701 réponses à ce sujet

[mango smoothie]

wow I'm still surprised that Eternal and I have maintained being closest to the middle of the graph thought someone else might get closer to the middle.

[Yezdigerd]

jreezy wrote...
Being cheated as Chorban was isn't a reason to murder somebody. If Shepard chooses to defend himself against what looks like an ambush it's not his fault if Chorban dies.

Chorben warns you to hand over the data Jahleed has let him believes you possess. His goal was not to kill you. If Shepard had killed him in self-defence it's perfectly understandable, but that isn't what happens, Chorban was summary executed after he surrendered. The truly excessive part is that Chorben explains how Jahleed set you up so that he would attack Shepard and you were meant to kill him. Yet because renegades enjoys killing so much that they still choose to be Jahleed's tool after they know they been played. If you could have executed Jahleed it would have still been excessive but at least made sense. Killing Chorben is like saying "I'm stupid, and I don't need a reason to kill except it's fun".

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 08 décembre 2011 - 04:10 .

[Random citizen]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Random citizen wrote...

Spoilers:

Garrus initial renegade assesment and solution of the situation was the result of lacking important information.

Garrus' initial renegade assessment and solution of the situation were still valid after getting said "important information".

Also, interesting how all the worthy people end up above the axis.

For you perhaps. But
(Spolier:)


not for Garrus as he did not want to take the shot after hearing Sidonis out.

[Phaedon]

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

Not surprised in the least, I have taken the test before.

Total results

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Also, interesting how all the worthy people end up above the axis.

You would have loved the 17th/18th century. And some of the 19th and 20th. It's a shame everyone else would hate it.

[AlexXIV]

Calinstel wrote...

Thread title is funny.
Being a paragon entails being able to compromise.
Take the rachni. Shepard knows about the dangers of allowing the rachni to once more join the galactic races and must make a choice. The safe, uncompromising stance is to kill the queen. The unsafe, compromising stance, is to let the queen live.
In death, there is no compromise, only oblivion.

Blindly choosing Paragon or, for that matter, Renegade, is silly. Both sides compromise. Paragons compromise by hoping that the people/species he/she helps returns the favor in the final battles. Renegades compromise as well by sacrificing future support for immediate safety.
They are two means to the same end. Winning the war against the Reapers.

I think what the OP meant is more along 'Will Paragons choke on the tough choices.' Which means will they get their hands dirty and lose reputation or whatever to make the right call. I can only speak for myself and say, yes. Being paragon is less important than doing what is right.

Many people probably think paragon=paladin. I don't think so. But I don't see why I have to be rude or violent for no reason. Some renegades are probably mistaking 'making hard choices' with being an overall ass tbh. Some, not all.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 08 décembre 2011 - 01:19 .

[Exia001]

I think people forget that you can be everything. Making the topic a bit moot, been a paragon in one game? Be Renegade in the other. Theres no solid Im a paragon or im a renegade because you can mix and match and have more than one playthrough.

[AlexXIV]

Exia001 wrote...

I think people forget that you can be everything. Making the topic a bit moot, been a paragon in one game? Be Renegade in the other. Theres no solid Im a paragon or im a renegade because you can mix and match and have more than one playthrough.

Well there are different kinds of players. Some do both, some just one. I can say of myself that I am a paragon player because at least ... about 70% ... of my choices are paragon. The big ones are probably 100% paragon. In any playthrough. Mind you I have multiple playthroughs but I only change minor stuff. Who I let live, who not, etc. But the big decisions are always the same.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 08 décembre 2011 - 01:23 .

[someone else]

Unsuprised to see this thread is still going strong - but I wonder if at at core this is really a sematic problem - suppose BW had labeled the choices "Compassionate, Sap, Idealist and/or Naive" and "Unforgiving, Jerk, Pragmatist, and/or brutal"?

My point is not my choice of descriptors, but that para/ren distinction is too one-dimensional - (they actually beg elaboration - "Paragon of ______" ? "Virtue" is the cliched way to finish the phrase but need not be so - of what are you an avatar? Similarly, Renegade - are you a rebel without a cause - one possibility, or is there some coherent motivation for flying in the face of convention?

The para and ren choices do not fall into conceptually consistent buckets - the actions range from the 'virtuous' to embarrassing and pathetically weak, and from "Brave and bold" to gratuitous, pointless cruelty.  It is not for example, inconsistent for a "paragon" mindset to be conciliatory and pragmatic, or for a "renegade" attitude to be confrontational but judicious in the application of force.

If a Para makes some choices from the Ren side of the wheel, that does not necessarily mean a compromise, nor the other way around.   There are many, many instances where a choice from the "other side" offers a thoroughly defensible option.

Modifié par someone else, 08 décembre 2011 - 03:33 .

[Alex_SM]

Phaedon wrote...

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

Not surprised in the least, I have taken the test before.

Total results

Myself added

[AlexXIV]

someone else wrote...

Unsuprised to see this thread is still going strong - but I wonder if at at core this is really a sematic problem - suppose BW had labeled the choices "Compassionate, Sap, Idealist and/or Naive" and "Unforgiving, Jerk, Pragmatist, and/or brutal"?

My point is not my choice of descriptors, but that para/ren distinction is too one-dimensional - (they actually beg elaboration - "Paragon of ______" ? "Virtue" is the cliched way to finish the phrase but need not be so - of what are you an avatar? Similarly, Renegade - are you a rebel without a cause - one possibility, or is there some coherent motivation for flying in the face of convention?

The para and ren choices do not fall into conceptually consistent buckets - the actions range from the 'virtuous' to embarrassing and pathetically weak, and from "Brave and bold" to gratuitous, pointless cruelty.  It is not for example, inconsistent for a "paragon" mindset to be conciliatory and pragmatic, or for a "renegade" attitude to be confrontational but judicious in the application of force.

If a Para makes some choices from the Ren side of the wheel, that does not necessarily mean a compromise, nor the other way around.   There are many, many instances where a choice from the "other side" offers a thoroughly defensible option.

Yes, I find it actually more interesting where Shepards loyalities lie than if he is a hardass or softie. So to speak. I mean what's important is if he supports the alliance, the council, all the species. Or if he is really a 'sole survivor' or xenophobe who only supports humanity. Many renegade options (sadly) automatically seem to go the xenophobe path. Mostly because humans have a sort of dubious reputation to begin with and everything you do that could look like you hate aliens will be interpreted as such. By aliens mostly of course. But all in all the judgement whether Shep is a xenophobe will be cast by the aliens. Since humans naturally would be biased.

[someone else]

AlexXIV wrote...

Yes, I find it actually more interesting where Shepards loyalities lie than if he is a hardass or softie.

I also like to see shep develop - like on my last playthrough she gave the alliance the data from the dead cerberus operative - but did that mission before confronting Udina and realizing the alliance was really not behind her (previously she could have overlooked their lack of support, being dead and all)  - but after the citadel, the alliance is history.

I guess this a consistent theme with me - don't have much of a moral compass, nor hard-edge committment to victory-at-all costs - just looking to maximize my own story-telling

Modifié par someone else, 08 décembre 2011 - 08:46 .

[AlexXIV]

Hm tbh my Shep does not develop much. Shep's basically always the same. Sometimes more on the rude side and sometimes more on the nice side. I want Shep to be as hard as rock. Or as they say rock in a hard place. I don't want my Shep to switch allegiances or points of view.

If the council or the alliance is against Shep then he/she will still support them, because my Shep thinks he/she knows what is best, even if the world disagrees. But Shep does not blame the world for it. It is a matter of fact that Shepard will always have the better angle to judge the situation he/she is in.

You could basically sum it up with him/her being the shepherd. Nomen est omen so to speak. My Shep sees it his/her responsiblitly to guide the galaxy through this difficult time. Whether they want or not, he/she'll drag them into their future. The future Shepard thinks is the best. I know, it is almost religious

Modifié par AlexXIV, 08 décembre 2011 - 09:21 .

[someone else]

AlexXIV wrote...
I know, it is almost religious

not surprizing inasmuch as there's more than a bit of avatar/messiah/savior in the character...all epics ultimately drawn on racial myths and archetypes - even if the closest kids get to the Odyssey these days is the backseat of a minivan.

Modifié par someone else, 08 décembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[JamieCOTC]

I've had paragons kill the rachni and renegades blow up the base, so ... yes.

[Another_Golden_Dragon]

www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php with myself added.

-4.75 Economic, -2.67 Libertarian

Modifié par Another_Golden_Dragon, 08 décembre 2011 - 10:09 .

[capn233]

Economic Left/Right: 7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 9.08

I must have gotten a few wrong because I didn't manage to make it all the way up to the corner. I hope the Empire will still accept my application to become a Storm Trooper.

[I-AM-KROGAN]

 IF we have to kill a race or party member im fine (HAVENT READ LEAKS NO SPOIL SPOIL )

I will do the unthinkable....and sacrifice.....Jack..

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Economic Left = -6.75
Social Libertarian = -4.05

We don't always become more conservative when we age.

Now my Shep's ethics have been a bit flexible at times, especially in the beginning of the game when you need money to get a better gun.

Call blowing up the Collector Base "sticking it to the man."

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 08 décembre 2011 - 11:17 .

[AlexXIV]

Calinstel wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I think what the OP meant is more along 'Will Paragons choke on the tough choices.' Which means will they get their hands dirty and lose reputation or whatever to make the right call. I can only speak for myself and say, yes. Being paragon is less important than doing what is right.

Many people probably think paragon=paladin. I don't think so. But I don't see why I have to be rude or violent for no reason. Some renegades are probably mistaking 'making hard choices' with being an overall ass tbh. Some, not all.

Oh, I know WHAT the OP was asking.  I just found the title funny.
A renegade goes through ME1 and ME2 burning bridges and closing doors.
A paragon tries to build those same bridges and opens the doors.
Will some of those bridges and doors bring a paragon trouble?  Maybe, but those that don't bring trouble bring help.
The renegade though can only look to themselves as there are no others that would, or could, possibly help.

So, in a way, the paragon path is not all sunshine and bunnies but it sure as heck is not all dreary and cold.
This, as in most things I post, are my own opinion. 

Yeah I am thinking the same. I mean we all know Earth is going to be attacked first and who's going to help then? Whoever then chose to advocate human superiority will have a hard time finding allies. And even if, they will have to do alot of ass kissing to those they formerly looked down upon. Serves 'em right if you asked me.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 08 décembre 2011 - 11:20 .

[ubermensch007]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

And thus making a wrong decision for the right reasons.

Yes, because if I'm wrong for the right reasons at least I can defend myself by saying that I made a rational choice, that I wasn't a fool. I was wrong because of fate and/or circumstances beyond my control that I had no hope of predicting with any accuracy.

The same can not be said of the reverse; someone wrong because they did not make a rational decision. There is no defense in that case.

Were I right for the wrong reasons I'd just be an ****.

@Saprha Deden: Hmm... Okay, Oedipus  That's what what you write about yourself here reminds me of... Oedipus thought that he could overturn fate with his logic and reason. He was told by an oracle that he was destined to kill his father and marry his mother.So to avoid this terrible fate, it seemed "logical" to him.To never speak or be in the same place as his parents ever again.By doing this however, he brought about the very fate that he sought to avoid.

Had he told his parents what the oracle said to him.They could have informed Oedipus that they were not his biological parents.Only his adopitive parents.And Oedipus may have never ended up killing his father and marrying his mother.I don't think that I could ever defend logic and reason in a case where it let's me down.Oedipus may have not been a fool, but he is now a muthaf*cker  I'd rather be a fool

Modifié par ubermensch007, 09 décembre 2011 - 01:00 .

[ubermensch007]

CptData wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

CptData wrote...

The only two solutions I can see in that case are ethically not acceptable. Either birth control (1 per family) or reduction of genepool by approx 75%.
This world can not bear 7 billion people, not even if they're living without electronics and technology.
That's what the "green guys" don't wanna realize: we're simply too many.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I doubt we'll find a center, so whatevs.

Right now scientists wonder why emission of CO2 is still growing. although everyone tries to reduce that emission.
Humans breathe. They inhale O2 and emit CO2. The more people live on this planet, the more CO2 gets emitted.

Also people fart. Don't laugh - but a fart contains methane. And every liter of methane is potent as 20 liters of CO2 when it comes to green house effect.

So it doesn't matter if we all are trying to reduce CO2 output by not using our cars or using energy saving light bulbs - it doesn't make a difference as long as the headcount of mankind is growing. It needs to be reduced - drastically. Either by birth control or by active reduction of genepool. The second "option" is not a real option - it simply means war. I can not support this. Birth control is ethically more aceptable, but still "bad enough". 

@CptData: How can I not laugh at you saying that, in such a blunt and out of nowhere fashion.

Now had you wrote humans and other life forms emit flatulent gases from their rectum.I might not have laughed so hard.  But add on your Avatar pic of Ashley, and I could so hear her voice and see her face, when I was reading your words.And I could so see Ash saying something like that.

[ubermensch007]

AlexXIV wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That's something that bothers me and why I personaly do advocate/support sacrifice. Shep says himself he will fight and sacrifice to win. So far he fought, but he sacrificed nothing.

Except a whole star system. And a couple thousand Alliance people at the Battle of the Citadel. And arguably just the numerous people whom she has to kill regardless.

I don't think these things qualify as sacrifice either. Because you are not making the choice to lose something valueable to you for the sake of an ideal. Say if you had to give your right hand because you won't lie or something. A REAL sacrifice that costs something, not something you actually don't miss and get a medal on top.

@AlexXIV: You know, I think that you are overating the importance of 'sacrifice' to a certain extent.You sound like people who always go on about how "Batman has courage, and Superman doesn't b/c he's bulletproof!"

I always want to say to those type of people."It may take courage to be Batman, but it takes compassion to be Superman." That's what the Last Son of Krypton is known for.His great strength and compassion for sentient life.Even Genral Zod says as much in Superman II. Courage is required for those who are weak or vulnerable.Compassion is what makes Superman a man and not a monster.

But back to this buisness about "sacrifice' Sacrifice is an offering of something of value to receive something of greater value.But I also belief taking risk can be seen as a sacrifce in and of itself.Shepard and Co. take it to the max everytime their on a mission.His entire crew risked their careers, and their lives when they became mutineers.They managed to sneak onto Illos, evading the detection of Saren's entire fleet, knowing they had no back up, and reached a point of no return.Commander Shepard doesn't at times need to make certain sacrifices because he is very good t what he does.But for the record. I let Commander Shepard speak for himself:

Tela Vasir: You want Mariana's little boy to grow up without a mommy, Shepard? Thermal clips on the ground, now. Power cells too.

Shepard - (I'll shoot if I have to..)

Is that it?

Tela Vasir: What?

Shepard: Vasir, I sacrificed hundreds of human lives to save the Destiny Ascension.I unleashed the rachni on the galaxy. So for your sake, I hope your escape plan doesn't hinge on me hesitating to shoot
a damn hostage!

That sounds like someone who is very familar and aquainted with "sacrifice" to me.