1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

Of course renegade decisions are considered 'bad' by the general galactic community - thats kind of the point. A renegade is meant to the unsung hero, the person who does the terrible things that keep the galaxy running. No one likes what they do, and even if they understand that it must be done that doesn't mean they will praise them. For a renegade, he ends justify the means even if that means committing the lesser of two evils. For them, a situation like Arrival - where 300,000 lives are weighed against the lives of an entire galaxy - is a simple, logical choice. It is an easy choice. That doesn't mean a renegade person is cold or heartless, it simply means they are prepared to do whatever it takes and take emotion out of a decision like this.

For a paragon Shepard in the same situation, its a much harder choice. There is no question of allowing the Reapers into the galaxy, but stopping them requires the sacrifice of 300,000 innocents. This was the second instance of paragon players being punished. The first was, I think, Legion's loyalty - both brainwashing the heretics and killing them are evil choices, as both essentially lead to destroying a race for their beliefs. There is no 'good' decision. For a renegade, there is choice between destroying a threat or using that threat against the greater threat, the Reapers. It is a far simpler choice.

A renegade bases their decision on the big picture, often leading to the suffering of the 'little people', hence why they are not praised. A paragon has to make decisions that are best for both the 'little people' and the galaxy at large, and I imagine they will have a much harder time in ME3. Renegades are used to sacrifice, paragons aren't, and we've already been told that some situations cannot be resolved for both sides and we may have decisions like Virmire but on a larger scale.

[Nimrodell]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

 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.

Since when? They are universally praised by everybody. Everybody. (except Al'Jilani... and Toombs, I suppose)

Not true, for instance, you'll get better praise from Hackett in ME2 as renegade than as paragon after The Arrival, krogan on Tuchanka accept you better as renegade than as paragon ('cause renegade way is their way), Jack will treat you better as renegade than as paragon (paragon gets even '****' etiquette lol). Horizon and VS - paragon gets ****storm and is accused falsly again, same as renegade. Miranda's mission - renegade deal nicely with renegade interrupt and with one shot kills bunch of mercs while paragon needs to fight them all, Garrus mission - renegade does awesome job with 'You're working too hard' while paragon bites the ass there... Tuchanka and Weyrlock Speaker... don't force me to go step by step, and for these renegade actions, renegade is not accused as immoral and paragon - well, paragon just seems stupid 'cause those were valid targets anyway. I just don't see why you're so miffed with paragons, it's really not like they have it all or tis all winning combinations for them. And ME3 is yet to be played and maybe there you'll get to see all horrible outcomes for paragons.

As I said, both pathways exist and on each pathway there are hard things - paragons get smashed right in the heart 'cause that's their weak spot, they feel empathy, they are diplomatic - same goes for renegades, you can't hit them in their feelings, but they won't be named heroes either till the very end 'cause that's how it works. All renegades and paragons in human history didn't get heric treatment unless they were on winning side. And winners write history - not pragmatic or heroic individuals while fighting a good fight.

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

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'

Right. Your point is?

 That is my point. Lots of pages here were suggesting that Renegade is a consequentialist viewpoint, and Paragon is not. I was saying that given the breadth of possible Paragon viewpoints, that is not necessarily true. Nor is it true that the definition of Paragon is "can't see the big picture", they may (like my main Shepard playthrough) just see the bigger picture differently.

 That is all

[KillTheLastRomantic]

I agree. I usually choose the paragon choices simply because I view them as the 'moral' thing to do. Hopefully in 3 at least one of those things will come back to **** me over, as should a few renegade choices for renegade players.

[Nimrodell]

No I'm not loosing sight, tis just I'm telling you, stop making martyrs out of renegades and paragons BW favorite pets. There are downsides of both pathways. But I can't go into discussion again with you 'cause I understand your points but also, you're not much open for other people's opinions, you just keep singing the same tune. As I said - keep fighting good fight for renegades .

[Candidate 88766]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well said, though I doubt ME3 will take any brave strides on new ground.

Thanks. And yeah, I doubt it will but then again I don't think it has to.

It was always meant to be an homage to great sci-fi of the past, and nearly every good sci-fi film or book boils down to good truimphing over evil. A paragon will succeed, although I imagine at much greater cost than a renegade will. When the trilogy is over the player will have put in almost 100 hours per playthrough (assuming ME3 is of a similar length to the first two). Putting in that much time, only to fail based on the morality you choose pretty much at the start, would be a bit of a dick move. A bittersweet ending could be good though, where the player only succeeds at great cost. And as I said, I imagine the choices will be much harder for a paragon than for a renegade, but the renegade may not get as much recognistion if they succeed.

[Candidate 88766]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 That is my point. Lots of pages here were suggesting that Renegade is a consequentialist viewpoint, and Paragon is not. I was saying that given the breadth of possible Paragon viewpoints, that is not necessarily true. Nor is it true that the definition of Paragon is "can't see the big picture", they may (like my main Shepard playthrough) just see the bigger picture differently.

 That is all

I think its more that a paragon views a decision more from an ethical and moral standpoint whereas a renegade views it from a more logical viewpoint. You can argue that both are equally valid. Ethics and morality are important, as if you ignore those you may not be any better than what you are fighting. However, they can also cloud your judgement and prevent you from making the logical choice that will better serve the greater good.

[TobyHasEyes]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 That is my point. Lots of pages here were suggesting that Renegade is a consequentialist viewpoint, and Paragon is not. I was saying that given the breadth of possible Paragon viewpoints, that is not necessarily true. Nor is it true that the definition of Paragon is "can't see the big picture", they may (like my main Shepard playthrough) just see the bigger picture differently.

 That is all

I think its more that a paragon views a decision more from an ethical and moral standpoint whereas a renegade views it from a more logical viewpoint. You can argue that both are equally valid. Ethics and morality are important, as if you ignore those you may not be any better than what you are fighting. However, they can also cloud your judgement and prevent you from making the logical choice that will better serve the greater good.

 
 Look this is my point, I flat out disagree that that is the case

 The viewpoint of picking a choice which better serves the greater good (which is a ethical and moral standpoint) is not exclusively Renegade. To decide to focus your actions around what will be the best long term consequences can also apply to Paragon thinking

[Aquilas]

*SPOILERS FOLLOW*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Given galactic history, Renegades show they have learned the lessons taught:

* The Rachni: a vicious, xenophobic race that attempted to conquer all of Council space. Answer: eliminate the last breeder
* The Krogan: a violent, expansionistic race that refused to accept limits imposed by the Council and waged war to secure their ends. Answer: ensure the genophage remains incurable
* The Geth: conquered the Quarians and made them refugees; a Geth faction joined Saren and Sovereign in their effort to secure Reaper dominance. Answer: destroy the Heretics
* The Reapers: they eradicate all sentient, organic life every 50,000 years (or so). Answer: use Collector technology--Reaper technology--to combat the implacable foe

Remember, in the opening scene of Mass Effect, BioWare tells us the Renegade approach works. Anderson and Hackett discuss Ruthless Shepard's tactics on Torfan, and Hackett asks if that's the kind of person who can save the galaxy. Anderson says that it's the only kind of person who can save the galaxy. Of course, Anderson says the same thing about Paragon Shepard.

Early in the game, Emily Wong asks Shepard to investigate organized crime on the Citadel. When Ruthless Shepard asks why, Emily says she needs the person who killed all those who attempted to surrender on Torfan. She wants the Shepard who gets the job done, no matter the cost.

So according to game theory, design, and execution Renegades can win--will win: Anderson says so. The Renegade's reward is getting the job done--mission accomplished.

The Renegade makes decisions based on the facts in hand; the Paragon places faith in...faith. In hope. Notice both alignments can "win the game" in ME and ME2.

What bothers me about the game mechanics is the way Renegades act out: "I'm going to accomplish the mission, and I'm going to kick your kitten too." Also, if you don't pick one alignment or the other, you suffer in gameplay--you fail persuasion and intimidation checks because you aren't blue enough or red enough. You have to wear a White Hat or Black Hat to get the most content--Grey Hats need not apply.

I agree with the OP; Paragons should pay some price for doing "the right thing." But Renegades should pay a price too. As Casey Hudson has said, you won't be able to complete ME3 with sacrifice--without cost. Given BioWare's history, I'm confident both alignments will pay for their decisions.

[Whatever42]

Think darkside/lightside endings with KotoR.

Renegade is not evil but it has certain qualities: self-reliance, expedience, ruthlessness, suspicion.
Paragon has other qualities: cooperation, doing-the-"right"-thing, trust.

The game will be won or lost not by paragon/renegade choices. Those choices will determine the shape of the galaxy after the victory (the shape of the galaxy if you lose is probably the same regardless of renegade/paragon decisions). Yes, the galaxy will be darker if you're a renegade but you made dark decisions. You chose the blade-runner ending instead of the happy Star Wars ending.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 05 juillet 2011 - 01:31 .

[Smeelia]

Aquilas wrote...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Given galactic history, Renegades show they have learned the lessons taught:

That's one way of looking at the "lessons" but it's certainly not the only way.  Generally speaking you can make a case for both options in many of the major choices and there can be different reasons for each (for example, a lot of Paragons destroy the heretics because rewriting sounds too much like brainwashing/slavery and consider that to be morally worse).  That's one of the things I like about the game, I can have two Shepards that make almost exactly the same decisions but are still very different characters (even if I can't always show it in the game).

I'm okay with victory being (at least almost) inevitable, for me the game is about playing a character and choosing how to react to situations rather than choosing what I think will lead to victory.  If you have "winning" and "losing" paths in a game then some decisions are simply "wrong" and I don't really see that as better than being able to choose between merely "different" paths (not that it's necessarily worse either).  That being said, if it's possible to win the game but "lose" the story I'm okay with that as well (although this would only work for me in Mass Effect if losing the story is inevitable for any path, since they're supposed to be equally valid but different).

[Aquilas]

I agree with your comments on winning vs. losing the game, or the story.  Those two terms and conditions aren't necessarliy equivalent.

I also agree with your elaboration on Paragon Shepard's decision to destroy the Heretics. In fact, a few of my Paragons have made the same decision for the same reasons.

However, in my Renegade paradigm, destruction is the certain path: threat eliminated. Morality has nothing to do with it. Remember, Shepard asks Legion if the Heretics could revert if rewritten. Legion says there is a chance, though small. My Ruthless Shepard(s) always took the certain path: if the Heretics are destroyed, then the threat is eliminated--no worries about rewriting.

I'm very interested in how these decisions play out. How BioWare defines sacrifice and cost for both alignments will, for me, determine how successful the triology is.

Modifié par Aquilas, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:22 .

[Son of Illusive Man]

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.

This makes sense.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Though I am a big Paragon fan, I kind of thought Paragon vs Renegade should have been more of a Morally Good vs Smart decision process, rather than the DO NO WRONG vs I'M COMMANDER SHEPARD AND I'M THE BIGGEST JERK ON THE CITADEL that it seems to be in ME1 and ME2. There are some exceptions, I'm sure, but even in tone of voice Renegade Shepard turns out to be more of a jerkface rather than a person just trying to get the job done.

There should be some pay offs for Paragon playing the nice guy, but I think there needs to be more consequence. For example, I liked how Zaeed's mission was handled in regards to paragon vs renegade, and I liked how in Arrival the boy scout antics weren't really cutting it.

It was telling at the end of ME2 how a paragon Shepard said that he/she would not sacrifice human dignity to defeat the Reapers.  Does this mean that there are bigger sacrifices are in store for Paragon, because he/she is not willing to put that dignity to the side?

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:44 .

[Smeelia]

Aquilas wrote...

I'm very interested in how these decisions play out. How BioWare defines sacrifice and cost for both alignments will, for me, determine how successful the triology is.

Looking back, I think ME1 worked quite well as a self-contained model for the series really.  No matter what choices you make you still win and you still make sacrifices.  I feel that having the sacrifices be separate from the Paragon/Renegade system helped immensely, since it avoided making one side seem "wrong".  There are some issues with fairness for the "moralities" in ME2 but I think ME1 generally handled things better (although I don't think ME2 is catastrophically bad or anything and have enjoyed it with a variety of characters).

It'll definately be interesting to see how things turn out.  I do worry that more neutral/mixed characters will lose out if a lot of the "sacrifices" depend on past Paragon and Renegade decisions (meaning that some players may have a game that consists almost entirely of sacrifices, while others may have almost none at all).  I hope they'll end things well but even if they don't I expect I'll still enjoy the series (unless it's really terribly bad, then I can just pretend ME3 never happened I suppose).

[Destroy Raiden_]

No matter what your alignment is you'll beat the game.

[Medhia Nox]

Interesting how people say doing things the Renegade way is "Smart". Yeah, sure - I think it's pragmatic, but a lot of evil can be done in the name of pragmatism.

But I think Paragon should suffer more setbacks. Doing things the right way often ends up being the harder option in real life - and I wouldn't mind Paragon choices reflecting this.

Renegade should always be an easier play through - taking short cuts and using violence (like punching a reporter... seriously?) are always the easier short term solution to a problem.

[Raiil]

 

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.

Yes, but what I believe the person who originally brought it up (I think it was Saphra) was trying to say was that renegade Shepard is acknowledged, in game, to have a relentless personality- they're counting on Darius to react to that and for Shepard to then carry it to its 'inevitable' conclusion. The example is to highlight that there are heavy differences- as defined by the developers- between the paragon and renegade Shepard.

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

The standards are what the developers have decided it to be. This isn't a vague philosophical discussion; we're talking about a pre-made world with pre-made constraints by the Word of God.

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.

It's a moral/ethical standards embraced in game by The Powers That Be. The Paragon is the Hero; the Renegade is the Badass, or was supposed to be before the writers turned it into the Jerkass. You become a paragon by pursuing a western-viewed idea of compassion and heroism. You become a renegade by focusing on getting the job done and not taking risks with unknown quantities. 

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

* sighs * Fine, if you want to play this game. The paragon plays someone who adheres to a socially-acceptable version of morality that has people refer to him a being 'moral' even though they're probably not using the term right but has a strong social overtone because that's how the word is often used in every day parlance. Better?

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. 

Are you not reading our responses? In game there have been almost no negative consequences in a series that is partially based/hyped on the idea that we do have them. We are not asking paragons to become big ol' balls of fail. It means that sometimes, good intentions backfire and we would like the game to reflect this.  To have them fail a mission of sorts simply because they adhered to their morals and it cost them the battle.

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

BECAUSE IT'S WREAKED HAVOC IN THE INTERNAL MORAL SYSTEM. SERIOUSLY. The Renegades get shot in the foot, us paragades and renegons are screwed already anyways. We're asking for a little balance, not to overturn the game.

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

It's what The Powers That Be have determined the Paragon to be. Seriously. It's in the game. The devs have noted it. It's the nice guy is the good guy. It's written on our foreheads when we play.

Ah, forget it.

Modifié par Valentia X, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:34 .

[JamieCOTC]

Renegade: I don't think that word means what you think that word means.

I'm all for my paragon Shep, (who IS better than that, thank you very much), getting her butt kicked by a decision or two, but I genuinely do not understand the complaints about renegades being slighted. The last time I played my renegade femshep the only time I felt slighted was at the end of ME2 when everyone thought giving the base to Cerberus was a bad call (even though Grunt suggested that she give the base to TIM). And you know what, they're probably right. Giving an H-Bomb (Collector Base) to a sociopathic, power mad, lying sack of fecal matter (TIM) is probably not the best idea in the world. But the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that's a logical assumption for the time being.

Anyway, I loved playing renegade as it gave me a different perspective on the game, but I never once felt I was being punished for my choices. Renegade means bucking the system and people generally don't like that. And yes, that's very frustrating, but that comes w/ the territory. Renegade may not win many friends, but it will win a war.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:11 .

[Alamar2078]

I'm sure Paragons will feel plenty of pain. Rana Theoptis (sp?) && Elnora come to mind. If the Rachni were bad to start with OR if they "easily" fall to indoctrination then the Paragon choices may not work out as well.

There's plenty of room to punish paragons per-se.

Note: B/W may want to make a statement that perhaps the Paragon path is the way to go so you may not get any sort of a guarantee that either Paragon or Renegade paths will be balanced in any way.

[mauro2222]

Aquilas wrote...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Given galactic history, Renegades show they have learned the lessons taught:

I think you did not comprehended what that guy says.

Modifié par mauro2222, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:32 .

[Victia]

Paulinius wrote...

There should be both paragon and renegade options that help you and screw you over.

This, 100% this