1324 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

RatThing wrote...

jtav wrote...

As for what I'd change.

Let Miranda do something related to opposing Cerberus *onscreen* and because she's opposing Cerberus, not as a side effect of a personal issue.

That would have pissed off some of the Cerberus fanatics among the players .

You don't know jtav very well. I'm not going to claim I know her great either (and I'm more than willing to admit I've been unfair in my treatment) but we've discussed this before, and she's more or less a supporter of Cerberus. By oppose Cerberus, what jtav means (and I completely agree) is that she's opposing them because they're being a hinderance to the war effort. Whether or not I believe in Cerberus or not, or can justify their actions, it's clear about one thing. Beneath the veneer of 'humanity first' that the Reapers have twisted Cerberus into, they're nothing more than indoctrinated agents who are really doing what their new masters are telling them too. Miranda is opposing them because they've gotten themselves too the point where they're no longer a benefit to their own very noble goals. 

[Seboist]

I regret not killing off Jack in the SM. It would have prevented me from seeing the derp of her becoming an Alliance instructor(which is more lulzy if you had her kill Aresh).

[RatThing]

StreetMagic wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Is it really that suprising or strange that someone liked Jack as a character the way she was and did not try to change her? She's a maniac who doesn't care about rules, authorities anything. That's why as a character in the game I liked her. That's how she should have stayed. Teaching the Grissom students just doesn't fit her at all.

She still doesn't necessarily care about rules. She says learned about teamwork. Not rules. And she cares about not having those kids needlessly die. She was never totally callous. She didn't like people who used others - be it those who used her or otherwise. She didn't like brainwashing Heretics (advised that it's better getting a bullet in the head) and didn't like saving the Collector base ("Shepard, seriously? He's [TIM] a user.")

Not totally callous maybe, but with her record and attitude I still can't picture her as a teacher (she wanted to turn the Normandy into a pirate ship). Somebody actually has to hire her for that in the first place.
And it isn't really necessary. She can stand outside the law and remain mean and rebellious but still show compassion. There are enough examples of those charismatic gang leader types who defy the authorities but care about the people close to them (Kaneda from Akira for example. Is there anyone who seen the animation who wanted to turn him into a good boy and a model student?).  

Modifié par RatThing, 07 novembre 2013 - 05:58 .

[Darks1d3]

StreetMagic wrote...

Darks1d3 wrote...

*shrugs* Fair enough.

But on that note, I never considered them "tests" of any sort. I just saw that she wasn't all that happy with how her life was going. And I just wanted to help. What she considers "best" for her life is up to her. Wasn't at all trying to change her into someone I think she should be. Her life, her choice.

If you're that uninvolved, you shouldn't do the loyalty missions then. It's a game mechanic that kind of serves that purpose, of showing you're willing to look out for your crew or friends like that. Or you can be very goal oriented and dismissive and just care about getting the mission done in an "all business" sort of way (kind of like how Miranda acts.. she'll protest needless acts often).

Not necessarily. Like I said, I just wanted to help. I did want to look out for my crew, as thier well-being was part of my responsibility. The loyalty missions were something they wanted help with. I'm asking them to help me on a mission that may end up killing them. The least I can do is help them in return when they need it. Like I said before, It wasn't my goal to change anyone into something they didn't want to be. I'll give my 2 cents on what I think, but I'm not going to force my ideals on anyone.

And admittedly, I may not be making myself all that clear. I've never been the best with expressing myself properly with words.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I've been toying with the idea of having a character alignment list for each squadmate, based off the D&D Alignment chart:

Lawful Good, Practical Good (or Neutral Good), Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral, Practical Neutral (or True Neutral), Chaotic Neutral
Lawfu Evil, Practical Evil (or Neutral Evil), Chaotic Evil

ME1/ME3 Squadmates:

Kaidan: Pretty much straight Lawful Good, with a slightly more Practical Good leaning in the beginning

Ashley: A mix of Lawful Good and Practical Good. Some undertones of Chaotic Good as well. I find it rather repulsive.

Garrus: Practical Good in the beginning, which evolves into a much more Chaotic Good as the story goes on.

Wrex: True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Practical Evil would fit him all, though he becomes more Chaotic Good as the series progresses

Tali: Straight Lawful Good, with some shades of Practical Good in ME2 and ME3.

Liara: Lawful Neutral starting off, but becomes more Chaotic Good in ME2, and gradually moves to more Practical Good in ME3.

ME2 Squadmates:

Miranda: Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil along with some Chaotic Good. True Neutral is interspersed a bit through the trilogy.

Jacob: Practical Good or Lawful Neutral

Mordin: Lawful Neutral with Lawful Evil in the beginning along with True Neutral. Evolves into a more Chaotic or Practical Good in ME3.

Grunt: Chaotic Neutral, with some shades of Chaotic Evil

Jack: Chaotic Neutral with some shades of Chaotic Evil, and she moves to a more Chaotic Good in ME3.

Thane: Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil combined, though his personal philosophy is more of a Practical Good with Lawful Neutral.

Samara: Straight Lawful Neutral, since her code is more important than morality.

Legion: True Neutral in the beginning, and more of a Lawful Neutral and even Chaotic Good in ME3

Zaeed: Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral, with some elements of Practical Evil.

Kasumi: Chaotic Neutral

ME3 Exclusive Squadmates:

James: Lawful Good, but not to an obnoxious level. Takes a slightly more Practical Good approach later on.

EDI: True Neutral, with combined shades of Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. Becomes more Lawful Good in ME3.

Javik: Starts off as Practical Evil mixed with Lawful Evil and True Neutral. Becomes more Lawful Evil as the game progresses, with some elements of Lawful Neutral.

And, my Shepard: True Neutral, with elements of both Practical Good and Practical Evil.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:07 .

[RatThing]

StreetMagic wrote...

RatThing wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Is it really that suprising or strange that someone liked Jack as a character the way she was and did not try to change her? She's a maniac who doesn't care about rules, authorities anything. That's why as a character in the game I liked her. That's how she should have stayed. Teaching the Grissom students just doesn't fit her at all.

She still doesn't necessarily care about rules. She says learned about teamwork. Not rules. And she cares about not having those kids needlessly die. She was never totally callous. She didn't like people who used others - be it those who used her or otherwise. She didn't like brainwashing Heretics (advised that it's better getting a bullet in the head) and didn't like saving the Collector base ("Shepard, seriously? He's [TIM] a user.")

Not totally callous maybe, but with her record and attitude I still can't picture her as a teacher (she wanted to turn the Normandy into a pirate ship). Somebody actually has to hire her for that in the first place.
And it isn't really necessary. She can stand outside the law and remain mean and rebellious but still show compassion. There are enough examples of those charismatic gang leader types who defy the authorities but care about the people close to them (Kaneda from Akira for example. Is there anyone who seen the animation who wanted to turn him into a good boy and a model student?).  

The pirate ship would've been cool, for sure.. I would have loved Shepard being more of an independent wildcard in the Reaper war.. but she's also half-heartedly ****ing with you at that point. Testing the waters. She's not totally into it. "Joyriding doesn't have the thrill it used to.." She's already in some kind of stage that doesn't know where she wants to go. I think that's the whole symbolism about her prison too ("Purgatory"). In limbo. At that point, you can help her purge her past or not.

But don't forget, you can make her shoot the guy at the end of her loyalty mission. This way her loyalty is secured and she survives the suicide mission but you practically push her more in the path of the cold maniac ("You're a killer Jack. That's what you do.").

[Han Shot First]

Liara: Lawful Neutral starting off, but becomes more Chaotic Good in ME2, and gradually moves to more Practical Good in ME3.

I think she falls somewhere into the 'good' range in ME1.

Other than Kaidan she is the most paragon member of the squad. The way ME1 handles squadmate morality is a bit odd in that every major decision there must be a squadmate that voices support for one option and one that voices support for the opposing option, regardless of those characters background. If you pair Liara with Kaiden she'll voice support for the renegade option, but otherwise IIRC she voices support for the paragon option if paired with any other squadmate.

I'd put her as Neutral Good in ME1, Chaotic Good in ME2, and back to Neutral Good in ME3.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wish Bioware went back to some old D&D ideas like that. Chaos and Lawful/Good and Evil.. much better than binary Paragon/Renegade.

Also, I think it would be great to not have the game punish you based on these philosophies. At least, not on the basis of Good = Good outcome and Evil = Bad outcome. As for consequences themselves, I think they should focus on rational decision and practical cause and effect, each towards a certain ideal or outcome. Weigh the outcomes and figure which works best or is the most acceptable. And of course, leave a certain degree of randomness in decisions. Sometimes, something might backfire. Other times, the evil way is the good way out. Make it hard, make it challenging, and make it diversive. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:29 .

[Han Shot First]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wish Bioware went back to some old D&D ideas like that. Chaos and Lawful/Good and Evil.. much better than binary Paragon/Renegade.

I think Bioware kind of goofed with handling renegade in that it often strayed from what is originally intended to be. Renegade wasn't supposed to be LOLevil, it was supposed to be a sort ruthless pragmatism.

For example if Shepard had captured a terrorist with information on an upcoming attack on a civilian target, paragon Shep would employ standard interrogation techniques, whereas RenShep would not be above brutally torturing the terrorist if need be. In either case however both versions would be fully committed to saving civilian lives. And RenShep would be a torturer because he or she thought the ends justified the means, rather than torturing because he or she enjoyed it.

In game however it didn't always come across that way. There are some renegade options that are sadistic or evil just for the sake of being sadistic or evil. That strayed from what the renegade options were originally intended to be.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Han Shot First wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wish Bioware went back to some old D&D ideas like that. Chaos and Lawful/Good and Evil.. much better than binary Paragon/Renegade.

I think Bioware kind of goofed with handling Renegade in that it often strayed from what is originally intended to be. Renegade wasn't supposed to be LOLevil, it was supposed to be a sort ruthless pragmatism.

For example if Shepard had captured a Batarian terrorist with information on an upcoming attack on a human colony, paragon Shep would employ standard interrogation techniques, whereas RenShep would not be above brutally torturing the terrorist if need be. In either case however both versions would be fully committed to saving civilian lives. And RenShep would be a torturer because they thought the ends justified the means, rather than torturing because they enjoyed it.

In game however it didn't always come across that way. There are some renegade options that are sadistic or evil just for the sake of being sadistic or evil. That strayed from what the renegade options were originally intended to be.

As a pragmatist, I'm against torturing for information. 

If you're going to torture someone, it must be for its own sake. For the purpose of breaking them and asserting your dominance on them. Crushing their face under your boot.

[Han Shot First]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


As a pragmatist, I'm against torturing for information. 

I wasn't saying torture was pragmatic. Only that RenShep might view it as such.

The point was that RenShep wasn't supposed to be committing morally questionable acts because he or she was a sadist, but because he or she thought those actions served some greater good.

It doesn't always come across that way in game though.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:34 .

[Barquiel]

I am not sure about Garrus. His shadow broker files indicate that he tortured people to death. Criminals...sure, but I think that torture, for any reason, is an evil act by the D&D alignment system regardless of how much the victim "deserves it". That disqualifies him from having a "good" alignment imo.

Modifié par Barquiel, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:35 .

[RatThing]

I guess Jack's character is a matter of interpretation but I still wanted her to be more like she was in ME2. Having characters around you who aren't exactly ethical and compassionate like Morinth for example makes things more interesting (if you can adress this properly, not like with Thane).
Something similar happened with Wrex either. In the first game he would tell me a story how he wanted to kill a friend for money or mention his contract kills on Noveria and I thought, this guy is a cold son of a b*tch. Clearly renegade. Then in the third game he was presented as Krogan Gandhi. This transformation of the two (in my eyes) meanest character in the earlier games for good just irritates me.

Modifié par RatThing, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:41 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

When Jack was holding that gun on Aresh, yeah, Jack did some bad ****, but it was all done at a distance and none of it up close and personal. She didn't want to do this. All that talk was big talk. Shepard calls her on it. "You're a killer, Jack. That's what you do." She hesitates. Then she kills him. The thing is Aresh was so caught up in that facility he would have been taking stuff he felt he needed to take, and got caught in the blast.

My Shepard at the time: (Lawful) Evil. Ended the series Chaotic Neutral (Evil).

Teaching the Grissom kids? The way I see it is that it isn't really voluntary. She's a fugitive. By saving helping Shepard take down the Collectors, she saved herself the death penalty. Grissom is a plea bargain. It's something she got stuck with. After some psych evals the Alliance sent her there to see if they could rehab her instead of sticking her in a maximum security prison again. Then she started helping some of the students, and the students responded. It's an ass pull, but it's the only thing that remotely makes any sense.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Han Shot First wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


As a pragmatist, I'm against torturing for information. 

I wasn't saying torture was pragmatic. Only that RenShep might view it as such.

The point was that RenShep wasn't supposed to be committing morally questionable acts because he or she was a sadist, but because he or she thought those actions served some greater good.

It doesn't always come across that way in game though.

I think all viewpoints could be represented. I'm not entirely opposed to a Shepard who is a complete psychopath. It's kind of the point of an RPG.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:49 .

[Han Shot First]

While it isn't uncommon to find psycopaths in leadership positions (particularly in the business world), they more often than not fail as leaders. They might have personality traits that help them advance in an organization but the weaknesses of their mental condition often undercut them (or their organization) once they reach those positions.

So a psychopathic Shepard doesn't make a lot of sense, unless he or she is going to be a FailShep.

[Seboist]

Han Shot First wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wish Bioware went back to some old D&D ideas like that. Chaos and Lawful/Good and Evil.. much better than binary Paragon/Renegade.

I think Bioware kind of goofed with handling renegade in that it often strayed from what is originally intended to be. Renegade wasn't supposed to be LOLevil, it was supposed to be a sort ruthless pragmatism.

For example if Shepard had captured a terrorist with information on an upcoming attack on a civilian target, paragon Shep would employ standard interrogation techniques, whereas RenShep would not be above brutally torturing the terrorist if need be. In either case however both versions would be fully committed to saving civilian lives. And RenShep would be a torturer because he or she thought the ends justified the means, rather than torturing because he or she enjoyed it.

In game however it didn't always come across that way. There are some renegade options that are sadistic or evil just for the sake of being sadistic or evil. That strayed from what the renegade options were originally intended to be.

Bioware never put much thought into the philosphies of Renegade or Paragon as evidenced by ME2 loading screens where it says "be the ultimate hero, choose Paragon" and "be the ultimate badass,choose Renegade".

And then there's all the inconsistencies with each "path" like renegade going from being the punisher to making crooked deals with cirminals or a Paragon "charm" option involving threatening to break an Elcor's legs.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Barquiel wrote...

I am not sure about Garrus. His shadow broker files indicate that he tortured people to death. Criminals...sure, but I think that torture, for any reason, is an evil act by the D&D alignment system regardless of how much the victim "deserves it". That disqualifies him from having a "good" alignment imo.

Chaotic Good fits perfectly. They do evil acts in the name of good.