951 réponses à ce sujet

[Reptillius]

Ok. I got to say... The assumption that the Rachni queen can lie to you is one based on a potential fallacy. Being that they communicate in very different ways. Your assuming that they have the ability to lie to us.

Your also Assuming that just because they have a way to communicate now that at the beginning of the Rachni war there was a way to communicate between them. Considering one is done by audible noises and the other by telepathic colours and frequencies instead.

The Rachni do not really percieve audible notes so communication in potentially and likelyhood did fail at the beginning of the war. A beginning where we know that the Salarians encroached on space that the Rachni had been living in for a long time.

The ability to communicate like it did may have been picked up some time during the war. Perhaps late enough into the war that by that time it did not help.

[Kaiser Shepard]

How is killing the queen "more than killing one individual"? Sure, it may technically incidentally be the destruction of their entire culture as well, but that's simply because the Rachni Queen is their entire culture at any given time.

Killing just the one or killing hundreds with her, it changes nothing.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 03 octobre 2011 - 07:33 .

[Xilizhra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

How is killing the queen "more than killing one individual"? Sure, it may technically incidentally be the destruction of their entire culture as well, but that's simply because the Rachni Queen is their entire culture at any given time.

Kill one or kill hundreds of them, it changes nothing.

The opportunity cost remains too high.

[ddv.rsa]

An opportunity for trouble.

[Xilizhra]

ddv.rsa wrote...

An opportunity for trouble.

Everything is, potentially. But it seems to have worked out.

[Kaiser Shepard]

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

[Xilizhra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

True, the Council should have just exterminated humanity. No way that would come back to bite them.

[JGDD]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

So is this. You have no idea if she is a threat any more than an ally. Her species past actions are not hers.

[Saaziel]

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

True, the Council should have just exterminated humanity. No way that would come back to bite them.

Also a good argument for blowing up the Collector base. Better blow it up while you have the chance than to risk Reaper/ Reaper agents & associates retake the Base from Cerberus's meager presence there.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

True, the Council should have just exterminated humanity. No way that would come back to bite them.

Incomparable situation, a hivemind species cannot be judged on the same terms as a normal one.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 03 octobre 2011 - 08:22 .

[ddv.rsa]

Saaziel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

True, the Council should have just exterminated humanity. No way that would come back to bite them.

Also a good argument for blowing up the Collector base. Better blow it up while you have the chance than to risk Reaper/ Reaper agents & associates retake the Base from Cerberus's meager presence there.

So what if they retake it? With Collectors gone and the human Reaper destroyed, the base has no more use for them. It isn't the friggin Death Star. That base is only useful for the tech that might be found there.

[Crabhand]

I think people need to think of renegade and paragon on a different scale than good vs evil or realistic vs unrealistic. Ultimately the paragon vs renegade is a competition between idealism and pragmatism. Going back to the original Balak example, an idealist would save the hostages, believing that your conscience can't let you leave those people to die. A pragmatist would argue that their sacrifice could save millions in the future. Most people don't even consider the pragmatic options because their conscience tells them that it is wrong.

But pragmatism is hardly a new concept. During WWII, President Franklin Roosevelt of the US put thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps to ensure no Japanese agents hidden among the population could operate. While this is an extremely controversial decision, a pragmatist would argue that such an action, while causing innocents to suffer, would ultimately lead to safety. Later in the war, Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a decision that still sparks debate today. His justification for killing thousands of civilians is what makes it a morally grey area; he believed that a ground invasion on the Japanese mainland would cost millions of lives because the Japanese would fight to the last man to stop the Americans. While many argue over the validity of that argument, Truman simply took the pragmatic approach. Both of these morally ambiguous decisions were made by real people, and both reflect the attitude of renegade Shepard. Do whatever it takes to complete the mission and save as many lives as possible.

Now, since I didn't read the whole 30 something page thread, I hope I'm not simply repeating somebody elses words.

[Thompson family]

Paranoia =/= Pragmatism

[Saaziel]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That's metagaming.

Better to eliminate a potential threat while it's still a manageable task than to wait for full-out war and further moral dilemmas.

True, the Council should have just exterminated humanity. No way that would come back to bite them.

Also a good argument for blowing up the Collector base. Better blow it up while you have the chance than to risk Reaper/ Reaper agents & associates retake the Base from Cerberus's meager presence there.

So what if they retake it? With Collectors gone and the human Reaper destroyed, the base has no more use for them. It isn't the friggin Death Star. That base is only useful for the tech that might be found there.

You mean the Tech that creates Reapers ? Presumably they could start the program again if they'd retake the base. And Me2 would , this time , really have been for nothing.

Or are you talking about Collector tech? Nothing worth denying the enemy a possible resource if you ask me. Someone once mentioned all the collected data from all the species they studied; That would be an interesting find indeed, but it wouldn't win the war by any stretch.

Modifié par Saaziel, 03 octobre 2011 - 08:38 .

[ddv.rsa]

You think destroying that base means they can't construct a human Reaper? Come on, they'd just rebuild it. The point of ME2 was to stop the Collector attacks on human colonies. That mission succeeded and nothing can change that.

In the timeframe of ME3 the creation of another Reaper is the least of our worries. We have an invading fleet of reapers to deal with. Our best bet is the tech in that base, and anything Cerberus can learn from it between ME2 and ME3.

[Xilizhra]

Incomparable situation, a hivemind species cannot be judged on the same terms as a normal one.

For one thing, I don't believe they're really a hive mind, and for another, since we're judging what's clearly a fully sapient individual, it really doesn't matter.

But pragmatism is hardly a new concept. During WWII, President Franklin Roosevelt of the US put thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps to ensure no Japanese agents hidden among the population could operate. While this is an extremely controversial decision, a pragmatist would argue that such an action, while causing innocents to suffer, would ultimately lead to safety. Later in the war, Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a decision that still sparks debate today. His justification for killing thousands of civilians is what makes it a morally grey area; he believed that a ground invasion on the Japanese mainland would cost millions of lives because the Japanese would fight to the last man to stop the Americans. While many argue over the validity of that argument, Truman simply took the pragmatic approach. Both of these morally ambiguous decisions were made by real people, and both reflect the attitude of renegade Shepard. Do whatever it takes to complete the mission and save as many lives as possible.

Don't confuse pragmatism with expediency. Many Paragon choices have a perfectly reasonable pragmatic justification to them.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Many Paragon choices have a perfectly reasonable pragmatic justification to them.

[Saaziel]

ddv.rsa wrote...

You think destroying that base means they can't construct a human Reaper?

Its the only place we know of so far.

I'm sure they could build other facilities but the fact that they took the time and effort to build it near a super massive black hole makes me wonder if they'd be willing to settle anywhere else.

ddv.rsa wrote...
The point of ME2 was to stop the Collector attacks on human colonies. That mission succeeded and nothing can change that.

In the timeframe of ME3 the creation of another Reaper is the least of our worries.

Sounds rather contradicting here.

If stopping the attacks was the goal , and if an other human Reaper were to be rebuild . Then it follows that the attacks on human colonies would resume and the mission would have been , in actuality , a total failure.

ddv.rsa wrote...
We have an invading fleet of reapers to deal with. Our best bet is the tech in that base, and anything Cerberus can learn from it between ME2 and ME3.

Here lies the crux of the problem. Minimizing risk is fine and dandy for all , but it shouldn't be considered an all encompassing dogma; Everything carries a risk , the real issue is what risks are we talking about and how it is prioritize.

As far as I'm concerned, the events of ME1 showed that a Reaper can be defeated by an ill equipped , unprepared military force. Nothing leads me to believe that this could not be repeated on a much broader scale with a better equipped and ready force.

Giving the base to a logistically weak shadowy paramilitary group that already wasted a better chance at studying Reaper tech is an unnecessary risk at that point. From that point of view.

I'm sorry but , fact is , that Minimizing risk doesn't fall , by default , to the province of Renegade (Whatever the hell thats supposed to embody).

ddv.rsa wrote...Our best bet is the tech in that base, and anything Cerberus can learn from it between ME2 and ME3.

Well let me be more direct than i was before then : Just what tech do you think will be found on the base that will be of any significance in the war? So far you've stated that the Reaper was destroyed; Who knows what remains of that. And Collector tech; Which is on par, or even sub par , to the Normandy at that point.

Playing the , "minimising the risk" card here seems deceptive* at best. There is no way to justify the strength of a Benefit to Risk ratio here; Its pure chance, You're taking a risk that you hope will pay off in the end ... and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm actually baffled by those how insist on this paradigm of "minimizing risks" (And that it belongs to either one of the colour coded bars) . To me it borders insanity ... the bad kind of insanity at that.

* By this i mean that the deception is on you , or whom ever is using this justification.

{typo , missing words...}

Modifié par Saaziel, 03 octobre 2011 - 09:30 .

[FoxShadowblade]

Renegade is more realistic than Paragon for me.

Making the Galaxy and emptier place for all of us. Sounds like a good choice.

[Xilizhra]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Many Paragon choices have a perfectly reasonable pragmatic justification to them.

You explain (in-universe, without whining about developer bias) why they tend to work out, then.

[Thompson family]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Many Paragon choices have a perfectly reasonable pragmatic justification to them.

One of these days, I might be able to get through a renegade playthrough before going blind from rolling my eyes.

For example: ME1, before Shep's even a Spectre; You bring Tali to Udina's office. Udina starts chewing you out for "shootouts in the wards, an all-out assualt on Chora's Den," then he sees Tali. Udina asks what she's doing here. Shep replies he/she was "about to explain that to you before you jumped down my throat."

And what does Udina do -- Udina, a man who insults and berates bonafide war hero Capt. Anderson just for the fun of it, all the time? A man who tries to browbeat the Council, for cryin' out loud.

Why, of course he meekly apologizes.

Think that's "realistic" or "pragmatic." OK. If Shep were alive, walked up to you and talked to you like that, what would your reaction be?

Modifié par Thompson family, 03 octobre 2011 - 10:04 .

[Yezdigerd]

Crabhand wrote...

I think people need to think of renegade and paragon on a different scale than good vs evil or realistic vs unrealistic. Ultimately the paragon vs renegade is a competition between idealism and pragmatism.

Except it isn't how its portrayed in the game. Most things you get renegade points for is being a dick to people because you can, what is pragmatic about that?  and often hilariously excessive use of force and backstabbing.
If any realism would go into the game paragon decisions would be the pragmatic ones with few exceptions.

[Yezdigerd]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Incomparable situation, a hivemind species cannot be judged on the same terms as a normal one.

Your comprehension of fictional alien species are truly impressive.

[Saaziel]

Paragon's got more eye rolling moments (At least that i can remember); Like the Telon incident in the Dantius tower:

Telon: Don't come any closer , or i'll shoot ! Stay back i don't want to hurt you!
Shep: Hi , my name's commander Sheppard. What's you're name?

Good god, my eyes rolled back so much i was looking at the inside of my skull for about a week. You can cherry pick good & horrible moments on both sides.

Paragade & Renegons is where its at!

[Thompson family]

Saaziel wrote...

Paragon's got more eye rolling moments (At least that i can remember); Like the Telon incident in the Dantius tower:

Telon: Don't come any closer , or i'll shoot ! Stay back i don't want to hurt you!
Shep: Hi , my name's commander Sheppard. What's you're name?

Excuse me? I'm a bleeding momma's boy Paragon saint, and I've never heard that line.


IIRC, my Shep says something like: I'm not going to hurt you. I'm here to help.