366 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Yezdigerd wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

I'll also note that as far as the game is concerned, deliberately shooting him is the lesser Renegade action. You get way more points from the intimidation.

Incorrect. Persuasion gives you 9 points. Wasting Wrex gives you 25 renegade points like all major renegade options.

Oh, yeah, that's right.  You can get the persuasion achievement either way, though, which is what was throwing me off.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arcian wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

In real life a paragon would be dead.

Funny how the five people widely considered the "paragon-est" AND best rulers in the history of mankind - namely the Five Good Emperors of Rome - all died of natural causes.

In contrast, most of the more "renegade" emperors like Nero and Caligula were murdered. By their own bodyguards, no less.

The notion that you have to be a mean bastard who cuts corners and abuses available resources in order to get a "happy ending" is childish and unrealistic. If you abuse the people you're meant to save, they will kill you.

It's kinda sad how the opposing concept has taken a hold on some people in our modern culture, that your only choices are to be a thriving ruthless bastard who treats everyone as disposable resources, or to be a suffering sucker who gets used and discarded by your "betters". 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 décembre 2011 - 05:05 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arcian wrote...

However, for some reason these mistrustful Cerberus renegades decides to give TIM their undying trust despite him being a decidedly untrustworthy person. This gives me the impression that the Cerberus renegades are either completely ignorant, criminally insane or inconsistent on a meta level.

For some Renegade players, reading what they post, it's clear that they're simply all about what's "cool".  It's "cool" to be a collosal space-****** to people, so they do it.  TIM is "cool", so they side with TIM to be "cool" too. 

Not all, not most, not many.  Some.

And I'm sure there are some paragon players who really are looking to be nice to everyone no matter what for some reason. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 décembre 2011 - 05:31 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes. Being ethical is supposed to be its own reward, it's supposed to make you feel good. I don't see the galactic hero putting his own emotional comfort above the surivival of the trillions of people.

It's also supposed to make you more socially acceptable, but that's not what the war with the Reapers is about - the entire galaxy united is not going to make a difference against the Reapers. Since morality is the luxury of the time of peace, survival should come first during the time of war.

It's annoying that the core dilemma is about morality and not about survival. If Shepard can afford keeping his principles, it makes me feel that the Reapers are not a threat. If our species doesn't have to sacrifice their morality and their very humanity to win, then we're not really challenged by the Reapers. We should be forced to go through some terrible transformation in order to survive and be born anew. We have to make sacrifices for the victory, and if Shepard is unwilling to make them, then there should be game over.

However, there is no point in having two paths in the game if only one path always leads to winning. The gamers don't willingly choose failure, it's against human nature. For the best experience, both paths should be valid and different and both should be leading to consistently successful outcomes. Which is not currently the case.

As for Shepard doing what's necessary compromising his morality, we already have an example of that. Can he still be considered Paragon after what he did to Bahak?

EDIT: Mordin is a nice example of the perfect Paragon / Renegade balance. Shepard could be like him - doing what's necessary, while angsting about it. Enjoying destruction on the battlefield while being fiercely protective of the civilians. The forced dichotomy is irritating, I want a complex blend.

(That's not to mention that I'd like to be able to play a clever, scheming hero. And the one who can feel emotions.)

You start out saying "unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes", then you say that both paths should be valid.  So I'm not sure which to respond to, as I agree with the latter.  But history doesn't actually teach us that the best choices in war are always the least ethical.  Maintaining a strong ethical base in the actions of your forces is often essential to the strategic outcome of a war effort.

Regarding Bahak, those Batarians were all lost to the Reapers no matter what by the time Shep had to make the decision to do it. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
You start out saying "unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes", then you say that both paths should be valid.  So I'm not sure which to respond to, as I agree with the latter.  But history doesn't actually teach us that the best choices in war are always the least ethical.  Maintaining a strong ethical base in the actions of your forces is often essential to the strategic outcome of a war effort.

Regarding Bahak, those Batarians were all lost to the Reapers no matter what by the time Shep had to make the decision to do it. 

History also teaches us that it's the vioctors who write the history.
And the universe doesn't care about your morals or ethics. If you can afford to be moral and ethical - great. But in reality, in a war for survival there is no room for ethics if your enemy doens't care for them.
And reapers don't.

And the paragon choice can still be viable, as not all choices will backfire. Simples tatistics.

[Yezdigerd]

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

[GodWood]

If I was going to pick historical figures as a representation of a 'renegade ruler' I'd pick Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Qin shi Huang, Li Si, Ghengis Khan, Otto von Bismark or some other, you know, successful ruler.

Not bloody Caligula.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Luc0s wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

Goddamnit, ANOTHER THREAD getting Godwin'd!

Why the f*ck are all Paragon v.s Renegade threads getting Godwin'd? This is getting tiresome...



Well, Paragon v.s Renegade discussions in general are getting tiresome to begin with, so...

Perhaps it's the parallels between other megalomaniacal leaders, and TIM.  Or the temptation to use the most extreme examples to illustrate the limits and pitfalls of an "ends justify the means" / "it's all good as long as we win" mentality. 

[Yezdigerd]

GodWood wrote...

If I was going to pick historical figures as a representation of a 'renegade ruler' I'd pick Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Qin shi Huang, Li Si, Ghengis Khan, Otto von Bismark or some other, you know, successful ruler.

Not bloody Caligula.

I guess that depends on your definition of renegade. The ME renegade is paranoid and treasonous as well as ruthless. Caligula fits like a glove.

Nobunaga was killed by one of the many people he had wronged. Hideyoshi while certainly ruthless, had many paragonic streaks as well. He did afterall create a society with 250 year of peace.
Ghengis Khan is a mixed character as well, he made the first codified Mongol law, employed meritocracy, a man of his word, his empire having great streaks of equality before the law and security compared to what was before.
Bismarck I wouldn't characterize as renegade either. He was very lenient with Austria-Hungary after defeating them for example and was very concerned with being seen as having just cause for war.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

But for completely different reaons. (war on 2 fronts)

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
You start out saying "unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes", then you say that both paths should be valid.  So I'm not sure which to respond to, as I agree with the latter.  But history doesn't actually teach us that the best choices in war are always the least ethical.  Maintaining a strong ethical base in the actions of your forces is often essential to the strategic outcome of a war effort.

Regarding Bahak, those Batarians were all lost to the Reapers no matter what by the time Shep had to make the decision to do it. 

History also teaches us that it's the vioctors who write the history.

This is factually untrue, and there are numerous occasions of it being untrue. Stop spreading urban myths.

And the universe doesn't care about your morals or ethics. If you can afford to be moral and ethical - great. But in reality, in a war for survival there is no room for ethics if your enemy doens't care for them.
And reapers don't.

It's not also about the "universe", but about how you maintain morale and respect over your troops and over the population that is supporting them and your leadership. These matters are important, and the "universe doesn't care" is just a strawman.

And the paragon choice can still be viable, as not all choices will backfire. Simples tatistics.

Well, it's more complex than "statistics" but I get your drift.

[Yezdigerd]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

But for completely different reaons. (war on 2 fronts)

Yeah couldn't possible have anything to do with reneging all pacts, deals, and allies at earliest convinience.

[Yezdigerd]

Luc0s wrote...

Neither makes sense, because Germany wasn't all about "end justify the means" and "it's all good as long as we win".

Actually they were.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 24 décembre 2011 - 10:50 .

[PnXMarcin1PL]

OP: Believe me they will. Some Renegade deicisions in ME1 and ME2 will result in more successfull war effort. But Renegade and Paragon deicisions will have greater impact in ME3. I have avoided spoilers here for you, as I've asked those who read leak about some stuff.

[Yezdigerd]

Luc0s wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Neither makes sense, because Germany wasn't all about "end justify the means" and "it's all good as long as we win".

Actually they were.

Only when they started to lose the war and became desperate.

****-Germany signed neutrality pacts with many states in Europe and broke everyone when it was convinient. They assured that the rearmament limitations was not a means not a preparation of revanchism. They claimed that annexation of Austria was a one of a kind thing. They promised that the boarder adjustment of Czechoslovakia for security reasons was all they desired, then occupied the country some months later. When they had to invade Poland to protect german miniorties, the other great powers had enough.
Then they brokered a deal with the Sovietunion dividing Eastern Europe between them with big words kisses, while Hitler prepared the slavic genocide of them behind their back.

You may now thank me for teaching you history.

[GodWood]

Yezdigerd wrote...
Nobunaga was killed by one of the many people he had wronged.

Nobunaga died by seppuku. 

Hideyoshi while certainly ruthless, had many paragonic streaks as well. He did afterall create a society with 250 year of peace.

You speak as if creating peace is a purely 'paragon' trait. Hideyoshi was a brutal man in brutal times and crafted that peace through brutal means, thus renegade.

Ghengis Khan is a mixed character as well, he made the first codified Mongol law, employed meritocracy, a man of his word, his empire having great streaks of equality before the law and security compared to what was before.

The only one of those traits I'd deem 'not very renegade' is being a man of his word. Everything else is fine.

Bismarck I wouldn't characterize as renegade either. He was very lenient with Austria-Hungary after defeating them for example and was very concerned with being seen as having just cause for war.

The ruthless magnificent bastard The Iron Chancellor one of the most famous advocates of Realpolitik is not renegade!?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say the problem here is what you characterize as 'renegade'.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
History also teaches us that it's the vioctors who write the history.

This is factually untrue, and there are numerous occasions of it being untrue. Stop spreading urban myths.

There's nothing mythical about it.
It depends on the victor, but in general, it is true.

And the universe doesn't care about your morals or ethics. If you can afford to be moral and ethical - great. But in reality, in a war for survival there is no room for ethics if your enemy doens't care for them.
And reapers don't.

It's not also about the "universe", but about how you maintain morale and respect over your troops and over the population that is supporting them and your leadership. These matters are important, and the "universe doesn't care" is just a strawman.

It's not a strawman. If humanity were tobe exterminated tomorrow, no one would care. If it were to survive thanks to "immoral" means, no one would care (except for maybe some humans)
Surtvival isall that matters. Morals are something you can indulge into when you have the luxury of being alive.

[Yezdigerd]

GodWood wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...
Nobunaga was killed by one of the many people he had wronged.

Nobunaga died by seppuku.

Akechi Mitsuhide, one of his generals, forced Nobunaga into committing suicide yes. It certainly wasn't his choice.

Hideyoshi while certainly ruthless, had many paragonic streaks as well. He did afterall create a society with 250 year of peace.

You speak as if creating peace is a purely 'paragon' trait. Hideyoshi was a brutal man in brutal times and crafted that peace through brutal means, thus renegade.

Once again, I'm not sure Hideyoshi can be characterized as more brutal then the people fought, or have more of a penchant for realpolitik, he had a strong unified clan behind, and seem more conservative then most actually.

Bismarck I wouldn't characterize as renegade either. He was very lenient with Austria-Hungary after defeating them for example and was very concerned with being seen as having just cause for war.

The ruthless magnificent bastard The Iron Chancellor one of the most famous advocates of Realpolitik is not renegade!?

Bismarck had quite a great deal of principles as I said, that was one of his strengths, He was the one who insisted on an lenient peace with Austria, while the rest of Germany wanted to see huge territorial concessions in 1866. Which turned Austria into a close ally.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say the problem here is what you characterize as 'renegade'.

Obviously as I said Shepard the renegade sociopath presented in the game, wouldn't last long in real life. He certainly have much more in common with Caligula then Bismarck.

[Dean_the_Young]

What about the Renegade Shepard who doesn't take all inconsistent Renegade dialogue, as presented in the game?

[InvincibleHero]

Ryuzetsu wrote...

I'm not saying that Renegade is in anyway the wrong choice. I have chosen it on numerous occasions, especially when someone has pissed me off enough to skip due process. But that is why I said Paragon is diplomatic. Granted I get the whole ends justify... but tactically making Paragon choices means thinking 3 to 5 steps ahead. If it applies in geopolitical chess, it would apply in the intergalactic equivalent.

I disagree on the whole 3-5 steps ahead thing. It is more emotional and by the book reasoning. They will follow the orders given usually to the letter though they obviously would have some goodwill pool for bending the occasional rule.
I don't look at renegade as giving into anger though I can see how people could interpret it as such. A renegade IMO is a dispassionate killer with a complex moral code that he defends tooth and nail, but is flexible to doing what it takes to best get the job done at hand, and conversely a paragon feels they are following a good moral code and will passionately defend their ideals to extremes with no compromise in sight. A paragon intends to bend everyone to embrace his philosophy and reasoning. 

 
Freeing Helena Blake or Fist is not thinking ahead. It is I am going to be nice, because I don't want to kill you. I honestly cannot think of any examples where it is pro-active saving the council is heat of moment do gooder activity. Not killing the rachni queen is at best apathetic you know they were a real threat and could be so yet don't care enough to vaporize it over emotions. Blowing up the base (oh boy did not want to do it but big decision) is I don't care what it has it is evil and I won't change who I am so BOOM. The logic is childish yet somehow fits a paragon Shepard that BW has been creating. (For the record I hate the justification in game).

Even things like turning on Legion or freeing Grunt are short-term I can use them type deals. Converesely why is it renegade to leave Grunt in tank or send Legion to Cerberus to learn more about geth. It's just stupid IMO to waste a potential ally.

[InvincibleHero]

Bleachrude wrote...

If ME was anything resembling realistic, then the "humanity F*** yeah" vibe of the setting would be absent, there would be Cerebus-style groups among ALL the alien races, the massive numerical advantage the council has should mean that even if the council was sacrificed, it would be replaced by another council made up of the same races with at most one seat given to humans.

Hell, to be honest, the fact that the council oversees trillions of people with hundreds of worlds means that humanity would walk very quietly and wouldn't even think of "demanding" anything...

(I personally never understood this outcome...just because the council was wiped out, the asari, salarians and turians don't put forward replacements? What the hell?)

Who says there isn't? Blood pack seems to espouse krogan and vorcha ideals. Eclipse/blue suns are tolerated by asari/humans/turians/council for some reason. They all use mercs to advance their own respective races. You think turian militray doesn;t advance the goals of turians or the alliance that of humans.

Yeah I don't get it myself other than the salarians, turians, and asrai ragequit and said go ahead humans burn the galaxy down and fail then we will pick up the pieces and be in a stronger position with humanity gone a s threat with everyone united against them.

I think you're flat wrong. See people in  power don't willing give it up. Not having a strong stick means you don't eat period. They will not toss table scraps your way even if you deserve it if you do not assert your right to even have the orts. Being passive means gaining nothing. The elcor and volus are apt illustrations of that.