17 Antworten in diesem Thema

[XxX_DogeID_XxX]

They were literally dicks to you the entire game... They never cared about " a few dozen dead colonies" And sovereign would literally bring the death of EVERYONE in the galaxy how is keeping your troops a bad thing to do?!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

First, because murder is bad. 

 

Second, it's not just them you are sacrificing, but the 10,000 crewmembers on the ship as well who have done nothing wrong. 

 

Third, Renegade in ME1 was more of a "Humanity First" mindset whereas Paragon was "We should be part of a community" mindset. 

[Dafuq4my]

Because it's treason.

 

And sure they were being "dicks", but from their perspective I can't really blame them. You come yelling abt some ancient 50,000 year old machine race coming to kill everyone, and have no proof of it. Can't blame them for not believing you. "I had a vision" doesn't really cut it when you have thousands to watch over and protect from other more real threats.

[capn233]

The Renegade choice there is specifically "Let the Council Die," which is clearly different than the neutral "Concentrate on Sovereign."  It is about intent.  Renegade is relatively consistently a dick himself and also more or less pro-human verging on anti-alien.

[R0bE0]

Well the way I look at it is this:

 

As people have said already Paragon is a more 'unified' play-through, in which Shepard tries to help everyone. Renegade Shepard focuses on a more xenophobic kind of angle. It's pretty clear (despite it never being stated) that Renegade Shepard chooses not to save the Council not because they can't, or because it's not strategic, but because the entire crew are aliens.

 

Even after the fact when you talk to Anderson/Udina the Renegade options lead Shepard to say something along the lines of 'I'm glad the Council is dead'. This is definitely working alongside the sadism that Renegade Shepard shows over, and over again, especially to non-humans.

 

Also I wouldn't be so quick to assume that keeping your troops is the strategic angle. I am a very logical utilitarian and quite willing to admit that I would choose many of the Renegade options were I in Shepard's place. However allowing the Council to die would offer a lot more political backlash and interspecies issues. It makes humanity seem like the 'lone wolf' and in the long run could definitely cause a lot more problems than it would solve. (Plus it does not help the anti-human movements.) Paragon Shepard is right to assume that a united front is stronger, and overall better suited for dealing with a long term threat. Not to mention there are more lives on the Ascension than lost on the frigates lost. To the immediate threat though, yes, leaving the Ascension to its fate is better option.

 

Not to mention even if you were not swayed by such logic, the Council would still be considered civilians. It's a soldier's job to protect civilians.

 

So yes, while the Council are in fact dicks, leaving them to a rather grizzly fate makes sense in being the Renegade choice.

[voteDC]

I tended to save them because destabilising the core of the galactic government doesn't seem like a good idea now that we know the Reapers are on their way. Paragon or Renegade, it makes little sense to let them die.

With hindsight from the next two games though the choice becomes more difficult. Letting the council die or saving them makes very little difference, less in my opinion that deciding whether or not to save Thane and/or Kirrahe, yet I do like the different personalities that the new councillors have.

These days it tends to come down to what mood I am in, simple as that. I might do a run one of these days where a random number generator makes the important choices for me.

[planehazza]

The Council are muppets in the first game especially, but they're necessary.  I'm being a bit more neutral/renegade with them in this playthrough, but I will still save them.

[XxX_DogeID_XxX]

Still vigil made it clear that we don't know sh*t about the citadel the entire might of the reaper fleet can pour through ANY second

[Khrystyn]

I understand the general reason why saving the Council is a paragon choice, and letting them die is a renegade choice. I just disagree with it.

 

I let the Council die even though I played as a Paragon because in the grand scheme of things politicians are a dime a dozen - they are easily replaceable - and they come and go all the time. New leaders can always be chosen. Losing all sentient life in the galaxy is not so easily restored, so why cut your firepower when the risks are so big? Fighting the Reapers is a much higher priority. Politicians ask others to risk sacrificing their lives for the greater good, so why can't they sacrifice themselves for the greater good?  I don't like politicians. I also think that it's not a renegade decision to care more about the lives of trillions of aliens.

 

I'm just glad I could make the choice to create my own balance sheet of P and R decisions. And I could sleep better knowing I made the 'right' decision.

[KrrKs]

Still, there is a difference between >>"Focus on Sovereign", we don't have time to help the DA/ can't afford to lose ships<<

and >>Let the suckers burn!<<

[themikefest]

The game makes it a renegade choice. I don't agree. I have never saved the council. I have no reason to save the council. The way the whole scene plays in the game, the council should never die. It should never of gotten to the point where Shepard has to choose.

[straykat]

I do it, but I fully accept that it's Renegade.

 

Even the word itself is perfect for it. "Renegade". Rebel, deserter, however you want to describe it. By not protecting the Council, you're doing something different than the status quo. 

 

 

First, because murder is bad. 

 

 

And yet throwing away a fleet of other ships to protect one ship is somehow better to you. Why? Because they signed up to be sacrifices? Is that what Soldiers are to you? You'd fit well in WW1.

[Beerfish]

Politicians being dicks and choosing the popular needs of the many over the logical needs of the few?  Gosh when has that happened in history before?

[Serillen]

I do it, but I fully accept that it's Renegade.

 

Even the word itself is perfect for it. "Renegade". Rebel, deserter, however you want to describe it. By not protecting the Council, you're doing something different than the status quo. 

 

 

 

And yet throwing away a fleet of other ships to protect one ship is somehow better to you. Why? Because they signed up to be sacrifices? Is that what Soldiers are to you? You'd fit well in WW1.

Its pretty much renegade for the reasons listed here. As for throwing away multiple ships to save one ship, that one ship is a Dreadnaught. Thats worth dozens upon dozens of cruisers for multiple reasons including the treaty limiting their numbers, the time it takes to make one and the crew size dwarfing the crew sizes of each alliance cruiser by about 30x. Yeah the Destiny didn't do much in the fight but I count that in part due to the the council using it as an evacuation ship as well as the stupidity of using it as a guard ship for the citadel where it doesn't have the room to stand back and snipe incomming ships which are dreadnaughts strengths.

[straykat]

Yeah the Destiny didn't do much in the fight but I count that in part due to the the council using it as an evacuation ship as well as the stupidity of using it as a guard ship for the citadel where it doesn't have the room to stand back and snipe incomming ships which are dreadnaughts strengths.

 

The Council is stupid for other reasons too. Like not taking any of this seriously in the first place.

 

The other thing I find distasteful here is that humanity are the ill equipped "new guys", while the others are the overseer races. And no one ever respects the new guys unless they make some immense sacrifice for everyone (and even then, they don't respect them much). It reminds me of Africans and Indians living under British or French imperial rule, who were expected to be fodder for these "civilized" people, running out into the middle of No Man's Land, and suffer for their everyone's dumb decisions. Of course, many lower classed Euros suffered too. 

 

The same happened to the Krogan as well. Worse even. 

 

I think there can be reasons to argue in favor of it, but the real reason they put this decision as Paragon is because it's more "noble". And I think Drew K had a fetish for this kind of thing. He named the Normandy. He designed the N7 armor's red stripe, to signify the "blood of humanity". And he ultimately wanted ALL humanity to die in the Dark Energy ending for ME3. Luckily, the rest of the team saw how stupid it was.

[capn233]

It reminds me of Africans and Indians living under British or French imperial rule, who were expected to be fodder for these "civilized" people, running out into the middle of No Man's Land, and suffer for their everyone's dumb decisions. Of course, many lower classed Euros suffered too. 

 

The same happened to the Krogan as well. Worse even. 

 

...He designed the N7 armor's red stripe, to signify the "blood of humanity"...

 

What's funny is that Ashley tells the player this with her analogy about the dog.  Of course a lot of people dismiss Ashley because she has concerns about Garrus and Wrex (although strangely not the one who may have actually "borrowed" Alliance technology).

 

As for the red stripe, I thought the real deal was that they thought the Commader's Stripe was cool on the later Apollo missions and they wanted to copy something like that.  Nevermind that the whole reason for those was just for photographs.

[themikefest]

Yeah the Destiny didn't do much in the fight but I count that in part due to the the council using it as an evacuation ship as well as the stupidity of using it as a guard ship for the citadel where it doesn't have the room to stand back and snipe incomming ships which are dreadnaughts strengths.

That falls under the Commander of the Destiny. She failed as a leader. Once the council was onboard, its her job to keep them safe, She failed.  And since the ship doesn't do nothing except act as a bullet sponge, it makes her more of a poor leader than she already was instead of flying the destiny away from the battle to keep the council out of harms way.

[Fixers0]

Even the word itself is perfect for it. "Renegade". Rebel, deserter, however you want to describe it. By not protecting the Council, you're doing something different than the status quo. 

 

In this particular instance that reasoning works but with regards to the Rachni exterminating the Queen would argueably more in favour of retaining the Status quo. The Rachni were considered extinct, after all.