85 réponses à ce sujet

[BabyPuncher]

Would I be correct in my understanding that players on the forum object to the morality system because they dislike (or think they dislike) the idea of the story 'telling' them what right and wrong is?

[Cyonan]

Would I be correct in my understanding that players on the forum object to the morality system because they dislike (or think they dislike) the idea of the story 'telling' them what right and wrong is?

 

It's more that morality rarely is black and white, so if a game's morality system tries to be designed around the idea that one option is "good" and the other option is "bad" then it's going to have problems. There are times where paragon or renegade being assigned to a choice just didn't make much sense, but those are the only two choices they have.

 

I've never been a fan of the Jedi/Sith morality style where either you're good to the point of stupidity or you are literally Satan and you crap pure unfiltered evil.

[KaiserShep]

Would I be correct in my understanding that players on the forum object to the morality system because they dislike (or think they dislike) the idea of the story 'telling' them what right and wrong is?

 

The problems I have with the Renegade/Paragon system is that I'm not the biggest fan of the dominant tone it introduced in ME3, and throughout the trilogy it wasn't very consistent. Example: dealing with Harrot the elcor on Omega in ME2. When you talk to him about the deal he made with the quarian, the charm dialogue basically includes a threat to break his legs. Of course, there's no way you'd know what to expect there, since the paraphrase is simply "Leave the quarian alone". And then there's pistol whipping Gavin Archer in the Overlord DLC with a paragon interrupt. 

[BabyPuncher]

It's more that morality rarely is black and white, so if a game's morality system tries to be designed around the idea that one option is "good" and the other option is "bad" then it's going to have problems.

 

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what 'black and white' morality actually entails.

 

Your reasoning is that if the two sides aren't the purest most angelic good and the worst most cackling evil, then it's impossible to say what good and bad is? Do you realize how silly that is?

 

Nobody is claiming morality is 'black and white.' Nobody is claiming that good people are utterly perfect and never make mistakes or commit wrongful deeds, nor that evil people don't have understandable reasoning and justification for their wrongdoing or aren't even outright sympathetic. Neither of those things are necessary for morality to function.

 

Really, it's time to leave the silly fantasy. Society has been functioning with morality that isn't black and white since time immemorial. And guess what? We don't hopelessly throw our hands up in the air and whimper that it's impossible to say what good and bad is. We acknowledge that murderers and criminals and such can have reasons for doing what they do - and we punish them anyway.

[mickey111]

It's more that morality rarely is black and white, so if a game's morality system tries to be designed around the idea that one option is "good" and the other option is "bad" then it's going to have problems. There are times where paragon or renegade being assigned to a choice just didn't make much sense, but those are the only two choices they have.

 

I've never been a fan of the Jedi/Sith morality style where either you're good to the point of stupidity or you are literally Satan and you crap pure unfiltered evil.

 

jedi and sith can be likened to political leanings more than morality imo. Neither side wants to destroy all life, they just have different ideas of leadership and varying degrees of sympathy and tolerance. The sith are like hitler, improving the quality of life for their own even if it means depopulating planets. Renegade and paragon are bs like you said, but that's cause of consistency issues, and because nobody in the game identifies themselves as paragon or renegade, it's not like nazis vs allies or jedi vs sith at all. It's nothing but a badly written psychology test. 

[Lady Artifice]

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what 'black and white' morality actually entails.

 

Your reasoning is that if the two sides aren't the purest most angelic good and the worst most cackling evil, then it's impossible to say what good and bad is? Do you realize how silly that is?

 

Nobody is claiming morality is 'black and white.' Nobody is claiming that good people are utterly perfectly and never make mistakes or commit wrongful deeds, nor that evil people don't have understandable reasoning and justification for their wrongdoing or aren't even outright sympathetic. Neither of those things are necessary for morality to function.

 

Really, it's time to leave the silly fantasy. Society has been functioning with morality that isn't black and white since time immemorial. And guess what? We don't hopelessly throw our hands up in the air and whimper that it's impossible to say what good and bad is. We acknowledge that murderers and criminals and such can have reasons for doing what they do - and we punish them anyway.

 

Literally--and I do mean literally--every time someone has a different perspective about something than you have, you claim they're "whimpering" or "whining" about it. All the while completely oblivious to the fact that the one who usually seems most petulant in the discussion is, in fact, you. 

[Cyonan]

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what 'black and white' morality actually entails.

 

Your reasoning is that if the two sides aren't the purest most angelic good and the worst most cackling evil, then it's impossible to say what good and bad is? Do you realize how silly that is?

 

Nobody is claiming morality is 'black and white.' Nobody is claiming that good people are utterly perfectly and never make mistakes or commit wrongful deeds, nor that evil people don't have understandable reasoning and justification for their wrongdoing or aren't even outright sympathetic. Neither of those things are necessary for morality to function.

 

Really, it's time to leave the silly fantasy. Society has been functioning with morality that isn't black and white since time immemorial. And guess what? We don't hopelessly throw our hands up in the air and whimper that it's impossible to say what good and bad is. We acknowledge that murderers and criminals and such can have reasons for doing what they do - and we punish them anyway.

 

Yeah sure most of us can agree that it's bad to murder somebody, even if you had a reason to do so.

 

However, do you think it's evil if somebody steals food to feed their starving family? Do you think everybody would agree on your answer?(spoiler alert: The answer is no they wont)

 

Or in Mass Effect 2, why is it that in Legion's Loyalty mission the rewrite option which is effectively brainwashing considered the "good" option?

 

Good and bad are human constructs that have constantly changing definitions within each society and each individual. They cannot be represented by a binary system in a video game very well because of that.

 

That's why I'll never like binary morality systems like Paragon/Renegade or Light Side/Dark Side. They're not the right tool for the thing they're trying to represent.

[Drone223]

It's more that morality rarely is black and white, so if a game's morality system tries to be designed around the idea that one option is "good" and the other option is "bad" then it's going to have problems. There are times where paragon or renegade being assigned to a choice just didn't make much sense, but those are the only two choices they have.

 

I've never been a fan of the Jedi/Sith morality style where either you're good to the point of stupidity or you are literally Satan and you crap pure unfiltered evil.

Exactly the paragon/renegade morality is very inconsistent and too simplistic in its portrayal. People should make choices based on their own judgement rather than be told by an arbitrary system that one action is clearly good and the other is clearly bad.

 

OT: I sort of disagree with you regarding the Jedi/Sith morality since individuals within the series tend to have different perspectives to said philosophies.

[BabyPuncher]

Yeah sure most of us can agree that it's bad to murder somebody, even if you had a reason to do so.

 

However, do you think it's evil if somebody steals food to feed their starving family? Do you think everybody would agree on your answer?(spoiler alert: The answer is no they wont)

 

First of all, I actually think that most everyone would agree such an act is justified.

 

But to answer the question, yes, you can imagine any number of scenarios where people might disagree on what the best action is. But the response to that is...so what?

 

Why does it matter? How does that do anything to diminish the morality of actions of that are very morally clear?

[BabyPuncher]

I agree with you about the paragon and renegade since its portrayal of morality if very unrealistic and extremely simplified but I sort of disagree with you regarding the Jedi/Sith morality since individuals tend to have different perspectives to said philosophies.

 

Pitifully feeble opposition and nonexistent punishment to outrageous acts of evil are part and parcel to pretty much all video games which offer any sort of moral choice.

 

By far, the overwhelmingly most 'unrealistic' facet of the morality system is not how successful Paragon playthroughs are, it's how successful Renegade players are.

 

Making morality 'realistic' would punish Renegade playthroughs far, far, far more than Paragon. Which is why I don't advocate it.

[Dabrikishaw]

It is a myth that Paragons have an advantage in any of the games.

[BioWareM0d13]

So far, paragon will always gain you more, on top of the fact that people will like you more. Should it really be that way? Isnt renegade a man who will do anything to get things done. Shouldnt renegade by that logic get more credits assets, etc... than a paragon?

 

Not necessarily.

 

While I'm all for the renegade choices not always backfiring, renegade or its equivalent shouldn't always result in better results than paragon or its equivalent either. It should be balanced.

 

Ruthlessness isn't always pragmatic, and has backfired as much throughout history as it has succeeded. It really depends on the situation.

[Cyonan]

I agree with you about the paragon and renegade since its portrayal of morality if very unrealistic and extremely simplified but I sort of disagree with you regarding the Jedi/Sith morality since individuals tend to have different perspectives to said philosophies.

 

I should probably have noted my experience with Star Wars is almost exclusively the movies and the Clone Wars animated series. I hear that the rest of the EU does a better job of the whole Jedi/Sith thing.

 

Of course with the original trilogy the Empire being literally space Nazi Germany kind of didn't help. It was intended to be a very clear cut "good guys vs bad guys" story.

 

First of all, I actually think that most everyone would agree such an act is justified.

 

But to answer the question, yes, you can imagine any number of scenarios where people might disagree on what the best action is. But the response to that is...so what?

 

Why does it matter? How does that do anything to diminish the morality of actions of that are very morally clear?

 

Justified is not the same thing as good/bad. Sometimes the bad course of action can be justified.

 

The point is that there are too many scenarios where good and bad are not clear cut things, even within the definition that our current society agrees on, for a binary morality system like Paragon/Renegade to be a good fit for it.

 

I'm not saying morality can't be clear at times, I'm saying that a system designed around being entirely black and white is not a good representation of morality as a whole.

[AlanC9]

Feros, killing the colonist is a lot easier than saving them.

At the higher difficulty levels this reverses -- the gas grenades are stll one-hit kills, while the colonists soak up more damage from regular weapons fire.
 

[BabyPuncher]

Justified is not the same thing as good/bad. Sometimes the bad course of action can be justified.

 

The point is that there are too many scenarios where good and bad are not clear cut things, even within the definition that our current society agrees on, for a binary morality system like Paragon/Renegade to be a good fit for it.

 

I'm not saying morality can't be clear at times, I'm saying that a system designed around being entirely black and white is not a good representation of morality as a whole.

 

Firstly, no it cannot be. If an action is justifiable, it's not evil. I'm trying to remember the proper legal term, but it's not coming to me...I think it might be justified vs. excusable?

 

Secondly, as I just said, nobody is claiming that morality is or ever has been entirely black and white. And that's just fine. It doesn't need to be entirely black and white to function.

[Drone223]

Pitifully feeble opposition and nonexistent punishment to outrageous acts of evil are part and parcel to pretty much all video games which offer any sort of moral choice.

 

By far, the overwhelmingly most 'unrealistic' facet of the morality system is not how successful Paragon playthroughs are, it's how successful Renegade players are.

 

Making morality 'realistic' would punish Renegade playthroughs far, far, far more than Paragon. Which is why I don't advocate it.

That's ridiculous extremely naive actions should backfire really badly and there are times were certain actions do come off as questionable but in the long run they end up being beneficial overall. Not to mention renegade isn't evil but rather do anything to ensure the safety of the galaxy even if actions do come off as questionable.

 

Not necessarily.

 

While I'm all for the renegade choices not always backfiring, renegade or its equivalent shouldn't always result in better results than paragon or its equivalent either. It should be balanced.

 

Ruthlessness isn't always pragmatic, and has backfired as much throughout history as it has succeeded. It really depends on the situation.

Indeed ruthless actions shouldn't be done for the sake of being ruthless it should be done because there is a net benefit from the action that will help in the long run.

[ArabianIGoggles]

Firstly, no it cannot be. If an action is justifiable, it's not evil. I'm trying to remember the proper legal term, but it's not coming to me...I think it might be justified vs. excusable?

 

Secondly, as I just said, nobody is claiming that morality is or ever has been entirely black and white. And that's just fine. It doesn't need to be entirely black and white to function.

A cheating husband getting castrated by the wife is justifiable.  So yes, you're once again completely wrong.

[AlanC9]

Not necessarily.
 
While I'm all for the renegade choices not always backfiring, renegade or its equivalent shouldn't always result in better results than paragon or its equivalent either. It should be balanced.
 
Ruthlessness isn't always pragmatic, and has backfired as much throughout history as it has succeeded. It really depends on the situation.

This may represent a problem with scoring, though. A truly Renegade character may nevertheless pick Paragon because he figures, correctly, that the ostensible Renegade choice is likely to backfire. It's only a problem if you think that the character's P/R score is meaningful, of course.

[BabyPuncher]

That's ridiculous extremely naive actions should backfire really badly and there are times were certain actions do come off as questionable but in the long run they end up being beneficial overall. Not to mention renegade isn't evil but rather do anything to ensure the safety of the galaxy even if actions do come off as questionable.

 

Beneficial because, as I said, pitifully feeble opposition and nonexistent punishment to evil. It's very easy to get your way when nobody bothers to do anything to oppose you but delicately whimper (yep, I said it again. whimper) that this is the wrong thing to do before promptly returning to following your every order. When murder is a trifling frivolity to be giggled over instead of, as Mr. Raymond Chandler puts it, "an act of infinite cruelty."

 

A world where nobody does anything significant to oppose you because you're Just That Badass.

 

Now then, that's a necessity for video games to function. But are you sure you want to try and argue with me that this is what 'realism' looks like?

 

A cheating husband getting castrated by the wife is justifiable.  So yes, you're once again completely wrong.

 

When you give me arguments that would be laughed out of any courtroom, you might want to try and pretty them up just a little beforehand. At least try and give them a semblance of legitimancy.

[dreamgazer]

Not necessarily.
 
While I'm all for the renegade choices not always backfiring, renegade or its equivalent shouldn't always result in better results than paragon or its equivalent either. It should be balanced.
 
Ruthlessness isn't always pragmatic, and has backfired as much throughout history as it has succeeded. It really depends on the situation.

/thread.

[Cyonan]

Firstly, no it cannot be. If an action is justifiable, it's not evil. I'm trying to remember the proper legal term, but it's not coming to me...I think it might be justified vs. excusable?

 

Secondly, as I just said, nobody is claiming that morality is or ever has been entirely black and white. And that's just fine. It doesn't need to be entirely black and white to function.

 

I'm not saying that anybody is claiming that morality is black and white either. What I am saying is:

 

Morality = not black and white most of the time

Paragon/Renegade = black and white system

 

Thus, Paragon/Renegade is not a good system for representing morality.

[mickey111]

Beneficial because, as I said, pitifully feeble opposition and nonexistent punishment to evil. It's very easy to get your way when nobody bothers to do anything to oppose you but delicately whimper (yep, I said it again. whimper) that this is the wrong thing to do before promptly returns to following your every order. When murder is a trifling frivolity to be giggled over instead of, as Mr. Raymond Chandler puts it, "an act of infinite cruelty."

 

A world where nobody does anything significant to oppose you because you're Just That Badass.

 

Now then, that's a necessity for video games to function. But are you sure you want to try and argue with me that this is what 'realism' looks like?

 

In case anyone was wondering what severe criminal punishment in a videogame might look like, there is a mod for skyrim called skyrim prison overhaul, and it can be found at loverslab. 

[Drone223]

Beneficial because, as I said, pitifully feeble opposition and nonexistent punishment to evil. It's very easy to get your way when nobody bothers to do anything to oppose you but delicately whimper (yep, I said it again. whimper) that this is the wrong thing to do before promptly returning to following your every order. When murder is a trifling frivolity to be giggled over instead of, as Mr. Raymond Chandler puts it, "an act of infinite cruelty."

Your missing the point ruthless actions aren't done for the sake of being ruthless they are done because they get results. Also some actions are pragmatic not evil such as sabotaging the cure while Wrev in charge of the krogan is better than curing it since Wrev is willing to start another korgan rebellion.

[capn233]

Renegade is only very rarely ruthless in Mass Effect, even in ME1.  Largely renegade just meant being a dick to people in certain conversations.

 

ME1 is a bad example of Renegade getting any short end of the stick to begin with since it takes fewer intimidate points to pass every persuasion check in the game, relative to the number to pass them all with Charm.  So it is already easier.  It also turns out that these checks largely result in identical outcomes.

 

ME2 is where the "renegades are oppressed" meme really ramped up, and the examples most amusing to me were how you didn't have the small cameos for people you had basically killed.  "Renegades miss out on content because if you kill someone they aren't there later!"  You would think a real renegade wouldn't lament the loss of people who got in their way.  Nevermind that there are actual tangible gameplay rewards for renegade in ME2, specifically sabotaging the gunship with a "You're working to hard" stab to the back, killing a semi-elite Krogan in a gas explosion with "You talk too much," or snapping the sergeant's neck in Miranda's mission.

 

In any case this is probably going to be moot.  I wouldn't mind a system more like DAI where you don't really have morality points, but your squadmates have approval based on your actions, and they aren't unified in their agreement or disagreement.

[BabyPuncher]

Your missing the point ruthless actions aren't done for the sake of being ruthless they are done because they get results. Also some actions are pragmatic not evil such as sabotaging the cure while Wrev in charge of the krogan is better than curing it since Wrev is willing to start another korgan rebellion.

 

No, you're missing the point. And the point is you've bought into the fantasy a little too heavily. You think (or are pretending to think) that because your character can get his way by shouting a lot and pointing guns at people, that's how morality works. The rest of the world just shrugs its collective shoulders and mumbles "Well gosh...I guess we just have to let him do what he wants..." before obediently standing aside.

 

An indulgent fantasy, and a fun one. One actively encouraged by dialogue from BioWare.

 

But make no mistake - this is pretend morality.