1324 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

StreetMagic wrote...

Psychopathic leaders are pretty rare. If by psychopath, you mean someone without a proper grip on reality or loses some basic cognitive ability. That's probably Goebbels. Just rant and throw your whole country in a total state of war. /fail

There was a actually a study of corporate leadership that found psychopaths to occupy a slightly higher level of upper management than their percentage of the general population.

Of course they aren't a majority, so saying they're rare also isn't incorrect.

[Clayless]

I would change a lot about Miranda in ME3, but it's not really her character that's at fault here, it's the plot around her. Frankly she should have joined the Normandy (Where else could she go? It's the safest place for her) and Sanctuary could have been her required mission (her sister is the one who takes over). That's the moment where she would fully turn her back on Cerberus for good (it fits with her character, which is humanity first but a hatred of control, which Sanctuary violates).

It'd also be an interesting dynamic for her character, as in stark contrast to ME2 she'd be in surroundings where she's effectively powerless, in a semi-hostile enviroment with few friends.

Like I said, it's not really a problem with her character, more like the plot.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Jack is not a real teacher. What she's "instructing" is little more than a biotic gym-class.


And, there are always going to be some employers willing to overlook a criminal record if they really need the help, which the Alliance clearly did. To that end, I personally never felt (in talking to her, ME2) that she was a bad or evil person, just young. It is likely that she was interviewed by someone (Kahlee?) before she got the job who determined the same thing.

[RatThing]

StreetMagic wrote...

RatThing wrote...

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 makes things more interesting (if you can adress this properly, not like with Thane).
They did something similar 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.

I'll agree somewhat. I'll take any Jack content I can get (/shameless fan), but I do like ME1 and ME2 more anyways.

That said, Wrex was iffy at times too, but the dialogue didn't always show up. For example, if you only recruit him late (after killing Fist yourself), he'll make his case for joining the squad, because he's insulted by what the Krogan are doing with Saren. It's partly a righteous cause for him, even back in ME1. He doesn't have a master plan or anything though, other than helping you kill them, and being in the action. Same with his faceoff at Virmire. "Don't push me, Shepard. I joined you because I wanted to fight for something more than credits.."

Isn't it kinda strange how every character who's indecisive joins the paragon side in the end? Jack and Wrex I've covered. Mordin wants to cure the genophage. Tali wants peace with the Geth (or at least doesn't want war ). Miranda and Jacob leave Cerberus. Ash loses her distrust and resentment towards other races and the council (or at least she doesn't mention that anymore, she actually protects the council with her life). Seriously, the only squadmate who couldn't become paragon was Morinth, so she became a banshee. (I guess this is an improvement, plus it gives you a second chance to do things right by killing her.) 
I dislike that. If I liked a character in the past then I liked them despite all of his/her "mistakes" or maybe actually because of them. And Jack made the greatest leap in my eyes.

Modifié par RatThing, 07 novembre 2013 - 07:08 .

[Darks1d3]

I didn't really like how the paragon/renegade aspects of the game were implemented. In ME2 you were punished for not sticking with one or the other(as many have said before). I also didn't like the fact that you were "rewarded" with renegade points for choosing the neutral option in the dialogue wheel in ME2(so, in ME3, they just got rid of it ). Like talking with grunt(can't remember what part of the game). He was talking about the defiling a turian corpse on Canrum. I wanted to go with the "Not quite, but I'm not krogan" option. But I loaded my save prior because to not get renegade points(WTH, he's krogan. It's naive to think he should act otherwise). Again, not because I didn't want to get "evil" points attached to my character, but it was just tactical. I wanted the ability to solve situations with peace if I could. So I needed to stick with either Paragon and or Renegade. While I do usually choose paragon options(and not because the game labels them as paragon), quite a few of them sounded naive, self righteous, or too idealistic. Same with the genophage, I understood its necessity, I just didn't feel it should be a permanent solution. I didn't agree with most of the "paragon" options when you were discussing it with mordin.

I think in the next ME game(or any other game they make), they shouldn't just stick with a good/evil morality. It got pretty annoying at times.

EDIT-apparently it took me too long to formulate this post. I seem to be behind the times again. Now we are on the topic of sociopaths as leaders.

Modifié par Darks1d3, 07 novembre 2013 - 07:10 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

StreetMagic wrote...

Yeah, I never understood why Renegade needed a moral element. It could or could not. It's more of a chaotic element. Renegade - outsider, outlaw, rebel, etc..

edit: DA2 at least labeled these better. "Diplomatic" and "Aggressive".

I think Paragon/Renegade were used both for contrasts in tone as well as contrasts in the view of morality. The problem was when these occasionally collided with each other.

For example, I consider it Paragon to try to negotiate Geth/Quarian peace in ME3, and one of the early dialogue choices ("Then you retreat"/"Then you counterattack") seems to back that up, in that encouraging the quarians to fight was the bottom choice on the wheel. By that standard, disagreeing with Gerrel's decision to fire upon the dreadnought before Shepard's squad escapes should be Paragon...

...but it isn't, apparently. If I yell at Gerrel for "bloodthirsty behavior" I get Renegade points, even if I don't use the interrupt to punch him and order him off the Normandy. And the other dialogue option isn't a case of reprimanding him but being more polite about it - it has Shepard saying that (s)he understands why Gerrel did what he did. So it seems like tone, rather than morality, was what defined Paragon/Renegade in this case, even though the sentiments behind the tones are morally opposite what you would expect.

I think there are probably three separate "axes" of Paragon/Renegade in the end: differences in tone (polite and diplomatic vs. abrupt and incisive), tactics (principled and restrained vs. ruthlessly expedient), and politics (unilateralist vs. cooperative).

[FlyingSquirrel]

Han Shot First wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Psychopathic leaders are pretty rare. If by psychopath, you mean someone without a proper grip on reality or loses some basic cognitive ability. That's probably Goebbels. Just rant and throw your whole country in a total state of war. /fail

There was a actually a study of corporate leadership that found psychopaths to occupy a slightly higher level of upper management than their percentage of the general population.

Of course they aren't a majority, so saying they're rare also isn't incorrect.

I don't think someone has to have a weak grasp of reality to be considered a psychopath. I'm not a psychologist, but I think "psychosis" is a more accurate term for that than "psychopathy." I would imagine that the percentage of psychotic leaders is lower than the percentage of people who are psychotic in general, though I don't know if that's ever been studied.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

A bit more succinct than my "emotionally fragile" and "p*ssed off"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Psychopathic leaders are pretty rare. If by psychopath, you mean someone without a proper grip on reality or loses some basic cognitive ability. That's probably Goebbels. Just rant and throw your whole country in a total state of war. /fail

There was a actually a study of corporate leadership that found psychopaths to occupy a slightly higher level of upper management than their percentage of the general population.

Of course they aren't a majority, so saying they're rare also isn't incorrect.

I don't think someone has to have a weak grasp of reality to be considered a psychopath. I'm not a psychologist, but I think "psychosis" is a more accurate term for that than "psychopathy." I would imagine that the percentage of psychotic leaders is lower than the percentage of people who are psychotic in general, though I don't know if that's ever been studied.

Quite incorrect. It's not called psychotic anymore anyway. It's called Anti-Social Personality Disorder and there are degrees of it. It's an axis II disorder. You don't get to high positions without walking on people. it's just that some people care less about doing it than others. People like crazy eyes over in North Korea for example. Other people feel bad about using other people but they do it anyway, and they age quickly in their positions. 

There are people with functioning degrees of ASPD, and there are people with non-functioning degrees of ASPD. The latter are usually in prison for violent crimes.

[dreamgazer]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

Setting's different too, though. Idealism and badassery get a little foggy during something like the Reaper extermination.

[Killdren88]

Honestly..I'd have more options for Shepard to be a jerk to people. I mean. i saw several videos of Shep breaking up with various squad mates and Shep was..pleasant about it even Renegade. It is too much to ask to have Shep go and tell Either Garrus or jack they regret ever knowing them or hooking up? or just being a all around jerk?
I know that seems like an odd change just wish for the option to be there. I always wanted to see Garrus angry at Shep or even hurt....sick of me I know...

[Killdren88]

StreetMagic wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

Honestly..I'd have more options for Shepard to be a jerk to people. I mean. i saw several videos of Shep breaking up with various squad mates and Shep was..pleasant about it even Renegade. It is too much to ask to have Shep go and tell Either Garrus or jack they regret ever knowing them or hooking up? or just being a all around jerk?
I know that seems like an odd change just wish for the option to be there. I always wanted to see Garrus angry at Shep or even hurt....sick of me I know...

Breaking up with Jack is one the most jerkish things you can do in the series (I mean, if you drag it to the point when she finally shows up at the cabin. There's a lot good things said in the conversation at that point, so what Shep does to break up comes off manipulative).

Yeah saw that..but I mean be REALLY cruel. Like in DA:O You can be a lovely dovey with Alistiar then completely turn on him for Loghain.

Call me a sick bastard..but I just found his look so amusing.

[rekn2]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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.

chaotic good is not evil. they do acts of questionable legal status in the name of good...robin hood is a good example.

crooked cops are lawful evil, they have rules and boundaries that they follow. its the difference between a dictator and a mall gunman

Modifié par rekn2, 07 novembre 2013 - 08:41 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Quite incorrect. It's not called psychotic anymore anyway. It's called Anti-Social Personality Disorder and there are degrees of it. It's an axis II disorder. You don't get to high positions without walking on people. it's just that some people care less about doing it than others. People like crazy eyes over in North Korea for example. Other people feel bad about using other people but they do it anyway, and they age quickly in their positions. 

There are people with functioning degrees of ASPD, and there are people with non-functioning degrees of ASPD. The latter are usually in prison for violent crimes.

What does any of that have to do with grasp of reality, though? The earlier reference was to people with a weak grasp on reality - as I understand it, that is considered more a symptom of psychosis than of psychopathy or ASPD.

StreetMagic wrote...

antisocial personality is just another word for sociopath... i thought? that's not outright psychopathy.

A corporate leader on the level of Gordon Gekko would be a socipath, for example. Not a psychopath. He can think clearly.. he just lacks empathy and any sense of social responsibility or conscience. The guy from American Psycho (forgot the character name) is a straight up psychopath.

Bernie Madoff is a real life corporate level sociopath.

The difference between sociopath and psychopath seems unclear at best from what I've read about it. One of the researchers of the subject, in fact, suggests that "sociopath" may be preferred partly to avoid the confusion of psychopathy with psychosis:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Psychopathy

Patrick Bateman from American Psycho might well be both psychopathic *and* psychotic. His behavior and his emotional responses would suggest psychopathy, but he also seems to be delusional at times. He hallucinates an ATM telling him to "feed me a kitten," for example, and I thought it was at least implied that he might be imagining some of his murders.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

rekn2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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.

chaotic good is not evil. they do acts of questionable legal status in the name of good...robin hood is a good example.

crooked cops are lawful evil, they have rules and boundaries that they follow. its the difference between a dictator and a mall gunman

No, it is not evil. How ever, chaotic good tends to hold a 'pay evil unto evil' philosophy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

Setting's different too, though. Idealism and badassery get a little foggy during something like the Reaper extermination.

Yep.

My Shepard's philosophy is rather simple: Necessity knows no law.

[rekn2]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rekn2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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.

chaotic good is not evil. they do acts of questionable legal status in the name of good...robin hood is a good example.

crooked cops are lawful evil, they have rules and boundaries that they follow. its the difference between a dictator and a mall gunman

No, it is not evil. How ever, chaotic good tends to hold a 'pay evil unto evil' philosophy.

a cop toturing some one is lawful evil

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

Really? I'd argue that ME3 was the closest to getting the original idea of renegade right.