100 réponses à ce sujet

[wetnasty]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wetnasty wrote...

Well it was a bit counter to the goals. "Tell me where Nassana is."

"No."

He had the chance to cooperate. He wasted it.

(the datapad you find has nothing at all to do with Nassana or with Thane. By the way, it is Thane you are asking him about)

Ah that's right. It's been a while.

[Tup3x]

More like tones indeed. At least when compared to KOTOR.

[Yezdigerd]

Please, assaulting mentally handicapped Manuel for no reason at all. The numerous gangster style executions on the citadel, Fist is murdered even before renshep becomes a spectre. and the reasons for the killings are never pragmatic or goal-oriented but matters of principle."you dont deserve to live"
Chorben is gunned down in the middle of market. When renshep treaten to take back Nirali Bhatias body by at gunpoint.Renshep sabotaging Chelleks assignment by killing Jax because he likes the color of blood.
Insulting the council. shooting the noveria colonists. executing Shiala despite her assistance and possesing the cipher.

In ME2 it's not generally much less difference between paragon and renegade. but you still have the chosing Morinth.handeling over the evidence to the assembly. killing the turian politician-hostage on Thanes mission.Letting Vido's slaves burn alive on Zaed's mission and so on.

And while showing a gun in people's face and forcing them to comply, might work as well as convincing them by argument, the former will still create longterm resentment in most people.

and then it's all those small renegade rude options that certainly will not serve your cause. A normal person dismisses request with "sorry, no", renegade shep feels the need to routinely put people down, which is just stupid.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Veex wrote...

The only ones I can think of are punching out Khalisa Al-Jilani.

I'd call that excessively violent but not cruel and not counter to your goals.

What goal would that be? Showing the galaxy that the first human spectre has the self-control of a 12 year old?
I don't know where you come from but in countries with free press, navy officers assaulting them gets suspended to begin with. They are definetly not someone the administration want to entrust with life and death decisions or politically sensitive issues.

[Ieldra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I see another problem here to boot.

The games and media have conditioned us to go the Paragon route. Take a look back at the movies and games.
This about this for a second!

The goods guys colors? Blue an green. Lasers, lightsabers, conversation options.
Bad guys? Red lasers, led lightning, red lightsabers, red convo options.
combined with the "good guys always win" and high rewards for hte good guy path in bio Games.

You have to wonder how many people went for the blue options because they immediately indentified them as "better" options? And then went backwards from there, justifying their selection in reverse.
After all, if giving TIM the base is a red option, then TIM MUST be up to no good and I cannot trust him!

The conditioning is definitely a problem. Thankfully it didn't prevent 37% of all players from keeping the Collector base. I think that's a good rate, especially given the conditioning.

[Sebby]

Bioware clearly doesn't have the outcomes well thought out or else the Rachni Queen decision for example would have resulted in the Krogans (who should be a renegade ally btw) either being grateful that she's dead or upset that's she's not. Instead what we have is absolutely nothing while at the same time Okeer and Wrex/Wreav tell us how Krogans are pissed about Shepard destroying Saren's genophage cure.

That and it's obvious that Bioware has a great moral dilemma when it comes to handling the non-PC Renegade path. This clearly manifests with the Terra Firma sidequest in ME1 whose very title is "our own worst enemy" and all the questions in "investigate" are lopsidely biased against Charles Saracino with Shepard sounding like a politically correct establishment robot.

[Keatons]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I see another problem here to boot.

The games and media have conditioned us to go the Paragon route. Take a look back at the movies and games.
This about this for a second!

The goods guys colors? Blue an green. Lasers, lightsabers, conversation options.
Bad guys? Red lasers, led lightning, red lightsabers, red convo options.
combined with the "good guys always win" and high rewards for hte good guy path in bio Games.

You have to wonder how many people went for the blue options because they immediately indentified them as "better" options? And then went backwards from there, justifying their selection in reverse.
After all, if giving TIM the base is a red option, then TIM MUST be up to no good and I cannot trust him!

The conditioning is definitely a problem. Thankfully it didn't prevent 37% of all players from keeping the Collector base. I think that's a good rate, especially given the conditioning.

I destroy the collector base most of the time, except once to see what happens. But my simple reasoning is that I like watching the explosion better.

Now, with further regard to the collector base, destorying it results in a giant red explosion, and keeping it results in a blue radiation pulse. Just saying...

[wizardryforever]

Seboist wrote...

Bioware clearly doesn't have the outcomes well thought out or else the Rachni Queen decision for example would have resulted in the Krogans (who should be a renegade ally btw) either being grateful that she's dead or upset that's she's not. Instead what we have is absolutely nothing while at the same time Okeer and Wrex/Wreav tell us how Krogans are pissed about Shepard destroying Saren's genophage cure.

Well to be fair, the Rachni decision would not be public knowledge in any case.  The public didn't know that the Rachni had been brought back, so they most definitely wouldn't know about Shepard's decision regarding the queen.  On the other hand, the genophage cure that Saren was working on would very likely have been publicized by the Council to show just how dangerous Saren had become (as though the Citadel attack wasn't enough), and to be perfectly frank, the Krogan would care much more about the genophage than the Rachni at this point.

Now it is very likely that this kind of thing will come up in ME3.  You know, far reaching consequences and all that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Interloper wrote...

The way I see it, the difference between paragon and renegade is this.

Renegades sacrifice the few for the many. If hostages must die so a dangerous threat can be eliminated, so be it. If you might be a threat later, if you promise to stop being evil (rachni) you still die. No chances must be taken when the safety of the many are concerned. This means rules must be broken and morality sometimes left at the wayside. Any end justifies the means if that end is the safety of the many.

Paragons sacrifice (or rather risk) the many for the few. Morality, law, and ethics must be protected and upheld whenever possible-without these to guide us, are we even worth protecting? Therefore, if saving others requires suffering and death on behalf of the innocent, no matter how many the many or how few the few, it is not a path worth taking (not that that means we let the many die, just that we should find another way). Thousands of alliance members will be sacrificed to save the council, the upholders of order. The rachni are spared, for they might be innocent, and the paragon will not kill them simply because they might be guilty-the chance they might again wage war on the galaxy is irrelevant. The paragon believes in morality and therefore that all should be saved, even if in attempting to save a handful he risks the rest. Upholding ethics is the final end, and if dangerous characters go free and people die, it's worth the price of a clean conscience.

So my concience and piece of mind >>>>>> the needs of the galaxy?

[Sisterofshane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

The way I see it, the difference between paragon and renegade is this.

Renegades sacrifice the few for the many. If hostages must die so a dangerous threat can be eliminated, so be it. If you might be a threat later, if you promise to stop being evil (rachni) you still die. No chances must be taken when the safety of the many are concerned. This means rules must be broken and morality sometimes left at the wayside. Any end justifies the means if that end is the safety of the many.

Paragons sacrifice (or rather risk) the many for the few. Morality, law, and ethics must be protected and upheld whenever possible-without these to guide us, are we even worth protecting? Therefore, if saving others requires suffering and death on behalf of the innocent, no matter how many the many or how few the few, it is not a path worth taking (not that that means we let the many die, just that we should find another way). Thousands of alliance members will be sacrificed to save the council, the upholders of order. The rachni are spared, for they might be innocent, and the paragon will not kill them simply because they might be guilty-the chance they might again wage war on the galaxy is irrelevant. The paragon believes in morality and therefore that all should be saved, even if in attempting to save a handful he risks the rest. Upholding ethics is the final end, and if dangerous characters go free and people die, it's worth the price of a clean conscience.

So my concience and piece of mind >>>>>> the needs of the galaxy?

Typical renegade -- thinking that they can predict every outcome, and if there is even a slight possibility of a negative outcome in the future, that it would be better to handle it now, and deal with the immediate consequences.  The problem with this rationale is that there are positive and negative consequences to every action that we take.

So many people like to cite BDtS for this.  Why let Balak go if you can stop this deadly terrorist now with such a minimal loss of life?  But who's to say that one of those people killed wouldn't have been of immense value to society?  Perhaps one of those engineers would go on to design a new weapon that could be useful in our fight later on, or maybe Kate would end up being a unifying voice among the galactic universe, using her "second chance" to be proactive against terrorism in the galaxy?  You just can't predict these kind of things.

So, Balak may come back in the future and potentially threaten more lives.  I cannot be responsible for the actions of every being within the galaxy.  I can, however, take responsibility for myself in the immediate, and choose to make decisions that will positively impact those around me in the long term.  This is not to say that paragons will "have their cake and eat it too", as so many people like to cite on this forum.  It means that I will handle the negative repurcussions as they come up, and not live my life trying to prevent them by sacrificing my values and my ethics.

And as much as people like to say that paragons are "rewarded", I would rather say it as paragons are never "punished".  And the same could be said for the renegades.  The system is not meant to reward one choice or punish the other, but rather as two extremely opposite means to the same end.

[Pulletlamer]

Sisterofshane wrote...

And as much as people like to say that paragons are "rewarded", I would rather say it as paragons are never "punished".  And the same could be said for the renegades.  The system is not meant to reward one choice or punish the other, but rather as two extremely opposite means to the same end.

I completely agree on this last part.

I don't think choosing one way rewards you more than the other. It's just that neither ways punish you for choosing them. Casey was pretty clear about this and it's that they don't like to punish players.

So it's not that your actions don't have consequences, they do (and will), but they don't impact you negatively in such a way that prevents you from "winning". They are different paths with different consequences and outcomes, but in the end you can aways be "succesful".

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 11 août 2011 - 08:21 .

[Sebby]

Yeah, and there's news reports regarding both outcomes of Peak 15.

Edit: It's also weird how Wrex never says anything about it considering that if Shepard decides to spare the Queen he vows that the Krogans will put an end to them again.

Modifié par Seboist, 11 août 2011 - 08:42 .

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Well to be fair, the Rachni decision would not be public knowledge in any case.  The public didn't know that the Rachni had been brought back, so they most definitely wouldn't know about Shepard's decision regarding the queen.

Virmire was public knowledge, as was Therum, Feros, and numerous uncharted worlds Shepard set-foot on. (which is how Legion tracked Shepard)

Why couldn't the events on Peak15 leak out?

Well Noveria has its own internal security, which is renowned for keeping that kind of thing secret.  That's part of the reason why so many companies run experiments there, the lack of Council oversight is the other reason.  Besides, why exactly would the events at Peak 15 be public knowledge?  Who's going to tell the public and incite a panic?  That's if the public takes them seriously.  Especially since said public mostly eats up the lie that the Reapers don't exist despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Boiny Bunny]

didymos1120 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

* Forcing the alliance to give Serviceman Bhatia's body back to her husband, meaning they cannot do their research and save potentially thousands of lives in the future

This is not Paragon.  It's one that can be solved with either Paragon or Renegade options no matter who you decide to persuade.  Same as how Wrex can be intimidated into backing down, or charmed.

* Decision to let Helena Blake live

Again, not Paragon.  You can intimidate her into compliance.

Hmm...you're actually right in terms of dialogue options being blue or red. As is the 'punching the reporter' decision.  That is not renegade (well not in ME1 - can't remember about ME2) - all the paragon/renegade options in that conversation are simply 'we love aliens' versus 'humans are great!'


That said, I believe you get a large paragon boost of points for returning the body to the husband, regardless of which dialogue options you use.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 10:16 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Typical renegade -- thinking that they can predict every outcome, and if there is even a slight possibility of a negative outcome in the future, that it would be better to handle it now, and deal with the immediate consequences.  The problem with this rationale is that there are positive and negative consequences to every action that we take.

So many people like to cite BDtS for this.  Why let Balak go if you can stop this deadly terrorist now with such a minimal loss of life?  But who's to say that one of those people killed wouldn't have been of immense value to society?  Perhaps one of those engineers would go on to design a new weapon that could be useful in our fight later on, or maybe Kate would end up being a unifying voice among the galactic universe, using her "second chance" to be proactive against terrorism in the galaxy?  You just can't predict these kind of things.

So, Balak may come back in the future and potentially threaten more lives.  I cannot be responsible for the actions of every being within the galaxy.  I can, however, take responsibility for myself in the immediate, and choose to make decisions that will positively impact those around me in the long term.  This is not to say that paragons will "have their cake and eat it too", as so many people like to cite on this forum.  It means that I will handle the negative repurcussions as they come up, and not live my life trying to prevent them by sacrificing my values and my ethics.

And as much as people like to say that paragons are "rewarded", I would rather say it as paragons are never "punished".  And the same could be said for the renegades.  The system is not meant to reward one choice or punish the other, but rather as two extremely opposite means to the same end.

I don't believe that is at all a valid argument regarding the BDtS plot.  When you make a decision and consider it's impacts, both in real life, and in games that allow you to choose your path, you weigh up the consequences by their impact and likelihood of occurence.

Suppose in late 2001, the US government had located Osama Bin Laden, and sent in a team to kill him, but then been placed in a situation where IF they pursued him and killed him, 5 innocent Afghanis would die, or they could save the innocent Afghanis and let him escape.

Now, it is technically possible, however unlikely that it may be, that one of those Afghanis is a future Hitler equivalent, and will kill millions in the future if they survive.  It is also possible that one of them is a scientist who will one day cure cancer if they survive.  But both of these, and most things in between, are incredibly unlikely.  We are talking about what are, for the moment, 5 normal ordinary people.

What they might become in the future, with incredibly low chances, is not relevant.  What is relevant, is that a known terrorist that is already responsible for the deaths of thousands, is within their grasp.

This is the same situation with Balak.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Katie or any of the other hostages are brilliant scientists, or psychopaths.  They are essentially miners.  What is the likelihood, that if one of them survives, they will have a major impact on the universe in a positive light?  Whatever the likelihood is, it is far lower, based on facts known at the time, that the chances that if Balak survives, he will have a major impact on the universe in a negative light.


As a renegade, letting those 5 hostages die is a punishment.  As a paragon, saving them is a reward.  It is your justification for letting Balak go.  Unless they are trying to play a true evil/Sith type character, no Shepard would ever kill the 5 hostages, knowing that there is no chance of punishment if Balak goes free.

That's the way I see this particular decision:

Paragon gets immediate small reward, in exchange for potential extreme future punishment.
Renegade gets immediate small punishment, in exchange for no possibility of extreme future punishment.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 11:08 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I see another problem here to boot.

The games and media have conditioned us to go the Paragon route. Take a look back at the movies and games.
This about this for a second!

The goods guys colors? Blue an green. Lasers, lightsabers, conversation options.
Bad guys? Red lasers, led lightning, red lightsabers, red convo options.
combined with the "good guys always win" and high rewards for hte good guy path in bio Games.

You have to wonder how many people went for the blue options because they immediately indentified them as "better" options? And then went backwards from there, justifying their selection in reverse.
After all, if giving TIM the base is a red option, then TIM MUST be up to no good and I cannot trust him!

You raise another interesting point in general about Bioware games.  Taking the evil path often winds up with most of your party dead (by your hands typically) by the end of the game - which is very unfair IMO.


Perhaps, the solution is for Bioware to separate tone from choice. 

Any conversation option which just makes you sound like an ass, should not be Renegade.  Likewise, compassionate choices should not be Paragon.  These are just role-playing tone choices.  Choices like letting the Rachni Queen live or Balak should be the Paragon/Renegade choices.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 11:12 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

The way I see it, the difference between paragon and renegade is this.

Renegades sacrifice the few for the many. If hostages must die so a dangerous threat can be eliminated, so be it. If you might be a threat later, if you promise to stop being evil (rachni) you still die. No chances must be taken when the safety of the many are concerned. This means rules must be broken and morality sometimes left at the wayside. Any end justifies the means if that end is the safety of the many.

Paragons sacrifice (or rather risk) the many for the few. Morality, law, and ethics must be protected and upheld whenever possible-without these to guide us, are we even worth protecting? Therefore, if saving others requires suffering and death on behalf of the innocent, no matter how many the many or how few the few, it is not a path worth taking (not that that means we let the many die, just that we should find another way). Thousands of alliance members will be sacrificed to save the council, the upholders of order. The rachni are spared, for they might be innocent, and the paragon will not kill them simply because they might be guilty-the chance they might again wage war on the galaxy is irrelevant. The paragon believes in morality and therefore that all should be saved, even if in attempting to save a handful he risks the rest. Upholding ethics is the final end, and if dangerous characters go free and people die, it's worth the price of a clean conscience.

So my concience and piece of mind >>>>>> the needs of the galaxy?

Typical renegade -- thinking that they can predict every outcome, and if there is even a slight possibility of a negative outcome in the future, that it would be better to handle it now, and deal with the immediate consequences.  The problem with this rationale is that there are positive and negative consequences to every action that we take.

So many people like to cite BDtS for this.  Why let Balak go if you can stop this deadly terrorist now with such a minimal loss of life?  But who's to say that one of those people killed wouldn't have been of immense value to society?  Perhaps one of those engineers would go on to design a new weapon that could be useful in our fight later on, or maybe Kate would end up being a unifying voice among the galactic universe, using her "second chance" to be proactive against terrorism in the galaxy?  You just can't predict these kind of things.

So, Balak may come back in the future and potentially threaten more lives.  I cannot be responsible for the actions of every being within the galaxy.  I can, however, take responsibility for myself in the immediate, and choose to make decisions that will positively impact those around me in the long term.  This is not to say that paragons will "have their cake and eat it too", as so many people like to cite on this forum.  It means that I will handle the negative repurcussions as they come up, and not live my life trying to prevent them by sacrificing my values and my ethics. (other people can be sacrificed instead)

So in essence my quote was right?

You will handle the negative repurcussions as they come up, and
not live your life trying to prevent them by sacrificing your values and your
ethics. (other people can be sacrificed instead)

Who cares if they die, right? As long as you can feel morally superior later on......

And I ronicly bub, I'm a 95% Paragon player

[Sebby]

wizardryforever wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Well to be fair, the Rachni decision would not be public knowledge in any case.  The public didn't know that the Rachni had been brought back, so they most definitely wouldn't know about Shepard's decision regarding the queen.

Virmire was public knowledge, as was Therum, Feros, and numerous uncharted worlds Shepard set-foot on. (which is how Legion tracked Shepard)

Why couldn't the events on Peak15 leak out?

Well Noveria has its own internal security, which is renowned for keeping that kind of thing secret.  That's part of the reason why so many companies run experiments there, the lack of Council oversight is the other reason.  Besides, why exactly would the events at Peak 15 be public knowledge?  Who's going to tell the public and incite a panic?  That's if the public takes them seriously.  Especially since said public mostly eats up the lie that the Reapers don't exist despite all evidence to the contrary.

Wrex can inform the Krogans that the Queen is dead/alive.

[Sisterofshane]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I don't believe that is at all a valid argument regarding the BDtS plot.  When you make a decision and consider it's impacts, both in real life, and in games that allow you to choose your path, you weigh up the consequences by their impact and likelihood of occurence.

Suppose in late 2001, the US government had located Osama Bin Laden, and sent in a team to kill him, but then been placed in a situation where IF they pursued him and killed him, 5 innocent Afghanis would die, or they could save the innocent Afghanis and let him escape.

Now, it is technically possible, however unlikely that it may be, that one of those Afghanis is a future Hitler equivalent, and will kill millions in the future if they survive.  It is also possible that one of them is a scientist who will one day cure cancer if they survive.  But both of these, and most things in between, are incredibly unlikely.  We are talking about what are, for the moment, 5 normal ordinary people.

What they might become in the future, with incredibly low chances, is not relevant.  What is relevant, is that a known terrorist that is already responsible for the deaths of thousands, is within their grasp.

This is the same situation with Balak.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Katie or any of the other hostages are brilliant scientists, or psychopaths.  They are essentially miners.  What is the likelihood, that if one of them survives, they will have a major impact on the universe in a positive light?  Whatever the likelihood is, it is far lower, based on facts known at the time, that the chances that if Balak survives, he will have a major impact on the universe in a negative light.


As a renegade, letting those 5 hostages die is a punishment.  As a paragon, saving them is a reward.  It is your justification for letting Balak go.  Unless they are trying to play a true evil/Sith type character, no Shepard would ever kill the 5 hostages, knowing that there is no chance of punishment if Balak goes free.

That's the way I see this particular decision:

Paragon gets immediate small reward, in exchange for potential extreme future punishment.
Renegade gets immediate small punishment, in exchange for no possibility of extreme future punishment.

I merely pointed out BDtS because it is one instance in which many people cite that paragons are "rewarded" by not having to kill people.  I also tried to illustrate that, in every circumstance, for every decision that you make, there are positive and negative consequences.  Letting Balak go could have a possible negative consequence -- letting the engineers die could also have a negative repercussion as well.  In the end, when I make a paragon choice, I ultimately choose to not let myself be held responsible for what a crazed individual *might* do in the future.  I will, however, choose to stop something potentially bad from happening in the present moment -- one thing that I know for a fact that I can control. 

This is not to say that I play the paragon in every choice I make -- you are correct in saying that we need to practically weigh the effective outcomes of each decision we are forced to make, and respond in the most logical manner. 

In this case, Balak does not compare to people like Bin Laden.  He has never before suceeded in a terror plot, and even people in his own team are not convinced that they are doing what is right.  A major element of his plan was the element of surprise, and now that he is known to exist as a terrorist, this further reduces the likelihood that any of his future plans will come to fruition.  Even if you were to let him escape, why would he continue to plan against humanity unopposed?  It is not unreasonable to assume that at least the Alliance, if not the council, would be out looking for him.

Is there a possibility that he could remain uncaught, and eventually, come up with an even stealthier plan, with a stronger, more steadfast crew, and succeed in causing at least as much damage as he would have on Terra Nova?  Yes, but I don't think it's as much of a definite possibility as most people suppose.

And as for my examples pertaining to the engineers, I don't think they are as highly unlikely as the ones you quoted for the Afghani's in your example above.  I don't expect any of them to DRAMATICALLY influence society in such legendary ways as curing cancer, or ruling a powerful fascist state.  But there is a high likelihood that, after their rescue, they will turn around and add something positive to society.  Many people who survive adverse situations (like being a terrorists' hostage) do.

And, the nature of rewards and punishments all depends upon the final outcome.  If the final outcome of BDtS is that Balak is successful in a future plot that kills at least more than the five people we originally saved, then we can't really see it as paragons getting the reward.  And we just won't know for sure until we have played through the mass effect series in it's entirety.

[wizardryforever]

Seboist wrote...

Wrex can inform the Krogans that the Queen is dead/alive.

Well, yes, I suppose he could.  But why would he?  Think about the potential ramifications if the krogan hear that the Rachni are back.  That would just stir up all kinds of unrest on Tuchanka, making the Krogan even harder to bring into line.  Wrex is trying to unify and (to an extent) pacify the krogan.  That kind of news would be counterproductive.  And it is entirely possible that Wreav wouldn't even know about it in the first place.  But like I said, I can fully see the krogan butting heads (literally and figuratively) with the Rachni in ME3.  Yay for long-term consequences!

[Russianbear0027]

It would indeed be nice if being renegade didn't mean more often than not being an ****, though I've noted that in many conversations with those kind of options, you receive no points either way. So as far as I can see, you can still play Shepard how you want. You can be full Renegade OR Paragon and have everyone survive the SM, for example.

In addition as far as story goes, it's much more realistic to play a mix, real people have some patience, but can lose it, things can turn nasty quickly. Shep isn't always going to be super charismatic (though in most cases theres enough points either way to work) people get upset, some die, it's interesting, if a little depressing at times. that's a matter of opinion though.

I would however, appreciate, as several have said before me, having greater consequences more often (with all the nuances previously mentioned). But I don't really expect it, too many variables, though I do expect a relatively large (compared to older games) chunk of the decisions we've made to rear their heads and tear us apart through small nods during dialogue (such as the Veetor choice with Tali) with some of the major ones having more far reaching consequences.

One thing to consider with Balak and BDtS, is that Balak could potentially become a martyr for his cause given the right spin on his death when it hits the news networks, prompting a spree of attacks from people less ambitious, but still competent enough to rig a bomb etc ((like the plot Jacob mentions he helped stop on the Citadel with Miranda)). It was a no win situation.


At any rate, the main point to remember is that there's still another act left, the decisions made so far are like Chekov's gun, and are now ready to go off.

((sorry if this was disorganized, I cannot actually see what I am doing))

[CMDR Locke]

Well Renegade get there cake and eat it too.

I played through Paragon, I saved the Council, after being brought back to life I went to the Citadel, told the council a collector killed me, told them the collectors attacked and took the humans, told them they were working with the Reapers.

I was met with an "Ah yes the Reapers..." and then told hey if you suck up to us we'll make you a spectre and support you as long as you stay out of citadel space.

Hell I did that...

Yet I am still on trial on Earth is 3.

But, Renegade Shep told the council to **** off. Said he didn't care, sided with Cerberus agreed with there BS, gave TIM the reaper all that. Still on trial.

[MrFob]

I didn't read the whole thread but I cannot entirely agree with the OP.
Ok, there are decisions where renegade doesn't make much sense beyond being evil (e.g. not doing the paragon interrupt for the injured Battarian in Omegas plague sector comes to mind.
However, most of the time, it is pretty well thought out.
The point is not that you should have a balance of long time benefit vs. immediately saved lives all the time (like the oP descries in BdtS). I fact, I think unless Ballak comes back and does somethin terrible in ME3, then the renegade option is retrospectively just as pointless as letting the council die.
However, it doesn't matter because you cannot judge Shepards choices retrospectively. You have to see them in the context, Shep is in at the time. When s/he is on the citadel, the choice (rush in to save council or save ships) is in both cases a good one. Retrospectively, paragon Shep got lucky. Good for him/her but that doesn't invalidate renegade Sheps choice at this Moment. It is a bit hard to see it that way in a replay because we know the consequences but when playing I always keep in mind that Shepard doesn't.
I think that is also why the collector base decision at the end of ME2 is still so avidly discussed. We don't know the consequences yet. Thus both choices are still arguably good choices in their own right. It may turn out (depending on how BW will resolve this issue) that one of them turns into a disaster while the other one will just have the consequences you were hoping for.
I am sure, if something like this were to happen, we'd have people in the forum that will say "I told you so" and other that will cry out "UNFAIR!!!! BW HATES PARAGONS/RENEGADES!"
But that doesn't change that before we knew, there was an argument for both cases.
As far as I know, with a few very specific exceptions, that is the case for most decision in ME1 and ME2.