congokong wrote...
As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least.
cap and gown wrote...
congokong wrote...
As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least.
I never found Javik's argument terribly persuasive. In the end we're all dead anway, one or one trillion dead souls. His argument might have made more sense if he had tied it to the extinction of an entire species, not the deaths of so many. Javik himself would have no problem sacrificing billions if it meant the defeat of the Reapers.
von uber wrote...
shodiswe wrote...
A headbutting Asari?
It's good that she would have dedicated more money on military expenditures and preparations... Though it's uncertain if she would have exhausted those forces before the deployment of the Crusible... Which could have been bad.
I guess it depends how smart she is beyond the headbutting and wantign to strengthen the Asari military capabilities.
Not just that - trying to get them to actually be more productive rather than just working as strippers when they are young, investigate the mass relays and see what they can research off theiur own rather than relying on the tech etc.
A lot of aspects of the Asari would be fundamentally different if she was in charge I suspect..
Life > Livescap and gown wrote...
congokong wrote...
As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least.
I never found Javik's argument terribly persuasive. In the end we're all dead anway, one or one trillion dead souls. His argument might have made more sense if he had tied it to the extinction of an entire species, not the deaths of so many. Javik himself would have no problem sacrificing billions if it meant the defeat of the Reapers.
Mcfly616 wrote...
Life > Livescap and gown wrote...
congokong wrote...
As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least.
I never found Javik's argument terribly persuasive. In the end we're all dead anway, one or one trillion dead souls. His argument might have made more sense if he had tied it to the extinction of an entire species, not the deaths of so many. Javik himself would have no problem sacrificing billions if it meant the defeat of the Reapers.
And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
katamuro wrote...
Mcfly616 wrote...
Life > Livescap and gown wrote...
congokong wrote...
As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least.
I never found Javik's argument terribly persuasive. In the end we're all dead anway, one or one trillion dead souls. His argument might have made more sense if he had tied it to the extinction of an entire species, not the deaths of so many. Javik himself would have no problem sacrificing billions if it meant the defeat of the Reapers.
And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
not all people can think like that. sure if thinking purely by logic and without morals then sure that is the correct math. However sometimes there is a point when the sacrifice is too great, when the suffering is too deep, when even though it ensures the future of LIFE the amount of lives spent to do it has become too wast. Loss is easy to quanitfy in numbers when you dont see it but considering shepard has seen it and on so many planets with so many different faces. Well... sometimes if living means losing who and what you are then it might not be worth it. But to each their own I guess.
Modifié par congokong, 15 février 2014 - 08:26 .
congokong wrote...
So basically not tainting her honor is more important than saving the galaxy and you're ok with that?
Samara isn't Shepard, though. How boring wouldn't it be if all characters thought and acted the same way?As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least. Shepard learns this. (...)
Well, hello, Catalyst logic :innocent:Mcfly616 wrote...
Life > Lives
And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
Modifié par Ajensis, 15 février 2014 - 10:13 .
Ajensis wrote...
Well, hello, Catalyst logic :innocent:Mcfly616 wrote...
Life > Lives
And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
Modifié par Mcfly616, 15 février 2014 - 11:52 .
katamuro wrote...
not all people can think like that. sure if thinking purely by logic and without morals then sure that is the correct math. However sometimes there is a point when the sacrifice is too great, when the suffering is too deep, when even though it ensures the future of LIFE the amount of lives spent to do it has become too wast. Loss is easy to quanitfy in numbers when you dont see it but considering shepard has seen it and on so many planets with so many different faces. Well... sometimes if living means losing who and what you are then it might not be worth it. But to each their own I guess.
Modifié par Mcfly616, 15 février 2014 - 11:53 .
Ajensis wrote...
congokong wrote...
So basically not tainting her honor is more important than saving the galaxy and you're ok with that?
Whether or not I'm okay with it is irrelevant. Me saying she's a well-written character doesn't have anything to do with condoning or even agreeing with her view points.Samara isn't Shepard, though. How boring wouldn't it be if all characters thought and acted the same way?As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least. Shepard learns this. (...)
You might not like Samara's choice at the Monastery, but it made perfect sense for who she is. Dislike her for it, by all means, but don't wish for her to react in ways that destroys her character.
Mcfly616 wrote...
Life > Lives
And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
Well, hello, Catalyst logic :innocent:
katamuro wrote...
Mcfly616 wrote...
Life > Livescap and gown wrote...
congokong wrote...
As Javik said, given the stakes of the reaper war honor is something you can't hold onto; realistically at least.
I never found Javik's argument terribly persuasive. In the end we're all dead anway, one or one trillion dead souls. His argument might have made more sense if he had tied it to the extinction of an entire species, not the deaths of so many. Javik himself would have no problem sacrificing billions if it meant the defeat of the Reapers.
And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
not all people can think like that. sure if thinking purely by logic and without morals then sure that is the correct math. However sometimes there is a point when the sacrifice is too great, when the suffering is too deep, when even though it ensures the future of LIFE the amount of lives spent to do it has become too wast. Loss is easy to quanitfy in numbers when you dont see it but considering shepard has seen it and on so many planets with so many different faces. Well... sometimes if living means losing who and what you are then it might not be worth it. But to each their own I guess.
congokong wrote...
I don't think most people who criticize a character are saying that they want that character to be changed into a flawless one, but rather are pointing out the character's flaws for the sake of discussion. That's what I'm doing here.
Mcfly616 wrote...
Its logic is sound.
A paragon wouldn't go anywhere near that murderous religious nut job; Bioware may have been aiming for "space paladin" but if they did they failed epically.I thought only Paragon male Sheps could do the Samara romance.
So you are saying that we should lie down and let the Reapers kill us in order to preserve life itself? Well, I'm glad we out you in charge of the war effort.And that's all it comes down to. The existence and continuation of Life in general is worth any amount of individual lives. If you need to sacrifice trillions in order to assure that all life doesn't get completely erased from existence, you push the damn button and you do it knowing that it was worth every single life.
None of these count as hard choices because the player was never given the information to make an informed choice (for example, without knowing what the geth fleet is doing there is no way to determine which course of actions is the correct - if the geth are holding position to defend sovereign, giving the order to focus sovereign only accomplishes having to fight both sovereign and the geth at the same time).What's convenient is that Shepard can avoid making the hard calls (excluding Arrival) without repercussions all the way up to the ending where she has no choice. You can save the council and still stop Sovereign. You can spare the rachni queen and not end up causing another rachni war. You can rewrite the geth instead of killing them and not lead to all the geth becoming heretics or reverting back to heretics or something. You can blow up the collector base and still win the war without it. You can get both krogan and salarian support needed for the war without having to commit treachery by sabotaging the cure. You can make peace between the geth and quarians without having to choose one or the other.
Mcfly616 wrote...
katamuro wrote...
not all people can think like that. sure if thinking purely by logic and without morals then sure that is the correct math. However sometimes there is a point when the sacrifice is too great, when the suffering is too deep, when even though it ensures the future of LIFE the amount of lives spent to do it has become too wast. Loss is easy to quanitfy in numbers when you dont see it but considering shepard has seen it and on so many planets with so many different faces. Well... sometimes if living means losing who and what you are then it might not be worth it. But to each their own I guess.
Well, that's quite selfish. As Shepard isn't making the choice for himself. He's making it for every living soul. Just because his choice may cause him to lose something, doesn't mean he should prevent everybody else's potential to experience life. Sorry, Idc how golden your morals are. If you condemn all life in the galaxy based on said morals, you're dead wrong.
congokong wrote...
@Katamuro
I think ends-justify-the-means is valid when the threat is certain and immediate.
Ex: the reaper threat
Otherwise it's not.
Ex: Experimenting on David Archer in the hopes it could prevent a geth war someday.
The example regarding China does not qualify in my view.
katamuro wrote...
congokong wrote...
@Katamuro
I think ends-justify-the-means is valid when the threat is certain and immediate.
Ex: the reaper threat
Otherwise it's not.
Ex: Experimenting on David Archer in the hopes it could prevent a geth war someday.
The example regarding China does not qualify in my view.
Ok then a historical example in world war 2 american and british merchant navy was delivering supplies to soviet army through the north sea, the Convoy PQ-17 set out to deliver such supplies. Navy Intelligence after sighting that the german battleship Tirpitz has left its mooring believed that a large scale attack could be underway. The lord admiral believing that if met in battle the escort covering those unarmed merchant ships would be destroyed ordered them to withdraw leaving the merchant ships undefended and them ordering the merchant ships to scatter thinking that some should make through.
The covering escort force consisted of six destroyers, 11 corvettes, 4 cruisers, minesweepers and two anti-aircraft auxillaries.
In the end the germans never moved Tirpitz towards the convoy but the german u-boats and recon planes after seeing that the covoy was now un-escorted attacked. the carnage was one of the worst naval disasters, out of 34 merchant ships 23 were sunk with all the supplies.
Now the british first naval lord believed he made the "hard" choice by conserving the forces under his command and pulling them back rather than risking their destruction in a battle against Tirpitz however in the end his choice meant that hundreds of sailors died and how many soviet soldiers died without those supplies?
Here are quite simple Paragon-Renegade choice, Paragon choice would be to continue cover the convoy to protect it even if battle would result in significant losses for the fleet, the Renegade choice was to leave them to their own devices pulling back th escort. Renegade choice was the wrong one because the amount of people dying and damage sustained was higher than if the escort remained and defended the convoy.
shodiswe wrote...
von uber wrote...
shodiswe wrote...
A headbutting Asari?
It's good that she would have dedicated more money on military expenditures and preparations... Though it's uncertain if she would have exhausted those forces before the deployment of the Crusible... Which could have been bad.
I guess it depends how smart she is beyond the headbutting and wantign to strengthen the Asari military capabilities.
Not just that - trying to get them to actually be more productive rather than just working as strippers when they are young, investigate the mass relays and see what they can research off theiur own rather than relying on the tech etc.
A lot of aspects of the Asari would be fundamentally different if she was in charge I suspect..
She's old enough for the other Asari to respect her due to age, but, the other Asari doesn't seem to appreciate her take on things, having had a Krogan father might have held her back a little aswell after what happend during the Krogan rebelions.
She does seem sensible otherwise, considering what little she knows about things around her.
The Reaper war might increase her significance somewhat, but do you truly think young Asari will listen to an old lady who tells them not to have fun?
They will keep stripping and sipping drinks and mess around for a few centuries, get kids, then tell the kids it's all crap. That's probably what the Proteans programed them to do, to be consorts for the Proteans but then the Reapers happend and the Proteans were no more.
congokong wrote...
katamuro wrote...
congokong wrote...
@Katamuro
I think ends-justify-the-means is valid when the threat is certain and immediate.
Ex: the reaper threat
Otherwise it's not.
Ex: Experimenting on David Archer in the hopes it could prevent a geth war someday.
The example regarding China does not qualify in my view.
Ok then a historical example in world war 2 american and british merchant navy was delivering supplies to soviet army through the north sea, the Convoy PQ-17 set out to deliver such supplies. Navy Intelligence after sighting that the german battleship Tirpitz has left its mooring believed that a large scale attack could be underway. The lord admiral believing that if met in battle the escort covering those unarmed merchant ships would be destroyed ordered them to withdraw leaving the merchant ships undefended and them ordering the merchant ships to scatter thinking that some should make through.
The covering escort force consisted of six destroyers, 11 corvettes, 4 cruisers, minesweepers and two anti-aircraft auxillaries.
In the end the germans never moved Tirpitz towards the convoy but the german u-boats and recon planes after seeing that the covoy was now un-escorted attacked. the carnage was one of the worst naval disasters, out of 34 merchant ships 23 were sunk with all the supplies.
Now the british first naval lord believed he made the "hard" choice by conserving the forces under his command and pulling them back rather than risking their destruction in a battle against Tirpitz however in the end his choice meant that hundreds of sailors died and how many soviet soldiers died without those supplies?
Here are quite simple Paragon-Renegade choice, Paragon choice would be to continue cover the convoy to protect it even if battle would result in significant losses for the fleet, the Renegade choice was to leave them to their own devices pulling back th escort. Renegade choice was the wrong one because the amount of people dying and damage sustained was higher than if the escort remained and defended the convoy.
I'm not saying that "renegade" always works out in real life. Neither does "paragon." But you try to do the best with what you know. Sometimes you play it safe with the practical "renegade" path because of worst case scenarios. In that WWII example there was an immediate threat that had to be considered. The naval lord was considering worst case scenarios I assume.
An in-game example: Not saving the council in ME1 to focus on Sovereign.
It turned out to be an unnecessary renegade move (like the British Naval Lord's) because Sovereign can be defeated without those vital reinforcements but when role-playing you cannot know that. You know the immediate threat shows that if Sovereign wins trillions of lives are doomed.
Paragon worst case scenario based on your actions: The galaxy is lost because you saved the Ascension.
Renegade worst case scenario based on your actions: The Destiny Ascension is lost because you focused on Sovereign.
Considering this, you can't succumb to idealism with such high stakes realistically so you make the hard call and focus on Sovereign.
.Modifié par Darks1d3, 16 février 2014 - 06:08 .
Darks1d3 wrote...
congokong wrote...
katamuro wrote...
congokong wrote...
@Katamuro
I think ends-justify-the-means is valid when the threat is certain and immediate.
Ex: the reaper threat
Otherwise it's not.
Ex: Experimenting on David Archer in the hopes it could prevent a geth war someday.
The example regarding China does not qualify in my view.
Ok then a historical example in world war 2 american and british merchant navy was delivering supplies to soviet army through the north sea, the Convoy PQ-17 set out to deliver such supplies. Navy Intelligence after sighting that the german battleship Tirpitz has left its mooring believed that a large scale attack could be underway. The lord admiral believing that if met in battle the escort covering those unarmed merchant ships would be destroyed ordered them to withdraw leaving the merchant ships undefended and them ordering the merchant ships to scatter thinking that some should make through.
The covering escort force consisted of six destroyers, 11 corvettes, 4 cruisers, minesweepers and two anti-aircraft auxillaries.
In the end the germans never moved Tirpitz towards the convoy but the german u-boats and recon planes after seeing that the covoy was now un-escorted attacked. the carnage was one of the worst naval disasters, out of 34 merchant ships 23 were sunk with all the supplies.
Now the british first naval lord believed he made the "hard" choice by conserving the forces under his command and pulling them back rather than risking their destruction in a battle against Tirpitz however in the end his choice meant that hundreds of sailors died and how many soviet soldiers died without those supplies?
Here are quite simple Paragon-Renegade choice, Paragon choice would be to continue cover the convoy to protect it even if battle would result in significant losses for the fleet, the Renegade choice was to leave them to their own devices pulling back th escort. Renegade choice was the wrong one because the amount of people dying and damage sustained was higher than if the escort remained and defended the convoy.
I'm not saying that "renegade" always works out in real life. Neither does "paragon." But you try to do the best with what you know. Sometimes you play it safe with the practical "renegade" path because of worst case scenarios. In that WWII example there was an immediate threat that had to be considered. The naval lord was considering worst case scenarios I assume.
An in-game example: Not saving the council in ME1 to focus on Sovereign.
It turned out to be an unnecessary renegade move (like the British Naval Lord's) because Sovereign can be defeated without those vital reinforcements but when role-playing you cannot know that. You know the immediate threat shows that if Sovereign wins trillions of lives are doomed.
Paragon worst case scenario based on your actions: The galaxy is lost because you saved the Ascension.
Renegade worst case scenario based on your actions: The Destiny Ascension is lost because you focused on Sovereign.
Considering this, you can't succumb to idealism with such high stakes realistically so you make the hard call and focus on Sovereign.
I'm not arguing against your overall point that sometimes you need to make the hard decisions in war, and I can agree with the decision to eradicate the racni because of the implications of the racni war. Or killing Rana or Shiala because indoctrination is almost always irreversible. But is holding the Alliance back in order to concentrate on Soverign really all that logical? Yes, you do have more Alliance ships to throw at Soverign if you tell them to ignore the Ascension. But what always bugged me was the fact that you still had the Geth fleet outside the Citadel as well. If you don't destroy them before attacking Soverign, what's preventing them from attacking the Alliance fleet from behind once they destroy the Ascension? It makes more since to me to deal with them first than move on to Soverign. Then there's the political repercussions of letting the Council die and having the Humans run the Council instead. Soverign's speech and Vigil's data makes it pretty clear that the galaxy will need to be unified if the Reapers are going to be stopped. As Liara tells Shepard, Humans are viewed as bullies that do anything they can to get what they want. Once the Alliance takes over The Council and tries to warn the rest of the galaxy, the other races may say the Attack on the Citadel was just a ruse so Humanity could gain political superiority and not listen at all.
Ofcourse, ME2 makes the latter bit insignificant since it doesn't matter whether you saved the council or not with the "Ah yes, Reapers" retcon
By the way, I am not saying you're wrong either. If I am missing important data to back my logic, please correct me.
I'm not arguing against your overall point that sometimes you need to make the hard decisions in war, and I can agree with the decision to eradicate the racni because of the implications of the racni war. Or killing Rana or Shiala because indoctrination is almost always irreversible. But is holding the Alliance back in order to concentrate on Soverign really all that logical? Yes, you do have more Alliance ships to throw at Soverign if you tell them to ignore the Ascension. But what always bugged me was the fact that you still had the Geth fleet outside the Citadel as well. If you don't destroy them before attacking Soverign, what's preventing them from attacking the Alliance fleet from behind once they destroy the Ascension? It makes more since to me to deal with them first than move on to Soverign. Then there's the political repercussions of letting the Council die and having the Humans run the Council instead. Soverign's speech and Vigil's data makes it pretty clear that the galaxy will need to be unified if the Reapers are going to be stopped. As Liara tells Shepard, Humans are viewed as bullies that do anything they can to get what they want. Once the Alliance takes over The Council and tries to warn the rest of the galaxy, the other races may say the Attack on the Citadel was just a ruse so Humanity could gain political superiority and not listen at all.
Ofcourse, ME2 makes the latter bit insignificant since it doesn't matter whether you saved the council or not with the "Ah yes, Reapers" retcon
By the way, I am not saying you're wrong either. If I am missing important data to back my logic, please correct me.
Modifié par congokong, 16 février 2014 - 06:46 .
congokong wrote...
I'm not arguing against your overall point that sometimes you need to make the hard decisions in war, and I can agree with the decision to eradicate the racni because of the implications of the racni war. Or killing Rana or Shiala because indoctrination is almost always irreversible. But is holding the Alliance back in order to concentrate on Soverign really all that logical? Yes, you do have more Alliance ships to throw at Soverign if you tell them to ignore the Ascension. But what always bugged me was the fact that you still had the Geth fleet outside the Citadel as well. If you don't destroy them before attacking Soverign, what's preventing them from attacking the Alliance fleet from behind once they destroy the Ascension? It makes more since to me to deal with them first than move on to Soverign. Then there's the political repercussions of letting the Council die and having the Humans run the Council instead. Soverign's speech and Vigil's data makes it pretty clear that the galaxy will need to be unified if the Reapers are going to be stopped. As Liara tells Shepard, Humans are viewed as bullies that do anything they can to get what they want. Once the Alliance takes over The Council and tries to warn the rest of the galaxy, the other races may say the Attack on the Citadel was just a ruse so Humanity could gain political superiority and not listen at all.
Ofcourse, ME2 makes the latter bit insignificant since it doesn't matter whether you saved the council or not with the "Ah yes, Reapers" retcon
By the way, I am not saying you're wrong either. If I am missing important data to back my logic, please correct me.
You can add political backlash to the renegade worst scenario if you want. Hell, you can add a whole lot more. It wouldn't matter. It pales in comparison to losing the galaxy because resources were diverted from Sovereign to focus on saving the council.
The thing about dealing with the geth fleet first is over-analyzing I think. The game doesn't even mention this when you consider your choice. And I assume letting the geth fleet destroy the Ascension gives the Alliance fleets valuable time to focus on Sovereign undeterred. It's all about priorities. You don't ignore the reaper trying to unleash thousands of other reapers to save one ship.
Even then the means has to be appropriate. The end only justifies the means even under those circumstances if there aren't any less unpleasant alternative solutions. If the less unpleasant solutions are also less likely to work then you'll have people debating forever afterwards what choice should've been made.congokong wrote...
@Katamuro
I think ends-justify-the-means is valid when the threat is certain and immediate.
Ex: the reaper threat
Retour en haut