1765 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

Of course she is. She has the best genes, the best training, the best education. The best resources. The best people around here. She has every reason to succeed. But although she goes far, she doesn't go as far as some of the other characters.

 

By all superficial standards, she should be the best humanity has to offer. And she isn't. Shepard is better, along with some of the other squadmates.

 

The clear implication is that the so-called 'pragmatic' standards that dismiss heroism and other traits fail.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Never underestimate people's willingness to take their chances. If the sociopath's methods are extreme enough, that sociopath will ultimately be rejected.

 

Then let them take their chances. I'm fine with not solving their problems. Granted, Miranda would hate me for it. That's the issue. How to be unfettered, when everyone else wants you to be fettered.

 

Also, if I do nothing about the refugee's and civilians in your edit, what does that accomplish for me? What does it solve? Some misplaced sense of love and trust from my men, and who call me a hero? That's great, except now I don't trust them myself. I won't ever win a war with those weaklings. And I'm losing resources that I need for the people, all so I can be a 'hero'. 

 

I'll be honest, I'd rather be a hated winner than a beloved loser.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Of course she is. She has the best genes, the best training, the best education. The best resources. The best people around here. She has every reason to succeed. But although she goes far, she doesn't go as far as some of the other characters.

 

By all superficial standards, she should be the best humanity has to offer. And she isn't. Shepard is better, along with some of the other squadmates.

 

The clear implication is that the so-called 'pragmatic' standards that dismiss heroism and other traits fail.

 

Hmm, I think she distinctly calls Shepard a perfect human himself. Hell, she made him into being the best humanity has to offer herself. And about other squadmates, that's entirely a matter of opinion. 

 

As far as I see, the heroic standards can't hack it when the going gets tough.

[KaiserShep]

Then let them take their chances. I'm fine with not solving their problems. Granted, Miranda would hate me for it. That's the issue. How to be unfettered, when everyone else wants you to be fettered.

 

Also, if I do nothing about the refugee's and civilians in your edit, what does that accomplish for me? What does it solve? Some misplaced sense of love and trust from my men, and who call me a hero? That's great, except now I don't trust them myself. I won't ever win a war with those weaklings. And I'm losing resources that I need for the people, all so I can be a 'hero'. 

 

I'll be honest, I'd rather be a hated winner than a beloved loser.

 

I don't suppose Shepard would be fine not solving their problems for very long, as the life expectancy of everyone, including Shepard, would be pretty short at that point should the alternative plan go awry.

 

As for the civilians, it's not a matter of doing nothing by choice, but having no actual power to do anything at all. Shepard has no real say over what happens to the swaths of civilians elsewhere in the galaxy. None of them are really huddling up in the Normandy's cargo bay, so it doesn't really matter. Shepard has no real control over the flow of resources either. He can't demand that they surrender all of their medigel unto him, or pay tribute in varren meat or something. Many other people decide who allocates what and where. Hackett likely has more say on this issue than Shepard does.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Or they find someone else to appoint as ambassador plenipotentiary and continue building the Crucible as they were already doing without said ambassador's direct assistance while the deposed sociopath scoffs from a distance.

They could bring in an actual trained diplomat to ride shotgun while someone else captains the Normandy, and yet another person leads the ground team. None of this Star Trek crap.

Also re: corruption, the country you live in wouldn't exist today if its founders left the definition of the word to King George.

 

That said, deposed sociopath gets the last laugh when the Crucible and allied fleets utterly fail against the Reapers. The Star Trek crap is necessary. Shepard is a trained warship captain, an expert Special Operations Officer, and the only person who any of the other races will respect enough to listen to. How are they going to deploy the Crucible? How are they going to know where to deploy it? How are they going to get it to work? As I said, Shepard alone is the one that needs to make things happen. No one else can or should. 

 

Indeed. I find most of those founders to have been corrupt morons themselves. Who says anything about me being big on the country I live in? Where did that come up from? 

[Vigilant111]

 

There's no distinction in my eyes between inaction and inability in my opinion. That's how I view things. If they can't or won't contribute, then I don't care about them beyond ensuring that they aren't used against me. What do you suggest I do with them instead? No matter what they do, everything of value they possess is a resource that isn't going towards the fight. Anything they have of worth is something that isn't going towards the battle. Every pre-fab building they have is part of a ship, or armor, or a gun that isn't being used against the Reapers. What I'm suggesting is that we move as close to total war as is physically possible for organics. Any resource not going towards the war effort is a wasted resource.

 

 

It is not that people won't contribute, it is you have a very narrow definition of what "contribution" is. You are not going to be very resourceful at the end, when you have so many against you. See, you are only part of a bigger picture, you may choose to keep your world outlook, but you are likely to just disappear into some unknown corner of the universe because there is nowhere you can be

 

 

 

Ilos wasn't the Reapers mistake, no. But they do know that they missed a spot last time now, and it has caused them a lot of inconvenience and trouble. I can be sure that they aren't going to allow the same thing to happen again in this cycle or all coming cycles. Running is possible; Leviathan was able to do it, but then again, what would be the point? Would I have a sizable population with me to reconstruct our civilization? Not everyone who runs is found by the Reapers. However, the number that we know that escapes is very limited. It's like Alcatraz: only a handful of people ever escaped from it (and even then, there's no proof they actually survived their escape to freedom since they were never found). I'm not very content with those odds of running.

 

...and I thought you are all hell-bent about one's survival...

 

 

 

Then I'll simply say: Why not? Because it's evil? Unless there's another way that benefits me (I'll leave that to you to tell me), then what else am I to do? I'm not going to try the other ways because, I'll ask, what's the point? Why am I trying all these solutions if there's no benefit? Why don't I just kill them all and take that particular variable out of the problem? Being ruthless is about more than just being willing to try every option. Sometimes, it really is about going for the extremes first. I'm not calculating any other way that gives me benefit beyond emotional comfort. What way would there be in not starting with the most extreme method here? There are other ways, yes. And they don't get me what I want, so there's no point in wasting effort trying. Diplomacy won't work. Neither will sabotage. Hell, direct military action on a strategic level is barely holding the Reapers off. I'll start from the top if it gets me to the bottom faster. Again, I don't view Cerberus' actions as wasteful. I admit we aren't going to ever agree on this: I hold your ideal to be wasteful. I really do. You're wasting time and energy slowly ramping up the intensity of your actions. In my opinion, that's too slow. I need a solution now, and I need one that will solve the problem for me. Killing the civilians does that for me. Is it an ideal solution? No. I don't believe one exists. But it's the path of least resistance for now, and that's what I care about. I won't pretend it's efficient, but I can't tell you what is and what isn't in this case. So yes, I'll start with the why not if it serves my purpose. As we've all stated, this is something you and I aren't likely to agree with. I still don't see truly see your logic in this case, and I likely won't. You won't see mine either, and you likely won't. Another thing is that we both have different aims as well.

 

If everyone thinks like you, the world will simply collapse. If the Asari councilor thinks like you, she simply wouldn't send support. If Wrex thinks like you, he wouldn't send support either, etc...at the end, nothing would be done, and you are surely going to be annihilated

 

Wait, what is this "purpose" you are speaking of? Yours or your superiors'? If it is the latter then I guess you can always pass the bucket and don't have to feel bad about anything, but if it is the former, then you are just like Saren... and poetic justice awaits you at the end of Mass Effect 1

 

 

 

And to me, I'm struggling to see how that's a good thing. Now what am I to do with all these civilians and refugees? I can make a few of them fight, and a few of them contribute in other ways. But what about the rest, the ones who can't or won't? I'm going to kill them. I'm not going to give them a chance. Any resource they might have or need is one less I have for my effort. That's unacceptable to me. Whatever they scrounge for or find of value is a wasted resource that isn't contributing. Hell, the only thing they'd have of worth is air and the clothes on their back (hell I might not even let them have that). Any food or water they find is food or water not going into the bellies of people contributing. For whatever reason, they can't be an asset, so I'm not going to let them be a burden. There aren't going to be refugees in my war, because I won't allow them to exist. 

 

No one with the sane mind will let you in charge of a mission, any mission... that is, unless you usurp authority

 

 

 

I disagree with that. I believe the 'evil' people should be the ones running things. I think this is a fundamental difference between our mentalities, and not one that we can reconcile. I do believe in power for those who take it. Once they taken it, it's theirs to do as they wish. They have proven themselves to be better, hence why they have the power. To quote Warhammer 40K, "Only the insane have strength enough to prosper, only those that prosper truly judge who is sane." It's a lot like social darwinism to the extreme. Sufficiently powerful people don't care about the trust or approval of their followers. In the case of Mass Effect, Shepard is the 'evil guy' who is unleashed so to speak. He's in charge, and he's going to make things happen. And everyone's going to follow him whether they approve or not. If they don't, they die. The alternative is the Reapers. That's the choice that I, the evil man in power, am giving them. It's my way or the highway.

 

I believe evil people are ALREADY running things, we do not need more of them

 

Your way? You mean death? Well, people are surely gonna take you out before they take on the reapers, and as a consequence, you, will serve to be the very hindrance that subverts efforts against the reapers

[Bob from Accounting]

All their talk of 'power fantasy,' and it really should be so obvious Renegade players are ones who overwhelmingly use fiction to try and build themselves up.

 

It's very simple. A Renegade 'philosophy' allows them to believe in a goal of great splendor, yet is trivial to achieve. It offers them a challenge they're capable of fulfilling.

 

They get to imagine they're the one shining beacon of rigid pragmaticism and logic in a world overrun with bleeding heart fools. The one person willing to take on the terrible burdens. To paraphrase what I wrote about Javik, A noble soul at heart who makes the tough decisions with a single tear because they're the only one who can. Because the world needs them.

 

But the best part? The icing the cake? It requires literally nothing. No personal qualities at all. Just the decision to say 'killing is good' or somesuch nonsense. So any advocate automatically gets to crown himself the apex of the philosophy right off the bat. Can you see the appeal? Heroism is immensely difficult and rare. But this? Utterly anyone can do this.

 

Of course, it's nonsense. The best parallel I know of is gun-advocates who ramble about the necessity of being armed and trained for the imminent invasion of China or aliens or whatnot with a completely straight face. The underlying reason is obvious: It puts them in a position of being needed, of being wanted, of being necessary. They get to imagine the world needs their help. The reality is of course far bleaker for them.

 

It's really the exact same thing here. All they have to do is make themselves necessary, and they go from being a nobody to being everything. Of course such a thing has no end of advocates.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't suppose Shepard would be fine not solving their problems for very long, as the life expectancy of everyone, including Shepard, would be pretty short at that point should the alternative plan go awry.

 

As for the civilians, it's not a matter of doing nothing by choice, but having no actual power to do anything at all. Shepard has no real say over what happens to the swaths of civilians elsewhere in the galaxy. None of them are really huddling up in the Normandy's cargo bay, so it doesn't really matter. Shepard has no real control over the flow of resources either. He can't demand that they surrender all of their medigel unto him, or pay tribute in varren meat or something. Many other people decide who allocates what and where. Hackett likely has more say on this issue than Shepard does.

 

I'll be honest, I, and by extension my Shepard's pettiness is strong enough to let the galaxy burn. He'll solve their problems on one condition: He does things his way, no questions or whining. If they don't like it, they're more than welcome to find some Dragon's Teeth to jump onto.

 

What are the civilians accomplishing for the war effort? Why are they taking resources without pulling their weight in return?

[DeinonSlayer]

Then let them take their chances. I'm fine with not solving their problems. Granted, Miranda would hate me for it. That's the issue. How to be unfettered, when everyone else wants you to be fettered.

Also, if I do nothing about the refugee's and civilians in your edit, what does that accomplish for me? What does it solve? Some misplaced sense of love and trust from my men, and who call me a hero? That's great, except now I don't trust them myself. I won't ever win a war with those weaklings. And I'm losing resources that I need for the people, all so I can be a 'hero'.

I'll be honest, I'd rather be a hated winner than a beloved loser.

Let's get one thing straight: Shepard, beyond roping in new allies at Hackett's behest, is not "running the war." That distinction falls on Hackett, Victus, Wrex (Wreav), Asari High Command, Koris, Gerrel, the Crucible team etc. - the people who are deciding what to protect and what to abandon, what is needed for the Crucible and how to get it, how to move things where they need to be, where, how, and if to confront the Reapers etc.

Those "weaklings" are what you have. If the person Hackett appoints to lead them can't win the war with them, Hackett is better off appointing someone else who can.

What does exterminating our own species, thus saving the Reapers the trouble of doing so and speeding them to their ultimate objective (our extinction) achieve?

[KaiserShep]

What are the civilians accomplishing for the war effort? Why are they taking resources without pulling their weight in return?

 

It doesn't matter. Shepard has no say in whether or not they get these resources, and they're being provided for by others who feel that they should. Disapproval, at that point, would be irrelevant. Now, if Shepard's pettiness is strong enough to pursue this issue tooth and nail to see that civilians are denied food, water and medical supplies, then I suppose it would be his prerogative to petition that it be done, but that would more than likely be a futile gesture that wastes time, unless, of course, that it can be proven with reasonable certainty that doing so would actually serve a greater purpose. Question is, how would you convince people of this, especially when many may not hold to this doctrine of burn everything to kill the reapers?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Let's get one thing straight: Shepard, beyond roping in new allies at Hackett's behest, is not "running the war." That distinction falls on Hackett, Victus, Wrex (Wreav), Asari High Command, Koris, Gerrel, the Crucible team etc. - the people who are deciding what to protect and what to abandon, what is needed for the Crucible and how to get it, how to move things where they need to be, where, how, and if to confront the Reapers etc.

Those "weaklings" are what you have. If the person Hackett appoints to lead them can't win the war with them, Hackett is better off appointing someone else who can.

What does exterminating our own species, thus saving the Reapers the trouble of doing so and speeding them to their ultimate objective (our extinction) achieve?

 

Ok then. And when the time comes for them to beat the Reapers, I'll let them do it. And I'll watch them fail. You might not agree with it, but the game is kind of explicit on who is going to be the guy who kills them. I'll watch them fall with joy in my eyes.

 

Who can win with those weaklings? If I can't do it, no one else can. 

 

What does sparing them do besides buying us time? After the time they've bought us pays off, then what do we do?

[Steelcan]

I'd just like to pop in and say that no one cares about you have to say David.


That is all,

Carry on

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It doesn't matter. Shepard has no say in whether or not they get these resources, and they're being provided for by others who feel that they should. Disapproval, at that point, would be irrelevant. Now, if Shepard's pettiness is strong enough to pursue this issue tooth and nail to see that civilians are denied food, water and medical supplies, then I suppose it would be his prerogative to petition that it be done, but that would more than likely be a futile gesture that wastes time, unless, of course, that it can be proven with reasonable certainty that doing so would actually serve a greater purpose. Question is, how would you convince people of this, especially when many may not hold to this doctrine of burn everything to kill the reapers?

 

Remind people what's at stake, and inform that that humanity and compassion doesn't kill Reapers. 

[DeinonSlayer]

That said, deposed sociopath gets the last laugh when the Crucible and allied fleets utterly fail against the Reapers. The Star Trek crap is necessary. Shepard is a trained warship captain, an expert Special Operations Officer, and the only person who any of the other races will respect enough to listen to. How are they going to deploy the Crucible? How are they going to know where to deploy it? How are they going to get it to work? As I said, Shepard alone is the one that needs to make things happen. No one else can or should.

Either that or the sociopath sulks as the Crucible successfully wipes out the Reapers and his name is ultimately forgotten.

The other races need to work with the Alliance to have any chance of succeeding. They'll work with whoever is appointed ambassador plenipotentiary for the same reason they bow and scrape before Spectres - it's the authority afforded to the role. You may not find all the traits you describe wrapped up in one person; hence multiple people taking over the roles of diplomat, captain (one who stays with the ship), ground team leader.

Shepard isn't the one figuring out how to make the Crucible work, Shepard isn't the one building it. Shepard isn't the only one with a Cipher who can thus retrieve data from a Prothean beacon (Shiala, Javik, either of whom can share it with others). Long story short, Shepard is nonessential, amd replaceable should he fail in his role.
 

Indeed. I find most of those founders to have been corrupt morons themselves. Who says anything about me being big on the country I live in? Where did that come up from?

Nowhere. Just a fact. If they left things as George was running them, the US would still be a collection of British colonies.

[Bob from Accounting]

Corrupt morons, huh? I'm wondering what part of history exactly makes you say that.

[KaiserShep]

Remind people what's at stake, and inform that that humanity and compassion doesn't kill Reapers. 

 

And for many people, what's at stake may very well be the population you'd immediately discard without exploring options that minimize casualties, and it's very probable that quite a few people would be unmoving in this.

[Steelcan]

I don't want to read all these posts, can I get a tl;dr?

[KaiserShep]

I don't want to read all these posts, can I get a tl;dr?

 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Either that or the sociopath sulks as the Crucible successfully wipes out the Reapers and his name is ultimately forgotten.

Shepard isn't the one figuring out how to make the Crucible work, Shepard isn't the one building it. Shepard isn't the only one with a Cipher who can thus retrieve data from a Prothean beacon (Shiala, Javik, either of whom can share it with others). Long story short, Shepard is nonessential, amd replaceable should he fail in his role.
 

 

One thing though: Who's pushing the button when it counts? I'm not looking to be remembered or ignored. I'm looking to make the galaxy what I want it to be. He's not replaceable. I think we're going to disagree on this. There's only one guy it's going to work for. Guess what happens if he decides to be petty on it. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

And for many people, what's at stake may very well be the population you'd immediately discard without exploring options that minimize casualties, and it's very probable that quite a few people would be unmoving in this.

 

Why are they worried about minimizing casualties?

[Steelcan]

David you never answered my question, why is it that if you are right and we are all wrong, attention seeking mongers, or whatever, why is it that almost no one agrees with what you say?

Why do I get likes on my posts, but you get derision and laughed off stage?

[KaiserShep]

Why are they worried about minimizing casualties?

 

 

Not everyone is indifferent to loss of life. If you're looking for a "logical" answer, then I'm having a bit difficulty conjuring one up at the moment, but I don't really give a sh*t about logic a lot of the time. The inner workings of why I or anyone else cares about minimizing casualties is not nearly as important to me as the fact that I and many others do.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

 

Not everyone is indifferent to loss of life. If you're looking for a "logical" answer, then I'm having a bit difficulty conjuring one up at the moment, but I don't really give a sh*t about logic a lot of the time. The inner workings of why I care about the loss of life of other people is not nearly as important as the fact that I do.

 

I am looking for a logical answer. If it doesn't benefit you or serve to your advantage, why do you care about the loss of life in others? I have an answer, though it's not to do with you in a Davidian-esque psycho-analysis.

[Bob from Accounting]

That's very simple and obvious, Steelcan. People band together to protects themselves when they have to. Like cattle, really. They share in delusions, so they share in their 'defense.' Which unfortunately includes such incredibly tedious measures as feigning laughter.

[PwrdOff]

This discussion sorts of highlights why the Reapers are a poorly conceived antagonist, they're exactly the type of "can't be reasoned with, doesn't feel pity, remorse, or fear" enemy whose existence justifies pretty much any action on the part of the player no matter how insane by any other measure.  Escapism is nice, but allowing people to indulge in such an extreme power fantasy where your Shepard is practically this living god is not really healthy nor does it make for the most compelling storyline.  That choices exist shouldn't mean that you can get everything to go exactly the way you want all of the time.