That was an easy choice. Stop the terrorists.
The blood of the hostages isn't on my hands, because I'm not the terrorist who killed them. But if I let the terrorists go, I'm wilfully endangering others.
There was no dilemma.
I see it exactly the other way.
Shepard says that. Is it true, though? Do we have any reason to believe that it's true?For there to be a dilemma, Shepard has to believe he's letting Balak go... and he clearly does not believe that at the time he steps aside. Even after Balak springs his surprise on Shepard, Shepard indicates that Balak won't be able to hide from him or the Alliance.
Shepard says that. Is it true, though? Do we have any reason to believe that it's true?
Well, Joker's out there with a stealth frigate and knows exactly where Balak is... 
Well, Joker's out there with a stealth frigate and knows exactly where Balak is...
Joker probably fell out of his chair again and trying to crawl to the infirmary.
Because he's worthless.
That was an easy choice. Stop the terrorists.
The blood of the hostages isn't on my hands, because I'm not the terrorist who killed them. But if I let the terrorists go, I'm wilfully endangering others.
There was no dilemma.
I didn't reach that conclusion.Well, Joker's out there with a stealth frigate and knows exactly where Balak is...
I'm not trying to minimize lives lost. I'm trying to minimize lives lost for which I am responsible.Not necessarily. The terrorists could all get themselves killed on their next soiree with no victims. The actual probability matrix in terms of lives lost versus saved is complicated. I'm not sure the analogy to passivity works either - Shepard doesn't have the option not to participate. It is either save the hostages or stop the terrorists. That not quite a bystander issue.
I'm not trying to minimize lives lost. I'm trying to minimize lives lost for which I am responsible.
The hostages are irrelevant unless I actively kill them.
Are you Russian? The Russians don't believe in the concept of "taking hostages alive." In the United States, and probably most of the western world, you put hostages first before getting the bad guys.
I think you mean: "Yay or Nay" not "Yea or Nay"
Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.
We're dealing with philosophy 101 I see.
I think you mean: "Yay or Nay" not "Yea or Nay"
Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.
No, I do not. I'm basing this "voting" off of how the U.S. Government votes, particularly the HoR or the Senate. For your own enlightenment:
http://www.senate.go...tures/votes.htm
Are you Russian? The Russians don't believe in the concept of "taking hostages alive." In the United States, and probably most of the western world, you put hostages first before getting the bad guys.
You just know that Emperor Dobby of the Thembrian Empire would just bomb the building to get rid of everything.
No, I do not. I'm basing this "voting" off of how the U.S. Government votes, particularly the HoR or the Senate. For your own enlightenment:
No, no. It's definitely yay or nay. You see, I just know that. You know?
You just know that Emperor Dobby of the Thembrian Empire would just bomb the building to get rid of everything.
Thankfully, Emperor Dobby will not be the protagonist of MEA. Otherwise, I fear the game would be incredibly short and straightforward with not a lot of player choice.
Thankfully, Emperor Dobby will not be the protagonist of MEA. Otherwise, I fear the game would be incredibly short and straightforward with not a lot of player choice.
But we would get to ride a bear instead of the Mako. Why the khet even try?
I can't find the original post to quote about Bring Down The Sky, but I'll give my opinion. The entire situation doesn't make any sense. Sure, let Balak go. The Normandy is floating around in space right around the asteroid. As soon as that Batarian leaves the surface of the asteroid blast him out of the sky with the main gun. Sure it would be the ultimate renegade action, but I mean what was he going to do? You had the hostages out freed by then.
But moral dilemma? The guy had murdered how many people on that asteroid? How many more was he ready to murder? And he was the one who set off the bomb and killed the hostages. Under law if he was arrested those deaths are on him.
Do you let the guy go? Or do you try to stop him? If you try to stop him he kills the hostages. If you let him go possibly he'll do something elsewhere. If you "turn him over to the Alliance," he somehow escapes even if you wound him a half-dozen times. So I put a bullet in his head.
These "choices" seem like a unique brand of RPing. The only problem is that people are arguing about what is the optimal way to play the game and optimal is a completely different thing than RPing.
I would like to see moral dilemmas in ME:A, yes, but I would greatly prefer for it to be very much akin to IHS vs. CotJ. And before someone comes in here and says "CotJ is better in every way" just know that I highly suspect the fact that the way DA:I handled Red Templars is to emphasise the use of Red Lyrium. I highly suspect it to be a pretty central theme to DA4.
Shepard says that. Is it true, though? Do we have any reason to believe that it's true?
It's up to you to decide if it's true. All I'm saying is that the option to select "both" at the same time negates the situation being a moral dilemma for me For my Shep, it's a no-brainer - he's going to try to save the hostages and then catch Balak right away. Yeah, his "plan" is foiled by Balak, but that does not add to the "dilemma."
You can think about it as a "great dilemma" if you want. I don't... there are better written ones even in this game.
I didn't reach that conclusion.
I was sent to stop Balak. I stopped Balak. While he was there, he set in motion events that killed some people. That's on him, not on me. Moral culpability cannot be sensically tied to inaction.
Suppose Bob is taking a week-long out of town trip and asks Bill to water his flowers while he's out. Bill promises to do so but fails to water the plants, and as a result, the flowers wither and die. It seems plausible to suppose that Bill is responsible and blameworthy for the death of the plants, despite the fact that he took no direct action to cause their death.
Suppose Bob is taking a week-long out of town trip and asks Bill to water his flowers while he's out. Bill promises to do so but fails to water the plants, and as a result, the flowers wither and die. It seems plausible to suppose that Bill is responsible and blameworthy for the death of the plants, despite the fact that he took no direct action to cause their death.
Bill didn't do his job the way he was supposed to. Though this does pose and interesting comparison between Bill letting the flowers die and Shep letting the hostages die. That said, I can only blame the death of the flowers on Bill for not doing the job he was supposed to do. Now one might ask "what does Bill get out of watering the flowers in the first place" and to that I would say it could damage the relationship between Bob and Bill if he does not water the flowers. It is then up to Bill to measure his value on the relationship he has with Bob and the value of his time/energy to water the flowers. If Bill feels his relationship has more value than the time/energy it takes to water the flowers Then his choice is clear and he must water the flowers.
I can't find the original post to quote about Bring Down The Sky, but I'll give my opinion. The entire situation doesn't make any sense. Sure, let Balak go. The Normandy is floating around in space right around the asteroid. As soon as that Batarian leaves the surface of the asteroid blast him out of the sky with the main gun. Sure it would be the ultimate renegade action, but I mean what was he going to do? You had the hostages out freed by then.
But moral dilemma? The guy had murdered how many people on that asteroid? How many more was he ready to murder? And he was the one who set off the bomb and killed the hostages. Under law if he was arrested those deaths are on him.
Do you let the guy go? Or do you try to stop him? If you try to stop him he kills the hostages. If you let him go possibly he'll do something elsewhere. If you "turn him over to the Alliance," he somehow escapes even if you wound him a half-dozen times. So I put a bullet in his head.
Why would having the Normandy blow a terrorist's ship out of the sky be an ultimate "Renegade" action? It seems to me it would be the ultimate Paragon one. You just saved the hostages AND you absolutely prevented, not only Balak himself, but also the entire terrorist cell from hurting anyone else. Putting a bullet in Balak's head only ends Balak... and the hostages.
Oh, I get it... the bigger the explosion the more "Renegade" the action is.
For the sake of debate... let's toughen things up a bit. Situation is that you know Balak is likely to lead you to his boss... an even bigger terrorist. Do you let him go or let him kill the hostages just so you can have the pleasure of putting a bullet in his head... making it more likely that his boss will kill more people before you can catch him?
The situation is presented two ways:
First scenario. The situation is made clear that there is no way you're going to catch the boss without actually letting Balak go.
Second scenario. The situation offers an option of killing Balak and then making a deal with one of his henchmen to find the boss.
WHICH is really a dilemma and which is almost a no brainer?
@UniformGreyColor: Have you ever actually attended Philosophy101... it's glorious.
The class is filled to the brim at the beginning with people saying: Oh man, philosophy... yeah - I got thoughts... this'll be easy.
By the end of the first day the terror in their eyes is delicious.
After that... it was raining candy for me every day.
What does that have to do with morality? Is it your inpression that morality is somehow subject to social convention?Are you Russian? The Russians don't believe in the concept of "taking hostages alive." In the United States, and probably most of the western world, you put hostages first before getting the bad guys.
I avoided the intro course. Instead, I took two formal logic courses (as options when I was an astrophysics major) and used those as my pre-reqs to get into the philosophy program.@UniformGreyColor: Have you ever actually attended Philosophy101... it's glorious.
The class is filled to the brim at the beginning with people saying: Oh man, philosophy... yeah - I got thoughts... this'll be easy.
By the end of the first day the terror in their eyes is delicious.
After that... it was raining candy for me every day.
Taking out Balak was an easy decision for me, but if you really want to stop the terrorists, you have to take out the families.
I am dismayed that the series never let me do this. Not until Arrival DLC, that is, but that was just some colony, not their homeworld.
Retour en haut