188 réponses à ce sujet

[General Balls]

This is what annoyed me incredibly about the ending. I played Renegade because it apparently gave me the freedom to make tough decisions that no one else would make. The choice right at the end, I made the 'Renegade' choice because, essentially, the deaths of a few (whomever that few would be) is a small price to pay for the assurance of saving the many. But on a later play-through, making the idealistic 'Paragon' choice made no difference whatsoever, meaning the 'big choice' was essentially only a way to buff either personality stat. What a slap in the face that was (although with the saves carrying over to ME2 I'm holding out hope that the Renegade decision can and will have good long-term benefits).

'Light side'-ish decisions in general annoy me because the world doesn't work like that. Running around trying to help everyone in the most obvious ways possible isn't always going to make things better, and carries a huge risk of completely screwing things up both for you and the lives of the people you've butted your arrogant form into. While it does feel good to be a pure Jedi Knight in a game from time to time, what really would immerse me in it is the developer's recognition that 'to be cruel to be kind' is a very valid decision to make, and can have long-term beneficial effects that far outweigh the short time you were apparently mean to the poor person.

Choices in games like The Witcher, while not ideal to my point, are the kind of choices that draw me into a world very readily. You don't always have all the information, you're not always in a position where you can make a starkly contrasted light/dark decision, sometimes choices you make will have long-term effects you can't control. It's very immersive, because even after all's said and done, you wonder whether you did the right thing. It involves you in the game unlike any pure light/dark morality system could.

Modifié par General Balls, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:59 .

[Chained_Creator]

LucidStrike wrote...
 "Everything is not okay! Everything is not alright! Sometimes things that might seem gray turn out to be black and white!" ~The Slack Republic

I think both the 'black/white and the 'gray/grayscale' models are over simpified.

Not if you believe in a deontological ethical system!

[DeathCultArm]

vallix wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

spectres = jedi/sith

Eh, no. Jedi and Sith are the perfect defintion for good and evil. There are Renegade decisions in the game that I consider for the greater good, like taking out the queen for example.

A sith would kill her for shi*ts and giggles.

No..the sith were out for peace, it's just how they went about it. In the sith's eyes they're weren't "evil". They didn't kill for the sake of it. They kill anyone in their way, mucht he way sheherd did. There is no good or evil.

[Nashkital]

I would say renegade sheps reaping the consequences more often sounds about right. It is just the way they get things done really.



Just look at real life renegade examples.



Ghandi, George Washington, Joan of Arc, Dong Zhuo, Martin Luther King jr., etc.



These figures of history were all renegades in regard of the established social order. Their ideals, beliefs, motivations all led them through some rather severe hardships in the choices they made. Some were rewarded, others met rather terrible ends. Its all history now of course,



So I am fine with the renegade options having consequences more often, or at the least more immediate. Though I do believe paragon sheps will probably have a more long term consequence going for them. Following established rules and politics can be rather deadly if the cards are played wrong..

[LucidStrike]

Chained_Creator wrote...

LucidStrike wrote...
 "Everything is not okay! Everything is not alright! Sometimes things that might seem gray turn out to be black and white!" ~The Slack Republic

I think both the 'black/white and the 'gray/grayscale' models are over simpified.

Not if you believe in a deontological ethical system!

I do. I mean that they're not good symbolic representations of moral reasoning.

[ShadowAldrius]

vallix wrote...

Maybe, but did you forget that the Rachni threatened to overtake the Citadal 2,000 years before the current date in ME1? This was before experiments. I think you should read up on the history of Rachni.

I know the history of the rachni.  But, in general the idea of what the Rachni were all struck me as very vague and ambiguous. The wiki, at least, makes it clear that no attempts at diplomacy were even truly possible due to the Rachni queens being so isolated.

My point is this. The Rachni are a huge threat to the Mass Effect universe. I'm talking everyone, not just humans. They were vicious beasts, although intelligent. I eliminated that threat.  Sure you can call me bad names and point fingers, but there's a reason that option was availible in the game. I'm not asking anyone here to agree with me who doesn't, I'm just asking them to understand my decision.

I'm just saying, it's a preventative measure. It's not justified as far as what the Rachni queen has DONE, it's based on what she and her species might do.

Personally, if given the opportunity I would have left her in that cage and then reported her presence to the council. Seemed like a better option than killing her or putting the people of the galaxy at needless risk.

But in the end, I didn't think commiting genocide was worth the risk of what the Rachni MIGHT or might not do. Especially given the ambiguity of the situation. But just like you, that's only my perspective on the matter.

[vallix]

DeathCultArm wrote...

vallix wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

spectres = jedi/sith

Eh, no. Jedi and Sith are the perfect defintion for good and evil. There are Renegade decisions in the game that I consider for the greater good, like taking out the queen for example.

A sith would kill her for shi*ts and giggles.

No..the sith were out for peace, it's just how they went about it. In the sith's eyes they're weren't "evil". They didn't kill for the sake of it. They kill anyone in their way, mucht he way sheherd did. There is no good or evil.

Then I guess Palpatine having control of both the Republic and the Empire(is that what they were called at the time? I've forgotten the movies) and putting them both at war was all for peace? He could have ended the entire skirmish then and there, at least for a while. There will never be peace as long as the sith and jedi simultaneously exist. They'd be doing the galaxy a favor by mass suiciding on either side.

Saying the sith fight for peace is pretty silly to be honest with you, even if they say it themselves. Having the Dark Side and the constant crave for power would be pointless if they all sat around having dinner which other, discussing how they defeated the Jedi. They'd just start up an internal war in a matter of time.

Modifié par vallix, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:07 .

[DeathCultArm]

General Balls wrote...

This is what annoyed me incredibly about the ending. I played Renegade because it apparently gave me the freedom to make tough decisions that no one else would make. The choice right at the end, I made the 'Renegade' choice because, essentially, the deaths of a few (whomever that few would be) is a small price to pay for the assurance of saving the many. But on a later play-through, making the idealistic 'Paragon' choice made no difference whatsoever, meaning the 'big choice' was essentially only a way to buff either personality stat. What a slap in the face that was (although with the saves carrying over to ME2 I'm holding out hope that the Renegade decision can and will have good long-term benefits).

'Light side'-ish decisions in general annoy me because the world doesn't work like that. Running around trying to help everyone in the most obvious ways possible isn't always going to make things better, and carries a huge risk of completely screwing things up both for you and the lives of the people you've butted your arrogant form into. While it does feel good to be a pure Jedi Knight in a game from time to time, what really would immerse me in it is the developer's recognition that 'to be cruel to be kind' is a very valid decision to make, and can have long-term beneficial effects that far outweigh the short time you were apparently mean to the poor person.

Choices in games like The Witcher, while not ideal to my point, are the kind of choices that draw me into a world very readily. You don't always have all the information, you're not always in a position where you can make a starkly contrasted light/dark decision, sometimes choices you make will have long-term effects you can't control. It's very immersive, because even after all's said and done, you wonder whether you did the right thing. It involves you in the game unlike any pure light/dark morality system could.

Exactly. There is no good or evil, just two different ways to handle the situation. No one is better than the other. You shouldn't get praised for every pargon choice, or punishd for every renegade one. They way each one reflects the siutation should effect the outcome, not how many people you made feel better.

[Chained_Creator]

Nashkital wrote...

Ghandi, George Washington, Joan of Arc, Dong Zhuo, Martin Luther King jr., etc.

These figures of history were all renegades in regard of the established social order. Their ideals, beliefs, motivations all led them through some rather severe hardships in the choices they made. Some were rewarded, others met rather terrible ends. Its all history now of course,

I would argue with you over whether or not  Martin Luther King, Jr. belongs on that list. Not sure about the others, but he was definitely not a 'renegade' in the sense that BioWare portrays a renegade character.

The right to peacebly assemble is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Dr. King simply asked his fellow humans to exercise this right in an effort to change the way certain portions of the population of the United States were treated.

[LucidStrike]

General Balls wrote...

This is what annoyed me incredibly about the ending. I played Renegade because it apparently gave me the freedom to make tough decisions that no one else would make. The choice right at the end, I made the 'Renegade' choice because, essentially, the deaths of a few (whomever that few would be) is a small price to pay for the assurance of saving the many. But on a later play-through, making the idealistic 'Paragon' choice made no difference whatsoever, meaning the 'big choice' was essentially only a way to buff either personality stat. What a slap in the face that was (although with the saves carrying over to ME2 I'm holding out hope that the Renegade decision can and will have good long-term benefits).

'Light side'-ish decisions in general annoy me because the world doesn't work like that. Running around trying to help everyone in the most obvious ways possible isn't always going to make things better, and carries a huge risk of completely screwing things up both for you and the lives of the people you've butted your arrogant form into. While it does feel good to be a pure Jedi Knight in a game from time to time, what really would immerse me in it is the developer's recognition that 'to be cruel to be kind' is a very valid decision to make, and can have long-term beneficial effects that far outweigh the short time you were apparently mean to the poor person.

Choices in games like The Witcher, while not ideal to my point, are the kind of choices that draw me into a world very readily. You don't always have all the information, you're not always in a position where you can make a starkly contrasted light/dark decision, sometimes choices you make will have long-term effects you can't control. It's very immersive, because even after all's said and done, you wonder whether you did the right thing. It involves you in the game unlike any pure light/dark morality system could.

...I see only the bitterness of someone who wants the bleeding hearts to suffer merely for their kindness. You don't really make any moral or ethical arguments. You just suppose that Paragon choices are stupid and Renegade choices are right. What moral principles are you following? What's the thought process?

Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:08 .

[Chained_Creator]

LucidStrike wrote...

Chained_Creator wrote...

LucidStrike wrote...
 "Everything is not okay! Everything is not alright! Sometimes things that might seem gray turn out to be black and white!" ~The Slack Republic

I think both the 'black/white and the 'gray/grayscale' models are over simpified.

Not if you believe in a deontological ethical system!

I do. I mean that they're not good symbolic representations of moral reasoning.

I don't think we're talking on the same wavelength here. Beleiving in a deontological system means that you only believe in black/white decisions. They're a perfect example of deontological moral reasoning. "There can only be a good or bad decision."

[DeathCultArm]

vallix wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

vallix wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

spectres = jedi/sith

Eh, no. Jedi and Sith are the perfect defintion for good and evil. There are Renegade decisions in the game that I consider for the greater good, like taking out the queen for example.

A sith would kill her for shi*ts and giggles.

No..the sith were out for peace, it's just how they went about it. In the sith's eyes they're weren't "evil". They didn't kill for the sake of it. They kill anyone in their way, mucht he way sheherd did. There is no good or evil.

Then I guess Palpatine having control of both the Republic and the Galactic Empire and putting them both at war was all for peace? He could have ended the entire skirmish then and there, at least for a while. There will never be peace as long as the sith and jedi simultaneously exist. They'd be doing the galaxy a favor by mass suiciding on either side.

From hs perspective it would have made peace. From his perspective he was right. t was just the way he went about ir that failed. And I totally agree, neither side will ever have peace because neither side is correct. I wasn't trying to say Palpatine was correct, just that he was no more wrong than any Jedi, or anyone else on the "good" side.

If the Jedi were right, they would just prove it, and convert all the Sith. They were no more closer to peace than anyone else.

Modifié par DeathCultArm, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:09 .

[Nashkital]

The way a renegade is portrayed in mass effect is a bit more exaggerated than what a real renegade is. Martin Luther was a renegade for being a champion of the civil rights movement. That was an upheaval of the social order at the time. Whether that movement was right or wrong, it was completely renegade to the Americans at the time.

You must remember that no matter what the law was, the way things worked in America was not always just. Ghandi was a very peaceful person. He swore himself to nonviolence, yet he was a renagade to how things work.

Modifié par Nashkital, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:10 .

[Chained_Creator]

Nashkital wrote...

The way a renegade is portrayed in mass effect is a bit more exaggerated than what a real renegade is. Martin Luther was a renegade for being a champion of the civil rights movement. That was an upheaval of the social order at the time. Whether that movement was right or wrong, it was completely renegade to the Americans at the time.

On the contrary, I would argue that Dr. King was doing nothing 'renegade'-ish to fall back onto one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him by the society in which he existed.

In fact, I would argue that the society itself was acting in a 'renegade' manner by supressing people's rights that were guaranteed to them by the document that established the society!

Modifié par Chained_Creator, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:11 .

[vallix]

Chained_Creator wrote...

Nashkital wrote...

The way a renegade is portrayed in mass effect is a bit more exaggerated than what a real renegade is. Martin Luther was a renegade for being a champion of the civil rights movement. That was an upheaval of the social order at the time. Whether that movement was right or wrong, it was completely renegade to the Americans at the time.

On the contrary, I would argue that Dr. King was doing nothing 'renegade'-ish to fall back onto one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him by the society in which he existed.

In fact, I would argue that the society itself was acting in a 'renegade' manner by supressing people's rights that were guaranteed to them by the document that established the society!

Lmao, here here!

[Collider]

Killing the Rachni queen isn't necessarily mean.

In reality, if you're a **** to everyone, most people will dislike you.

[ShadowAldrius]

Nashkital wrote...

The way a renegade is portrayed in mass effect is a bit more exaggerated than what a real renegade is. Martin Luther was a renegade for being a champion of the civil rights movement. That was an upheaval of the social order at the time. Whether that movement was right or wrong, it was completely renegade to the Americans at the time.

You must remember that no matter what the law was, the way things worked in America was not always just. Ghandi was a very peaceful person. He swore himself to nonviolence, yet he was a renagade to how things work.

That's not what a renegade is as far as the Mass Effect definition is concerned.

Martin Luther King (not Martin Luther... though Martin Luther was also a reformist) and Ghandi both pursued their causes through diplomacy and peace, not violence. Being a paragon as far as Mass Effect is concerned is all about co-operation and understanding. (That's why all the pro-human, earth first, etc. stuff is considered renegade).

So as far as Mass Effect is concerned, Martin Luther King and Ghandi would be paragons. Because of HOW they went about what they did. Not necessarily whether or not their beliefs agreed with the commonly held social moroes of the time.

[Nashkital]

Oh no, you see you are omitting a large part of American history to be making that claim! The American society was still in transition, (and still is I might add) of completely elimination the segregation and racism that the country held to from its earlier years.

Martin took steps in the right direction, but it was definitely against what most of society had established itself to be.

Speaking of which, as long as we are on the topic Abraham Lincoln could be a candidate for Renagedency.(doubt that is actually a word) Even though the north was not pro-slavery, does not mean they were actually fighting to stop it. It was more of an industry v. Agricultural "I want to do things my way" sort of thing.

(I agree the way mass effect handles renegade is different. Actually the renegade in mass effect doesnt really sit with me as true renegade, but actually just being an ass. My shep follows the more beliefe renegade than not, so he has more paragon points in the game if that makes sense)

Modifié par Nashkital, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:19 .

[Nashkital]

Hm, nevermind it seems to work now.

Modifié par Nashkital, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:20 .

[Marlina]

Well, as a nihilist, I don't think ANYTHING is objectively right or wrong!

Morals are useful, but they're a human construct, all subjective and dependent on point of view.

Theft isn't right or wrong, giving to charity isn't right or wrong, NOTHING is ever right or wrong. We just FEEL that it's either right or wrong.

[Collider]

Marlina wrote...

Well, as a nihilist, I don't think ANYTHING is objectively right or wrong!
Morals are useful, but they're a human construct, all subjective and dependent on point of view.
Theft isn't right or wrong, giving to charity isn't right or wrong, NOTHING is ever right or wrong. We just FEEL that it's either right or wrong.

You don't need to say those things are not right or wrong, even if you believe morals to be subjective. Don't you have your own opinions?

[DeathCultArm]

Why is why their is truly no good or evil, just perspective. Everyting in ME seem so either/or. You're either a halo sporting samaraitan, or a smoke breathing, over-confrontational killer

Why was MLK not a rengegade b/c it was in the good interest of black people? It went against established order. Wheter or not it was beneficial or "good". It sparked conflict and had many severe consequences. You can make the arguement that it was a reneage action.

good=evil, right=wrong.

Modifié par DeathCultArm, 20 janvier 2010 - 09:24 .

[Marlina]

Nashkital wrote...

The way a renegade is portrayed in mass effect is a bit more exaggerated than what a real renegade is. Martin Luther was a renegade for being a champion of the civil rights movement. That was an upheaval of the social order at the time. Whether that movement was right or wrong, it was completely renegade to the Americans at the time.

You must remember that no matter what the law was, the way things worked in America was not always just. Ghandi was a very peaceful person. He swore himself to nonviolence, yet he was a renagade to how things work.

Wat? The ME alignments don't have anything to do with lawful/chaotic behavior. :| They're about the METHODS. Paragon = not sacrificing your own personal morals for the job, renegade = ends justify the means.

[Nashkital]

Marlina wrote...

Well, as a nihilist, I don't think ANYTHING is objectively right or wrong!
Morals are useful, but they're a human construct, all subjective and dependent on point of view.
Theft isn't right or wrong, giving to charity isn't right or wrong, NOTHING is ever right or wrong. We just FEEL that it's either right or wrong.

As is constructed by our societies. Which was the point I was trying to make about Martin. Our current moral structure makes the way Martin and the blacks were treated back then as horrible. However at the time that is just how things worked.

It is kinda like how(This is not my feelings, but an example /disclaimer) a christian may argue his/her religion is the one true faith. Yet if they were born in a muslim country, they would most likely have been following the faith that is so hated at the moment.

[Collider]

Paragon and Renegade are more ethics rather than morality.