1768 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Valentia X wrote...
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.

But what does this have to do with Shepard grovelling? That was what you responded to.

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.

Let me try to explain this further: "ends justify the means" isn't a moral position other than saying that the consequences determine moral value. But to actually make a moral judgement you still need to know what the actual consequences are (or could be).

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.

But why do you care if Zaeed is loyal? Because of the SM, and the success of the SM. Like I said in response to Dave: it is very easy to justify that saving Zaeed is the "Right Thing" morally.

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.

Why would the right thing be saving the factory workers versus having the best possible team for the SM and the greatest chance to stop the reapers, which by extention means saving trillions of lives?

We're still at Square 1: showing that it can be the case that doing the right thing is actually distinct from the success of the mission.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Paragon is about principles, Renegade about results.

That's closer, but not quite. Paragons are about some principles, and renegades are about a special kind of consequence. But that still doesn't get us anywhere, because the relevant question is what principles paragons are actually standing up for and how renegades actually evaluate these consequences.

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.

This is really, really not what the utilitarian view is. In fact, this is totally the opposite of what utilitarians believe.

What you're looking for is deontology, which better captures the principles I think you're talking about (utilitarians still have principles, just different rules).

Renegades would tend to sacrifice principles for results.

For potential results. This is a crucial distinction.

So Renegades getting better results in the big picture when making hard principles vs. morals-decisions should be standard rather than the exception.

Not unless Renegades have super-human future predicting powers. Otherwise it all comes down to a question of how you predict the best possible consequences for the future. And if you did, that would actually be acting in accordance with a moral principle.

[HogarthHughes 3]

Just gonna jump in here with another quick example of what I think is a good ethics/results choice. The decision at the end of Overlord, to leave David with Cerberus or send him away to be cared for. David is innocent, and to leave him there to be put through more hell for Dr. Archer's experiments is as Dr. Archer puts it unethical. Thing is the project could potentially avoid war with the Geth, and furthermore allow them to be used as soldiers which would save even more lives.

@In Exile - I suppose you're arguing that it could still be considered the "moral" choice to keep him there, because it has the potential to save millions of lives? I would say it is still immoral even if it is for the greater good, as Shepard is allowing Cerberus to practically torture an innocent. The experiments done on David are reprehensible and monstrous, and no matter their purpose can never be considered morally right. That doesn't mean that it isn't done in the name of the greater good of everyone (or at least humans in this case). Look at the definition of immoral, "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality." There is a reason human testing is not allowed (at least not on unwilling subjects). What is done to David is NOT an accepted standard of morality.  It breaks basic principles of right and wrong, which (I think) just about everyone has.

*edit - definition of immoral, not morality sorry

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:39 .

[Raiil]

But what does this have to do with Shepard grovelling? That was what you responded to.

Dunno if grovelling is the right word, but you don't send in someone with a penchant for soothing situations if the outcome you desire is a rapidly cooling corpse on the ground. That's why this a renegade mission, not a paragon one.

Let me try to explain this further: "ends justify the means" isn't a moral position other than saying that the consequences determine moral value. But to actually make a moral judgement you still need to know what the actual consequences are (or could be).

Right, shall we use the term ethics then? Ethically, a paragon cannot embrace the ends justify the means as a catch-all outlook on the mission/life because they are bound by moral/ethical standards. A renegade can, because all they see is the end game. Paragons are moralists, renegades are more consequentalist. All missions have to end. The paragon has distractions that the renegade doesn't. They might not get the right ending, but they get an ending.

The argument we're using is that essentially, the paragon fails because they veer off course to do the right thing in Hypothetical Mission A, leaving said mission unfinished until there's a critical failure (time ran out/bad guy got away/etc). As it stands, right now we can charm or intimidate our way out of these sorts of situations. What some of us are saying is that we want scenarios where you can't, or that only certain people can. Paragons should fail as well as renegades in end-game (on some level) simply because being The Nice One shouldn't translate to Always Gets The Job Done.

But why do you care if Zaeed is loyal? Because of the SM, and the success of the SM. Like I said in response to Dave: it is very easy to justify that saving Zaeed is the "Right Thing" morally.

I'm not referring to whether you leave Zaeed to burn or not. I'm saying you're given a choice to paragon or renegade, and actually, most people find it difficult to justify helping one dude get his revenge in the wake of dozens of people who died painfully and needlessly, just because Zaeed wanted to pop a cap in ol' Vido. Theoretically, it might be easy to rationalise. But people aren't rational. That's why we have variations on morality in the first place. Paragon morality tends towards a generic 'goodness' whereas renegade is supposed to be 'Jack Bauer' but somehow ended up as 'Le A--hole' instead.

Why would the right thing be saving the factory workers versus having the best possible team for the SM and the greatest chance to stop the reapers, which by extention means saving trillions of lives?

We're still at Square 1: showing that it can be the case that doing the right thing is actually distinct from the success of the mission.

Because paragons see trees and renegades see forests. Right now, staring at individual maples seems to net better results than seeing the big picture. If you want to argue theory, that's fine, but in game, there's a very, very precise paragon/renegade divide that is not theoretical in anything but headcanon. The Mission Comes First versus We Must Save Everyone.

ME plays this when your crew gets hijacked by the Collectors- if you haven't done all the loyalty missions, you can either continue getting loyalty, or you can go do what you've been trying to do the entire time, which is save people from being nuked in the reaper microwave. Which one is more moral? Well, we can argue until the cows come home, but in game morality, paragons immediately go after the crew, renegades continue getting their squad ready. Forest versus trees. Big picture, or little details.

Modifié par Valentia X, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:38 .

[In Exile]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
@In Exile - I suppose you're arguing that it could still be considered the "moral" choice to keep him there, because it has the potential to save millions of lives?

Rather, I'm saying there exists at least one moral system where it's moral to save him. What I think paragon v. renegade is really about (but I've danced saying this) is which of two competing moral systems you follow. The problem is that Bioware isn't actually consistent about what these two systems are.

For example - sometimes Renegades are consequentialists (good ends justify any means). Sometimes Renegades are Egoists (personal gain justifies any means).

I would say it is still immoral even if it is for the greater good, as Shepard is allowing Cerberus to practically torture an innocent. The experiments done on David are reprehensible and monstrous, and no matter their purpose can never be considered morally right. That doesn't mean that it isn't done in the name of the greater good of everyone (or at least humans in this case). Look at the definition of morality, "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality." There is a reason human testing is not allowed (at least not on unwilling subjects). What is done to David is NOT an accepted standard of morality.

Personally, I agree with you on David. It would be one thing if there was a chance for a future payoff - but David totally snapped and killed everyone. 

Still, you could totally imagine there was a moral standard that justifies experimenting on David, and it's not entirely clear what it means to establish whether or not something is moral.

There's no reason to think the project wouldn't just end that way again. My point is only that the way the issue is construed originally is just silly.

[Ieldra]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
@In Exile - I suppose you're arguing that it could still be considered the "moral" choice to keep him there, because it has the potential to save millions of lives? I would say it is still immoral even if it is for the greater good, as Shepard is allowing Cerberus to practically torture an innocent. The experiments done on David are reprehensible and monstrous, and no matter their purpose can never be considered morally right. That doesn't mean that it isn't done in the name of the greater good of everyone (or at least humans in this case). Look at the definition of morality, "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality." There is a reason human testing is not allowed (at least not on unwilling subjects). What is done to David is NOT an accepted standard of morality.

Accepted standards of morality differ by custom, culture and history. The consequentialist school of thought, which Renegades tend to follow, says that the morality of an action is determined by the projected outcome rather than the action itself.

The problem is that we don't feel that way, and a descriptive account of morality will tell you human morality is anything but rational. Which has the strange result that Renegades who take a decision they believe to be the right one even in a moral sense can still feel bad about it.  Another is that the methods used by Archer can easily be seen as unnecessary evil. It's implausible that there aren't less torture-like methods to be used on David Archer to get similar results.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:42 .

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...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.

This is really, really not what the utilitarian view is. In fact, this is totally the opposite of what utilitarians believe.

What you're looking for is deontology, which better captures the principles I think you're talking about (utilitarians still have principles, just different rules).

I wanted to say that Paragons would sacrifice those results that would appear better from an utilitarian viewpoint - i.e. the viewpoint Renegades would tend to have.

Renegades would tend to sacrifice principles for results.

For potential results. This is a crucial distinction.

So Renegades getting better results in the big picture when making hard principles vs. morals-decisions should be standard rather than the exception.

Not unless Renegades have super-human future predicting powers. Otherwise it all comes down to a question of how you predict the best possible consequences for the future. And if you did, that would actually be acting in accordance with a moral principle.

Granted. But as judged from a consequentialist viewpoint, there should still be overall better results in a majority of decisions in comparison because the Paragon doesn't even try for these if she thinks it would go against some deontological principles. Again, as a tendency, not an absolute rule.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:52 .

[In Exile]

Valentia X wrote...
Dunno if grovelling is the right word, but you don't send in someone with a penchant for soothing situations if the outcome you desire is a rapidly cooling corpse on the ground. That's why this a renegade mission, not a paragon one.

Sure. The issue is the deception. The actual mission isn't to negotiate; it's to kill Darius. But the Alliance can't actually order an assasination. So what they're really looking for is an unstable and violent soldier. But Shepard 'suceeds' by technically failing the actual mission he gets. 

Right, shall we use the term ethics then?

You'd think it helps, but ethics are just as bad. It comes back to what the standards really are.

Ethically, a paragon cannot embrace the ends justify the means as a catch-all outlook on the mission/life because they are bound by moral/ethical standards.

That still doesn't make sense. ''Ends justify means'' is a moral/ethical standard. What you really need is the moral system the paragon actually works under.

A renegade can, because all they see is the end game. Paragons are moralists, renegades are more consequentalist. All missions have to end. The paragon has distractions that the renegade doesn't. They might not get the right ending, but they get an ending.

... I don't think you're using the word moralist right. That just means someone who follows a moral system.

The argument we're using is that essentially, the paragon fails because they veer off course to do the right thing in Hypothetical Mission A, leaving said mission unfinished until there's a critical failure (time ran out/bad guy got away/etc).

But what is the hypothetical where this would happen? What moral system are you ascribing to the paragon? That's the whole point. It doesn't logically follow that focusing on a moral system or lives implies the mission will fail.

As it stands, right now we can charm or intimidate our way out of these sorts of situations. What some of us are saying is that we want scenarios where you can't, or that only certain people can. Paragons should fail as well as renegades in end-game (on some level) simply because being The Nice One shouldn't translate to Always Gets The Job Done.

Why not? You say this, but what's the actual reason this is not possible? Think about it.

I'm not referring to whether you leave Zaeed to burn or not. I'm saying you're given a choice to paragon or renegade, and actually, most people find it difficult to justify helping one dude get his revenge in the wake of dozens of people who died painfully and needlessly, just because Zaeed wanted to pop a cap in ol' Vido.

That doesn't mean it isn't moral to let Zaeed do just that.

Theoretically, it might be easy to rationalise. But people aren't rational. That's why we have variations on morality in the first place. Paragon morality tends towards a generic 'goodness' whereas renegade is supposed to be 'Jack Bauer' but somehow ended up as 'Le A--hole' instead.

But what's ''generic'' goodness? We're still not being precise. And that's what it really boils down to.

Because paragons see trees and renegades see forests. Right now, staring at individual maples seems to net better results than seeing the big picture. If you want to argue theory, that's fine, but in game, there's a very, very precise paragon/renegade divide that is not theoretical in anything but headcanon. The Mission Comes First versus We Must Save Everyone.

That isn't what I originally responded to. I'm aware of how contrived ME is. What I responded to was to a particular error in reasoning.

That being said, the whole reason for this thread is that so far, in-game, there hasn't ever been a case where a paragon choice led to a failed mission.

ME plays this when your crew gets hijacked by the Collectors- if you haven't done all the loyalty missions, you can either continue getting loyalty, or you can go do what you've been trying to do the entire time, which is save people from being nuked in the reaper microwave. Which one is more moral? Well, we can argue until the cows come home, but in game morality, paragons immediately go after the crew, renegades continue getting their squad ready. Forest versus trees. Big picture, or little details.

But that's exactly the kind of example that proves how broken the argument is. The ''Big Picture'' is the SM's success, and that's inevitable. The morals aren't at all at odds with the mission; in fact, when you actually stop to think about it rationally, the loyalty mechanic is really stupid.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I wanted to say that Paragons would sacrifice those results that would appear better from an utilitarian viewpoint - i.e. the viewpoint Renegades would tend to have.

Not really. Utilitarianism is complicated. Paragons could totally be utilitarians and just disagree about the utilitarian calculus.

Granted. But as judged from a consequentialist viewpoint, there should still be overall better results in a majority of decisions in comparison because the Paragon doesn't even try for these if she thinks it would go against some deontological principles. Again, as a tendency, not an absolute rule.

Not at all. That would only be true if it was the case that being a utilitarian actually means better outcomes. But there's no reason to actually think that.

Put another way, there's no reason to think any particular attempt to obtain the best consequences is the best possible attempt to attain those consequences.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The consequentialist school of thought, which Renegades tend to follow

If only. This appeared to be (along with reputation) part of the initial design philosophy, but apparently a lot of the writers didn't get the memo.

[HogarthHughes 3]

In Exile wrote...

Rather, I'm saying there exists at least one moral system where it's moral to save him. What I think paragon v. renegade is really about (but I've danced saying this) is which of two competing moral systems you follow. The problem is that Bioware isn't actually consistent about what these two systems are.

For example - sometimes Renegades are consequentialists (good ends justify any means). Sometimes Renegades are Egoists (personal gain justifies any means).

This is definitely true, which is why my favorite (and personal "canon") play through is as a renegon - I try to tailor the decisions as best I can to a cold-hearted but selfless killer out for the greater good.

In Exile wrote...

Personally, I agree with you on David. It would be one thing if there was a chance for a future payoff - but David totally snapped and killed everyone. 

Still, you could totally imagine there was a moral standard that justifies experimenting on David, and it's not entirely clear what it means to establish whether or not something is moral.

There's no reason to think the project wouldn't just end that way again. My point is only that the way the issue is construed originally is just silly.

I actually prefer to keep David, as I feel the potential payoff is too much to ignore.  Suffering of the few vs. the many and all that.  Still, in our society such treatment of an innocent is in no way virtuous.  Its very very close to evil, all it would take is for the experiments to be intended for completely selfish purposes.

Perhaps in another society other than the one I currently live in (21st century America), it could still be considered morally righteous to treat an innocent in such a manner if the potential gains were good enough.  Those aren't standards I or I would hope the vast majority of Americans adhere to however.  Just because a decision is morally wrong doesn't mean its the wrong decision.  I suppose everyone applies their own ethics to each situation?  Still there is a societal norm for such things, and from what I have seen of the ME universe and its characters, their moral standards are not very (if at all) different from our own.

[In Exile]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
This is definitely true, which is why my favorite (and personal "canon") play through is as a renegon - I try to tailor the decisions as best I can to a cold-hearted but selfless killer out for the greater good.

My personal cannon is a paragon: a generally warm and caring human being who at the end of the day will sacrifice lives for the sake of the greater good.

Perhaps in another society other than the one I currently live in (21st century America), it could still be considered morally righteous to treat an innocent in such a manner if the potential gains were good enough.  Those aren't standards I or I would hope the vast majority of Americans adhere to however.  Just because a decision is morally wrong doesn't mean its the wrong decision.  I suppose everyone applies their own ethics to each situation?  Still there is a societal norm for such things, and from what I have seen of the ME universe and its characters, their moral standards are not very (if at all) different from our own.

And then we get into a debate if social standards are really moral standards, and I go out back to and just drown  myself.

Interestingly enough, moral reasoning really varies depending on how much people have to do (e.g. more people would leave David with Cerberus if he was already plugged in and they had to unplug him versus if he was unplugged and they had to plug him in).

[HogarthHughes 3]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Accepted standards of morality differ by custom, culture and history. The consequentialist school of thought, which Renegades tend to follow, says that the morality of an action is determined by the projected outcome rather than the action itself.

The problem is that we don't feel that way, and a descriptive account of morality will tell you human morality is anything but rational. Which has the strange result that Renegades who take a decision they believe to be the right one even in a moral sense can still feel bad about it.  Another is that the methods used by Archer can easily be seen as unnecessary evil. It's implausible that there aren't less torture-like methods to be used on David Archer to get similar results.  

Bolded Part - Very true, but I think that Bioware has implemented the same ethics and standards (at least to races that have learned space flight, apart from the Batarians who need to undergo some changes) in the ME universe that people in the vast majority of developed countries adhere to. 

Just because a decision is immoral doesn't mean its the wrong decision.  You've probably heard "war is a necessary evil," yes?  Just because it is the correct course of action doesn't mean that those who do it won't still feel incredibly guilty.  Being necessary does not make something morally correct.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Accepted standards of morality differ by custom, culture and history. The consequentialist school of thought, which Renegades tend to follow, says that the morality of an action is determined by the projected outcome rather than the action itself.

Consequentialism is really complicated, though. The really tricky part of it is determining what your moral calculus is. And once you do that, you start to end up with systems that aren't all that far removed from deontology.

The problem is that we don't feel that way, and a descriptive account of morality will tell you human morality is anything but rational.

It depends on what you consider rational. People aren't logical, but that doesn't make them irrational.

Which has the strange result that Renegades who take a decision they believe to be the right one even in a moral sense can still feel bad about it.  Another is that the methods used by Archer can easily be seen as unnecessary evil. It's implausible that there aren't less torture-like methods to be used on David Archer to get similar results.  

It's Cerberus. I'm pretty sure it's part of the employment contract that all experiments will involve at leas some uneccesary suffering.

[HogarthHughes 3]

In Exile wrote...

And then we get into a debate if social standards are really moral standards, and I go out back to and just drown  myself.

I feel that this is generally true, though everyone will obviously have their own opinion.  Maybe it would be best to agree to disagree on this then, as you kinda sorta indicate.

In Exile wrote...
Interestingly enough, moral reasoning really varies depending on how much people have to do (e.g. more people would leave David with Cerberus if he was already plugged in and they had to unplug him versus if he was unplugged and they had to plug him in).

Of course, most people are reluctant to get their hands dirty.

[The dead fish]

Valentia X wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

Renegon & Paragade.

Because having choices means that you don't naively or fanatically limit yourself.

Hear hear. Even compassionate people can be practical even if it hurts their heart, and even unstoppable badasses can have lines they won't cross.

This.

For the love of god fix that.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 juillet 2011 - 08:37 .

[The Unfallen]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

My uncle works at BioWare and he told me that if you were a renegade you will loose. And go to hell.

Because Pargons doesnt afriad of anytihng.

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Granted. But as judged from a consequentialist viewpoint, there should still be overall better results in a majority of decisions in comparison because the Paragon doesn't even try for these if she thinks it would go against some deontological principles. Again, as a tendency, not an absolute rule.

Not at all. That would only be true if it was the case that being a utilitarian actually means better outcomes. But there's no reason to actually think that.

Put another way, there's no reason to think any particular attempt to obtain the best consequences is the best possible attempt to attain those consequences.

No, but you can make informed projections. No guarantee that anything in particular will work for any one given situation, but if one side (the Paragon) consistently weighs the real benefits of a situation less than say, adhering to certain deontological principles, then it's reasonable to expect that they won't get those real benefits with the same probablility, assuming that information about the situation at hand has any effect on the outcome. Otherwise, we might as well be guessing in a vacuum.

Of course, Paragons may argue that their course of action has other less tangible benefits and sometimes that's even true. Only in ME we're in a crisis situation - we might not be able to afford going for those less tangible rewards. If we are one decision away from extinction, it's better to be safe than sorry. That's the kind of situation where I think Renegade decisions should more often result in the better outcome - those situations where you'd think there is a significant probability that taking the Paragon decision will result in a game over screen somewhere down the line or at least add significant weight to the probability of such a one coming about. Examples: the Council, the Rachni queen, the Collector base. 

That apparently Bioware always plots it otherwise, that Paragons get their cake and eat it, that they never have to make a significant sacrifice and still get the best results, in short, that fate, luck or providence or whatever you call it seems always to be on their side, that's what needs to be fixed for ME3.

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Accepted standards of morality differ by custom, culture and history. The consequentialist school of thought, which Renegades tend to follow, says that the morality of an action is determined by the projected outcome rather than the action itself.

Consequentialism is really complicated, though. The really tricky part of it is determining what your moral calculus is. And once you do that, you start to end up with systems that aren't all that far removed from deontology.

Would you elaborate on the last sentence? I agree that determining the moral calculus is tricky, but saying that you'll end up with systems not far removed from deontology seems far-fetched. 

The problem is that we don't feel that way, and a descriptive account of morality will tell you human morality is anything but rational.

It depends on what you consider rational. People aren't logical, but that doesn't make them irrational.

There were experiments where people consistently showed that they make some moral decisions based on nothing but a feeling that "it's wrong". And stuck to it even if after all their rationalizations were successfully challenged. They admit that they have nothing to go on except "it feels wrong". That's what I call irrational. 
Reference: Haidt J: The emotional dog and its rational tail. A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. 2001.

Which has the strange result that Renegades who take a decision they believe to be the right one even in a moral sense can still feel bad about it.  Another is that the methods used by Archer can easily be seen as unnecessary evil. It's implausible that there aren't less torture-like methods to be used on David Archer to get similar results.  

It's Cerberus. I'm pretty sure it's part of the employment contract that all experiments will involve at leas some uneccesary suffering.

Yeah. And I hate that. Because of that, the games exude a vibe of "life sciences are evil" that I very much hope won't continue in ME3.

[Repearized Miranda]

^ This the last part at least.

We may get that with ME3, but that remains to be seen.

[LordNige]

I would hope that there is a Renegade version of victory only its not the happy everyone lives style finale that Paragons get, maybe every other civ being completely nailed but humanity survives. I hope there are some decent failures, not like ME2 where Shep just falls to his death. Maybe something like Shep being the new beacon to warn other races as a Paragon failure and Shep being turned into a Reaper for the Renegade failure.

[Xalen]

And again, because reposting is fun:

The problem with the morality system is that the game recognizes only the action, but not the rationale behind it. Why doing X gives you paragon points? Because Bioware said so. Even if doing X fits very well in "get the job done" morality (I think that's what renegade was supposed to be). Really, I can think of a "Renegade" reasons for most "Paragon" choices, but the game will still treat me like paragon for that, and vice versa.

Morality system can and should be a RP tool for defining personality, but major decisions should be left up to the player only and not tied to it. I don't think there should be “Paragon”, “Renegade”, “Paragade” etc. endings at all based on numbers that morality meter shows. It should be “Ending where Shepard does A,B,C and the result is X”, “Ending where Shepard does D and E and result is Y”, with X, Y… being comparable outcomes (neither should be the ultimate good ending, or - ideally - even preferable). It will also allow to go into those "grey areas" Bioware people like to mention so much, but not because Shepard will be neither paragon, nor renegade, but because morality will not matter at all, only actions will.

[SkittlesKat96]

 The problem is people who are renegade think that they HAVE to do every single renegade option...

The thing is Bioware wanted to add more choices and stupid choices like killing off people needlessly in Mass Effect and the most logical place to put those choices into were the renegade choices...

Bioware will definitely make renegades be able to win the war...

[Arijharn]

The issue is that I feel that if I make a Renegade decision, I make my decision based on what I think is the expected result, even if I do not necessarily feel 'right' in making the decision (re: putting David back into Overlord, I feel it's in a way necessary... but I still feel like an absolute ****). I feel that by making that decision, even if I regret it, the decision will eventually turn out to be 'correct' because no one wants a (potential) war with the Geth. Dr. Gavin Archer does have a point, it could prevent a million mothers mourning a million sons.

In this case, I have taken a step that I feel is morally right due to the (projected) higher cost, and I in essence have to accept that because I made the 'sacrifice' (myself or another). In a way; I have created a mission successful because I have 'purchased' it by selling something (my sacrifice).

The flipside though is the paragon, who hasn't 'purchased' anything, yet is still going to net a mission successful and that confounds me... what is that they have 'bargained' for it? It certainly isn't their 'piece of mind.'