366 réponses à ce sujet

[SykoWolf]

It all comes down to the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But what is the point of winning if your going to resort to the sort of actions used by saren,collectors and or reapers?

[Aumata]

Survival. When face with total extinction, you either fight with all your damn and aim for victory or bend over and take it up where the sun don't shine, because of "ethics" which tends to get thrown out the window in the time of war, anyway.

[SykoWolf]

But what about the aftermath? Shepards labelled a war criminal to many, humans are shunned, racism begins all over again and before u know it they forget the reapers and begin a new war against each other

[Arkitekt]

I'd also characterize France and England pre-WW2 not as "paragon" or "renegade" but as "council-like".

Yeah, **** Germany bringing on the Third Reich War upon us. We have dismissed those claims (Big H's a charm!)

Modifié par Arkitekt, 24 décembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

SykoWolf wrote...

But what about the aftermath? Shepards labelled a war criminal to many, humans are shunned, racism begins all over again and before u know it they forget the reapers and begin a new war against each other

During the Reaper war? Then the galaxy was already so fragmented it was doomed regardless.

Of course, racism never stopped in the Mass Effect universe, nor did the threat of the Reapers really factor in anyone's musings.

[Aumata]

SykoWolf wrote...

But what about the aftermath? Shepards labelled a war criminal to many, humans are shunned, racism begins all over again and before u know it they forget the reapers and begin a new war against each other

Labeled as a war criminal in comparrison to what extinction?  You also make it sound like only humans are going to be doing the brunt of the work here, because we know that not true.  By the time the dust settle no one will actually care how we beat the damn reapers, till later on when we can see the effects.

[The_11thDoctor]

There is already 10 threads for this, but well said OP. I agree.

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...
It all comes down to the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But what is the point of winning if your going to resort to the sort of actions used by saren,collectors and or reapers?

The point is to survive so that you have the luxury of feeling guilty about it later.

...unless, like I, you have mastered the art of feeling guilty regardless...

[Get Magna Carter]

apologies if someone else has already said this but it is my impression that Paragon actions tend to be about building relationships with other races while renegade actions are about strengthening humanity to stand more independently.
Both are valid approaches

[Yezdigerd]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

what analogy? This was in response to Laecrafts "unethical behaviour should always lead to the best outcome in war"

Except, of course, that wasn't really That wasn't Laecraft's position at all. Of course if you introduce absolutes where there were none, things get absurd.

this what he 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 illustrated how nonsensical this is by giving a real life example.

You can quote the very words that make no claim to absolutes, and say that Laecraft made an absolute. And then you can ignore the context of the words (conduct in a war), and misinterpret them entirely. And then you give an example that doesn't even refute what you think it refutes and is so historically inacurate as to be laughable.

The only misinterpretation I see is yours. By defining "unethical choices during war"  as the "conduct of war". It's a cheap strawman.because you are quite right Germany wasn't opposed for the way their armed forces conducted the war.

The point passes over you,

The actual history passes beneath you, the way you trod on it. History minors and majors weep.

The reason people makes an issue about ethics, respecting done deals etc isn't that the warm glowy feeling you get in the stomach from it, but because being regarded as an opportunist have very real negative consequences. This is never as important as in war.

And yet, for some strange reasons, opportunists are the ones who gain power, hold power, and keep power. For some reason the powers that overthrew the Third Reich were other opportunists, empires and hegemons who had made their strengh seeking their own advantage, often at the significant cost of others. A tiny island that ruled the largest colonial empire of its time. A paranoid police state that murdered millions by execution and starvation. A self-absorbed continental power which barely recognized or cared what it did to its southern hemisphere and would later reach across the world.

Could it possibly be that opportunism isn't, in and of itself, a crippling flaw towards progress of civilization? Is it possible your analogy lacked consideration of the underlying reasons for why the Third Reich was opposed, confusing an over-extension of greed and desire with a refutation of self-interest as a whole? Could your relation of cause and effect be ignorant and misaimed, that the Nazis were not opposed for the conduct in the pursuit of war but rather for the fact that they simply started wars in the first place regardless of how they conducted them?


The answer, to all of these, is yes.

You can try to strawmanning me into claiming that all the enemies of the third reich never behaved "unethical" all you like. It still doesn't change the fact that Hitler's Germany simply weren't merely opportunistic, Hitler forced opportunites to appear, and in the end that was his and theirs undoing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...


You can try to strawmanning me into claiming that all the enemies of the third reich never behaved "unethical" all you like.

Fortunately, I am not making any such argument.

The argument that I am making such an argument, however, that would be a strawman.

It still doesn't change the fact that Hitler's Germany simply weren't merely opportunistic, Hitler forced opportunites to appear, and in the end that was his and theirs undoing.

So we can agree that it wasn't self-interest in general, but over-reach that doomed his crusade? Good to agree upon.

Anyone can agree that too much is too much, but that's quite a different thing than saying that what there was too much of was the fatal flaw.

[Yezdigerd]

Of course, all human action is rooted in self-interest. A big part about "Playing by the rules" as in "ethical behaviour" isn't something people adhere to mostly "because it makes them feel good" but because doing otherwise often have negative consequences in practice, especially longterm.

Also I responded to your claim about misinterpretation, sorry if it got lost in the quote pyramid. Is there a real quote function here?

[Aimi]

Collusion of self-interested opportunistic powers sort of works when talking about the Second World War. It kinda fails dramatically when talking about the defeat of another noted Continental military dictator. Self-interest and conscious attempts to play the so-called "balance of power" failed the British, Russians, Prussians, and Austrians when they were confronted by Napoleon. They had to work together, and they had to do so in a way that saw each sacrifice certain goals and planned compensations for the good of the whole.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

Sometimes, M.E. blurs in between problem solving and choosing which girl to sleep with. With recruiting Garrus, I get Renegade points for sniping a robot and I think "cool, renegade is a bada** hero!", but I can also can get the exact type of points for punching a reporter ..why isn't that considered 'evil' points than a badass hero? Another thing that throws me off.. You are a hero regardless of your actions. So obviously, it's just a matter of what you want to see happen. It would have been cool to have a Shepard with a different motive rather than different actions. Like Paragon Sheps want to save the world while Renegade Sheps have a different motive but has to defeat the reaper threat regardless but he/she would have a different reason for it all.

In the end, most of my playthroughs learn heavily toward one end or another. Sadly, I have one playythrough where I really think about what I would do in the situation and it splits my points up to where sometimes I do not even get the option to pick a certain para or rene option because my mind cannot fathom the words due to the points in my head not being high enough. That's my only downfall with not being able to flex my choices to MY 'problem-solving skills'.

Blue aliens or local flavor?
lol

[Crisyx]

InvincibleHero wrote...

First, there are a few caveats. BW can completely invalidate it by not providing scenarios to engage the player in ways I mention, or they can allow paragon to always equal win in best way. This will become more evident as I explain.


Renegades are used to making the hard decisions while paragons have had their cake and ate it. They save everyone and magically redeem scalawags. They likely feel deific due to the history of their victories and acclaim. Realistically that should change for ME3.


Imagine if 10 quarian ships are trapped behind enemy lines the paragon action would say we must rescue them. Renegade would be just like Adama did in BSG, he left the colonial ships behind rather than potentially lose all to the cylons. If it comes without cost then it is highly unbelievable. Would a paragon sacrifice Garrus to save those ten ships? Are they still paragon if they don't attempt a rescue? That I wonder. I doubt it though.


Renegades are all about getting the job done no matter cost. They will be willing to use forces as a decoy with attendant loses to win a major objective. Again leader in history and media have done so to great effect. Would paragons do such a thing? They could but it would be out of character.


Renegades should be more decisive which could also backfire if they back a disastrous plan lackign all possible intel to be gathered. Paragons could delay too long and have little operational gain from when they do deploy forces.


Loses should be more cripling to the psyche of a paragon, because they have been so successful and lost little over their military career. Yes there are the backgrounds, but the scenarios put Shepard in no position to do anything about it. Nothing Shepard has led has met failure and the worst thing a paragon went through was the grounding of the Normany IMO. This was soon rectified and made irrelevant. Imagine if it cost Shepard for disobeying orders going against the citadel and alliance. After all military is about discipline and making examples to make sure it is maintained. However, everything turns out AOK more so for paragons.



I have played and enjoyed both sides of the coin and shall continue to do so. I truly hope there is less bias in paragon =  huge win, but even if it is not so I won't lose any sleep over it.

Well neither side really makes more or less sacrifices in the other. Also to be fairly honest Mass Effect is not like The Witcher where there is no one fully good choice or bad choice. Mass Effect is more one full good choice and one bad choice. The exception being some larger choices. Do you a save the rachni queen who I may end up fighting again or may be a valuble ally against the reapers? Do I save the krogan race also have a similar scenario to the rachni? Do I I risk alliance warships to help the destiny acension (which is also a very powerful tool against the reapers) and possibly lose against sovereign or let it get destoryed and beat soveriegn but not have destiny ascension later on against the reapers. Honestly with the exception of the lager chioces oreinted to the ends of missions in the main questlines most renegade choices are really just being an **** for no reason while paragons are nice, however for th emain choices it's really more of a double-edged sword. 

[Aumata]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

apologies if someone else has already said this but it is my impression that Paragon actions tend to be about building relationships with other races while renegade actions are about strengthening humanity to stand more independently.
Both are valid approaches

That is a gross generalization as I have a paragon that is pro-humanity, while I have a renegade that is about unity.  I don't believe in one choice being the better as much of the main choices have pros and cons to each decision.