Heretic rewrite decision. Control is very Paragon.
So TIM was really a Paragon?
Also, I thought the Renegade/Paragon choice at Heretic Station was silly. What makes one Renegade and the other Paragon? Brainwashing or killing? Both seem pretty nasty. BW should just ditch the morality system altogether and just have players make choices. They need to stop forcing their morals down my throat.
So TIM was really a Paragon?
Also, I thought the Renegade/Paragon choice at Heretic Station was silly. What makes one Renegade and the other Paragon? Brainwashing or killing? Both seem pretty nasty. BW should just ditch the morality system altogether and just have players make choices. They need to stop forcing their morals down my throat.
I don't have a problem with Mass Effect calling one thing Paragon and one thing Renegade as long as it's a ideal vs pragmatic angle (and keep them morally ambiguous) or a reputation one (which makes sense). It starts to be a problem though when they start associating 'evil' actions with one and giving it negative connotations.
Although the Heretic choices seem to be one that doesn't fit into the paradigm. Both actions seem like a Renegade choice to me, killing off or brain(curcuit?)washing a group for the benefit of the whole, while the Paragon option would be to leave the Heretics alone.
So TIM was really a Paragon?
Also, I thought the Renegade/Paragon choice at Heretic Station was silly. What makes one Renegade and the other Paragon? Brainwashing or killing? Both seem pretty nasty. BW should just ditch the morality system altogether and just have players make choices. They need to stop forcing their morals down my throat.
So TIM was really a Paragon?
Also, I thought the Renegade/Paragon choice at Heretic Station was silly. What makes one Renegade and the other Paragon? Brainwashing or killing? Both seem pretty nasty. BW should just ditch the morality system altogether and just have players make choices. They need to stop forcing their morals down my throat.
Geth are not like organics. Do not apply your morality to them. The Paragon and Renegade here are for "the feelz." In both choices you kill them. The former versions cease to exist. You're replacing the data files in one instance while retaining the strength of the Geth. And in the other you're wiping the data files permanently.
Remember this race has done nothing but shoot at you for two years, except for one individual platform - the collection of runtimes called Legion. I look at it as doing the galaxy a favor. And this is also completing Shepard's mission prior to when she was killed by the Collectors. She was hunting Geth and now she knows Geth heretics. There is a non-zero probability that replacing the data file will fail. Fry the toasters.
And didn't you know that in the end, Shepard was the bad guy? TIM was a paragon, and the Reapers were really the good guys? 
OTOH, Control seems to be the ultimate renegade choice. Paragons shouldn't be picking it.
There are both renegade and paragon aspects to it.
Renegade - seizing power for yourself, working with the Reapers and ignoring the directions of your superiors (Shepard's never explicitly ordered to Destroy the Reapers, but it's clear that Hackett and Anderson would prefer it).
Paragon - self-sacrifice, everybody lives and taking a huge risk in the hopes of the best outcome (ie, risking that you'll still be yourself after the transition). (Oh, and blue 
)
Speaking as a primarily Paragon player, it doesn't feel out of character for my Shepard to be picking it.
Speaking as a primarily Paragon player, it doesn't feel out of character for my Shepard to be picking it.
I had a similar feeling about this in the past; that paragon control is the best way to keep the galaxy running as smoothly as it did before the reapers arrived -- which wasn't ideal but they were managing -- and removing the reapers as a threat at the same time.
Refusal = Renegade
Synthesis = Paragade
Destroy = Renegon
Control = ... I refuse to believe that Control is paragon. I do not care if it glows in blue.
In Mass Effect 2 I always destroy the Geth so I can have more Quarian's in the 3rd one. The only reason I can see why someone would rewrite them is to have more Geth for the 3rd one. But if you rewrite them you lose more Quarian's in the 3rd one so unless you are planning on siding with the Geth then I do not see much point in rewriting them.
Also, sense Shepard may become a Reaper. I wonder if he would use Reaper indoctrination to secretly control people as well.
In Mass Effect 2 I always destroy the Geth so I can have more Quarian's in the 3rd one. The only reason I can see why someone would rewrite them is to have more Geth for the 3rd one. But is you rewrite them you lose more Quarian's in the 3rd one so unless you are planning on siding with the Geth then I do not see much point in rewriting them.
At the time, I justified it as more potential allies for the upcoming Galactic War. I didn't know that the Geth and Quarians were going to do their level best to kill each other...
Control is whatever your Shepard is, since your alignment in the game changes it. Control as a Paragon Shepard= Paragon. Control as a Renegade Shepard= Renegade
The only reason why I can't personally go for Control is that the Catalyst, an AI that has became way too literal, caused this whole cycle to begin with. Who's to say that wouldn't happen to a Control Shep a million years from now? S/he could lose their minds to the program for good, and could become much like the Starchild. What seems like the greater good and the best solution could spell a new form of hell thousands of years down the road. Not another extinction cycle, but different issues nonetheless. No, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Still, an evolved AI taking over for the previously lesser evolved AI seems like a great way to create future problems.
Hey though, to each their own. I'm not going to say I'm right about this, just my views as someone still pretty new to the series.
I dunno, I look at it like... a million years from now is too big a number to be a factor in terms of the evolution of the galaxy from its current time. If a civilization can crop up every fifty thousand years or so, a million years is twenty entire civilizations after ours. From primitive to the point of harvest. Civilizations aren't going to roll over quite so quickly now that no one gets harvested anymore, but still.
I like to think a paragon shepalyst would share all kinds of reaper tech with people. Maybe not everything, but... the good stuff 
And without taking control of everybody's minds. A million years from now, the galaxy will likely be much better equipped to deal with a mad god.
Destroy is the ultimate Renegade choice. You kill your allies to destroy your enemies when there are other options available that spare everyone. THat is inherently renegade, trying to justify it as any form of Paragon is whitewashing.
Destroy is the ultimate Renegade choice. You kill your allies to destroy your enemies when there are other options available that spare everyone. THat is inherently renegade, trying to justify it as any form of Paragon is whitewashing.
What if the Geth are already dead? EDI is just one person.
Oh, yes. Because becoming a dictator and galactic space magic rape are better than sacrificing the Geth, who may or may not already be dead.
The only reason why I can't personally go for Control is that the Catalyst, an AI that has became way too literal, caused this whole cycle to begin with. Who's to say that wouldn't happen to a Control Shep a million years from now? S/he could lose their minds to the program for good, and could become much like the Starchild. What seems like the greater good and the best solution could spell a new form of hell thousands of years down the road. Not another extinction cycle, but different issues nonetheless. No, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Still, an evolved AI taking over for the previously lesser evolved AI seems like a great way to create future problems.
Hey though, to each their own. I'm not going to say I'm right about this, just my views as someone still pretty new to the series.
This was one reason my canon Shep didn't choose Control. The other was... she didn't trusted herself with the power provided. After all, if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely. And by that time, she was pretty much solely responsible for death of three races(rachni, quarians and batarians)... one more dead race right now(geth) is better than possibly many more down the road.
That and GodChild going "Synthesis is good for you, honestly!" was enough to make her think "nobody tells me what's good for us." So, she blew up the tube.
Destroy is the ultimate Renegade choice. You kill your allies to destroy your enemies when there are other options available that spare everyone. THat is inherently renegade, trying to justify it as any form of Paragon is whitewashing.
Every choice has a paragon and renegade feels to them:
Destroy:
Control:
Synthesis:
Say what you will, but they did one thing right with the endings. They left a lot of room for interpretation. This forum here is a living proof they managed. Two years later and we still bicker about it.
Destroy is whatever the player wants it to be. Paragon or renegade. For me, it doesn't matter since I choose it all the time.
Destroy is the ultimate Renegade choice. You kill your allies to destroy your enemies when there are other options available that spare everyone. THat is inherently renegade, trying to justify it as any form of Paragon is whitewashing.
I think the endings go beyond the Paragon/Renegade paradigm. All the choices really have aspects that are considered Renegade. In Control you're installing a somewhat unknown entity as some sort of despot and in Synthesis Shepard is taking it upon himself to transform everyone in the galaxy into something else with very little comprehension of the consequences.
Except no, it isn't up to player interpretation. When has murdering your allies to achieve your goal ever been a Paragon option?
Are you referring to the robots? For me, I don't care about the tin cans. Majority of the time I choose the Quarians over the machines
Except no, it isn't up to player interpretation. When has murdering your allies to achieve your goal ever been a Paragon option?
If it isn't up to player interpretation is there really any point to this? Anderson the Paragon is the representative of the Destroy option so the game's view on it seems pretty settled. You can argue about the color but don't forget the Collector Base decision also had the color inversion; also destroying the base (Paragon) makes the Destroy option easier to unlock.
Except no, it isn't up to player interpretation. When has murdering your allies to achieve your goal ever been a Paragon option?
When has becoming Space Hitler ever been paragon?
When has raping changing everyone in the galaxy without their consent ever been paragon?
When has paragon ever been practically and morally infallible?
You're all working from the assumption that people who were synthesised suddenly woke up and were all like ' Man Shepard went and wiped out all diseases gave us near infinite knowledge and created galactic peace forever! And now we might even transcend death itself....what a dick.'
You're all working from the assumption that people who were synthesised suddenly woke up and were all like ' Man Shepard went and wiped out all diseases gave us near infinite knowledge and created galactic peace forever! And now we might even transcend death itself....what a dick.'
Playing a little bit of devil's advocate here:
I can see some of the galaxy thinking. "Gee, thanks for forcing a union between machine and organics. We appreciate our choices being completely removed from us."
Or, "Wow, now I can even crush my old enemies stronger thanks to this upgrade. Oh, I can recruit former Reaper creations to my cause? Thanks Shep!"
Also, can you imagine the horror of a Husk realizing what it's done? Say, this newfound synthesis also gives them memory. All the things they've done to others could come back, as well as the memories of getting killed and/or husked on top of it. This is highly unlikely, but it's still a thought I had.
As for "galactic peace forever," well there is a hitch to that. Mortal nature being what it is, eventually folks will find reasons to war with each other. Different cultures and societies still exist.
Also, while war time can bring peace, it very rarely fixes old hatreds for good. Not all krogan are going to want to surviving the war preventing their anger towards the salarians and turians from turning violent. The wrong people get into power after the war and it could spell real trouble. Not all of the mercs are going to go on to lead respectable lives after the war. There's been several planets that are just bombarded down to the ground, and are probably uninhabitable for some time after the war. All of the resources that the galaxy had were pretty much poured into that device and it's going to be hard going for most sorts of supplies for awhile.
War will happen again. It may not be in 10 years, it may not be in 200, but I really think it's bound it happen sooner or later. Sure, there won't be anymore war between synthetics and organics (which don't get me wrong, I think that's a great thing,) but to say there will be everlasting peace in the galaxy is a pretty big stretch.
Mind you, this is all in my opinion. I'm certainly not claiming to be any sort of expert on the series. It's just some various thoughts I've had bouncing around while playing ME3 this time. <shrug>
When the alternative options seem even worse. If you believe the consequences of the other choices are worse then it's Paragon. If you don't care about the consequences of any of the choices but just want the Reapers dead then it's Renegade. It's not impossible for both Paragons and Renegades to come to the same conclusion in some circumstances, even if it's for very different reasons.Except no, it isn't up to player interpretation. When has murdering your allies to achieve your goal ever been a Paragon option?
Retour en haut