@Massive
Seems to me you'd want to keep the Tuchanka bombs (and I have no doubt there is more than one) as leverage to keep the Krogan from going Rebellion 2.0 after the war.
Yep. I'm cool with it. I'm willing to give them a chance with Wrex and Eve, and that's only because I like them and I'm nice.
I don't get the 'good' feelings people get by doing 'good'. Quite literally for me, doing good does not feel good.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. (Yes, I think I know your life.)
Good (like evil) is relative. In the context you said this it seemed like you were refering to the common definition of good (helping others etc) which you clearly don't subscribe to. However, you have your own view of how the world is and what needs to be done. That's what "good" is to you, even if you don't use that word to describe it. That's what you act according to. And anyone sucessfully acting according to their viewpoint is going to feel some satisfaction at doing so. Maybe you don't get off on it. But there's always some internal feedback to completing an action and if it's successful, that feedback could be deemed "pleasure".
We should probably all be a bit more wary of self-diagnosing mental disorders. The thing is that these days the media bombards us with so much fluff designed specifically to tug at our heartstrings that people have just sort of become desensitized to it all. The prospect of just not caring about any of it can definitely seem attractive and quite liberating. If the game gives us the opportunity to act like selfish bastards without any consequences, a lot of people will jump at being able to live that fantasy.
That's like David's shtick on this forum though. If he didn't have that he couldn't delude himself into thinking that all of us were simple minded idiots and then being insulting.
Unfortunately, he's probably going to read this and somehow interpret it as a sign that I'm reinforcing my self delusions.
You said you were HUMINT, right? Interrogation? I imagine you'd have to be good at getting into people's heads to do that kind of work.
I'm trained for it, but it wasn't my primary specialty. I deployed as one, but I was an Analyst by general standards. Now, I'm an All-Source Intel Officer. It's basically a general specialty position. I can't apply for more of the specialty positions or special assignments that I want until I'm a Captain (another 8 months, crossing fingers). Until then, I'm basically bullshitting around on my Masters and working as an adjunct ROTC Training Instructor.
But yeah, I know how to screw with people's minds, and I have the willingness to emulate being a sadistic bastard if I have too. That said, that'd get me thrown in the Stockade; generally, I don't have to do much to get the information I want. Typically, all I have to do is pay them. Most of them are poor sons of farmers who got paid $5 by some Taliban recruiter to fire mortars at us. Really, only the Chechnyans were a considerable threat. We ran into some Pakistani Taliban a few times as well. I wasn't on the line unit that got fire every day. I typically spent most of my time on the rear COB (pronounced like cob, as in corn on the cob), with a few trips to the forward Cob, mostly for collection. HUMINT interrogation is a very, very small minority for the actual role. Most of the people in that do things like collection of assets, interviews, and get reports from line commanders and consolidate it to get to the Analysts. 90% of collectors aren't authorized for interrogation.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. (Yes, I think I know your life.)
Good (like evil) is relative. In the context you said this it seemed like you were refering to the common definition of good (helping others etc) which you clearly don't subscribe to. However, you have your own view of how the world is and what needs to be done. That's what "good" is to you, even if you don't use that word to describe it. That's what you act according to. And anyone sucessfully acting according to their viewpoint is going to feel some satisfaction at doing so. Maybe you don't get off on it. But there's always some internal feedback to completing an action and if it's successful, that feedback could be deemed "pleasure".
I hate to be a jerk about this, but did you not see the quotes that I put around the word good? Your statement is kind of redundant and unneeded.
Yep, more or less sum me up. If I have any kind of morality chain, it's going to be Miranda. I have a small fear that it would be like Anakin Skywalker and Padme. He's willing to destroy everything she believes in for her. I'm too nihilistic to truly take her views to heart, but I can see how that would be the one thing to really halt me from turning into the War Doctor, the Time Lord Victorious, or Rassilon.
That said, when I say I'd take down Joker, I was meaning in self-defense, pre-emptively or not. Joker probably would snap at those orders and attack me, and I'd do what I'd have to do to maintain my authority.
It's not even that I'd be in that unfettered state permanently. Outside the war, I'd probably end up being the hero everyone thinks I am (veneer of normalcy and humanity included). But as long as there are Reapers, I will be what I need to be.
What the heck is joker going to do that's such a threat? Break his arm at you? Kill himself and everyone aboard? He'll say his peace, you explain yourself, he'll comply. You don't need to resort to ****** murdering people just because they object the first time.
I can't see this line of logic leading to a favorable outcome in the galaxy. Whether shepard is or is not needed to save everyone, I think at this point, I'd risk the war effort with shepard dead then have this kind of shepard leading an army to certain and utter destruction.
I hate to be a jerk about this, but did you not see the quotes that I put around the word good? Your statement is kind of redundant and unneeded.
Ah but you didn't put quotes around the second use of the word "good"! Redundant man away!
Besides if you want to get technical, your quote wasn't needed because we're all pretty much aware you don't subscribe to the common definition of good. So why would we assume you feel good when you happen to act in line with that concept?
And if you really want to get technical none of this is needed. We're pretty far off-topic.
So about the entire collector ship sequence from mass effect 2. The collectors pretend to be disabled, send a fake signal, and when shepard comes onto the ship, they keep their ship disabled while sending soliders in to deal with shepard, rather then just fly away why?
What the heck is joker going to do that's such a threat? Break his arm at you? Kill himself and everyone aboard? He'll say his peace, you explain yourself, he'll comply. You don't need to resort to ****** murdering people just because they object the first time.
I can't see this line of logic leading to a favorable outcome in the galaxy. Whether shepard is or is not needed to save everyone, I think at this point, I'd risk the war effort with shepard dead then have this kind of shepard leading an army to certain and utter destruction.
I'm not resorting to murdering Joker. As I said, if he attacks me, I take him down. Should I do anything else? I don't think so. You just denied my scenario.
I don't think I'd be leading the galaxy to certain, utter destruction. When I launched the Crucible effectively and killed the Reapers, then I won, and my means were justified. If not, then we're all dead. I can see that line of logic working favorably. I don't see your logic at all. Well, I do, but I don't agree with it.
Ah but you didn't put quotes around the second use of the word "good"! Redundant man away!
Besides if you want to get technical, your quote wasn't needed because we're all pretty much aware you don't subscribe to the common definition of good. So why would we assume you feel good when you happen to act in line with that concept?
And if you really want to get technical none of this is needed. We're pretty far off-topic.
Now you're turning it into semantics.
Semantics are the best arguments though, cause of their extra inability to win.
Semantics are the best arguments though, cause of their extra inability to win.
Nah, that'd be the socratic method: Simply ask one thing. 'Why?'
My goodness, this much debate over pretend principles and make-believe ideals.
Considering none of these things exist in the real world, does their definition really matter all that much? Might be wiser just to admit they mean whatever makes you feel good when you play video games and leave it at that. It'll have the same logic and consistency behind it as ever.
I don't think I'd be leading the galaxy to certain, utter destruction.
But you would. No-one would follow a Sociopathic Shepard; Hackett would realise that you are basically a nut case who would rather watch the galaxy burn then have compromise and have you quietly assigned to as many dangerous missions he could find until you were dead.
I'm not resorting to murdering Joker. As I said, if he attacks me, I take him down. Should I do anything else? I don't think so. You just denied my scenario.
I don't think I'd be leading the galaxy to certain, utter destruction. When I launched the Crucible effectively and killed the Reapers, then I won, and my means were justified. If not, then we're all dead. I can see that line of logic working favorably. I don't see your logic at all. Well, I do, but I don't agree with it.
Take him down meaning throwing him to the brig, right? At least that is what I am hoping
Well, if he dies, your rate of survival will decrease accordingly, consequently affecting your ability to accomplish missions.
BTW if Joker attacks the crew for whatever reason, then Shepard is not doing his job right
Why do I get the feeling that you are Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica (2004)?
Nah, that'd be the socratic method: Simply ask one thing. 'Why?'
My goodness, this much debate over pretend principles and make-believe ideals.
What specifically are you referring to? Last I read this thread we were talking about scorched earth tactics which are very much a real-world thing.
This. I've reached the conclusion that in the context of the Reaper war, scorched-earth would only serve to speed our extinction and break morale. Massively seems to have reached a different conclusion.What specifically are you referring to? Last I read this thread we were talking about scorched earth tactics which are very much a real-world thing.
But you would. No-one would follow a Sociopathic Shepard; Hackett would realise that you are basically a nut case who would rather watch the galaxy burn then have compromise and have you quietly assigned to as many dangerous missions he could find until you were dead.
Why wouldn't anyone follow a sociopathic Shepard? In fact, they do in the game. Hell, I'd love to have a man like that as a leader. They're some of the greatest military leaders in history. Hell, sociopaths are a big reason why society can function as it does. As Garrus says, they're the results-at-all-costs guys who don't give a damn about consequences.
Unlike the real world, these 'principles' are utterly and completely dependent on the person in question being just so badass that they can murder and exterminate with total impunity, because they're just that cool and powerful. Because the galaxy needs them just that much.
Which is fine. It's a video game. It wouldn't be much fun to be sent to prison every time you shot some innocent person.
The issue is not whether 'scorched earth tactics' exists, but whether the consequences do. And here in this forum, they don't. Which is the only environment silly philosophies that boil down to nothing more than "I'm the ultimate badass, I make all the rules" can exist in. They're too weak and fragile to exist elsewhere. They collapse.
This. I've reached the conclusion that in the context of the Reaper war, scorched-earth would only serve to speed our extinction and break morale. Massively seems to have reached a different conclusion.
It doesn't help that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion in regards to Shepard's importance to the war effort. That seems to be at the root of a lot of it. Massive's view of him is much more in line with yours, David.
I stopped engaging him. There's no point. He won't argue with you, just tell you that you're wrong (whether or not you are, with it being typically that if David says you're wrong, you're right in the manner he thinks you're wrong at).
Unlike the real world, these 'principles' are utterly and completely dependent on the person in question being just so badass that they can murder and exterminate with total impunity, because they're just that cool and powerful. Because the galaxy needs them just that much.
There has been a separate discussion tangentially related about to what degree Shepard's importance gives him discretion over military command, but the heart of the debate has been centered around 1) the ethics of killing civilians/scorching the earth and 2) ethics aside, the viability of such tactics on their own terms. That discussion is relevant whether Shepard gives the command, whether Hackett gives the command, whether the Council gives the command.
Why wouldn't anyone follow a sociopathic Shepard? In fact, they do in the game. Hell, I'd love to have a man like that as a leader. They're some of the greatest military leaders in history. Hell, sociopaths are a big reason why society can function as it does. As Garrus says, they're the results-at-all-costs guys who don't give a damn about consequences.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
How exactly do you distinguish yourself from the reapers with this kind of rationale?
I don't mean to be smug but do you admire the reapers?
There has been a separate discussion tangentially related about to what degree Shepard's importance gives him discretion over military command, but the heart of the debate has been centered around 1) the ethics of killing civilians/scorching the earth and 2) ethics aside, the viability of such tactics on their own terms. That discussion is relevant whether Shepard gives the command, whether Hackett gives the command, whether the Council gives the command.
And yes, such ideas do indeed exist in modern philosophy. And they aren't weak and fragile. In fact, the opposite is often given, which is overwhelmingly the opposition I have received here: It's too extreme, overpowered, and heavy-handed. Pretty far from weakness and fragility. Of course, David is going to go on a tangent about how weak and timid I am in real life, and how I'm so common while his heroism is rare and powerful.
Retour en haut