Well - the issue with being "fair" against the Reapers is: "What constitutes fair when fighting something that is supposed to be more intelligent, more powerful, and more prepared than you are?" That leaves a wide berth for a lot of actions Shepard might take and still be "fair".
However - it is not always being fair against the Reapers. More often it is - "Are we even worthy of winning?"
Not everyone has a deified view of humanity. Since Darwin's terribly boring book - humanity has increasingly starting thinking of itself as the pinnacle of evolution (often just replacing "Gods divine race") - a terribly flawed assertion since that presumes that 1) Evolution has a goal or pinnacle to achieve. 2) That sapience is that pinnacle.
Of course - evolution isn't actually about finding pinnacles and bests or even survival of the fittest (sometimes it's survival of the status quo - especially in environments that aren't notably harsh) - but the layman has been fed the "fittest" quote for decades now.
This leaves a great deal of room for debate on what is the "most worthy" of survival.
Both sides say that the galaxy must "earn" survival - but many Paragons have some variation of "We must earn it with some semblance of our humanity left." while many Renegades have some variation of "We must earn it even if it meant carving our brains out of our skulls and replacing them with machine minds better fit to fight the Reapers."
Are you willing to sacrifice humanity - to save humanity? That is a compelling thought to some. I imagine some Renegades find it thought provoking to bring humanity to the brink of utter ruin as a measure to save it - even if only for the future. Perhaps some small cache of humans left - after several hundred years - clawing and scraping their way back to the level of social sophistication they "presumably" possess in Mass Effect.
Of course - for most Paragons the answer is simple. "No" - but I find it no less thought provoking. Something MUST be sacrificed - so what will it be then? In stories where a man is not willing to sacrifice the "other" - he must sacrifice "self", and most often - "self in total". This often means death - but I find death as a kind of victory. You win - and then die - game over.
The Renegade seems unappealing to me - because it's "I'll sacrifice what I want." How hard is it to be selfish? Yeah - you know nobody is looking - and you know that the stories written about you will only speak of your victory - not the means by which you achieved it.
The Paragon should suffer - in that I agree with Renegade players (though I despise any notion of fairness - I find it a purile request) - because unlike a Renegade who's willing to throw entire races at the Reapers - the Paragon, while trying to diminish how many races are thrown at the Reapers - must then sacrfice of his own "worth".
For another example - I think most Paragons are about the "journey" - while most Renegades are about the "ends justifying the means".
It is not about standing face to face with a Reaper and "dueling" - it is about what I do to others and myself to obtain victory. (at least - it is for a Paragon)
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 08 décembre 2011 - 04:45 .