96 ответов в этой теме

[KotorEffect3]

Paragon Shepard sacrificed part of the human fleet to save the council, also destroyed the collector base to keep dangerous technology from falling into a terrorist organization's hands.

[congokong]

You would when he inspires copy cat terrorists with is death. Ever notice how even though we killed Osama Bin Laden a while ago terrorists still exist?  So he killed people already on death's door and killed only 112 Alliance Soldiers. You do realize that 1 battle with the Reapers would result in 20x that casualty list right? First Contact War had more casualiteis.
 
You can also recuirt Balak to help against the Reapers.

So your logic is, "There are other bad people out there killing people, so what is a few hundred lives? People die all the time." Wow... Point blank, you see letting Balak go costs far more lives than three hostages and you still argue. People on the Internet never want to admit being wrong.

[gothpunkboy89]

So your logic is, "There are other bad people out there killing people, so what is a few hundred lives? People die all the time." Wow... Point blank, you see letting Balak go costs far more lives than three hostages and you still argue. People on the Internet never want to admit being wrong.

 

I see letting him go after preventing the asteroid area as a better trade off then letting dozens or more people become inspired by his death resulting in them mimicking similar terrorist attacks like detonating bombs. Doesn't matter if the cause is noble or not a martyr only strengthens the resolve of those involved in it. Not to mention an attack on that scale would give the Alliance and the Council Races more then enough to put pressure on the Batarian Hegemony to extradite Balak or face reprisal from all Council Races.

 

 

Citadel Conventions

These diplomatic talks occurred in the wake of the Krogan Rebellions, as a response to the destruction of the conflict and an attempt to distance the Council from the brutal krogan warfare.

The Conventions regulate the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. A WMD causes environmental alteration to a world. A bomb that produces a large crater is not considered a WMD; a bomb that causes a "nuclear winter" is.

Use of WMD is forbidden on "garden" worlds like Earth, with ecospheres that can readily support a population. If a habitable world is destroyed, it will not be replaced for millions of years. The Conventions do not forbid the use of WMD on hostile worlds or in sealed space-station environments. Many militaries continue to develop and maintain stockpiles.

The Conventions graded Weapons of Mass Destruction into tiers of concern. Tier I is the greatest threat to galactic peace.

TIER I: Large kinetic impacters, such as asteroid drops or de-orbited space stations. Effectively free and available in any system (in the form of debris left over from planetary accretion), kinetic impacters are the weapons of choice for terrorists and "third galaxy" nations.

 

 

Balak's attempt was considered Teir 1 WMD usage. Even as much as the Council seems to dislike Humanity there is no way they could ignore this attempt. At the very least they would be required to put a Specter or even just request STG to find him if nothing else. If they can find Saren they could find Balak.

[congokong]

I see letting him go after preventing the asteroid area as a better trade off then letting dozens or more people become inspired by his death resulting in them mimicking similar terrorist attacks like detonating bombs. Doesn't matter if the cause is noble or not a martyr only strengthens the resolve of those involved in it. Not to mention an attack on that scale would give the Alliance and the Council Races more then enough to put pressure on the Batarian Hegemony to extradite Balak or face reprisal from all Council Races.
 

 

 
Balak's attempt was considered Teir 1 WMD usage. Even as much as the Council seems to dislike Humanity there is no way they could ignore this attempt. At the very least they would be required to put a Specter or even just request STG to find him if nothing else. If they can find Saren they could find Balak.

I can make my own baseless "inspiration" head canons to support my argument too. Letting Balak go will allow him to directly inspire others to join in his terrorism, rather than merely as a martyr. Letting him go will encourage terrorism since he got away with it. It will encourage hostage taking, since it stayed a spectre's hand despite the plethora of crimes Balik's men committed.

Outside of your head canon BS, the objective evidence confirms what was strongly suspected: letting Balik go costs far more lives than the hostages, and that is only from his known crimes in his ME3 side quest. Likely, many more died by his and his men's hands in the past three years.

[Pasquale1234]

Shepard's objective was getting Balak

That might be what you chose to be Shepard's objective, but it is not one the game assigned. You can successfully complete the DLC if you rescue the hostages instead.

[themikefest]

Paragon Shepard sacrificed part of the human fleet to save the council, also destroyed the collector base to keep dangerous technology from falling into a terrorist organization's hands.

The time I played a full paragon Shepard, the council was killed. I chose to concentrate on Sovereign. I only ended up with 8 renegade points for doing that and for the whole playthrough which included having Ashley shoot Wrex. How cool is that?

[congokong]

That might be what you chose to be Shepard's objective, but it is not one the game assigned. You can successfully complete the DLC if you rescue the hostages instead.

Shepard says it is their objective. "I will not sacrifice lives that stand in the way of my objective" or something similar after letting Balak go.

[congokong]

The time I played a full paragon Shepard, the council was killed. I chose to concentrate on Sovereign. I only ended up with 8 renegade points for doing that and for the whole playthrough which included having Ashley shoot Wrex. How cool is that?

Wouldn't the paragon option be the top one: save the council? "Concentrate on Sovereign" is unusual because it is a middle choice for a big decision which never happens otherwise that I recall, yet also gives both paragon and renegade points. Regardless, ME2 treats it like a renegade decision in the codex. Worse, the council accuses Shepard of sacrificing the council to protect human interests without any option to refute the claim.

[themikefest]

Wouldn't the paragon option be the top one: save the council?

It is. When choosing the middle, the player receives both paragon and renegade points
 

[Pasquale1234]

Shepard says it is their objective. "I will not sacrifice lives that stand in the way of my objective" or something similar after letting Balak go.

That sounds like... pretty odd phrasing.

But here's the thing: the games provide a series of missions (or questlines) where Shepard is supposed to solve problem x. There are multiple paths to solving problem x. Paragon or Renegade options are usually different methods of solving the problem at hand. Either choice will complete the mission - or at least allow you to move forward to the next step.

If getting Balak was a game-assigned mission objective, then letting him get away should have resulted in mission failure. I can't think of any instances where the game offered you a choice that would result in mission failure. In this particular case, you were instead successful in saving the hostages.

You can be a badass and wound Tela Vasir's hostage, but you can also get through that scenario without hurting her. As long as the games give you "outs" like that, you don't need to make many sacrifices to finish the job.

I think you're trying to create a discussion about Spectres needing to make sacrifices to complete missions, but such situations have been extremely rare in the games. The best example I can think of atm was the Arrival DLC. Shepard takes direct responsibility for ~ 300K lives to delay the reaper invasion. And it's the only way to complete that DLC.

It's been suggested that paragon choices usually have better eventual outcomes, and that's probably true. Hopefully, that will change going forward.

[gothpunkboy89]

I can make my own baseless "inspiration" head canons to support my argument too. Letting Balak go will allow him to directly inspire others to join in his terrorism, rather than merely as a martyr. Letting him go will encourage terrorism since he got away with it. It will encourage hostage taking, since it stayed a spectre's hand despite the plethora of crimes Balik's men committed.

Outside of your head canon BS, the objective evidence confirms what was strongly suspected: letting Balik go costs far more lives than the hostages, and that is only from his known crimes in his ME3 side quest. Likely, many more died by his and his men's hands in the past three years.

 

Not really baseless. The entire reason the Batarians are now an isolationist species is because of how the Council appeared to favor the new Humanity over them. Giving them rights to much more resources rich colonies then the Batarians. At that point they closed up their embassy which they had before Humans were found and became isolationist. To the Batarians or at least the way their Government would spread propaganda the Alliance is the cause of all their troubles. If they didn't show up the Batarian's lives would be so much better. 

 

Even if it was a splinter group his death would only be used as fuel.

[Vanilka]

The whole dilemma was a non existent one. A lone shuttle lifting off from a known location on an asteroid? The Normandy should have caught it, but they often forgot that you actually have a spaceship. Just pretend that you expected Joker to catch it, before it ever took off.

 

Yeah, that's the thing. The games rarely provide options I'd really want to take in such situations. We have extra squadmates sitting on the ship, doing nothing. The ship doing nothing. We can't tell the biotics we have along to incapacitate foes. Instead of acting while the big bad is having his stupid speech, we stand there and do nothing. Splitting up is a no-no. Etc. The choices in ME are all fun and games and stuff, but I don't think they're awfully well-thought out. They tend to be a bit simplistic. Which is fine for a video game, I suppose. Especially since they likely can't add 101 options to solve everything.

[congokong]

It is. When choosing the middle, the player receives both paragon and renegade points

Well, if you are a full paragon, you have a duty to save that council ...as much as I know you don't want to. Haha.

That sounds like... pretty odd phrasing.But here's the thing: the games provide a series of missions (or questlines) where Shepard is supposed to solve problem x. There are multiple paths to solving problem x. Paragon or Renegade options are usually different methods of solving the problem at hand. Either choice will complete the mission - or at least allow you to move forward to the next step.If getting Balak was a game-assigned mission objective, then letting him get away should have resulted in mission failure. I can't think of any instances where the game offered you a choice that would result in mission failure. In this particular case, you were instead successful in saving the hostages.You can be a badass and wound Tela Vasir's hostage, but you can also get through that scenario without hurting her. As long as the games give you "outs" like that, you don't need to make many sacrifices to finish the job.I think you're trying to create a discussion about Spectres needing to make sacrifices to complete missions, but such situations have been extremely rare in the games. The best example I can think of atm was the Arrival DLC. Shepard takes direct responsibility for ~ 300K lives to delay the reaper invasion. And it's the only way to complete that DLC.It's been suggested that paragon choices usually have better eventual outcomes, and that's probably true. Hopefully, that will change going forward.

What happens if you try to save the hostages and the time runs out? Mission failure? Other examples? I think at the end of ME3 you can get that if you handle your last conversation with TIM poorly; simply through bad choices. You can definitely fail side missions though without a "mission failure." Ex: Thane and Samara's loyalty missions.

But I am aware how the series allows you to succeed at almost everything with spotless honor if you want. My argument was that it would seem out of character for such a person to be a spectre in the first place; pretending they aren't wearing their plot armor, of course. The Balak example was a case where saving the hostages at the cost of letting terrorists leave feels out of character for a spectre; based on their reputation.

[Pasquale1234]

What happens if you try to save the hostages and the time runs out? Mission failure?

I would expect so. If you make that choice, you do need to close the deal.
 

Other examples? I think at the end of ME3 you can get that if you handle your last conversation with TIM poorly; simply through bad choices. You can definitely fail side missions though without a "mission failure." Ex: Thane and Samara's loyalty missions.

Yeah, I guess there are some places where you can screw up by making the wrong choices on the dialogue wheel. They're not really related to making a paragon versus a renegade choice, though, right?

Do they have anything to do with willingness to make sacrifices?
 

But I am aware how the series allows you to succeed at almost everything with spotless honor if you want. My argument was that it would seem out of character for such a person to be a spectre in the first place; pretending they aren't wearing their plot armor, of course.

I'm not sure I'd qualify either paragon or renegade as having spotless honor.

I think it's fair to say that refusing to make a necessary sacrifice would be out of character for a spectre; I also think that what constitutes a necessary sacrifice can be subjective.

[congokong]

I would expect so. If you make that choice, you do need to close the deal. They're not really related to making a paragon versus a renegade choice, though, right?Do they have anything to do with willingness to make sacrifices? I'm not sure I'd qualify either paragon or renegade as having spotless honor.I think it's fair to say that refusing to make a necessary sacrifice would be out of character for a spectre; I also think that what constitutes a necessary sacrifice can be subjective.

No, those mission failures are based on clumsiness mostly. I do not know of any choice that does not have some way to succeed in only paragon or renegade. Some are more difficult, but the game' mechanics always have a back door. Of course, if this were real life that would be far less likely.

I feel paragon reflects the spotless honor vibe of heroes like Superman while renegade says to hell with it. Arrival is the exception where there is no back door way for Shepard not to bloody their hands for the greater good, which is why I find ultra paragons being able to kill 300,000 batarians without hesitation (despite perceived necessity) to be out of character.

[Pasquale1234]

I feel paragon reflects the spotless honor vibe of heroes like Superman while renegade says to hell with it. Arrival is the exception where there is no back door way for Shepard not to bloody their hands for the greater good, which is why I find ultra paragons being able to kill 300,000 batarians without hesitation (despite perceived necessity) to be out of character.

I think there is quite a bit that is subject to individual interpretation.

Also, there are frequently assumptions made about a character's true motives, thought processes, reasons for taking any particular selection. It's pretty obvious that writers will make some such assumptions - they frequently have to, in order to assign P/R points to actions.

One example of assumed motives involves Gianna Parisini in ME1. Helping her nail Anoleis is a paragon act, but you're actually helping the financial operation of Noveria - a place that an ultra paragon might want to see fail. Concealing the truth about Rael'Zorah's actions during Tali's LM is ultra paragon, but I'm not sure I would call that a particularly honorable Superman-vibe act. I think Superman would spill the truth.

I will concede, however, that I've never done a pure Paragon playthrough, so I've no idea how it would feel for a pure Paragon to do the Arrival mission.

[themikefest]

Well, if you are a full paragon, you have a duty to save that council ...as much as I know you don't want to. Haha.

Even as a full paragon, the council can take a hike. So no my duty isn't to save the council, but to save the galaxy from a possible reaper invasion even it it means sacrificing the council.

 

It was also the responsilbility of the destiny Commander to protect the council. She failed big time by keeping the destiny in harms way when she had the opportunity to fly the council to safety.

[KotorEffect3]

The time I played a full paragon Shepard, the council was killed. I chose to concentrate on Sovereign. I only ended up with 8 renegade points for doing that and for the whole playthrough which included having Ashley shoot Wrex. How cool is that?

Kind of weird how that system worked.  I am hoping in Andromeda they change it up so we don't get worried about how many paragon or renegade points our decisions or dialog options nets us.  Sometimes we were almost forced to be a slave to a certain alignment if we wanted to get persuasion options to talk certain characters down.

[KaiserShep]

 

You would when he inspires copy cat terrorists with is death. Ever notice how even though we killed Osama Bin Laden a while ago terrorists still exist?  So he killed people already on death's door and killed only 112 Alliance Soldiers. You do realize that 1 battle with the Reapers would result in 20x that casualty list right? First Contact War had more casualiteis.

 

You can also recuirt Balak to help against the Reapers.

 

 

Thing is, none of that stuff really matters when it's time to decide Balak's fate on the asteroid. You don't know that he'll be at all helpful later; all you know is that he's a madman willing to kill millions of people because his four-eyed brethren have some crappy grudge against humanity. 

 

The idea of inspiration for copycats is ridiculous nonsense, especially if you killed all of his henchmen who are presumably the only others that may know the details of this plan, particularly the ones that tried to make a deal with you (I always shoot those fools. Slave grab my ass). If a soldier has an opportunity to end a genocidal terrorist once and for all at the cost of just 3 civilians, s/he would do it without hesitation.

[aoibhealfae]

If you choose to let him go and save a couple colonists, he still ended up killing a lot of people in the years after that and again with his batarian codes. If you choose to kill him on the spot, you only lose him as a war asset in the impending war against the reaper. If you choose to capture him, he will be released before ME3, but he will choose to use the code to help his people instead even if he still have hatred for humanity. 

 

Basically, gray area here.

 

Was there an alternate situation if you never went to the asteroid? 

[Daemul]

I've never saved the hostages on BdtS, so this is the first time I'm hearing about Balak killing even more people if you let him go, during the Batarian codes mission I always got the guy who was trying to get provisions for the Batarians. Anyway I knew it, I ****** knew it, Balak is clearly too damn dangerous to let escape on the asteroid and obviously kill again, sorry those three hostages who got blown up but the dude has to be caught, though I normally just kill him outright tbh. 

[gothpunkboy89]

Thing is, none of that stuff really matters when it's time to decide Balak's fate on the asteroid. You don't know that he'll be at all helpful later; all you know is that he's a madman willing to kill millions of people because his four-eyed brethren have some crappy grudge against humanity. 

 

The idea of inspiration for copycats is ridiculous nonsense, especially if you killed all of his henchmen who are presumably the only others that may know the details of this plan, particularly the ones that tried to make a deal with you (I always shoot those fools. Slave grab my ass). If a soldier has an opportunity to end a genocidal terrorist once and for all at the cost of just 3 civilians, s/he would do it without hesitation.

 

And yet that very set up is how ISIS and other terrorist organizations act. Each time someone is killed they play it up as if they were some great and noble sacrifice. Which helps them to inspire and recruit new people to their cause though propaganda.

[congokong]

I think there is quite a bit that is subject to individual interpretation.Also, there are frequently assumptions made about a character's true motives, thought processes, reasons for taking any particular selection. It's pretty obvious that writers will make some such assumptions - they frequently have to, in order to assign P/R points to actions.One example of assumed motives involves Gianna Parisini in ME1. Helping her nail Anoleis is a paragon act, but you're actually helping the financial operation of Noveria - a place that an ultra paragon might want to see fail. Concealing the truth about Rael'Zorah's actions during Tali's LM is ultra paragon, but I'm not sure I would call that a particularly honorable Superman-vibe act. I think Superman would spill the truth.I will concede, however, that I've never done a pure Paragon playthrough, so I've no idea how it would feel for a pure Paragon to do the Arrival mission.

It is so ironic that you are bringing up many of the few topics I brought up on these boards recently: Gianna, paragons doing Arrival, and the Tali evidence turnover strangely being renegade. On the ME1 board, I recently made a thread questioning why the hell you would want to help Noveria be more profitable? Btw, nailing Anoleis can actually be renegade; depending on how you get Lorik to agree. On the ME2 board, I argued paragons adamantly destroying a relay was out of character. Then I mentioned one of the few exceptions to the moral choice consistency was Tali. How is not taking part in a coverup renegade? Because it is Tali asking? Stupid.

Their system is not perfect, but paragon generally is means justify the ends. That is the way the noble hero individually does not do something that on its own would be considered evil.

 

Here is an example.

 

[congokong]

Even as a full paragon, the council can take a hike. So no my duty isn't to save the council, but to save the galaxy from a possible reaper invasion even it it means sacrificing the council.
 
It was also the responsilbility of the destiny Commander to protect the council. She failed big time by keeping the destiny in harms way when she had the opportunity to fly the council to safety.

You misunderstand me. When you said full paragon, I assume you meant auto paragon, as in picking the paragon option because it was paragon.

[themikefest]

I agree that its lame that the player receives renegade points for turning over the evidence to the Admirals. The player loses Tali's loyalty. Oh well.

 

Its also lame the player receives renegade points for givng the geth to Cerberus.

 

What's funny is that its paragon for Shepard to threaten the elcor by breaking his legs if he doesn't release the contract with the quarian on Omega.