642 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Does anyone have any scaling on how big the crucible is, in comparison to the citadel? Because it seems to me that is was able to take a lot of damage from the Reapers without being destroyed, so either it had incredible armor and/or kinetic barriers. So... why didn't they give it a giant mass accelerator? I mean, with it's length, it should be immensely powerful. 

[KaiserShep]

You'd have to guess from the size comparison between it and the ships escorting it.

[SwobyJ]

Pure Paragon gives me diabetes. As for sticking to their values, that's debatable. Wouldn't a more renegade character who embraces the idea that a certain enemy needs to die and nothing else, and follows through in killing the enemy, technically be sticking to his/her values?

 

Yes.

 

Just turns out their values are murderous, if there is absolutely no room for compromise in any way.

 

The only extent that Shepard is forced to compromise, when it comes to Reapers, is:

-EDI being.. around (though you can somewhat influence her place in the ship)

-being exposed to Reaper-code related things

-using the Crucible, which integrates with Reaper tech (Citadel) to do its thing, as a weapon to destroy Reapers

 

None of these things being an allowance for Reapers to continue with their existence, or their Reaping thing.

 

So in that sense, Full Renegade Shepard doesn't give a damn about any larger 'organic-synthetic' problems. He sees a problem, and finds the most direct solutions possible. If there ends up a sequel where machines (and organic use of tech) go haywire in various ways, don't look for the actions of a Full Renegade Shepard to have helped that much, but instead just minimize the stage of that problem's development. AI would come up no matter what, but at least it isn't the Reapers we knew.

 

A smaller example of this is Destroying the Geth Heretics. It weakens their forces and allowed more Quarians to survive.

 

So even if you consider Geth to be alive, killing them saved lives closer to what you may regard to be your own (organics). A Shepard that doesn't consider the Geth to be alive and/or worthy of being alive, however, stuck more to his lower/central values. He wasn't a Paragon, but he certainly was a Renegade.

[KaiserShep]

Well, it's A-OK if they're trying to kill you back.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Pure Paragon gives me diabetes. As for sticking to their values, that's debatable. Wouldn't a more renegade character who embraces the idea that a certain enemy needs to die and nothing else, and follows through in killing the enemy, technically be sticking to his/her values?

 

Technically speaking, I'm a person who never compromises my values or principles. 

 

The difference is that my values and principles are my goals, rather than how I accomplish them. It doesn't matter how it's done, as long as it gets done, as long as I meet my goal, I haven't betrayed my principles. 

[SwobyJ]

It's not murder if they're trying to kill you back.

 

Not murder. Murderous.

-capable of or intending to murder; dangerously violent

 

If it is in self defense, use the second definition (dangerously violent).

If it isn't in self defense, use the first definition (intending to murder).

 

If there is another option available to you, and seems reasonable or logical, and you don't take it, then while you mayy not have committed murder (if they first attack you), you have acted on murderous intent if your intent was to kill.

 

This is why there are laws in some places that restrict even the degree to which one can self-defend without consequence. Someone slaps you and you stab them, that's murderous. Someone tries to kill you and you try to kill their family just in case, that's murderous.

 

Sometimes being murderous can be effective in getting your basic goal achieved. (I know that sentence sounds psycho.) It is why say, governments, militaries, militia, etc etc opt for it, and it gains them power and/or freedom, at least in the short term, to do what they want.

 

Destroying the Reapers, does that. In Control, everything is still done under the guidance of 'Reaper', which might not be considered freedom by many. In Synthesis, everything is done under a new form of existence, which might be considered sudden extinction of the human. In Destroy, you kill even when there's other options available that might have better ends, but you do it because those better ends do not fit your own view of 'ends'.

When you have such low EMS that only Low Destroy is possible, you 'brought it on yourself'. Now, you must kill. But in this, you might feel especially justified. You're not confused or angered by other options existing. Now it is simple - kill or be killed, act purely in self-defense. No assuming Control. No Peace.

 

 

 

It is hard for many to be 100% Renegade, unless they're just indulging their basest wants and/or doing it for 'fun'. Because most of us live in societies where it isn't kill or be killed in most confrontations. We have concepts of Order, Police, Negotiation, and Honor, etc. But that doesn't eliminate the understandable motivation for a *Shepard* to go 100% Renegade. Almost every Renegade action has a good-enough justification, even if some are stupid. But it isn't about intelligence - it is about survival. (of yourself, of others close to you, or of 'ways of life')

[SwobyJ]

If someone is trying to kill you, and is very capable of doing so, and has killed others.. heck yes it is okay to kill them back. At least if they're right in your face, and hurting others. It is entirely understandable to click on survival instinct and take them down by whatever means. (It does sometimes carry the possibility of blowback/accidents that were not intended)

 

But that doesn't mean that it is automatically a better result. The person, for example, could be in psychosis. Or they could be running on a completely wrong premise about who they're killing. Or this could be a more cultural/factional dispute and killing the other will only worsen tensions between groups so that even more deaths happen until only the winner (which may not be your faction) stands.

 

So ideally (and Mass Effect shows ideals more heroically and successfully than they normally are IRL), the killer would be sedated, and put on rehabilitation while the risk of them killing again is mitigated via prison/therapy/other programs. So that overall, they could say return to work, volunteer, do other things that might one day, ultimately, at least partially make up for what they've done earlier.

 

That's pretty much the Paragon thing. I'll let you live so that you help with ____. And even if you don't, maybe your children will. Maybe by letting the killer go, but restricting their freedoms to kill again, the killers' children will end up, I dunno, curing cancer. Endless possibilities when one is alive. Possibilities we can only imagine when another is dead.. because they're dead.

 

It helps one to (appropriately or inappropriately) label others as scum so that you feel right about doing the killing, but all killers started as children, and for one reason or another (internally or externally, but really both) became one who killed. And even in killing in self-defense, while not necessarily a murderer, you are now a killer. But you might have done what you had to do. Sometimes, in some situations, you might be a person who is rewarded for enjoying it...

[KaiserShep]

Meh. The only good reaper is a dead reaper.

[SwobyJ]

Meh. The only good reaper is a dead reaper.

 

The only good krogan is a dead krogan.

 

The only good rachni is a dead rachni.

 

The only good geth is a deactivated/destroyed geth.

 

"No sentimentality, comrade!" cried Snowball from whose wounds the blood was still dripping. "War is war. The only good human being is a dead one." -George Orwell

 

We have no clue yet where Mass Effect will go.

 

But we do have clues at what the developers intended with the existing games.

 

The only good Reaper code is eliminated Reaper code? But what about EDI. Or is she only a tool?

[KaiserShep]

I guess the problem here is that the reapers are a particularly special case in that their fate is tied to Shepard's. In Shep's position, I'd only sacrifice my life for humanity and humanity alone. If I had to die for the genophage, or help the rachni, they'd all go extinct.

[themikefest]

And I if it came down to sacrificing the galaxy to save humanity, then thats what I will do.

[KaiserShep]

And I if it came down to sacrificing the galaxy to save humanity, then thats what I will do.

Same. I wouldn't like it, but if that's what it came down to, humanity comes first.

[Daemul]

Same. I wouldn't like it, but if that's what it came down to, humanity comes first.

 

Agreed.

 

RIP Turians, Asari, Salarians, Krogan, Vorcha, Geth, Quarians, Rachni, Hanar, Yahg, Volous, Elcor and Batarians.

[Xilizhra]

I guess the problem here is that the reapers are a particularly special case in that their fate is tied to Shepard's. In Shep's position, I'd only sacrifice my life for humanity and humanity alone. If I had to die for the genophage, or help the rachni, they'd all go extinct.

Er... why?

 

 

Same. I wouldn't like it, but if that's what it came down to, humanity comes first.

I hardly agree. Humans are just one part of the greater whole. In fact, due to differing population numbers, I'd save asari, turians, salarians, and probably volus before humans, simply because each of those species has more people in it.

[themikefest]

 

I hardly agree. Humans are just one part of the greater whole. In fact, due to differing population numbers, I'd save asari, turians, salarians, and probably volus before humans, simply because each of those species has more people in it.

If you took one individual from each species, they would choose to sacrifice the galaxy to save their own species. Population has nothing to do with it.

[Xilizhra]

If you took one individual from each species, they would choose to sacrifice the galaxy to save their own species. Population has nothing to do with it.

Then I guess that's why I'm the Spectre and they aren't.

[SwobyJ]

I guess the problem here is that the reapers are a particularly special case in that their fate is tied to Shepard's. In Shep's position, I'd only sacrifice my life for humanity and humanity alone. If I had to die for the genophage, or help the rachni, they'd all go extinct.

 

That's quite fair (to humanity).

 

I chose Destroy too.

 

I'm not for (my) Shepard to throw his life into anything. I always RPed that he goes into battle intending either to win, or to survive as best he can.

 

It really is what has made me have that bit of Paragade to how I do things. Cool, I'll help you/your species/your purpose if it makes sense to me. Sure. But I'm not sacrificing my will or life for it. As far as we're shown in the EC endings, no one loses their will (well Reapers in Control is more up in the air). Maybe that's Shepard's special ingredient to the process. But I'm not putting Shepard's life into it.

 

If I was RPing Legion, I'd act similarly. If I was RPing Mordin, I'd act similarly. Be good NOW, so that you don't feel you have to 'fix things' later on.

 

I both sympathize yet utterly reject the sacrificial Green stuff of ME3. But that's what interests me about it. It is how I also sympathize with Thane/MordinME3/LegionME3/etc, yet even as I do the Cure/Peace, I temper expectations as best as the dialogue allows me too, and I try to make it clear to Mordin/Legion that they don't need to do what they're doing, in order for a good end to this.

 

"No other options"? Screw that. There's always other options. Even if yours is the most objective best for the whole galaxy, that doesn't mean that we need to pick it.

[KaiserShep]

If you expect a turian, salarian or asari Spectre to sacrifice their own species for the galaxy, I'd call you incredibly naive.

[Xilizhra]

If you expect a turian, salarian or asari Spectre to sacrifice their own species for the galaxy, I'd call you incredibly naive.

Perhaps, but then I would say they were in the wrong job.

[SwobyJ]

If you took one individual from each species, they would choose to sacrifice the galaxy to save their own species. Population has nothing to do with it.

 

I waffle on this.

 

If the 'galaxy' was more equal, with humanity numbering in the billions and other species numbering in the billions at most, and there not being many other species... then I'd go humanity first, outright.

 

But if the 'galaxy' was actually numbering in the many many trillions of aliens and humanity's billions was an utter speck in my decision making, yep, I'd probably find that difficult.

 

I'm not actually willing to kill many trillions of sapient organics for the sake of billions of humans, if somehow put into that decision.

 

Reapers make this decision trickier because for all we know, Reapers only have a recording of past civilizations within them. I hypothesize that they may have whole virtual universes of people within them, but I can't know that, that least not yet (?lol). So yeah, maybe there's 'many trillions' of 'people' within Reapers. I don't know that, and they won't tell it to me straight, so... yeah, bye bye.

 

I do recognize synthetic life though, even for the slippery slope that may entail (is each program a person?).

[SwobyJ]

Perhaps, but then I would say they were in the wrong job.

 

Then every, or almost every Spectre is in the wrong job.

 

Ultimately, the Spectres are there to serve their species interest - in cooperation with a Council.

 

It would be an extraordinary circumstance for a Spectre to kill off their own species for the existence of the rest of the galaxy, and still not be seen as at least potentially traitorous by the rest of the galaxy. "If this is how he treats his own, how would he treat the rest?"

 

Traitor Saren.

[KaiserShep]

Perhaps, but then I would say they were in the wrong job.

Interesting. So, would you sacrifice humanity for just the krogan, or just the rachni? How about both? The vorcha, hanar and elcor?

[Mordokai]

If you expect a turian, salarian or asari Spectre to sacrifice their own species for the galaxy, I'd call you incredibly naive.

 

Generalization is usually a bad thing. Maybe most of them wouldn't, but I can totally see few of them do something like that.

 

Probably not Saren though. Or Vasir.

 

Can see somebody like Jontom doing it.

[SwobyJ]

Interesting. So, would you sacrifice humanity for just the krogan, or just the rachni? How about both? The vorcha, hanar and elcor?

 

Well they did say "the galaxy".

 

Which could mean "ALL other alien civilzations civilizations", not just one other or multiples.

 

But yes, this is an interesting character/personality study.

 

Personally: I'm a Canadian, but if it came down to every single other nation in the world all dying, or just everyone in Canada dying (maybe even including myself), then I would choose the latter - in this extremely forced situation.

 

This would be seen a traitorous though, so heh, good luck to me having any sort of respect afterwards - barring them knowing exactly what I did and why I did it (which is why, for example, Synthesis works for them remembering Shepard because he is literally IN everyone).

[themikefest]

For me I wouldn't care what the numbers are for the aliens. I would sacrifice them in a heartbeat to save humanity. And with the synthetics. I don't care. They're just machines.