720 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

You.. you MONSTER!

 

Heh heh heh.

[ImaginaryMatter]

within the mass effect series the games seem to state if you don't pick paragon most of the time you waste lives for nothing.
so in the game being unprincipled only serves to add to your body count.

 

Certainly, which I think if one of the bigger complaints with the morality system over all. From a role-playing perspective though it doesn't matter as much as -- supposedly -- that is detached from meta-gaming.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

So long as he keeps his word to you. And if you're depending on people, you shouldn't be giving to word to them without setting down conditions for them to follow as well.

 

'Don't be a tyrant,' for instance.

 

You don't have that option in-game.

 

Even if you did, it's meaningless to set conditions you can neither trust others will adhere to nor enforce in the event they don't. If the man you're dealing with is a tyrant to begin with, he's already proven to do things much worse than go back on his word. Not trustworthy.

 

So... still going to arm this man with a cure?

 

 

*edit* -- I have to run.

[AlanC9]

Certainly, which I think if one of the bigger complaints with the morality system over all. From a role-playing perspective though it doesn't matter as much as -- supposedly -- that is detached from meta-gaming.

 

Right. I just find it hard to avoid metagaming when I know that the fix is in.

[Reorte]

That is indeed the right course of action for said meathead in his own way. Granted, I'd rather be an intellectual bruiser, with mind and matter to overcome both.

 

The right thing for me is to look at both and conclude whether it's more economical or rational to make such an action or not.

The meathead's way is the way of a thug, his gains and to hell with everyone else. Sometimes problems can only be solved with a punch, sometimes only solved with something a bit cleverer, and sometimes they can be solved with a punch but there's a better result for everyone if you try a bit harder to not hit first and ask questions later. In the latter case not punching isn't the most economical situation, and it might stand a lesser chance of success, but sometimes it's right to go for it.

 

Basically a good decision maker for such situations is neither "I won't betray my principles" or "The end justifies the means." You want someone prepared to stand by his principles up until the point where the end does indeed justify the means.

[Invisible Man]

The meathead's way is the way of a thug, his gains and to hell with everyone else. Sometimes problems can only be solved with a punch, sometimes only solved with something a bit cleverer, and sometimes they can be solved with a punch but there's a better result for everyone if you try a bit harder to not hit first and ask questions later. In the latter case not punching isn't the most economical situation, and it might stand a lesser chance of success, but sometimes it's right to go for it.
 
Basically a good decision maker for such situations is neither "I won't betray my principles" or "The end justifies the means." You want someone prepared to stand by his principles up until the point where the end does indeed justify the means.

I can get behind that.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The meathead's way is the way of a thug, his gains and to hell with everyone else. Sometimes problems can only be solved with a punch, sometimes only solved with something a bit cleverer, and sometimes they can be solved with a punch but there's a better result for everyone if you try a bit harder to not hit first and ask questions later. In the latter case not punching isn't the most economical situation, and it might stand a lesser chance of success, but sometimes it's right to go for it.

 

Basically a good decision maker for such situations is neither "I won't betray my principles" or "The end justifies the means." You want someone prepared to stand by his principles up until the point where the end does indeed justify the means.

 

I disagree completely. The end is my principle. So I'm not doing either. So long as I get the end I'm working towards, I've successfully held my principle. And if I don't, I reverse it until I do get what I'm moving towards. Ever hear of the unfettered? Look it up on TV Tropes.

 

As for the guy, again, his result, his desired conclusion might be only to his own benefit. I can't fault him for it. I simply can't let him do it since it's not in my interest. It's an obstacle. Likewise, I won't let other people's needs outweigh my own. I really do believe in my own gain in this circumstance, and to hell with everyone else. My only difference is that my gain is typically a long-term gain for everyone.

[Reorte]

I disagree completely. The end is my principle. So I'm not doing either. So long as I get the end I'm working towards, I've successfully held my principle. And if I don't, I reverse it until I do get what I'm moving towards. Ever hear of the unfettered? Look it up on TV Tropes.

 

As for the guy, again, his result, his desired conclusion might be only to his own benefit. I can't fault him for it. I simply can't let him do it since it's not in my interest. It's an obstacle. Likewise, I won't let other people's needs outweigh my own. I really do believe in my own gain in this circumstance, and to hell with everyone else. My only difference is that my gain is typically a long-term gain for everyone.

That is entirely "the end justifies the means." "So long as I get the end I'm working towards, I've successfully held my principle" - no matter what you've done to get there? No matter how many people are now cursing your name? If you can stand up and honestly say "There was no way which wouldn't have left even more cursing me" then you've come through OK but you've not tried to chose a route that'll take you to that point. I would regard anyone with such a view as too dangerous to be put in charge. You say "My only difference is that my gain is typically a long-term gain for everyone" but that's not what you're working towards, you're just assuming that what's good for you is good for everyone without examing whether that is indeed the case. Short-term needs to be considered too (what's good for everyone in the long term would probably be reducing the Earth's population by a half, but that's not remotely acceptable).

[Sir DeLoria]

I disagree completely. The end is my principle. So I'm not doing either. So long as I get the end I'm working towards, I've successfully held my principle. And if I don't, I reverse it until I do get what I'm moving towards. Ever hear of the unfettered? Look it up on TV Tropes.
 
As for the guy, again, his result, his desired conclusion might be only to his own benefit. I can't fault him for it. I simply can't let him do it since it's not in my interest. It's an obstacle. Likewise, I won't let other people's needs outweigh my own. I really do believe in my own gain in this circumstance, and to hell with everyone else. My only difference is that my gain is typically a long-term gain for everyone.

Sounds more like this:

http://tvtropes.org/...tionedExtremist

http://tvtropes.org/.../EvilVersusEvil

[DeinonSlayer]

That is entirely "the end justifies the means." "So long as I get the end I'm working towards, I've successfully held my principle" - no matter what you've done to get there? No matter how many people are now cursing your name? If you can stand up and honestly say "There was no way which wouldn't have left even more cursing me" then you've come through OK but you've not tried to chose a route that'll take you to that point. I would regard anyone with such a view as too dangerous to be put in charge. You say "My only difference is that my gain is typically a long-term gain for everyone" but that's not what you're working towards, you're just assuming that what's good for you is good for everyone without examing whether that is indeed the case. Short-term needs to be considered too (what's good for everyone in the long term would probably be reducing the Earth's population by a half, but that's not remotely acceptable).

If someone is willing to throw their supporters under the bus the second they no longer serve their purpose, people quickly learn not to trust them.

 

*does a quick wiki-walk*

 

...OK, I stand corrected.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That is entirely "the end justifies the means." "So long as I get the end I'm working towards, I've successfully held my principle" - no matter what you've done to get there? No matter how many people are now cursing your name? If you can stand up and honestly say "There was no way which wouldn't have left even more cursing me" then you've come through OK but you've not tried to chose a route that'll take you to that point. I would regard anyone with such a view as too dangerous to be put in charge. You say "My only difference is that my gain is typically a long-term gain for everyone" but that's not what you're working towards, you're just assuming that what's good for you is good for everyone without examing whether that is indeed the case. Short-term needs to be considered too (what's good for everyone in the long term would probably be reducing the Earth's population by a half, but that's not remotely acceptable).

 

Sure it's acceptable. Why wouldn't it be? Either cast aside this ideal of fairness and value, or cast aside our ability to produce and grow as a species. Even to our decline. In fact, that's what I'd be counting on with the Reaper war. No matter what I've done to get there; the only things I regret are the things that didn't help me get to where I needed to go. I don't care about the people cursing my name. Why would they? I saved them. I'm their god. I made the Reapers disappear. Anything and everything I did in the name of doing that is thrown away completely since I spared them the alternative of not doing such. And yeah, I am assuming what's good for me is good for a lot of other people. I'm not working to ensure their own individual rights and freedoms and life and such. They never really had a chance. Sucks for them, but what can you do? I know what I can do. I can destroy the Reapers with the time their deaths and suffering buys me to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else ever again. That seems like the much more acceptable possibility. When I say the good of the many, I don't mean the good of the present. I mean the good of the future. We want to have a habitable, sustainable, healthy planet Earth capable of supporting humans in the future and promoting growth and achievement and happiness in the future? Make sacrifices today.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

If someone is willing to throw their supporters under the bus the second they no longer serve their purpose, people quickly learn not to trust them.

 

*does a quick wiki-walk*

 

...OK, I stand corrected.

 

I'm fine with people not trusting me during the Reaper War. It means the Reapers take care of that problem for me. On one hand, it's one less hammer or gun. On the other, it's one less mouth to feed. I'm the only chance they have. Believe me, I wish I didn't have to be. But they didn't listen, and they decided that they were fine and dandy, and Knock, Knock! The Apocalypse is at the door! So all they can do is trust me. And it's very simple to keep serving their purpose; don't stop being useful. Contribute. Or die. And if you can't contribute, I have a few methods that can help my goals that will require your body.

 

I don't get why people have an issue seeing others as resources. Even I myself would be a resource. A much, much more valuable resource in the fight. Seriously, I'm a liberal, but a lot of things I dislike are the fact that everyone thinks they're special. They're not. You either work, fight, or die. That's all I can give you against the Reapers. Be grateful. You won't even get two of those from them.

[DeinonSlayer]

Yeah, it's when you talk about things like nuking Kaidan and keeping Ashley for the express short-term purpose of banging her (when you don't even like her), then discarding her as well without a second glance, which ought to make people leery of Shepard's judgement. People generally don't like to be treated as disposable for such fickle reasons (though I have no doubt it continues to happen in the real world).

 

Gotta wonder whether you're joking half the time.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Yeah, it's when you talk about things like nuking Kaidan and keeping Ashley for the express short-term purpose of banging her (when you don't even like her), then discarding her as well without a second glance, which ought to make people leery of Shepard's judgement. People generally don't like to be treated as disposable for such fickle reasons. Gotta wonder whether you're joking half the time.

 

No, that one is one hundred percent serious. Externally, it's true (and shows a bit of my sadistic side, though it's never really without reason that I act). Internally, it's a flaw Shepard admits to and acknowledges as a mistake he made. It was crappy judgement. He wasted a good resource on a broken gun. Otherwise, my Shepard may be callous with the feelings and ideals of most of the people he protects, but he is nothing if not economical. He doesn't waste resources, and will go out of his way to ensure that they aren't blown on something useless if he can help it. He tries to maintain the line between spending resources and wasting them. Knowing the difference from spending lives, or wasting them. That said, Ashley really brings out on herself. Without so much as an opportunity to explain, she declares herself an enemy of Shepard and a hardliner on where she stands, a position that I am categorically opposed to. That and Shepard's feelings for Miranda are stronger, and she has proven herself to be far more reliable, far more capable, and far more loyal than Ashley ever did. And her views aren't incompatible with my own. 

 

Why would you think I'm joking?

[Invisible Man]

Yeah, it's when you talk about things like nuking Kaidan and keeping Ashley for the express short-term purpose of banging her (when you don't even like her), then discarding her as well without a second glance, which ought to make people leery of Shepard's judgement. People generally don't like to be treated as disposable for such fickle reasons (though I have no doubt it continues to happen in the real world).
 
Gotta wonder whether you're joking half the time.

I have to agree. and quite a few times I've wondered if massively has just been in the field too long, or is too deep into spec-ops.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I have to agree. and quite a few times I've wondered if massively has just been in the field too long, or is too deep into spec-ops.

 

What's your beef with my views? You base yours on moral/ethical validity. I try to base mine on practical economics. It helps immensely in a war when you stop looking at people as a precious gem to be protected, and more as a commodity to be utilized. 

[Invisible Man]

What's your beef with my views? You base yours on moral/ethical validity. I try to base mine on practical economics. It helps immensely in a war when you stop looking at people as a precious gem to be protected, and more as a commodity to be utilized.

it just that when expressing your views, you kind of sound like a few of my old friends before they... basically went into the rubber room in the va (figuratively speaking). most of em simply burnt out, or spent too much time doing covert "stuff" that messed with their heads.

[DeinonSlayer]

I'm the only chance they have. Believe me, I wish I didn't have to be. But they didn't listen, and they decided that they were fine and dandy, and Knock, Knock! The Apocalypse is at the door! So all they can do is trust me. And it's very simple to keep serving their purpose; don't stop being useful. Contribute. Or die. And if you can't contribute, I have a few methods that can help my goals that will require your body.

It's clear why the rivalry between you and David is so caustic. Take his concept of Heroism, knock it on its ass, flip it upside-down, and you get... (anti)Heroism!

 

In all seriousness, though, I get the idea of people as resources. A leader can't afford to agonize over every loss or they wouldn't be able to do their jobs. Still, when you drop posts about wanting to summarily execute the ME1 crew or wanting to smash Tali's faceplate and watch her die (Joking, Necanor bait?), then claim to be objective in matters pertaining to, say, the Quarian/Geth conflict, looking at them solely as resources, it's hard to believe when that kind of hatred is just under the surface. That's the kind of thing which leaves me to periodically question either your seriousness or your judgment.

 

You've said before (IIRC - paraphrasing here) you'd burn the galaxy to save Miranda. Is that the cause everyone following you would be expected to work and sacrifice themselves for if it came down to it? They'd be better off abandoning you if your goals strayed too far from theirs.

 

I freely admit my own biases (ex: Quarian/Geth), but if Destroy burned out their cybernetics and killed them all, I'd still do it, enraged though I would be for what I was forced to do.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

it just that when expressing your views, you kind of sound like a few of my old friends before they... basically went into the rubber room in the va (figuratively speaking). most of em simply burnt out, or spent too much time doing covert "stuff" that messed with their heads.

 

You mean I end up sounding like Colonel Kilgore, or Colonel Kurtz in 'Apocalypse Now!'

 

I take the ideal of Total War a little too seriously. I can see your perspective. I take what Captain Ronald Spiers held as the truth of the battlefield, the truth of war. 

 

I liken truths about war to what you get from listening to Colonel Dave Grossman. From reading Erwin Rommel's infantry manual 'Infanterie Greift An', to watching Mad Dog, Stan, and Peaches talk about the sad necessities in war. To analyzing Sherman and Chamberlain and Grant.

 

Dehumanization. Humans are terrible fighters. They're too compassionate, too emotional, too idealistic. Take that away, and you get a dispassionate, detached, automaton with no regard for health or safety or hope. And you fight better. Because once you accept that you're dead, you lose any inhibition, any fear beyond the most primal, reptilian mechanisms that keep you alert and aware. You fight until either the enemy is dead, or until you are. It's... an exhilarating hell to feel.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's clear why the rivalry between you and David is so caustic. Take his concept of Heroism, knock it on its ass, flip it upside-down, and you get... (anti)Heroism!

 

You've said before (IIRC - paraphrasing here) you'd burn the galaxy to save Miranda. Is that the cause everyone following you would be expected to work and sacrifice themselves for if it came down to it? They'd be better off abandoning you if your goals strayed too far from theirs.

 

I freely admit my own biases (ex: Quarian/Geth), but if Destroy burned out their cybernetics and killed them all, I'd still do it, enraged though I would be for what I was forced to do.

 

Yes indeed, I would allow the galaxy to burn for Miranda's sake. And you can call it a flaw. It's there intentionally. It's my Shepard's irrational berserk button. The issue is whether or not it would need to come to that. Saving Miranda however is not mutually exclusive with saving the galaxy however.

[Invisible Man]

You mean I end up sounding like Colonel Kilgore, or Colonel Kurtz in 'Apocalypse Now!'
 
I take the ideal of Total War a little too seriously. I can see your perspective. I take what Captain Ronald Spiers held as the truth of the battlefield, the truth of war.

basically, yep. it's not so much an issue I have with your views, but actual concern. because I've seen this kind of talk before. and usually what comes after it isn't pretty.

---edit
I also want to point out, I'm not trying to sound military. in fact I've never served, though for some reason I've lived in a place where a lot of vets seem to hang around, most of em I'd call my friends.

[DeinonSlayer]

Yes indeed, I would allow the galaxy to burn for Miranda's sake. And you can call it a flaw. It's there intentionally. It's my Shepard's irrational berserk button. The issue is whether or not it would need to come to that. Saving Miranda however is not mutually exclusive with saving the galaxy however.

Fair enough, I roleplay each of my Shepards with different flaws as well. Each makes mistakes and takes losses which could be avoided by metagaming.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

basically, yep. it's not so much an issue I have with your views, but actual concern. because I've seen this kind of talk before. and usually what comes after it isn't pretty.

---edit
I also want to point out, I'm not trying to sound military. in fact I've never served, though for some reason I've lived in a place where a lot of vets seem to hang around, most of em I'd call my friends.

 

See, what I had wasn't so much a traumatic experience as it was an awakening for me. I'm too rational and detached to really feel any genuine problem with my perspective. Whether it comes from experience or nature, I can't say. What I can say is that it allows me a sense of what I feel is virtuous clarity. It allows me to see what I need to see. It didn't change me as far as my personality or interaction with others goes, but it gave me a deeper intrigue into philosophy. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Fair enough, I roleplay each of my Shepards with different flaws as well. Each makes mistakes and takes losses which could be avoided by metagaming.

 

I usually meta-game, and create rational arguments and reason for why I make whatever decision I make. That one is really the only one I didn't have Shepard use reason for. He wanted to bang Ashley, and he had some inklings of feelings for her on Virmire, despite the obvious incompatibility between them.