1768 réponses à ce sujet

[TobyHasEyes]

You can be a Paragon and have a consequentialist view of morality; Paragon as described as a Shepard who favours diplomacy and playing by the rules can easily value those two things out of a reasoning that the consequences of dealing with problems in that way can bring about great benefits.

Consequentialism means you see the moral value of the action in the consequences of it, rather than finding value in the motive (in and of itself) or the action itself. As such many of my Shepard's had a commitment to galactic unity prior to Eden Prime, and following that play as Paragon's due to a commitment that, where possible, fostering attitudes of unity of the species', and a respect for rule of law, which make it more likely that galactic races can unite against the Reapers

I agree that I don't want Paragon to necessarily equal a victory, nor should Renegade. They should both have their pro's and cons. But at the same time, its a bit lame to characterise Paragon as people unwilling to make tough decisions

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

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.'

In a better series they'd get a war with the geth and a million mothers mourning a million dead sons, demanding that Shepard explain why their son had to die.

 Though I can see interest in the idea of some Paragon decisions backfiring, there would be great upset if a Renegade decision had as costly a backfire as that (which in my view is as likely) so I'd be wary of cherry-picking what consequences make for a 'better' series

[Arijharn]

The fact that everyone seemingly in the game universe almost universally hails you as making the best decision if you happen to chose blue is what I think is a ridiculous pill to swallow. Why? because we know in real life that this isn't the case.*

If it wants to engage me as an adult playing an adult orientated game, then get me to make adult decisions. Make me actually consider what I'm doing and weigh the pros and cons.

* EDIT: What I mean to say is that sometimes it isn't so 'cut-and-dried.' If this is true in day-to-day life, then it must be even more so if you live in such a dangerous world as somethign like Commander Shephard's equivalent.

Modifié par Arijharn, 05 juillet 2011 - 10:58 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

...its a bit lame to characterise Paragon as people unwilling to make tough decisions

Well so far that's pretty much what they are. TIM even calls you on it if you blow up the Collector base. Now, it might be lame to call players lame or to say that they can't make tough decisions. I've seen plenty of players invent some elaborate (if at times reaching) justifications for Paragon decisions that are anything but naive. However it is pretty clear where Shepard is coming from in most of the decisions s/he makes. The Commander's motives aren't complex.

Paragon Shepard, the character, makes the choices because s/he is too uncomfortable and/or disgusted by the alternative. Not willing to have a guilty conscience, not willing to watch those people die right in front of them when they could have saved them. Paragon Shepard doesn't like to look at the big picture. Perhaps Paragon Shepard feels that looking at the big picture causes us to loose sight of the smaller but no-less detailed picture right in front of us.

It's noble and understandable...

 As I said though Saphra, even if TIM claims that that must be why a Paragon Shepard makes the choices they do, there is nothing to say that is why it is.

 I roleplay my main Shepard as being Paragon, in the same way I would consider myself to have a roughly 'Paragon' approach in life. For me, I attach my complex justifications for Paragon decisions to my Paragon Shepard

 As I have said before, based on the Reaper's tactic of starting with the Citadel to seclude every system, I would suggest its not unreasonable to reckon on galactic unity being a good part of a Reaper-defeating tactic. The benefits go beyond pooling navies, as shared technology etc. could lead to a better outcome. It is for that reason that I feel that a Paragon stance is often appropriate, as being diplomatic and considerate considerabley lessens the risk that Renegade's run of further splitting the galactic effort

 I have no problem with someone suggesting that I have reached the wrong conclusion, or that my views are misguided, but it is just inaccurate to suggest that having those views necessarily means you are unwilling to make tough decisions

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Though I can see interest in the idea of some Paragon decisions backfiring, there would be great upset if a Renegade decision had as costly a backfire as that (which in my view is as likely) so I'd be wary of cherry-picking what consequences make for a 'better' series

Renegades come pretty close as it is. They have to explain their actions to a grief stricken Simon Atwell. They are treated to the screams of the refinery workers burning to death. Tali reprimands them for revealing the evidence, rubbing salt in the wound when she implies you are a bad friend and that you have wrecked her people's future. A Renegade is questioned by his or her crew over the decision to preserve the Collector base.

I could go on.

The only time Paragons are ever challenged this way is during the interview with Al'Jilani, but of-course Renegades are given the same harsh appraisal of their actions.

The whole Al'Jilani thing is a "false outcome" like the Turian Councilor giving Shepard grief regardless of what he does with the Rachni Queen. It's no more a player decided outcome than Sovereign dying at the end of ME1.

[Kadzin]

Ah yes the endless discussion of Paragon vs Renegade.
I think that both Paragon and Renegade ending should end in a victory over the Reapers, the difference would be in sacrifices made and impact on the galaxy in the aftermath.
Personally though I always though and still think that Paragon should be the save as many as you can and shoot only if you have to kind of path and it should remain as such.
Renegade on the other hand, I will be honest I dislike, I most if not all the Renegade options are just so you can be a douchebag to anyone and everyone you meet, shoot at every oportunity and just generally be a ******.
I think that Paragades are a more realistic path on a real life situation, you can't always Mary Sue through things and sometimes you got to get your hands dirty..
If all three had their seperate ending then that would be great imo.
As far as descisions backfiring, I don't mind it as long as it doesn't bring me renegade points or gets any of my squad killed in the aftermath if I am playing paragon.

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Though I can see interest in the idea of some Paragon decisions backfiring, there would be great upset if a Renegade decision had as costly a backfire as that (which in my view is as likely) so I'd be wary of cherry-picking what consequences make for a 'better' series

Renegades come pretty close as it is. They have to explain their actions to a grief stricken Simon Atwell. They are treated to the screams of the refinery workers burning to death. Tali reprimands them for revealing the evidence, rubbing salt in the wound when she implies you are a bad friend and that you have wrecked her people's future. A Renegade is questioned by his or her crew over the decision to preserve the Collector base.

I could go on.

The only time Paragons are ever challenged this way is during the interview with Al'Jilani, but of-course Renegades are given the same harsh appraisal of their actions.

 Being challenged over your views isn't the same as a decision backfiring..

The war scenario you describe is an example of what a Paragon decision backfiring would look like, as would a Rachni force aiding the Reaper victory

 As far as I am concerned a Renegade decision backfiring would be a war between humanity and other Council races erupting either post-Reapers or even conceivabley before-or-as the Reapers attack. This would show that the decision to go with Cerberus reasoning could backfire if it was found out and provoked hostility (which could even damage the anti-Reaper effort)

[Nimrodell]

To be honest Saphra, I never had problem with Tali as renegade - intimidation options were there, and being renegade doesn't mean that he/she always sees the bigger picture, or that his/hers understanding of bigger picture is the right one - not in moral or political sense - just in understanding what is the goal and how things work (for paragon bigger picture is 'all races working together' and for renegade it can be human dominance or self-preservance, again depending on player behind renegade character). I have much easier play as renegade, pardon, renegon and more options are opened for me when I follow renegade path - I can be renegade douche, I can be smart renegade and it doesn't go that well with paragon path - there are not many variations for the paragon guy (not saying good guy 'cause renegades are not evil be default as many try to depict them - it all depends on player's understanding how system works and if s/he is truly roleplaying or just blindly following convo-wheel options).

But I didn't mean to side track you with this post, just thought that this needed to be said, again. Keep fighting good fight for renegades .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 I roleplay my main Shepard as being Paragon, in the same way I would consider myself to have a roughly 'Paragon' approach in life. For me, I attach my complex justifications for Paragon decisions to my Paragon Shepard.

Yeah, sorry, but no. You ignored what I said.

"I won't let Fear compromise who I am" is not complex. The game doesn't give you a lot of freedom in deciding Shepard's motivations for each choice you make.

 One quote there.. how many Renegade option quotes are there which suggest that a Renegade viewpoint is just a lack of patience or personal aggression?

 Both Paragon and Renegade are made inconsistently, so you can't tar one with that brush without tarring the other. I don't see that Paragon quote as represenative of my Shepard, and I am sure there are many Renegade quotes the 'ends justify the means therefore I am  Renegade' Renegades don't see as representative of their Shepard

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 As far as I am concerned a Renegade decision backfiring would be a war between humanity and other Council races erupting either post-Reapers or even conceivabley before-or-as the Reapers attack. This would show that the decision to go with Cerberus reasoning could backfire if it was found out and provoked hostility (which could even damage the anti-Reaper effort)

That would certainly be a backfiring of the choice, but even if nothing happened to a Renegade in a circumstance where a Paragon recieved a boon that would be a backfire. If freeing the queen grants you rachni allies then logically a Renegade will get nothing. So a Renegade decision backfires in two ways:

1.) The decision makes things worse than if the Renegade had done nothing at all

2.) The status quo maintains but the Paragon greatly benefits by making the opposite decision


Now for the record I'm all for Renegade decisions backfiring in spectacular ways.

 Can't the same be said for hypothetical situations where a Paragon decision doesn't result in a catastrophe but you get no boon

 A backfiring of the Paragon decision to free the guy on Overlord could backfire in two ways

 1.) David's story gets to the Geth, provokes a Geth war. Worse than if the Paragon had done nothing

 2.) No war, but you are left without good anti-Geth technology. The status quo is maintained, but the opposite choice results in benefits for the Renegade

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

One quote there.. how many Renegade option quotes are there which suggest that a Renegade viewpoint is just a lack of patience or personal aggression?

There are a few, most evident in the interrupts. When it comes to the rachni queen it is hard to tell if Shepard is mistrust or just feeling vindictive or just uncaring.

As others have said, Renegade is a lot more inconsistant than Paragon is.

However there are also also examples that prove, that at least with some choices, Renegade Shepard is thinking pretty deeply about them.

Bring Down the Sky is the best example (or the first one to come to mind anyway). When Simon Atwell asks you why you let the hostages die you are given several options, each of them poingant in their own way. One of which however has Shepard explain that he did it to protect future victims, future hostages, and that the guilt haunting him over the loss of Katie and the others is an acceptable price to pay to stop a man like Balak.

 I would contend that as both are inconsistent, that allows for the player to put forward their own motivations for the Shepard's actions, Paragon or Renegade. There are some Paragon quotes and Renegade quotes whic don't always reflect your motivation, but if you lock your Shepard into every Paragon or Renegade quote then you can only be left with inconsistency

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

One quote there.. how many Renegade option quotes are there which suggest that a Renegade viewpoint is just a lack of patience or personal aggression?

There are a few, most evident in the interrupts. When it comes to the rachni queen it is hard to tell if Shepard is mistrust or just feeling vindictive or just uncaring.

As others have said, Renegade is a lot more inconsistant than Paragon is.

However there are also also examples that prove, that at least with some choices, Renegade Shepard is thinking pretty deeply about them.

Bring Down the Sky is the best example (or the first one to come to mind anyway). When Simon Atwell asks you why you let the hostages die you are given several options, each of them poingant in their own way. One of which however has Shepard explain that he did it to protect future victims, future hostages, and that the guilt haunting him over the loss of Katie and the others is an acceptable price to pay to stop a man like Balak.

I'm not sure about that, Paragon is supposedly about being peaceful, friendly and diplomatic but then why does it involve shoving a gun in Zaeed's face, threatening to break an Elcor's legs and practically calling Mordin a criminal?

[Nimrodell]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I don't see Paragons being berrated by the survivors of another terrorist attack by Balak. Or the rachni. Or victims of Dr. Ialis' experiments. Or widows of the Alliance soldiers who died for an alien government that still refuses to aid humanity when it calls for help.

But that's something that would happen in real life too - loose people, don't try everything until you make horrible decision, and you'll get the same response even though at the time of decision you actually couldn't know if you can take the risk. For me personally, paragons are more tragic figures in Mass Effect, 'cause no matter what they did, they finish abandoned and accused by society - they resemble sort of masochists. Yes, you're right, renegade needs to deal with public rage, accusations, but at least there are valid reasons for those, at least in minds of those small people that weren't actually there and had to make hard decisions. But paragons are... well, just look at how they are treated and nevertheless, they will stand a trial too, 'cause they had to kill 300k of batarians - it was the only way at that time.

And if things worked like you're suggesting in ME1 and ME2, then paragon path would be actually unplayable 'cause our paragon would finish dead for making that risk - end of game - meaning, only renegade path will keep you alive. And we don't know what'll happen in ME3, maybe paragon Shepard will end up dead at the end of ME3 for destroying the Collector's Base - maybe those implants were actually reaper tech and the only way to save Shepard at the end was actually having info from that base on how those nanobots work. Be patient and brave, 'cause if you want to be renegade badass, then act like one and take any hit that ME universe is throwing at you.

[TobyHasEyes]

I agree that the choice for Cerberus to join the Reapers is a pain, just as it would bug me if they wrote it as the Council being indoctrinated and joining the Reapers.

All I am saying is that with the inconsistencies in the portrayal of Paragon and Renegade, it is possible for players of either persuasion to give sophisticated reasoning behind their decisions

[TobyHasEyes]

In other words, for the legitimate decision to react to claims that Paragons have a "holier-than-thou" with 'not my Paragon'

Or to claims that Renegade's react to any provocation with violence with 'not my Renegade'