188 réponses à ce sujet

[Novacain999]

Marlina wrote...

@Novacain999
Why not the rachni decision, may I ask?

Honestly, it's more of a gameplay based decision, not a moral one. Which is better for the Mass Effect games long term, a mission to stop the Rachni and their lying queen in game 2, or them joining your side in a battle for a fantastic moment in game 3?

Morally, it's a "can go either way" argument. In terms of perspective, I think there is more to be gained with the Rachni alive long term, which is why I didn't kill the Queen. I'm of the mindset that the best way to to make uprisers fall in line is for them to realize that the power in charge is too strong to go up against. If the Rachni do play nice, that's another potential powerful race added to the Council's long term benefit.

[Collider]

DeathCultArm wrote...
So because she doesn't want sex he should just stop and respect her wishes?

Uh, yes?

Her rights don't apply to what he going to do. Again, justified is subjective so the point is hard to prove.

How doesn't it apply? rofl

[KainrycKarr]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Because someone else is imposing their will on someone who doesn't want it. So because she doesn't want sex he should just stop and respect her wishes? Her rights don't apply to what he going to do. Again, justified is subjective so the point is hard to prove.

Yes, he should just stop and respect her wishes. That is generally the idea to a healthy social relationship.

dude what freakin' planet are you from man?

[LucidStrike]

Marlina wrote...

[NOTHING TO LUCID IN LIKE FOREVER JEEZ]

:(<_<

[Arrtis]

Marlina wrote...

Arrtis, I'm sorry, but I have to smile every time I see your name, since it roughly translated means "scar penis" in norwegian. I just keep thinking of Scarface, that movie, except that Tony Montana is a giant walking phallic organ, with a scar across his "face".
Yeah, I guess I should get my mind out of the gutter. >_>

hahaha:lol:

[DeathCultArm]

Her wanting him to stop isn't a valid reason for him to stop...why? b/c she demanded it? A pedophils is entitled to pursue his happiness, why can't he have a reltionship with a willing child?



b/c she has "rights' means nothing. Men make rights,their words and it's his choice not to accpet them, or completely refute them and suffer the consequences.

[Marlina]

Novacain999 wrote...

Marlina wrote...

@Novacain999
Why not the rachni decision, may I ask?

Honestly, it's more of a gameplay based decision, not a moral one. Which is better for the Mass Effect games long term, a mission to stop the Rachni and their lying queen in game 2, or them joining your side in a battle for a fantastic moment in game 3?

Morally, it's a "can go either way" argument. In terms of perspective, I think there is more to be gained with the Rachni alive long term, which is why I didn't kill the Queen. I'm of the mindset that the best way to to make uprisers fall in line is for them to realize that the power in charge is too strong to go up against. If the Rachni do play nice, that's another potential powerful race added to the Council's long term benefit.

For me, it's the complete opposite. Making her join you would be like the ultimate LOL, PARAGON = GOOD AND ALWAYS RIGHT moment. Would be much funnier seeing her screw you over by killing a major character or something. And it would be equally epic if the rachni fell under the "sour yellow note" again in ME3, effectively joining the reapers, and making you fight both at once!

And personally, I think the decision is gambling (paragon) vs. better safe than sorry (renegade).

[DeathCultArm]

KainrycKarr wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

Because someone else is imposing their will on someone who doesn't want it. So because she doesn't want sex he should just stop and respect her wishes? Her rights don't apply to what he going to do. Again, justified is subjective so the point is hard to prove.

Yes, he should just stop and respect her wishes. That is generally the idea to a healthy social relationship.

dude what freakin' planet are you from man?

none of this is my personal opinion, I = devils advocate.

[KainrycKarr]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Her wanting him to stop isn't a valid reason for him to stop...why? b/c she demanded it? A pedophils is entitled to pursue his happiness, why can't he have a reltionship with a willing child?

b/c she has "rights' means nothing. Men make rights,their words and it's his choice not to accpet them, or completely refute them and suffer the consequences.

yes it's a valid reason for him to stop. It is HER body!

A child is not mentally developed enough(in most cases) to understand the implications of a sexual relationship. A grown adult is.

Her rights DO mean something. Read up on the women's rights movement. And women make rights too. Look at American government. There are women in power. Hell, two women were directly involved in the presidential race.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:43 .

[Collider]

The Rachni were mindless aggressive in the Rachni Wars, no reason to believe that the Queen was telling the truth.

[KainrycKarr]

DeathCultArm wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

Because someone else is imposing their will on someone who doesn't want it. So because she doesn't want sex he should just stop and respect her wishes? Her rights don't apply to what he going to do. Again, justified is subjective so the point is hard to prove.

Yes, he should just stop and respect her wishes. That is generally the idea to a healthy social relationship.

dude what freakin' planet are you from man?

none of this is my personal opinion, I = devils advocate.

You said there is no wrong. The devil is the very idea of "wrong", by saying you are the devil's advocate, you are saying that you are being hypothetically wrong.

[DeathCultArm]

KainrycKarr wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

Her wanting him to stop isn't a valid reason for him to stop...why? b/c she demanded it? A pedophils is entitled to pursue his happiness, why can't he have a reltionship with a willing child?

b/c she has "rights' means nothing. Men make rights,their words and it's his choice not to accpet them, or completely refute them and suffer the consequences.

yes it's a valid reason for him to stop. It is HER body!

A child is not mentally developed enough(in most cases) to understand the implications of a sexual relationship. A grown adult is.

Her rights DO mean something. Read up on the women's rights movement. And women make rights too. Look at American government. There are women in power. Hell, two women were directly involved in the presidential race.

I mean men as in humans....


"You said there is no wrong. The devil is the very idea of "wrong", by saying you are the devil's advocate, you are saying that you are being hypothetically wrong."

All it means is i'm taking the other side of the topic.

Modifié par DeathCultArm, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:45 .

[LucidStrike]

KainrycKarr wrote...

yes it's a valid reason for him to stop. It is HER body!

A child is not mentally developed enough(in most cases) to understand the implications of a sexual relationship. A grown adult is.

Her rights DO mean something. Read up on the women's rights movement. And women make rights too. Look at American government. There are women in power. Hell, two women were directly involved in the presidential race.

I think the point is that rights exist as social contracts, agreements, rather than irrefutable laws of the universe, which is true. Just as we don't HAVE to survive, and don't HAVE to make sound decision, we don't have to respect one another's autonomy, "objectively" speaking. Death just has a rather brazen way of expressing that. Not out of character. Death also is perhaps trying to make other, less understandable, more revolting points, but maybe not.

[Marlina]

LucidStrike wrote...

Marlina wrote...

[NOTHING TO LUCID IN LIKE FOREVER JEEZ]

:(<_<

You're just too well-read, I don't have a firm grasp of those expressions you use. Like, the axiomatic-something-something. It's hard enough for me to follow this stuff in norwegian, but in english? *gasp* D:

Let's see...
Oh yeah, I think we actually agree! 
I said something, then Collider agreed, then you agreed. So, by proxy, we are in agreement! 

What I said was that, although I don't believe that morals can be objective, I do believe that they are useful to us, and that I think it's a good idea to have them. I also think that there is a way to judge what morals are effective in order to make a good society and stuff. I mean, like "it's not a good idea for us to kill each other, because that would be detrimental to our continued well-being, which is something we'd like to sustain". I think you basically agree, don't you? 

[KainrycKarr]

But those laws, agreements, etc, are all baggage of being sapient. That's part of us being civilized. No the laws of the universe don't provide a set for those that can use more than pure instinct; it is our responsibility to manage, and put our intelligence to appropriate use.



of course there is an opposite opinion to everything. But I don't see what the purpose is of trying to justify rape. Period.

[Marlina]

Collider wrote...

The Rachni were mindless aggressive in the Rachni Wars, no reason to believe that the Queen was telling the truth.

Exactly! That's my Shepard's position in ME too. She had every reason to lie to you, and it was just too risky to let her go. 

[Novacain999]

Marlina wrote...

Novacain999 wrote...

Marlina wrote...

@Novacain999
Why not the rachni decision, may I ask?

Honestly, it's more of a gameplay based decision, not a moral one. Which is better for the Mass Effect games long term, a mission to stop the Rachni and their lying queen in game 2, or them joining your side in a battle for a fantastic moment in game 3?

Morally, it's a "can go either way" argument. In terms of perspective, I think there is more to be gained with the Rachni alive long term, which is why I didn't kill the Queen. I'm of the mindset that the best way to to make uprisers fall in line is for them to realize that the power in charge is too strong to go up against. If the Rachni do play nice, that's another potential powerful race added to the Council's long term benefit.

For me, it's the complete opposite. Making her join you would be like the ultimate LOL, PARAGON = GOOD AND ALWAYS RIGHT moment. Would be much funnier seeing her screw you over by killing a major character or something. And it would be equally epic if the rachni fell under the "sour yellow note" again in ME3, effectively joining the reapers, and making you fight both at once!

And personally, I think the decision is gambling (paragon) vs. better safe than sorry (renegade).

Problem with your theory is some gambles pay off.

And there were only 2 big risks in the entire game to me, as the Feros one has no long lasting circumstances, and the Virmire one, by any standard, didn't have an obvious choice. Either the Council doesn't screw you int he ass (Which, come on, we already know they are) or the Rachni.

And the idea that any race that can think for itself willingly joining the Reapers is just flat bad, sorry. From the Geths perspective, religion comes into play, and being machines themselves. For a race to join them, basically knowing they will enslave them or kill them afterwards just makes the Rachni look like animals, when they drove home in the first game they are intellegent beings when raised right. You say it's the ultimate "Paragon is right" move. I argue it's the only move that makes sense for the Rachni as a species, as anything else is just idiocy to try to put forth a twist in the game.

[Collider]

For the sake for variety, I would like some "paragon" decisions to be end up badly or something like that. Not that I have something against paragon *rolls eyes* but it's just spicier that way.

[Marlina]

Novacain999 wrote...

Problem with your theory is some gambles pay off.

Sure, but are you really willing to risk the deaths of potentially millions of people just for that? You're laying their lives on the line, without their consent! 

Novacain999 wrote...

And there were only 2 big risks in the entire game to me, as the Feros one has no long lasting circumstances, and the Virmire one, by any standard, didn't have an obvious choice. Either the Council doesn't screw you int he ass (Which, come on, we already know they are) or the Rachni.

And the idea that any race that can think for itself willingly joining the Reapers is just flat bad, sorry. From the Geths perspective, religion comes into play, and being machines themselves. For a race to join them, basically knowing they will enslave them or kill them afterwards just makes the Rachni look like animals, when they drove home in the first game they are intellegent beings when raised right. You say it's the ultimate "Paragon is right" move. I argue it's the only move that makes sense for the Rachni as a species, as anything else is just idiocy to try to put forth a twist in the game.

Pffft, by "sour yellow note" I meant indoctrination, silly! They don't need to join willingly, they can be used as a wea

[FERGJ]

I agree with the OP.



So , why not, for a sidequest, a secret Rolling dice ,when you choose a paragorn or renegade solution , with 3 outcomes: positive,negative, and neutral



EXPL

1: happy end: You don't kill the queen , later in the game she help the alliance (positive)

2: Killing or not the queen, does not matter (neutral)

3:Killing the queen was the real good choice,.If you don't you will hear about your mistake again and again later in game , and feel guilty.



You will never know if your choice was the good one until, it hit you LOL

[AgentOfAtlas]

Disclaimer: I've just read the first couple of posts in this thread.

Actually, on a recent playthrough of ME1 I found myself wondering often if playing Paragon won't have more consequences down the line. A lot of times I felt that, as a Renegade, I was dealing with a problem NOW (and by dealing I mean killing ), while with the Paragon choice I was making nice but always with a nagging at the back of my mind "this character is going to cause trouble for me again in ME2...".

The most blatant example is the Bring Down The Sky villain, but there were plenty of other situations.

[Novacain999]

Marlina wrote...

Novacain999 wrote...

And there were only 2 big risks in the entire game to me, as the Feros one has no long lasting circumstances, and the Virmire one, by any standard, didn't have an obvious choice. Either the Council doesn't screw you int he ass (Which, come on, we already know they are) or the Rachni.

And the idea that any race that can think for itself willingly joining the Reapers is just flat bad, sorry. From the Geths perspective, religion comes into play, and being machines themselves. For a race to join them, basically knowing they will enslave them or kill them afterwards just makes the Rachni look like animals, when they drove home in the first game they are intellegent beings when raised right. You say it's the ultimate "Paragon is right" move. I argue it's the only move that makes sense for the Rachni as a species, as anything else is just idiocy to try to put forth a twist in the game.

Pffft, by "sour yellow note" I meant indoctrination, silly! They don't need to join willingly, they can be used as a wea

If it's indoctrination, I'd stll say I made hte right choice. For one thing, I don't think they ever were "indoctrunated" in Mass Effect. If anything, the indoctrination didn't take, and being away from their mother made them go bat****. And the gamble of them going all evil from either indoctrination or otherwise, and having to nip them in the bud (I seriously doubt they can get anywhere close to "Take over the galaxy" population numbers within 2 years), is worth it if they turn into strong associates of the Council.

In my first play through, I didn't go to Noveria till after Virmire. At that point, as  Shepard, my goal is to take down the Reapers, right now, and later if need be. The question to me is: Am I more likely to stop the Reapers with the Rachni alive or dead. The answer, to me, is alive.

[LucidStrike]

Marlina wrote...

You're just too well-read, I don't have a firm grasp of those expressions you use. Like, the axiomatic-something-something. It's hard enough for me to follow this stuff in norwegian, but in english? *gasp* D:

Let's see...
Oh yeah, I think we actually agree! 
I said something, then Collider agreed, then you agreed. So, by proxy, we are in agreement! 

What I said was that, although I don't believe that morals can be objective, I do believe that they are useful to us, and that I think it's a good idea to have them. I also think that there is a way to judge what morals are effective in order to make a good society and stuff. I mean, like "it's not a good idea for us to kill each other, because that would be detrimental to our continued well-being, which is something we'd like to sustain". I think you basically agree, don't you? 

Neither flatter me nor feign incompetence. You're perfectly capable or understanding.

Axiomatic means based on axioms. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident.

As I said to someone, I think many of these arguments are semantic. I think I am using different understandings of "objective".

Syllogism:
1. All people with red hair are angry.
2. Jordan is a person with red hair.
3. Jordan is angry.

Does 3 count as subjective or objective?

It didn't help when you compared moral principles to color preferences or whatever.

Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:05 .

[Arrtis]

well we cant have a game for shooters with all the stuff that went on here in the same game.It would be too unpopular and wouldnt sell well.So we need to oversimplify.

[Yojimboo]

It's simple karma, you do bad things, so don't wonder if bad things happen to you.



Or "what goes around, comes around"