134 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Heck even if the new Council hated Shepard, I would've loved to see that arguement break out.

[Aligalipe]

PPF65 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Paragon = Sacrifice a few for the good of the many.
Renegade = Sacrifice the many for the good of the few.

You've got that backwards, Balak is a perfect example. Paragon Shepard is perfectly willing to let Balak live to bomb an entire colony and kill millions of people another day, just to save a few lives and appease his self-righteousness.

While Renegade Shepard on the other hand will lose a few people to ensure Balak can never again entertain the idea of killing millions of colonists by dropping an asteroid on them. 

Another example would be Paragons throwing the Alliance fleet into a blender just to save the Council. 

Renegades hand the Collector base over to Cerberus. If you acctually trust TIM with that kind of technology then you're just stupid. This is especially when you consider that he sent you into the Collostor Ship knowing it was a trap, and told people you were with Cerberus when it would have been much easier to enlist help if he hadn't.

You don't give a narcissistic sociopath like TIM that kind of power.

Also, if you play totally a renegade, then you don't even try to warn the Batarians that the Alpha Relay is about to go off like a supernova in Arrival. Thats the difference between doing something because its the lesser of two evils, and commiting a war crime because it makes your life easier.

I agree with you completely. I mean only a  fool would trust TIM. And some say preserving the Collector base is the right choice. But it isn' t even pragmatic. I mean even Legion say he wouldn't preserve it. The reason is It' s Reaper technology and in order to defeat them, humanity must develop on its own. Btw nice signature 

[WizenSlinky0]

Undertone wrote...

Typical paragon self-righteousness. I wonder how many of you would have actually played paragon if the two games so far weren't designed that every choice works out for you.

Eh I'd go paragon even if every single decision you make turned out terribly.

Simply put, as a human, I would no longer wish to live in a universe that has given up its morality. To give up morals, compassion, and other human emotions for the sake of practicality...is well to give up what it means to be human in the first place.

I'd rather have the race go extinct than give up that which makes us what we are.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 22 juillet 2011 - 11:50 .

[Lumikki]

SandTrout wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

As I said in my initial post on the topic, 1k crew is a more reasonable number, IMO.

I ques we all have our own ideas about this. In my opinion other hand 10k was very small size of crew for that size of ship.

Having actually served in the Navy, I honestly cannot think of what possitions 10k crew could occupy. Every person on a ship has a job to do, and there are a limited number of possitions that might need to be filled on this type of craft:

I know. I was more thinking about it's size of the ship. Meaning inside the The Destiny Ascension would fit about 1000 biggest today Navy Air carriers.

[Taesuun]

Given that DA apparently has the biggest and meanest guns in the whole galaxy, it doesn't sound so bad a decision to save it. Especially when Shephard isn't in a position to see that it's so badly damaged that it can't take a single shot at Sovereign.

But there are many paragon choices which could easily have negative impacts in the third game / epilogue (rachni, geth, krogans, tipping off batarians who killed them etc...), and I sincerely hope that some of them do.

[Ultai]

Aligalipe wrote...

I mean even Legion say he wouldn't preserve it.

Legion at the final decision: Shepard-Commander, this facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.

But then again he pulls a 180 on the Normandy, along with some other squadmates who advocate keeping it at the final decision.  I blame that on Bioware's problem with inconsistent writing within areas of the franchise.

[Seboist]

Ultai wrote...

Aligalipe wrote...

I mean even Legion say he wouldn't preserve it.

Legion at the final decision: Shepard-Commander, this facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.

But then again he pulls a 180 on the Normandy, along with some other squadmates who advocate keeping it at the final decision.  I blame that on Bioware's problem with inconsistent writing within areas of the franchise.

Yeah, the whole situation is a freakin joke with the squadmates who favored keeping it making a complete 180.

Destroyed the base: "Woohoo we blew that **** up and stuck it to the man! I'm glad you realized I was only joking about keeping it!"

Kept the base: " Shepard what are you a ****ing idiot? I know I told you to keep it but damn I didn't think you'd actually be stupid enough to do it".

[Massadonious1]

Undertone wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Right, the "real world". People can rationalize these decisions as the "best choice" because there are no real world implications, just changes to the pixels on the screen. You can act out your specific ideology without actual repercussions. But, if you honestly think you could make the same choices if the lives of 10,000, a million, a planet's worth, or even 1 REAL person was in your specific hands, then you're either deluding yourself, or you're a psychopath.

Most of us will never have that power. To say you would know what to do with it is ludicrous.

You can say that for your life. Don't assume it's the same for everyone.

I think I can safely say that for most people's lives. Jobs/professions that give you the legal tools to kill someone certainly don't let you do that indiscriminately, whereas Shepard has plenty of options to act as his/her own judge, jury, and exectutioner.

Anything else would be illegal. As much as I would of liked to put a bullet in my mom's abusive boyfriend's skull, it's still a human life, and I stil would of gone to jail, even though the greater good would of been served by doing it.

[Longsword-83]

To answer the question at hand, maybe, possibly, but I hope not all of them will, and that's coming from an overwhelmingly Paragon player.

I hope every decision, Paragon or Renegade, comes back with unforeseen consequences- or in some cases, consequences you KNEW were going to happen.

Here's what I see happening, ideally, for my choices as a Paragon:
I spare Vido and saved the workers- Vido's going to come after me, Zaeed will come after me, EA refinery is still working and there is still SOME infrastructure left for the war effort.

Destroying the Collector Base- "We should keep it because it's only data and we need all the help we can get". Yeah, which means the morality of anything we find in there is entirely dependent on who gets it first. And seeing that there are only two groups that can get through the OMega 4 Relay at the time- Cerberus and the Normandy- and I sure as hell don't trust TIM, I'd prefer to see that it go directly into Council or Alliance hands. But seeing as my options are, "Destroy or give TIM what he wanted", I blew the thing sky-high. Yeah, it'll bite me in the ass. But It's denying an enemy a resource, and Cerberus IS the enemy.

Spare the Rachni Queen- Questions about their intentions aside, I have no reason NOT to believe that the Queen is genuinely grateful and will loyally provide aid for the war effort. Everyone else in the galaxy, especially the Krogan and Salarians, won't be so excited, however.

Save the Genophage cure data- Notice I didn't say "cure the Krogan". Mordin himself said that it was "years away from being perfected". But it's still more hope than the Krogan HAD. So I gain their loyalty, but the Salarians and Turians might not be too pleased

Send a warning to the Batarians- Well, it's concrete evidence that I had to do with destroying the colony, so I don't see how there's any GOOD repercussions from that one.

Saving the Council- Yeah yeah, "Turian Councilor is teh SUK", let's ignore that for a moment. These are still the most powerful people in the galaxy, and maybe now that they see "Oh crap, we were wrong", they'll have no problem listening to Shepard and mobilizing every last Council and client race into war. How will it bite me in the ass? Well, I'm still a war criminal. And I did all of the things above, too. Going to have to answer for that.

All in all, While I'm giving the Galaxy a better chance through increasing our forces, I'm also bringing back many hated enemies, setting it back up for war. Will it happen, I don't know, but I'm interested on seeing it play out.

Modifié par Longsword-83, 22 juillet 2011 - 03:56 .

[Dave of Canada]

Longsword-83 wrote...

I hope every decision, Paragon or Renegade, comes back with unforeseen consequences- or in some cases, consequences you KNEW were going to happen.

You're going to get a lot of flak for asking Paragon consequences, the past few threads have had people jump in and almost threaten other people who suggested such things.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 03:59 .

[Longsword-83]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Longsword-83 wrote...

I hope every decision, Paragon or Renegade, comes back with unforeseen consequences- or in some cases, consequences you KNEW were going to happen.

You're going to get a lot of flak for asking Paragon consequences, the past few threads have had people jump in and almost threaten other people who suggested such things.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus is the law of the universe, and  I wouldn't have it any other way.

Idealism (Paragon) and Pragmatism (Renegade) are neither inherently good nor evil. Blind devotion to one idea over another, however, strikes me as incredibly, for lack of a better word, stupid.

[Dave of Canada]

Longsword-83 wrote...

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus is the law of the universe, and  I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh, I totally support benefits and consequences for all decisions in both games.

I've just been arguing it for months now and it usually ends up with people saying consequences for the Paragon decisions would be unfair, how Paragon / Renegade isn't actually a choice system but a "happy ending / bad ending" system (some people actually believe this, I think that kind of shows that there's a problem) and other such things.

[Undertone]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Longsword-83 wrote...

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus is the law of the universe, and  I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh, I totally support benefits and consequences for all decisions in both games.

I've just been arguing it for months now and it usually ends up with people saying consequences for the Paragon decisions would be unfair, how Paragon / Renegade isn't actually a choice system but a "happy ending / bad ending" system (some people actually believe this, I think that kind of shows that there's a problem) and other such things.

Precisely my point - most of the paragons on this forum go crazy if you ever dare to suggest some of their consequences should turn badly. According to the philosophy paragon should get good stuff and renegade should get bad stuff because it's supposed to be that way. To them renegade equals = ****, psychopatic killer bla bla.

I would be the first to say that I fully expect aliens to hate me and to have bad consequences when it comes to dealing with aliens. However there's nothing to offset this as paragon Shepard is loved by all.

Renegade equals lack of content, wrong decisions or let me rephrase it otherwise - decisions that never fullfill the optimal solution, whereas paragon always does this. Example - you save the rephinery and appease your morals and you still get Zaeed loyalty. Renegade - you turn your back on people but get the loyalty. See something wrong there? Take the Council decision - you save the Council, stop Sovereign and the galaxy loves you. Renegade - you stop Sovereign and the galaxy hates you, plus lack of content.

The way it should work is totally wrong. As it stands Paragon yields greater rewards, public approval and morality not sacrificed - the way it should work is Paragons should get lower rewards but be happy since they appease their morality plus galaxy-wide approval of their actions maybe with the expense of humanity. Renegades should get higher rewards but having the guilt of being remorse, the end justifies it, and less galactic approval except in the case of humans, for which likely a renegade Shepard would be working to put on top. Paragon should get more love from the aliens, Renegade from the humans.

As it stands Paragon is the right way always. I'm not being a "butt-hurt renegade" - I'm just asking equality for both styles of play. I'm not even going to go how messed up the lack of content stuff is. And yeah let me guess there's gonna be the idiot who's going to say "ooooh but dead people can't come for cameo".

As for Legion and the Collector Base - it's all half-half. Garrus, Legion, Grunt, Jack and a few others which I don't remember now advocate for keeping the base. When you talk on the ship however post factum EVERY single crew member will say how stupid and bad choice it was - even bloody Miranda who's a Cerberus loyalist. That's a pure annoying bias from Bioware showing once more that oh teh Paragon Space Jesus is the right way always.

[Undertone]

Mesina2 wrote...

I think to get perfect ending you need to combine Paragon and Renegade choices.

Normally I disagree with you on everything but for once I actually agree with you. I doubt however that it will turn that way unless Bioware fixes the morality system. 

[Ieldra]

Longsword-83 wrote...
Destroying the Collector Base- "We should keep it because it's only data and we need all the help we can get". Yeah, which means the morality of anything we find in there is entirely dependent on who gets it first. And seeing that there are only two groups that can get through the OMega 4 Relay at the time- Cerberus and the Normandy- and I sure as hell don't trust TIM, I'd prefer to see that it go directly into Council or Alliance hands. But seeing as my options are, "Destroy or give TIM what he wanted", I blew the thing sky-high. Yeah, it'll bite me in the ass. But It's denying an enemy a resource, and Cerberus IS the enemy.

No, THE enemy are the Reapers. At the point of that decision you don't know that Cerberus will be working with them.

Otherwise, the decision is perfectly OK. As long as there actually *is* a cost in strategic benefit to the Paragon decision, as there's a cost to moral integrity - and possibly in diplomatic relationships once it becomes known - to the Renegade decision.   

All that I'm asking is that the game acknowledges that there usually is a cost in tangible benefits for moral decisions. Were it not so, it wouldn't need morality to bring people to make them. And in a war for survival, the cost of the moral decision might just be a game over screen. As Arrival shows, actually - that's what you get if you refuse to destroy the system by letting the clock run out. 

Saving the Council, as presented by the game, is a gamble with galactic extinction. I don't think most Paragon players are aware of what absolutely incredible piece of luck it is that the part of the fleet attacking Sovereign was enough to destroy it in time in the end. It's OK if one or two major decisions turn out that way. After all, heroes do have such luck sometimes. But if they all turn out that way, any justification for Renegade decisions will vanish from this universe. If you can have the best outcome without any cost, why sacrifice anything for it? This universe would be decidedly unlike the real world in the most basic determinants of human decision-making.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:24 .

[Asari_Party]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Saving the Council, as presented by the game, is a gamble with galactic extinction.

Only if you think a human leadership is necessary to stop the reapers. Otherwise it is a terrible tactical decision.

[Dave of Canada]

Roxy12 wrote...

Only if you think a human leadership is necessary to stop the reapers. Otherwise it is a terrible tactical decision.

My decision for it had nothing to do with human leadership, it was about trying to take down Sovereign with as many resources as I can without having Sovereign summon the entire Reaper fleet and harvest the entire galaxy (and judging by a lot of other people I've talked with, I assume their reasons were the same). There's no way to even tell there's going to be a coup for the Council.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:30 .

[Undertone]

Roxy12 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Saving the Council, as presented by the game, is a gamble with galactic extinction.

Only if you think a human leadership is necessary to stop the reapers. Otherwise it is a terrible tactical decision.

Elaborate why then if you are so confident. Ieldra says it all again with much more eloquence I would ever hope to have.

[Undertone]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Roxy12 wrote...

Only if you think a human leadership is necessary to stop the reapers. Otherwise it is a terrible tactical decision.

My decision for it had nothing to do with human leadership, it was about trying to take down Sovereign with as many resources as I can without having Sovereign summon the entire Reaper fleet and harvest the entire galaxy (and judging by a lot of other people I've talked with, I assume their reasons were the same). There's no way to even tell there's going to be a coup for the Council.

Precisely my reasoning as well. Suddenly in ME2 however I'm railroaded as if it was a planned coup by the humans - I was like wtf? 

[Asari_Party]

Holding the human fleet back does nothing - they would have had to wait until the Citadel's arms opened anyway. So you wait until the geth had destroyed the Ascension - and hope for the best?

[nhsk]

Dave of Canada wrote...

My decision for it had nothing to do with human leadership, it was about trying to take down Sovereign with as many resources as I can without having Sovereign summon the entire Reaper fleet and harvest the entire galaxy (and judging by a lot of other people I've talked with, I assume their reasons were the same). There's no way to even tell there's going to be a coup for the Council.

My reasons as well as a paragon player in my chosen first import for ME2, sadly the way the decision was railroaded I went back to ME1 and replayed the last mission to get a "better" import. Yes I'm sad like that... ;>

[LiquidLogic2020]

Who even goes all the way paragon or renegade? That would just mean your playing through the game as a really dull character.

[Dave of Canada]

Roxy12 wrote...

Holding the human fleet back does nothing - they would have had to wait until the Citadel's arms opened anyway. So you wait until the geth had destroyed the Ascension - and hope for the best?

The Citadel fleet is dealing with the Geth, they're being swarmed and  the Destiny Ascension's capabilities to serve any purpose in combat is offline (as said by their announcement when they contact you).

You're told that Sovereign is trying to regain control fo the station and you're asked if you should stay back to keep your reinforcements for Sovereign or send them in to fight to (maybe, don't forget that it's entirely possible to fail due to the Destiny Ascension being really weak) save the Destiny Ascension and deal with the Geth fleet.

Shepard has control of the station at the time, (s)he makes the call as the arms are starting to open. There's a lot of gambling on the Paragon decision that everything will work out just fine and you'll be capable of taking out Sovereign without the destroyed Alliance ships.

Otherwise, galactic extinction!