Guest_Saphra Deden_*
squee365 wrote...
Yeah but you don't have to make other people miserable in the process, especially when this was a negative topic from the start...I was trying to look on the bright side, and you just had to completely turn it around and try and make me look silly.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
The question if the earth is round or not doesn't mean much in my life. So do many other facts. So what do facts help you in a world where opinions are stronger than facts?
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:16 .
Damnit I have to be so excplicit when talking to you, can't you just see the big picture? I don't want to bring up n4zi germany again either. The point is those in power, those who were in charge, who executed the law, were the bad people. Meaning the Sheriff and the Prince. That's why Robin became an outlaw to steal from the rich to give it to the poor. That's no different than for examle Jesus and the Pharisee (sp?). Jesus told them they are wrong and they hated him and got him killed eventually. For Jesus himself and many other people he was right about it though. Facts matter less than opinions. Because facts would probably speak against Jesus in this example. But people are of the opinion that he is god's son.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
In an evil society, the good fight is to fight the law.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
They are not true people. They only exist in stories. And their sole purpose is to teach people morals. That's why they are paragons. The real Richard doesn't matter because he never had anything to do with Robin Hood. Since robin hood is a fictional character and so is the King Richard in the story.
Robin Hood stole. Stealing is a sin according to most religions. Stealing is against the law and stealing is not a virtue.
I agree that Robin Hood would be a Paragon at heart, but you can't say his methods are Paragon. Stealing is not Paragon.
And what makes you think England in Robin Hood's tale is an "evil society"? It is a fact that Richard's kingdom is "evil"? Can anything be actually objectively evil?
Again, you confuse objective reality with subjective beliefs. You assume that there is such a thing as objective morality, that something can be objectively evil. That's not true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. "Good" and "evil" is in the eye of the beholder. "Fact" however is not in the eye of the beholder.
And who is forcing you to talk to me?Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
The question if the earth is round or not doesn't mean much in my life. So do many other facts. So what do facts help you in a world where opinions are stronger than facts?
Ow for god sakes shut the f*ck up. You might think you're philosophical and smart, but you're not. You're just shouting BS now and it's getting tiresome. It's also getting off-topic.
AlexXIV wrote...
They are not true people. They only exist in stories. And their sole purpose is to teach people morals. That's why they are paragons. The real Richard doesn't matter because he never had anything to do with Robin Hood. Since robin hood is a fictional character and so is the King Richard in the story.
I agree. I was just choosing names that are more familar.BlueMagitek wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
They are not true people. They only exist in stories. And their sole purpose is to teach people morals. That's why they are paragons. The real Richard doesn't matter because he never had anything to do with Robin Hood. Since robin hood is a fictional character and so is the King Richard in the story.
...no, no they aren't. Not a single person you mentioned is a paragon of morality. A story with the sole purpose to teach morals is a Fable, those characters are folklore, legends & mythology. Cincinnatus is a better example of a paragon.
Saphra Deden wrote...
Actually I think Alex is right, at least as far as the game is concerned.
Where does Paragon Shepard ever support human-first politics or Cerberus (or even their beliefs)?
They are appropriate because they are examples. Paragons are examples. Also because they are ficional characters, as is Shepard. They may have had flaws, but flaws don't make you a lesser person. It makes you a better person in overcoming them at some point. Of course I am defending them if people just claim stuff. Like Richard was this and that. Not in the story. In the story they represent the ideals of their age. Which may not be the same as today. I could name Ghandi as an example but then people again say alot of bad things about him. The point is not that I try to make them look perferct, I try to say that people 'made' them into paragons by idealizing them. Because in the real world paragons don't work. They work in stories though.BlueMagitek wrote...
But you chose poor examples and then attempted to defend why they were appropriate for your cause.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
Damnit I have to be so excplicit when talking to you, can't you just see the big picture? I don't want to bring up n4zi germany again either. The point is those in power, those who were in charge, who executed the law, were the bad people. Meaning the Sheriff and the Prince. That's why Robin became an outlaw to steal from the rich to give it to the poor. That's no different than for examle Jesus and the Pharisee (sp?). Jesus told them they are wrong and they hated him and got him killed eventually. For Jesus himself and many other people he was right about it though. Facts matter less than opinions. Because facts would probably speak against Jesus in this example. But people are of the opinion that he is god's son.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
In an evil society, the good fight is to fight the law.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
They are not true people. They only exist in stories. And their sole purpose is to teach people morals. That's why they are paragons. The real Richard doesn't matter because he never had anything to do with Robin Hood. Since robin hood is a fictional character and so is the King Richard in the story.
Robin Hood stole. Stealing is a sin according to most religions. Stealing is against the law and stealing is not a virtue.
I agree that Robin Hood would be a Paragon at heart, but you can't say his methods are Paragon. Stealing is not Paragon.
And what makes you think England in Robin Hood's tale is an "evil society"? It is a fact that Richard's kingdom is "evil"? Can anything be actually objectively evil?
Again, you confuse objective reality with subjective beliefs. You assume that there is such a thing as objective morality, that something can be objectively evil. That's not true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. "Good" and "evil" is in the eye of the beholder. "Fact" however is not in the eye of the beholder.
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:45 .
Guest_magnetite_*
By logic, since Bioware defines the terms paragon and renegade in their games, there is. Because you can still go with paragon choices for the whole game. It doesn't matter if you agree with it because the guys who made it decided it for you-Luc0s wrote...
there is no "true Paragon" or "true Renegade".
I am sure it will work out well. Do you like funerals?magnetite wrote...
One my Renegade Shepards is pure renegade. You've got to wonder how that's going to end up. No allies and only a pawn to Cerberus.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
By logic, since Bioware defines the terms paragon and renegade in their games, there is. Because you can still go with paragon choices for the whole game. It doesn't matter if you agree with it because the guys who made it decided it for you-Luc0s wrote...
there is no "true Paragon" or "true Renegade".
I hope you don't think I am talking about real life or anything. I am not saying that only those who choose all paragon choices in the game are real paragons in real life or anything. But since there is a gamemechanic making the decision I feel save to say that the more paragon choices you make in the game, the more of a paragon Shepard becomes.
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 04:02 .
AlexXIV wrote...
They are appropriate because they are examples. Paragons are examples. Also because they are ficional characters, as is Shepard. They may have had flaws, but flaws don't make you a lesser person. It makes you a better person in overcoming them at some point. Of course I am defending them if people just claim stuff. Like Richard was this and that. Not in the story. In the story they represent the ideals of their age. Which may not be the same as today. I could name Ghandi as an example but then people again say alot of bad things about him. The point is not that I try to make them look perferct, I try to say that people 'made' them into paragons by idealizing them. Because in the real world paragons don't work. They work in stories though.BlueMagitek wrote...
But you chose poor examples and then attempted to defend why they were appropriate for your cause.
AlexXIV wrote...
Because a paragon is an ideal. Or rather
stands for ideals. Bigger than life. They are 'unreal'. They are the
heroes sung in stories when everyone knows that the real person probably
was different. They are Robin Hood or King Arthur, or Hercules, or
Siegfried. They have no flaws. They live and die like heroes.
You can have flaws and yet be flawless if the flaw isn't considered a flaw. Just like you can be perfect for being imperfect. It isn't a real flaw if you have been a bad person when you were young but learned your lesson and became a good person. It is how it should be, as an example for others.BlueMagitek wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
They are appropriate because they are examples. Paragons are examples. Also because they are ficional characters, as is Shepard. They may have had flaws, but flaws don't make you a lesser person. It makes you a better person in overcoming them at some point. Of course I am defending them if people just claim stuff. Like Richard was this and that. Not in the story. In the story they represent the ideals of their age. Which may not be the same as today. I could name Ghandi as an example but then people again say alot of bad things about him. The point is not that I try to make them look perferct, I try to say that people 'made' them into paragons by idealizing them. Because in the real world paragons don't work. They work in stories though.BlueMagitek wrote...
But you chose poor examples and then attempted to defend why they were appropriate for your cause.AlexXIV wrote...
Because a paragon is an ideal. Or rather
stands for ideals. Bigger than life. They are 'unreal'. They are the
heroes sung in stories when everyone knows that the real person probably
was different. They are Robin Hood or King Arthur, or Hercules, or
Siegfried. They have no flaws. They live and die like heroes.
You're contradicting yourself. They cannot both be flawless and flawed. And "just claiming stuff" isn't correct either. Richard wasn't a paragon, this is a fact. Hercules, even by the standards of the ancient Greeks (or Heracles, for them), was not a paragon.
You say they're heroes to the ideals of their age, but Robin Hood was an outlaw; he certainly doesn't fit up to the idealized view of the Middle Ages that we have of knights & chivalry.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
You can have flaws and yet be flawless if the flaw isn't considered a flaw.
What allies do Paragons have that renegades don't?magnetite wrote...
One my Renegade Shepards is pure renegade. You've got to wonder how that's going to end up. No allies and only a pawn to Cerberus.
BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
AlexXIV wrote...
The question is whether people like/trust Cerberus or not. Not how the game ends.HBC Dresden wrote...
Did anyone here play the Renegade endings?
All of them has Shep ending his or her's relationship with Cerberus at the end in one way or another. This happens regardless of alignment; Paragon or Renegade just colors how you break off the relationship.
Modifié par HBC Dresden, 10 janvier 2012 - 04:26 .
Guest_Luc0s_*
didymos1120 wrote...
BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
But you can be a perfectly horrible person.
AnsinJung wrote...
I see no reason to be hung up on the game's definitions of what's paragon and what's renegade. I care more about whether I like the choice and following consequences than how the game tells me I should feel, including squad mates' opinions as well as the Council's or Cerberus's. Fortunately, the game usually provides consistent direction and hints as to nature and consequences of your actions, and that's all I consider the morality system in game: a guide.
Retour en haut