348 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

Rommel49 wrote...

The Commander's orders from his C.O.'s were to destroy the Reapers actually, not just end the war. "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this" - both of those quotes came from the guys higher in the chain of command, both of whom the Commander reported to. That was his mandate, not to simply end the war. Seriously, by that reasoning, intentionally ensuring an Allied loss would've been within his mandate too (hey, it would've ended the war).

It's also noteworthy that Destroy is the only option in which he can potentially be held accountable for the decision, for better or worse. He conveniently can't or doesn't have to answer to anyone for with the other two options.

That was before anyone had any idea there were other ways of using the crucible. If I believed destroying the reapers was the only way to end the war I'd be rooting for it too. When a new situation presents itself you can't just hide behind orders, you have to analyze the situation. If you still go with destroy fair enough. A hypothetical situation: You are sent into a terrorist hideout with instructions to kill a terrorist. Upon reaching there you find a Balak-like situation: innocent people will die if you kill him. So you need to think it out. You can't say: oh my superiors ordered me to do this, so I'll just close my ears and go ahead. Your superiors didn't know there were innocents holed up. Not saying reapers or synthetics are innocent, just saying you can't always blindly follow the orders given by someone who didn't have all the info while giving those orders. You can surely still go with what your superior ordered you to, but not without reviewing the new situation. Hope I made myself clear.

Modifié par pirate1802, 08 septembre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Rommel49]

pirate1802 wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

The Commander's orders from his C.O.'s were to destroy the Reapers actually, not just end the war. "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this" - both of those quotes came from the guys higher in the chain of command, both of whom the Commander reported to. That was his mandate, not to simply end the war. Seriously, by that reasoning, intentionally ensuring an Allied loss would've been within his mandate too (hey, it would've ended the war).

It's also noteworthy that Destroy is the only option in which he can potentially be held accountable for the decision, for better or worse. He conveniently can't or doesn't have to answer to anyone for with the other two options.

That was before anyone had any idea there were other ways of using the crucible. If I believed destroying the reapers was the only way to end the war I'd be rooting for it too. When a new situation presents itself you can't just hide behind orders, you have to analyze the situation. If you still go with destroy fair enough. A hypothetical situation: You are sent into a terrorist hideout with instructions to kill a terrorist. Upon reaching there you find a Balak-like situation: innocent people will die if you kill him. So you need to think it out. You can't say: oh my superiors ordered me to do this, so I'll just close my ears and go ahead. Your superiors didn't know there were innocents holed up. Not saying reapers or synthetics are innocent, just saying you can't always blindly follow the orders given by someone who didn't have all the info while giving those orders. You can surely still go with what your superior ordered you to, but not without reviewing the new situation. Hope I made myself clear.

Actually, the possibility of using it to control them was brought up fairly early. Both of those quotes were in direct response to the idea of controlling the Reapers as opposed to simply destroying them - Hackett and Anderson shoot the idea down.

We account for collateral damage like that all the time; it's the standard that the mission comes first as long as it's a legal order. We already take into account that innocent people might die in an airstrike or artillery bombardment or what have you, we do it anyway. Best I can do is question a legal order, but outright refuse it? Nope. Hell, it was in my oath of enlistment: "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..."

[Comsky159]

I've never trusted the Alliance, Cerberus or the Council.

All bureaucratic nightmares.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Rommel49 wrote...

Actually, the possibility of using it to control them was brought up fairly early. Both of those quotes were in direct response to the idea of controlling the Reapers as opposed to simply destroying them - Hackett and Anderson shoot the idea down.

They were giving their opinions, not giving orders. And even if they were, they were uninformed orders. I'm playing a videogame here not a real-life ilitary sim :S Hackett responded upon asked by Shepard and Anderson well, he was fighting with TIM, its unlikely he'd support him. Also, like I said they were unaware the crucible even had alernate functions. I remember hackett describing the crucible as a device generating dark energy and destroying the reapers. He had no freaking idea what it did, nobody had.

Sorry if I come across as a little rude, I don't intend to..

[DirtyPhoenix]

Comsky159 wrote...

I've never trusted the Alliance, Cerberus or the Council.

All bureaucratic nightmares.

Yeah. I had half a mind to pick refuse and say "Ah yes, reapers.." as I watch the council ships go down.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

seitani wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

seitani wrote...

I'm playing through ME 3 full paragon(savior of Krogan, savior of geth..blah..blah...) and im halfway through the game and already pondering which ending to choose. For renegade characters destroy was easy choice but now i don't which one fits for a full paragon character better. I picked synthesis in the past for Tricia Helfers excellent voice acting.

How exactly is destroy good for renegades? Renegades prefer order through control, so Control would be the best.

...

What I mean by that is, each choice can be valid for any alignment Shepard. It's all in how you RP him, motivations, beliefs, etc.

Destroy is perfect for pure renegade because you achieve you goal sacrificing almost nothing that is important to you...well maybe EDI. Pure renegade hate synthetics so he will destroy geth on Rannoch so sacrificing the already scrapmetal geth at the end...no harm, he destroys reapers like his goal has been from day one & the infamous breathing scene so Shep lives that's gotta be a +. Now list me cons for pure renegade choosing destroy ending.

Wait, so a paragon prefers machines over organics? Paragaon prefers Geth over Quarians? I have questions for the person. You have to make a choice between one or the other: Geth or Quarians. Quarians have the larger fleet because you destroyed the Heretics.

1) have the geth, other than Legion or Geth VI and a handful of geth done anything other than shoot at Shepard and other humans and organics for the past 2.5 games? No.

2) have the Quarians other than the one incident when Shepard was on the Geth dreadnought put Shepard in harms way? No.

3) given the past experience, which one is going to make a more reliable ally? The Quarians.

Unfortunately the game calls choosing the Quarians renegade and calls choosing the Geth paragon, when in reality the facts just don't support this. Choosing the Geth as ally and condemning the Quarians is the renegade, while choosing the Quarians as your ally and letting them finish their war is the paragon decision. If you can make peace its a bonus. It's just that Walters is manipulating you. They should leave the morality scales out of the games, or at least you shouldn't be able to see your score until you finished the game, and they should mix up what responses are what.

And what is wrong with destroying genocidal machines at the end? You really think they deserve a 20,001st chance to make things right? I don't think so. That's not a renegade decision. That's a responsible decision. Letting them stay around is irresponsible IMO. What if they decide to make marmalade out of you again because it is determined that it is necessary to preserve organic life?

In the end, paragon and renegade are meaningless. Making the right choice is the only thing that matters.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 08 septembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

pirate1802 wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

The Commander's orders from his C.O.'s were to destroy the Reapers actually, not just end the war. "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this" - both of those quotes came from the guys higher in the chain of command, both of whom the Commander reported to. That was his mandate, not to simply end the war. Seriously, by that reasoning, intentionally ensuring an Allied loss would've been within his mandate too (hey, it would've ended the war).

It's also noteworthy that Destroy is the only option in which he can potentially be held accountable for the decision, for better or worse. He conveniently can't or doesn't have to answer to anyone for with the other two options.

That was before anyone had any idea there were other ways of using the crucible. If I believed destroying the reapers was the only way to end the war I'd be rooting for it too. When a new situation presents itself you can't just hide behind orders, you have to analyze the situation. If you still go with destroy fair enough. A hypothetical situation: You are sent into a terrorist hideout with instructions to kill a terrorist. Upon reaching there you find a Balak-like situation: innocent people will die if you kill him. So you need to think it out. You can't say: oh my superiors ordered me to do this, so I'll just close my ears and go ahead. Your superiors didn't know there were innocents holed up. Not saying reapers or synthetics are innocent, just saying you can't always blindly follow the orders given by someone who didn't have all the info while giving those orders. You can surely still go with what your superior ordered you to, but not without reviewing the new situation. Hope I made myself clear.

But Balak was a Batarian! and he hired a slaver! Send Colonist/Torfan Shepard, you know how that's going to turn out -- well maybe, Shepard captures Balak and takes him to the Alliance on Terra Nova. And kills a ****load of Batarians in the process.  Then plays mumbly peg with a pistol on Balak. Shepard hates Batarians. There were 3 hostages.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

[Unfortunately the game calls choosing the Quarians renegade and calls choosing the Geth paragon, when in reality the facts just don't support this. Choosing the Geth as ally and condemning the Quarians is the renegade, while choosing the Quarians as your ally and letting them finish their war is the paragon decision. If you can make peace its a bonus. It's just that Walters is manipulating you. They should leave the morality scales out of the games, or at least you shouldn't be able to see your score until you finished the game, and they should mix up what responses are what.

The game doesn't call either basic Rannoch choice as Paragon or Renegade. I don't think you even get any paragon or renegade points for either. However, choosing the Geth does involve a paragon interrupt (failing to save Tali) while choosing the Quarians involves 3 Renegade interrupts (shooting Legion 3 times) I think that's what causes people to assign paragon or renegade values to it.

And ofcourse, choosing the Geth is the upper right option which is usually paragon while choosing the Quarians is the lower right which is usaully Renegade.

However, it has a lot to do with how the scenes play out. By choosing the Geth, you don't interfere but choosing the Quarians involves actively condemning the Geth and personally ensuing their destruction.

Again, there is no strict paragon or renegade choice there. Same with the ending seeing as Control comes in both Paragon and Renegade flavours.

[Senior Cinco]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

See I look at this a bit differently. I don't see Synthesis as a paragon choice. I see it as a renegade choice. It is forcing one's ideals on the rest without having to be around to answer for the consequences. You're dead. What if the organics aren't happy about it? Too late to do anything. The only way I can see it remotely being paragon is if your Shepard is on the naive side.

I really don't understand how you can justify this. At all. Destroy you commit Genocide; Synthesis you don't, you sacrifice yourself and spare *everyone*. Evolution was going to happen anyway. I dislike the green glow and the creepy monsters (husks and cannibals) providing daycare solutions, but tasteless humour aside, there's no escaping Synthesis is definitively Paragon and Destroy is definitively Renegade. Arguing the fact is pointless, it simply is what it is.

Genocide? There is no Genocide in Destroy.It removes the Geth and...EDI. You can't commit Genocide by taking out every car or airplane.

Organics becomming Cyborgs is NOT evolution. Letting the masses of the Universe continue, without an unnatural influence of nuts and bolts, is evolution.

Modifié par Senior Cinco, 08 septembre 2012 - 10:25 .

[Jackums]

Control = Paragon choice
Destroy = Renegade choice
Synthesis = Neutral choice
Refuse = Retard choice

[DirtyPhoenix]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But Balak was a Batarian! and he hired a slaver! Send Colonist/Torfan Shepard, you know how that's going to turn out -- well maybe, Shepard captures Balak and takes him to the Alliance on Terra Nova. And kills a ****load of Batarians in the process.  Then plays mumbly peg with a pistol on Balak. Shepard hates Batarians. There were 3 hostages.

My colonist paraShep killed him then and there. And I LOVED what she said afterwards. "I'll gladly keep the faces of those victims awake at night if it means no one else dies." Or something like that. Loved it. Kinda went in line with her thoughts as she picked Synthesis

[Jadebaby]

Refuse and Destory, anyone saying otherwise is giving me a art attack.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Destroy is definitely not Paragon.

[The Twilight God]

JackumsD wrote...

Control = Paragon choice
Destroy = Renegade choice
Synthesis = Neutral choice
Refuse = Retard choice

More like...

Control = Retard choice
Destroy = Neutral choice
Synthesis = Retard choice
Refuse = Retard choice

[Subject M]

Rommel49 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Of course, but its more than that. Destroy deprives all synthetics of everything (by destroying them). Synthesis deprives everyone of self-determination in how they "evolve" but it has no other clear negative consequences, sorta like giving everyone super-powers without their consent.  Anyway, I go with control.

It has no apparent consequences, but if you look at the view of forced change elsewhere (e.g. in the case of what was done to the good commander after the destruction of the first Normandy), it's clear that not everyone considers it a good thing.

The Geth gave implied consent that they might be destroyed (as did everyone else) when they joined the war. Period. That was the objective, to destroy the Reapers. Lt. Victus doesn't want to lose his men to complete his objective on Tuchanka, Lt. Kurin doesn't want to lose her troops so that the relic on Thessia can be reached, etc. and they're all convinced to do just that by the good commander, Paragon or Renegade.

As I've noted previously, even if you assume Control goes off without a hitch and works exactly as advertised, it's not a "clean" option either... far from it. If you believe synthetics are alive, that applies to the Reapers themselves (they're clearly stated to be intelligent, sapient beings). The Reapers never had the option to do anything besides what they were directed to do by the old catalyst - even the Geth can't make that claim since they willingly sided with the Reapers. If you believe the Geth shouldn't be held culpable for what they did under Reaper control, the same has to apply to the Reapers themselves. All control does is keep intelligent beings in shackles, it just gives them a new master.

seitani wrote...

As for the Anderson being renegade red at the ending. He wanted to destroy Reapers but did he know that he would be committing genocide or call it whatever "Destruction of substantial numbers of synthetics" by doing so, no he was already dead, he didn't even know that Catalyst was AI. The one shooting the tube could have been "Shepard 5 minutes before ending scene" as well because your goal was exactly same as Andersons before the catalyst.

Actually, Anderson did know full well there were risks and potential collateral damage when it comes to using the Crucible. It was aluded to due to the fact nobody was entirely certain what the Crucible did and whether it would wipe out everybody or just the Reapers (hence the hunt for the Catalyst). Nobody was even certain if, or how, it would work.

While control does not "free" the Reapers it does stop their aggression. Its unclear if the Reapers even have a concept of "freedom" in the same way that we do, and a military effort is rarely a democracy to begin with and if on loses a war, paying war-reparations is expected.

Changing leadership and directing them to stop attacking and instead helping instead is not exactly a harsher fate then killing them all off. And it provides means and data to further understand and analyse the main problem and why the harvest was thought up as a solution to begin with. If a new solution long term solution can be found as suggested (if the catalyst was right and everyone eventually will synthesize, but it is done willingly) then the Reapers will no longer be needing someone "laying down the law" to them in some supposed dictatorial fashion they are not "confortable" with.

[Subject M]

Micon2 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

>OP

Control.
As it is presented and turns out, it preserves the most life and technology. (almost as high potentiality as synthesis, but without forced synthesis and non of the collateral damage of destroy).
From that follows that it will be possible to go ahead with voluntary synthesis for those that are interested in such.

I quite agree, you have voiced my thought after I chose and watched the Synthesis ending.
It was good, everyone survives 'cept you.
But it did not feel like a victory had been achieved.

Power was what TIM always wanted.
Garrus says that the Galaxy needs a benevolent dictator, ....
I;m about 2 hrs from finishing a different Shep, this one saved the quorians not witnessed their destruction,
so I hope to have collected enough allies to get me a different result.
What saddens me is that Destroy appears to be the option to keep Shep alive and that in itself give much kudos to this decision

Its unclear what happens with Shepard in Control. But in any case, Shepards thoughts and memory lives on, directing the Reapers. 

[Subject M]

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

[seitani]

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Didn't know Saren and Illusive Man like to read Bioware forums

Modifié par seitani, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Rommel49]

Subject M wrote...

While control does not "free" the Reapers it does stop their aggression. Its unclear if the Reapers even have a concept of "freedom" in the same way that we do, and a military effort is rarely a democracy to begin with and if on loses a war, paying war-reparations is expected.

Changing leadership and directing them to stop attacking and instead helping instead is not exactly a harsher fate then killing them all off. And it provides means and data to further understand and analyse the main problem and why the harvest was thought up as a solution to begin with. If a new solution long term solution can be found as suggested (if the catalyst was right and everyone eventually will synthesize, but it is done willingly) then the Reapers will no longer be needing someone "laying down the law" to them in some supposed dictatorial fashion they are not "confortable" with.

That's exactly it though; the Reapers have always effectively been shackled to the old catalyst - they never had the option to say "no" and do anything else; that's the difference. If you believe synthetics are alive, that applies to Reapers, if the Reapers are alive, they're basically slaves - all Control does is shackle them to a new catalyst, just because the new slave driver might be more benevolent than the old one doesn't somehow make it not slavery.

The Geth can't make that claim as they willingly allied with the Reapers twice; first the heretic split, then the Battle for Rannoch. Indeed, the more I think about it, the less sorry I feel for the Geth as collateral damage... attacked by the Quarians or no. The Geth themselves set the tone when they willingly chose to join an enemy whose objective was the extinction of all advanced organic life.

Modifié par Rommel49, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[legion999]

Control.

Paragon Shepard sacrifices his or her self to stop the Reapers. The Shep AI then kills the Reapers. At least that's what I thought would happen. We got Tyrant Shepard instead.

Modifié par legion999, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:43 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Dang! That's it. No more veggies for me

[Pitznik]

pirate1802 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Dang! That's it. No more veggies for me

Bad news for you - he was also wearing clothes, cared about hygiene, and enjoyed art. You don't want to be like Hitler, do you?

[DirtyPhoenix]

Pitznik wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Dang! That's it. No more veggies for me

Bad news for you - he was also wearing clothes, cared about hygiene, and enjoyed art. You don't want to be like Hitler, do you?

Damn IT

[M Hedonist]

Control seems the perfect choice for a power-hungry Renegade character. It was the perfect conclusion for my Renegade Shep's story, anyway. He tried to have it all, yet lost so much. In the end he lost everything he had, including his humanity in his mad pursuit for power and... control.
I would never be able to pick Control with a Paragon Shepard. Thinking you're a benevolent ruler? Many real life dictators shared that vanity.

Synthesis? I dunno. It just seems like a big gamble, changing all life in the galaxy without knowing whether it's truly for the better. You might as well pick Refuse. *shrugs shoulders*

[DirtyPhoenix]

Sauruz wrote...

Synthesis? I dunno. It just seems like a big gamble, changing all life in the galaxy without knowing whether it's truly for the better.

Big risk. But the priiiize!