619 réponses à ce sujet

[Hunter of Legends]

ADLegend21 wrote...

I have a theory that TIM is just acting like he's going agianst Shepard, even with the base destroyed, so that he can gain favori with the Reapers only to cripple them at the right time and shepard give them the killing blow. He'll probably die like a before Shepard and that'll help Shepard win. just a theory.

You can't manipulate the Gods of manipulation.

That's foolish and arrogant.

[GodWood]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
I'd hardly call paragon kindergarten morality.

That's because you follow paraShep's kindergarten morality.

I could call it something different if you like. Selfish morality, illogical morality, it all fits.

Renegade shepard is hardly any better. Shooting people for the most inane(and often insane) reasoning is not a good way to live your life.

Shepard only ever shoots people who are A) Criminals, or A threat to the mission. It's not like he runs around shooting random civilians just for the lulz..

Anyways, for the sake of simplicity, my comment was in regards to the MAJOR choices.

[Malanek]

GodWood wrote...
Shepard only ever shoots people who are A) Criminals, or A threat to the mission. It's not like he runs around shooting random civilians just for the lulz..

Renegade shep shoots that turian politician hiding behind spectre status so thanes son can't be held responsible. There are other examples.

[Hunter of Legends]

GodWood wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
I'd hardly call paragon kindergarten morality.

That's because you follow paraShep's kindergarten morality.

I could call it something different if you like. Selfish morality, illogical morality, it all fits.

Renegade shepard is hardly any better. Shooting people for the most inane(and often insane) reasoning is not a good way to live your life.

Shepard only ever shoots people who are A) Criminals, or A threat to the mission. It's not like he runs around shooting random civilians just for the lulz..

Anyways, for the sake of simplicity, my comment was in regards to the MAJOR choices.

Criminals deserve right to trials. Unarmed "threats" shouldn't simply be killed for no reason. Renegade shepard is no less "kindergarten" than paragon. Using a base that indoctrinates people is illogical and idiotic at best.


Who says I follow paragon shepards morality?


And how the hell is a morality "illogical". Morality is subjective my friend.

Modifié par Hunter of Legends, 23 février 2012 - 12:56 .

[GodWood]

Malanek999 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Shepard only ever shoots people who are A) Criminals, or A threat to the mission. It's not like he runs around shooting random civilians just for the lulz..

Renegade shep shoots that turian politician hiding behind spectre status so thanes son can't be held responsible. There are other examples.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Criminals deserve right to trials.

Not under Council law apparently. 

Unarmed "threats" shouldn't simply be killed for no reason.

They're not. 

Renegade shepard is no less "kindergarten" than paragon. Using a base that indoctrinates people is illogical and idiotic at best.

Throwing away a base full of Reaper information when you have absolutely no knowledge of how you are going to beat them (and the only reason why you've gotten this far is because you have studied Reaper tech (see IFF, EDI, Thanic cannon etc)), on the grounds that "it indoctrinates people" despite their being no evidence that the base itself indoctrinates people is ****ing insane.

Who says I follow paragon shepards morality?

We've discussed before. Your Shepard is paragon.

And how the hell is a morality "illogical".

Because the reasoning behind said morality's reasoning is illogical.

Modifié par GodWood, 23 février 2012 - 01:06 .

[Dasher1010]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

GodWood wrote...

I don't see how any sane, rational person could think playing paragon [aka continually risking the entire galaxy and sacrificing its safety and well being for the sake of satisfying ones own kindergarten morality] is the 'moral' thing to do.

I'd hardly call paragon kindergarten morality.

Renegade shepard is hardly any better. Shooting people for the most inane(and often insane) reasoning is not a good way to live your life.

So arresting people rather than killing them without due process is "kindergarten morality?"

[Dasher1010]

Malanek999 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Shepard only ever shoots people who are A) Criminals, or A threat to the mission. It's not like he runs around shooting random civilians just for the lulz..

Renegade shep shoots that turian politician hiding behind spectre status so thanes son can't be held responsible. There are other examples.

Killing Chorban.

[Hunter of Legends]

GodWood wrote....Throwing away a base full of Reaper information when you have absolutely no knowledge of how you are going to beat them (and the only reason why you've gotten this far is because you have studied Reaper tech (see IFF, EDI, Thanic cannon etc)), on the grounds that "it indoctrinates people" despite their being no evidence that the base itself indoctrinates people is ****ing insane.

Who says I follow paragon shepards morality?

We've discussed before. Your Shepard is paragon.

And how the hell is a morality "illogical".

Because the reasoning behind said morality's reasoning is illogical.

Did you miss the husks? If you think that base won't indoctrinate people you AREN'T ready to fight the reapers.

My shepard? I have no one shepard. I have 10 shepards right now all of varying moralities/personalities/characters.

Renegade shepard's reasoning is just as illogical in my eyes.

Stop with the fanwanking.

[GodWood]

Dasher1010 wrote...
So arresting people rather than killing them without due process is "kindergarten morality?"

I'll assume this was meant to be directed at me.

Two things:

1) Shepard (almost) never arrests people. He lets them walk free.

2) The 'kindergarten morality' comment was in regards to the major choices (as I already pointed out).

[Hunter of Legends]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

GodWood wrote...

I don't see how any sane, rational person could think playing paragon [aka continually risking the entire galaxy and sacrificing its safety and well being for the sake of satisfying ones own kindergarten morality] is the 'moral' thing to do.

I'd hardly call paragon kindergarten morality.

Renegade shepard is hardly any better. Shooting people for the most inane(and often insane) reasoning is not a good way to live your life.

So arresting people rather than killing them without due process is "kindergarten morality?"

Yes, it's called "My way or the highway".

Normal people don't use this kind of simple logic.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Cerberus is an organization filled with anti-alien extremiests. The fact that they refer to themselves as "pro-human" instead of anti-alien and specifically target the Quarians who are intentionally modeled to be Jews in space rams home that they're futuristic Neo-****s. They're now working for the reapers in an attempt to get them to destroy everyone else besides humans. What is seriously the reason why people on here are still Cerberus fanboys?

I thought about giving a serious answer, but after this OP I can see it would be wasted.

[mogonk]

How can a rational, moral person still support Bioware?

[GodWood]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Did you miss the husks?

The creatures that are commonly used as canon fodder in many places without indoctrination? Yes I saw them. 

If you think that base won't indoctrinate people you AREN'T ready to fight the reapers.

I never said that the base "won't" indoctrinate people. I said we don't know if it does or doesn't.

However, even if it did, I'd still keep it. Again, look at the IFF mission. Without that Shepard would have failed.

Renegade shepard's reasoning is just as illogical in my eyes.

And yet you have yet to present any logical reasoning as to why.

Stop with the fanwanking.

I'm going to assume you don't know what that term means.

Modifié par GodWood, 23 février 2012 - 01:19 .

[GodWood]

mogonk wrote...
How can a rational, moral person still support Bioware?

lol

[J.amber]

after the 2nd part i was like hmmm i hope, i can use cerberus, to gain power over humanity, i'm not totally sure on the lore but think they had some influence in earth's politics and military at one point .. so i hoped by the 3rd i'd be able to take over cerberus and use it's influence to put myself as the absolute ruler .. or be the vader to TIM's palpatine ... would a been neat to have your shepard as supreme ruler but now i don't think .... a power grab of any sort is an option sadly :/

[Hunter of Legends]

GodWood wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Did you miss the husks?

The creatures that are commonly used as canon fodder in many places without indoctrination? Yes I saw them. 

If you think that base won't indoctrinate people you AREN'T ready to fight the reapers.

I never said that the base "won't" indoctrinate people. I said we don't know if it does or doesn't.

However, even if it did, I'd still keep it. Again, look at the IFF mission. Without that Shepard would have failed.

Renegade shepard's reasoning is just as illogical in my eyes.

And yet you have yet to present any logical reasoning as to why.

Stop with the fanwanking.

I'm going to assume you don't know what that term means.

I do know what it means.

Look we can argue all we want but the fact of the matter is 100 of ANYTHING is bad. 100% Paragon shepard is just as "kindergarten" as 100% renegade.

[GodWood]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
I do know what it means.

Well then you're using the term wrong.

Look we can argue all we want but the fact of the matter is 100 of ANYTHING is bad. 100% Paragon shepard is just as "kindergarten" as 100% renegade.

Have I said otherwise? 

I'll repeat myself AGAIN. I was referring to the major choices.

[Ellkol1138]

I just can't take Cerberus too seriously, the first game and the books especially, make them seem like a group of mad scientist trying stuff to see what works and mostly botching.

TIM also just seems like your average politician to be honest, reminds me of the version of Arcturus Mengsk from the starcraft book Liberty's Crusade

[wetnasty]

Jews in space? 

I think Volus fit that mold a bit better.

Er.... totally forgot what I was going to post after that comment.

[Malanek]

GodWood wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Shepard only ever shoots people who are A) Criminals, or A threat to the mission. It's not like he runs around shooting random civilians just for the lulz..

Renegade shep shoots that turian politician hiding behind spectre status so thanes son can't be held responsible. There are other examples.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

I can see what your arguement is... I think. But making that argument that the threat he poses to the mission is his mere existance rather than any action he is taking is pretty weak. By making that argument you are also going against what you were previously arguing against... just Killing a politician in cold blood is not a responsible action.

[Dasher1010]

J.amber wrote...

after the 2nd part i was like hmmm i hope, i can use cerberus, to gain power over humanity, i'm not totally sure on the lore but think they had some influence in earth's politics and military at one point .. so i hoped by the 3rd i'd be able to take over cerberus and use it's influence to put myself as the absolute ruler .. or be the vader to TIM's palpatine ... would a been neat to have your shepard as supreme ruler but now i don't think .... a power grab of any sort is an option sadly :/

They were at one point coverly funded by the Alliance. They they went rogue when te got the funding to pull themselves away.

[mango smoothie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

Cerberus is an organization filled with anti-alien extremiests. The fact that they refer to themselves as "pro-human" instead of anti-alien and specifically target the Quarians who are intentionally modeled to be Jews in space rams home that they're futuristic Neo-****s. They're now working for the reapers in an attempt to get them to destroy everyone else besides humans. What is seriously the reason why people on here are still Cerberus fanboys?

I thought about giving a serious answer, but after this OP I can see it would be wasted.

   It normally is, people on the BSN are way too close minded, and then make topics on their opinion expecting a serious debate (well I doubt this person was, from reading OP). Instead of having a serious debate though, they feel every little thing is a personal attack, and turn the topic into a petty argument. You can't have mature debates on the BSN, because most people on the BSN can't seem to understand other people's opinions.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 23 février 2012 - 01:36 .

[vonSlash]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

vonSlash wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...
How can a rational moral person still support Cerberus?

Simple. There's no such thing as objective morality.

We can deduce a simple objective morality no?

Perhaps not anything complicated but a basic set of guidelines yes?

At the risk of derailing this thread into an ethics debate, I'd have to question that. We can most likely agree that torturing people for fun is wrong, but I'd argue that the only thing that might make that action wrong is the "for fun" section. If we replace "for fun" with some sort of explanation or rationale that has a positive benefit (resulting in a question like "Is it wrong to inflict substantial physical and mental pain on an autistic man if it could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives?"), the question becomes much less clear, because you are then, in effect, asking "Is questionable action X worth positive benefit Y", In any sort of cost/benefit question, people are going to disagree about how far the ends justify the means, and no one will be able to derive with any certainty which opinion will be 'correct', if any opinion is. Therefore, we can't just issue a blanket statement of "Action X is wrong" because we don't know if action X will always be wrong. And if we can't determine whether or not action X is wrong based solely on what action X is, then we can't, in any objective or absolute manner, morally condemn Cerberus for whatever actions they've taken that were taken to accomplish a positive goal.

Back on topic, you could justify Shepard killing the turian politician because it might threaten the mission because if Kolyat goes to prison, that would have a substantiative psychological impact on Thane and could impact his ability to do the job you've hired him for. It's an extreme solution, but hardly unjustifiable, in my opinion.

[Dasher1010]

vonSlash wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

vonSlash wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...
How can a rational moral person still support Cerberus?

Simple. There's no such thing as objective morality.

We can deduce a simple objective morality no?

Perhaps not anything complicated but a basic set of guidelines yes?

At the risk of derailing this thread into an ethics debate, I'd have to question that. We can most likely agree that torturing people for fun is wrong, but I'd argue that the only thing that might make that action wrong is the "for fun" section. If we replace "for fun" with some sort of explanation or rationale that has a positive benefit (resulting in a question like "Is it wrong to inflict substantial physical and mental pain on an autistic man if it could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives?"), the question becomes much less clear, because you are then, in effect, asking "Is questionable action X worth positive benefit Y", In any sort of cost/benefit question, people are going to disagree about how far the ends justify the means, and no one will be able to derive with any certainty which opinion will be 'correct', if any opinion is. Therefore, we can't just issue a blanket statement of "Action X is wrong" because we don't know if action X will always be wrong. And if we can't determine whether or not action X is wrong based solely on what action X is, then we can't, in any objective or absolute manner, morally condemn Cerberus for whatever actions they've taken that were taken to accomplish a positive goal.

Back on topic, you could justify Shepard killing the turian politician because it might threaten the mission because if Kolyat goes to prison, that would have a substantiative psychological impact on Thane and could impact his ability to do the job you've hired him for. It's an extreme solution, but hardly unjustifiable, in my opinion.

I shoot the politician for the same reason I'm looking foraward to fighting Cerberus. I dislike ethnic nationalism and identity politics. The guy was a bigot ranting about how horrible it was that humans were on the council. He wasn't just a whiny entitled guy with a chip on his shoulder, he was somebody who lost racial privilage and wanted to oppress humans in the Citadel. If anything, the Volus should be allowed on the Council since they're the backbone of the galactic economy but people like Joran Talid were already horrified of the Volus buying out Turian companies and wnated to keep them in their place. We don't need people like that.

Modifié par Dasher1010, 23 février 2012 - 04:40 .

[vonSlash]

Dasher1010 wrote...
I shoot the politician for the same reason I'm looking foraward to fighting Cerberus. I dislike thenic nationalism and identity politics. The guy was a bigot ranting about how horrible it was that humans were on the council. He wasn't just a whiny entitled guy with a chip on his shoulder, he was somebody who lost racial privilage and wanted to oppress humans in the Citadel. If anything, the Volus should be allowed on the Council since they're the backbone of the galactic economy but people like Joran Talid were already horrified of the Volus buying out Turian companies and wnated to keep them in their place. We don't need people like that.

That's one fair explanation for it. All I was trying to do was explain how shooting Joram Talid isn't incompatible with a Renegade Shepard who only kills armed opponents, criminals, or to protect the mission.