pragmatic thing with the best long term consequences. Bioware's never had a choice like that.

I think what we're saying is that it should. That all choices- the paragon, the renegade, and those of us who fall in between- should have impact. Sometimes the paragon should fail. Sometimes the renegade should win. Sometimes the wild card- because that is essentially what any paragade/renegon Shepard is- should have an out that strictly one or the other doesn't have. 

(There seriously needs to be a Support Group for Paragades and Renegons. Is there one?)

[Massadonious1]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Well, if BtDS was an honest hostage situation, we'd negotiate Balak for the hostages, then apprehend him or take him out if he turned hostile.

What if we know we can't apprehend him?

We know we can't apprehend him in the context of the game, unless you're saying that Shepard wouldn't use the 3 or 4 other squadmates as contingency/backup or to cover every possible exit.

We wouldn't let him go, not a man like that. 

Which is why police execute non-hostile suspects all the time? I'm pretty sure even a carrer military man in this day and age would chose to save his commrades/innocents if given the choice. If he/she is good at their job, they will get another chance.

Unfortunately, the game never gave us that chance.

[In Exile]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Right, which is exactly what I'm talking about. Are the lives right in front of you more important than your mission to stop the madman terrorist to who tried to destroy an entire planet? A Paragon flubs that part of the mission if they let Balak go. The entire mission isn't a failure, but it isn't a total success either because the culprit is still at large.

Well, no. You that if someone puts lives and morals ahead of the mission, that logically leads to a greater chance of failure. But there's no reason to think that the moral imperative is to save the greatest number of lives (e.g. the future victims of Balak) and the future potential victims have more of a claim that current victims (lives).

Even if you define the mission as killing Balak and stopping the asteroid, there's no reason to neccesarily believe there's any conflict. I'm not arguing with you about what paragons & renegades do; just that your analysis is inaccurate.

If you disagree you need to pay more attention to the mission. If this wasn't true then why wasn't Paragon Shepard asked to attend the negotiation? Come on, you aren't even trying.

Because there might be people more qualified. That has nothing to do with Shepard groveling. Again, logic doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

At the conclusion it is revealed that this is what Hackett wanted to happen all along.

But that's not the mission. And it has nothing to do with lives or morals.

[Repearized Miranda]

[quote]Valentia X wrote...


[quote]Repearized Miranda wrote...

[quote]Valentia X wrote...

I can't speak for everyone, but while A House Divided is my favourite loyalty mission bar none, the actual end option versus previous dialogue is borderline retarded because it's basically paragon 'brain washing is wrong! it is unethical! final paragon option: rewrite the geth!'

There's a lot of side-eyeing that goes on because the switch comes rather randomly with Legion basically not having an opinion on the matter and just about everyone but Thane and Jack (I think) rooting for the kill-switch based on the fact that they're geth, Jack saying that it's preferable to die as yourself rather than being nuked into obedience, and Thane saying there's really no moral difference- but he gets antsy if you choose the renegade 'they're just machines' responses. Shepard themselves don't really talk it through, just give a short blurb about why it's right/wrong, and then it changes for no apparent reason.

[/quote]

It's more a case of

Shepard: This is wrong - only to realize later, there's no choice. Again, you get into that situation. Shepard should know aligning with Cerberus, but Shepard had no choice given that Shepard wasn't going sit idly - despite being told to. "I'll do it even if it bites me in the ass!" IN Legion's case as Shepard's: "What is the lesser of two evils." That is an entirely different question as opposed to "what's right and wrong."

Alliance/Council vs Cerberus
Cerberus vs. The Reapers.[/quote]

I'd buy the whole Shepard changing their mind thing if it were something discussed during the mission. It's not. You can headcanon that it is (and I'm cool with that), as my Shepard's actual reasoning for dusting the geth was not 'they're machines!' but because brainwashing is so ethically wrong in her book that she can't do it. She fought the enemy and bested them, but she's not going to be the enemy and pull their tactics. So she gives them a soldier's death.

If there was more discussion, I'd totally agree. But it's not, and it turns into personal interpretation. And since that basically falls under headcanon anyways, we're left staring at an option that was renegade fifteen minutes earlier and now is the 'compassionate' option. Does not computer.

Who is the lesser of two evils in both cases?

Do you see the difference?[/quote]
[/quote]

The whole Horizon thing made no sense either as you got blasted if you didn't go neutral; however, the VS still left with reservations. Apparently, folks want the "changes of heart/mind" force-fed to them. I'll agree that Legion's and he VSs' conversation left alot to be desired, but then there's Miranda.

People think she was "quick" to change her mind after this three stage act; yet, everyone appears to have IGNORE the three stage act when it was in everyone's faces. IOW, joning Cerberus seemed like a bad idea after five minutes even if you include the discussions because of the events that took place. They had more to say then the actual words themselves.

Keep in mind that the separate LMs were dependent of the main plot; they had very little bearing accept for tacklng the SM.

There should be more discussion; however, players don't need e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g spelled out for them. If anythng, that would be very insulting.

[Raiil]

Because there might be people more qualified. That has nothing to do with Shepard groveling. Again, logic doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

Hackett sends you in expecting that you'll kill the target because that's your style- you have to have an 80-90% (depending on NG vs NG+) renegade score to receive this mission. Hackett is damn surprised if you end it peacefully. Conversely, for the Besieged Base mission, you're asked to go in and deal with the situation with minimal casualties, and you need the according paragon points to spike the mission- you're chosen because it's your style to try to settle things peacefully. If you don't, Hackett is very surprised at the outcome.

It's very morally dependent because of how the game views morality- the paragon 'save everyone we can' and the renegade 'the ends justify the means'. Hackett and the Alliance want whatever his face is called dead but they can't openly hire an assassin, so instead the send in the one guy whose idea of diplomacy is giving people a five second head start. For the other, they want no civilian casualties, so they send in the one guy who has a habit of trying to save everyone they can.

[In Exile]

Saphra Deden wrote...
At this point I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

No. I'm arguing because part of the reason why Renegades get the short end of the stick is this nonsence about being a renegade is about pragmatism exclusive of morals or lives.

It's a notion that doesn't make sense. What it actually logically entails demarcation between moral and immoral missions, and suggests that renegades differ from paragons in focusing on the success of immoral missions (or potentially missions that save less lives overall).

But that's nothing more than saying that renegades are chaotic stupid.

In Exile wrote...

Because there might be people more qualified.

What is it then about Paragon Shepard that makes him not qualified?

....

Others more qualified != Shepard not qualified.

I... how do you even get to that?

It has nothing to do with morals? Get your head out of your butt.

Damn you are irritating.

Unless you want to get very pedantic about it, negotiations aren't really moral except in a very tangential sense.

[Dave of Canada]

Short post on mobile:

Make decisions have different positives / negatives, give cameos to the Renegade side of things (instead of limiting it to the Paragon) and make it so Paragon doesn't lead to the happy ending (neither should Renegade). ME2 didn't do well where decisions done in ME1 were never mentioned and it was almost like if you never did them in the first place. 

The problem is immediately apparent when importing Renegade is barely any different than the default playthrough.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:57 .

[In Exile]

Valentia X wrote...
Hackett sends you in expecting that you'll kill the target because that's your style- you have to have an 80-90% (depending on NG vs NG+) renegade score to receive this mission. Hackett is damn surprised if you end it peacefully. Conversely, for the Besieged Base mission, you're asked to go in and deal with the situation with minimal casualties, and you need the according paragon points to spike the mission- you're chosen because it's your style to try to settle things peacefully. If you don't, Hackett is very surprised at the outcome.

That's because Hackett really wants Darius dead. He doesn't want any kind of negotiation. 

It's very morally dependent because of how the game views morality- the paragon 'save everyone we can' and the renegade 'the ends justify the means'. Hackett and the Alliance want whatever his face is called dead but they can't openly hire an assassin, so instead the send in the one guy whose idea of diplomacy is giving people a five second head start. For the other, they want no civilian casualties, so they send in the one guy who has a habit of trying to save everyone they can.

Those two moral principles aren't actually inconsistent. In fact, "ends justify the means" could very well be the approach someone following "save everyone we can" would use, directly justifying the means on account of the fact everyone who could be saved was saved.

More generally, the actual mission Shepard gets is about a negotiation. As I said previously, unless you want to get pedantic about everything being a moral end, the mission as stated doesn't really relate to any kind of obvious moral end.

[Dave of Canada]

Having trouble editing (was only able to do a few words):

Another thing, adding negative consequences to the Paragon decision would make the Renegade decision more meaningful. Throwing aside morals for the mission doesn't mean anything when the Paragon who completes the mission has nothing negative happen to them for putting the mission on the wayside briefly.

Zaeed's loyalty mission comes to mind where you tell him you don't care about his loyalty and you're saving those workers, though there's an easy charm option (which involves putting a gun in his face) immediately after that makes him loyal and love Shepard just as much as the Shepard who let the workers die to complete Zaeed's mission.

[Raiil]

Repearized Miranda wrote...



The whole Horizon thing made no sense either as you got blasted if you didn't go neutral; however, the VS still left with reservations. Apparently, folks want the "changes of heart/mind" force-fed to them. I'll agree that Legion's and he VSs' conversation left alot to be desired, but then there's Miranda.

People think she was "quick" to change her mind after this three stage act; yet, everyone appears to have IGNORE the three stage act when it was in everyone's faces. IOW, joning Cerberus seemed like a bad idea after five minutes even if you include the discussions because of the events that took place. They had more to say then the actual words themselves.

Keep in mind that the separate LMs were dependent of the main plot; they had very little bearing accept for tacklng the SM.

There should be more discussion; however, players don't need e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g spelled out for them. If anythng, that would be very insulting.

(Our discussions mutate pyramids! )

I don't think anyone wanted it spelled out, but from my many permutations of that mission, I've never once come across a 'I never thought of it that way' dialogue option or anyone besides Thane or Jack arguing from a purely moral standpoint (although I also don't remember everyone's exact response and I'm way too tired to look up the appropriate video).

I think the flip would have worked if Shepard had been debating with Legion directly or if they had been a way to ensure that there would have been two real opposing viewpoints- which would have either resulted in a four man group or involved either Legion or an additionally squaddie doing some behind the scenes work who chimed in with an opposing opinion. (I bring Thane, who believes that writing is unethical- so I have Mordin who argues that there's no real difference but the extra geth might be a boon for the coming war.)

Normally headcanon is honestly enough for me, but in this one, the change was too abrupt without an iota of explanation.

[Massadonious1]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

We know we can't apprehend him in the context of the game, unless you're saying that Shepard wouldn't use the 3 or 4 other squadmates as contingency/backup or to cover every possible exit.

Well apparently Shepard didn't.

Which is why I'm saying that realisticly, he would. There are plenty of decisions in both games that could easily be presented with more realistic and logical options and outcomes, which is why I find the idea of "Renegade is easily the most logical choice" a bit of a misnomer.

Realisticly, it would make sense to turn the Rachni queen over to scientists and learned people to determine her value and worth. Instead we are presented with an either or decision, Renegades get to claim they made the "smart" choice and claim that Paragons are naieve for releasing her, when there is another plausible option that doesn't involve blind trust or genocide.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:11 .

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Another thing, adding negative consequences to the Paragon decision would make the Renegade decision more meaningful. Throwing aside morals for the mission doesn't mean anything when the Paragon who completes the mission has nothing negative happen to them for putting the mission on the wayside briefly.

The thing is, it's not ever clear a renegade actually throws away morals. Zaeed is a great example.

Zaeed's loyalty mission comes to mind where you tell him you don't care about his loyalty and you're saving those workers, though there's an easy charm option (which involves putting a gun in his face) immediately after that makes him loyal and love Shepard just as much as the Shepard who let the workers die to complete Zaeed's mission.

Let's say Shep. believes a loyal Zaeed is crucial to the SM, and also believes failing the SM = Reaper victory. That's potentially trillions of lives at stake, versus the factory workers. It's not clear what the moral outcome is, and different moral outlooks would say different things.

More generally, I totally agree with you - ME needs more of exactly this content.

[AtreiyaN7]

They've already said at least one is partially biting us in the butt: saving the rachni queen means rachni husks. I'm sure we'll all ( Renegades and Paragons both) have an equal opportunity at failure. Also, I disagree with the idea that Paragons just go around trying to appease everyone as you believe - that's not what I do at any rate. I think it's preferable to take an even-handed and compassionate approach when you can and improve human-alien relations instead of slamming doors in people's faces by killing <x> person or being confrontational. My general preference is to follow my moral compass (such as it is) - I don't do it because I think it's the easy way to win the game. At the same time, heh, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice lives for long-term benefits (like on the N7 mission where I chose to save the spaceport and let the unfortunate colonists eat a nuke).

[Raiil]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Valentia X wrote...
Hackett sends you in expecting that you'll kill the target because that's your style- you have to have an 80-90% (depending on NG vs NG+) renegade score to receive this mission. Hackett is damn surprised if you end it peacefully. Conversely, for the Besieged Base mission, you're asked to go in and deal with the situation with minimal casualties, and you need the according paragon points to spike the mission- you're chosen because it's your style to try to settle things peacefully. If you don't, Hackett is very surprised at the outcome. [/quote]

That's because Hackett really wants Darius dead. He doesn't want any kind of negotiation. [/quote][/quote]

Which is entirely the point. They want homeboy dead, so they send in someone who is virtually guarenteed (except not really, since you can charm your way out) to start a fight. They don't send in someone with the reputation for peaceful negotations. They purposefully seek out the one who is more than willing to jump the gun or has an attitude that will foster a gunfight.

[quote]It's very morally dependent because of how the game views morality- the paragon 'save everyone we can' and the renegade 'the ends justify the means'. Hackett and the Alliance want whatever his face is called dead but they can't openly hire an assassin, so instead the send in the one guy whose idea of diplomacy is giving people a five second head start. For the other, they want no civilian casualties, so they send in the one guy who has a habit of trying to save everyone they can.[/quote]

[quote]Those two moral principles aren't actually inconsistent. In fact, "ends justify the means" could very well be the approach someone following "save everyone we can" would use, directly justifying the means on account of the fact everyone who could be saved was saved.

More generally, the actual mission Shepard gets is about a negotiation. As I said previously, unless you want to get pedantic about everything being a moral end, the mission as stated doesn't really relate to any kind of obvious moral end.

[/quote]

They can amount to the same thing, but they aren't the same thing, unless for specific missions wherein saving everyone is the actual goal. This means for some assignments, paragon and renegade Shepard are going to basically do the same thing- Jacob's loyalty mission essentially will always play out the same way, with a slight adjustment for what happens to Jacob's dad.

On the other hand, you have Zaeed's, where you are faced with an dilemma, possibly two: the first, and most pressing, is do you go after Vido Santiago (who is a pain in the ass since he heads one of the factions that is against you) or do you save the innocent workers? Do you do the mission straight- go after Vido- or do you set it aside to do the right thing? It basically becomes saving the workers versus killing the merc, and gaining Zaeed's loyalty or casting it aside.

You get a way out via charm, but that shouldn't always be the case. Doing the right thing should possibly mean losing loyalty, and playing it straight- in this case, going ahead with the mission as planned- should net loyalty. (In theory- I'm not actually debating Zaeed's LM itself, just using it as an example). There are times when doing the right thing distracts you and ultimately causes the mission to fail, just as now, when doing the wrong- well, renegade, not wrong- thing can have repercussions in the future.

[Khayness]

Yeah, that's why I can do the Noveria landing section in 10 minutes if I'm a Renegade (if you hand over the smuggled weapon mod to Anoleis, you can skip all the fuss about the garage pass), because it's the loosing option

[Ieldra]

Faolin wrote...
We do know that there is such a thing as Rachni Husks in ME3. So assuming they're made sufficiently badass/dangerous, saving the Rachni isn't consequence free.

I personally think gameplay (rather than story) is the perfect place to "punish paragons". A Paragon makes a choice because it fits their morals, and is willing to suffer any consequences that come from that. MAKE them suffer, make their game that much harder, but if they manage to succeed regardless give them the happy ending they're looking for.
Disclaimer: I personally am a Paragon, but made several of the major choices (including the Rachni one) as Renegade.

I disagree most strongly. Gameplay benefits like harder combat are totally insignificant. I repeat here what I've said about this countless times:

If Renegade is supposed to be pragmatic, making the hard decisions you deem necessary, then the only justification for the Renegade school of thought to exist is that it occasionally gives better results regarding the big picture than the Paragon.

Paragon is about principles, Renegade about results. Not exclusively, of course, but mostly. Paragons would tend to sacrifice the overall better results, judging from an utilitarian view, for adherence to principles, which usually wins them brownie points. Renegades would tend to sacrifice principles for results. So Renegades getting better results in the big picture when making hard principles vs. morals-decisions should be standard rather than the exception. The drawback is that the Renegade will be hated for it, which means that Paragons should get better results in diplomacy.