91 réponses à ce sujet

[RandomPot322]

frankssama wrote...

The fact that we are all discussing about it shows how good the system is.

That's kind of faulty logic,
But the fact that we discuss what is right or wrong in our actions show that the system is wrong.

[x895771]

RandomPot322 wrote...

frankssama wrote...

The fact that we are all discussing about it shows how good the system is.

That's kind of faulty logic,
But the fact that we discuss what is right or wrong in our actions show that the system is wrong.

You are still on the mindset that the choices are between right and wrong, it isn't, it's between what's legal and what's illegal.

[RandomPot322]

x895771 wrote...

RandomPot322 wrote...

frankssama wrote...

The fact that we are all discussing about it shows how good the system is.

That's kind of faulty logic,
But the fact that we discuss what is right or wrong in our actions show that the system is wrong.

You are still on the mindset that the choices are between right and wrong, it isn't, it's between what's legal and what's illegal.

No. I was actually refering to the massive discussion if saving the base was the right thing to do.
If you read other things I've said in this board. I view it as Idealism vs. Cynicism.

[NineInchNall]

Pragmatism would seem more appropriate than Cynicism. In my humble opinion, that is.

[Sharn01]

One of my big beefs is with some of the renegade interrupt's being renegade.



Its ok to kill these guys, we just have to let them finish their speech first, its bad to attack some one when they are talking about killing you, you have to let them finish and then kill them.

[Kyero]

what i hate about paragon is that we get no appearance changes.

[RandomPot322]

Sharn01 wrote...

One of my big beefs is with some of the renegade interrupt's being renegade.

Its ok to kill these guys, we just have to let them finish their speech first, its bad to attack some one when they are talking about killing you, you have to let them finish and then kill them.

Well, since Renegade is not about being bad. so yeah. You act like being a renegade is the wrong choice, when it's not supposed to be.

[KalosCast]

Sharn01 wrote...

One of my big beefs is with some of the renegade interrupt's being renegade.

Its ok to kill these guys, we just have to let them finish their speech first, its bad to attack some one when they are talking about killing you, you have to let them finish and then kill them.

For the third time RENEGADE DOES NOT MEAN EVIL.

[RandomPot322]

NineInchNall wrote...

Pragmatism would seem more appropriate than Cynicism. In my humble opinion, that is.

Pragmatism probably would explain the final choice better than cynicism, but I don't really see dislike anyone not human as being Pragmatic. That strikes me more as cynical.

[Fishy]

The translation in french for renegade it's pragmatic not *evil*..

I always do some playthrough with a full paragon than my next playthrough i do whatever i want..

Spoiler*

For Instance right now in my RP playthrough i hate cerberus and don't trust them..
I killed Vino during Zaed Loyalty quest *All the civilian died*..

So why i choose to kill vino and not save the civilian?Because 10 Civilian's worth sacrificing to kill 1 dangerous terrorist that could kill thousand of civilian.

I killed the mercenary during thane quest
I punched the Salarian because he threatened me.
i punched the journalist because she's a biotch
I told everyone at the Citadel that they did not care about the poor
I told the shadow broker that she was a racist pig.

Now i feel better.

But i will Hug Tali
Tell jack that killing ain't always the best solution..
Destroy the base
Save the Geth
Give med gel to the batarian dying..


But i will tell the guard i'm not giving you my weapons period and to continue to beat the murderer because it's none of my business.

Modifié par Suprez30, 03 février 2010 - 03:12 .

[Sharn01]

I fully understand what Paragon and Renegade are in Mass Effect.



Beating some one to the punch on a gun draw is neither paragon or renegade, it would be a nuetral interrupt, if they had one.

[RandomPot322]

Suprez30 wrote...

The translation in french for renegade it's pragmatic not *evil*..

I always do some playthrough with a full paragon than my next playthrough i do whatever i want..

Spoiler*

For Instance right now in my RP playthrough i hate cerberus and don't trust them..
I killed Vino during Zaed Loyalty quest *All the civilian died*..

So why i choose to kill vino and not save the civilian?Because 10 Civilian's worth sacrificing to kill 1 dangerous terrorist that could kill thousand of civilian.

I killed the mercenary during thane quest
I punched the Salarian because he threatened me.
i punched the journalist because she's a biotch
I told everyone at the Citadel that they did not care about the poor
I told the shadow broker that she was a racist pig.

Now i feel better.

But i will Hug Tali
Tell jack that killing ain't always the best solution..
Destroy the base
Save the Geth
Give med gel to the batarian dying..


But i will tell the guard i'm not giving you my weapons period and to continue to beat the murderer because it's none of my business.

My only problem is that killing Vino for Zaeed doesn't stop the orginization. Blue Suns will still exsist and continue killing. with or without Vino you don't stop terrorists killing people. or even his people from killing people. I can almost bet that Vino as head dog didn't even pull that many triggers, just told other people. And there are plenty of other people who'll fill his spot.
So kill a figure head or save people. I'd pick save people.

[RandomPot322]

Sharn01 wrote...

I fully understand what Paragon and Renegade are in Mass Effect.

Beating some one to the punch on a gun draw is neither paragon or renegade, it would be a nuetral interrupt, if they had one.

except you aren't beating them to the draw, you're preforming a surprise action that gives them no time to prepare for an attack.
Paragons give them time, Renegades don't.

[Faldarian2]

NineInchNall wrote...

Yes, actually it does make them less evil.  Things are neither inherently good nor inherently evil.  If a choices presented are a true dichotomy of correct and incorrect, then by definition the correct choice is the good choice. Until you've managed to grasp this fundamental concept in the metaphysics of morals, please do not comment on the subject.  Go read some Kant and Mill.

Seriously.  Those of us with third stage morality are talking.

You don't use Kant as an example if you want to claim having a higher sense of morality. Kant's representation would say that since the idea behind the genophage was to save lives, it was therefore a good one. Anyone with any sense of morals or ethics would ask how the Krogan felt about that. A quote by Richard Taylor sums it up pretty well:

"I have known many admirers of Kant, and include myself with them; but if I were ever to find, as I luckily never have, a man who assured me that he really believed Kant’s metaphysical morals, and that he modeled his own conduct and his relations with others after those principles, then my incredulity and distrust of him as a human being could not be greater than if he told me he regularly drowned children just to see them squirm."

And no, in the case of bioweapons, it does not make them less evil. Bioweapons aren't a neutral object of no use other than that chosen by their wielder, they exist for the sole purpose that they were designed for and have no function outside of that purpose.

In context with Mass Effect, the bioweapon in question was designed for the sole purpose of retarding the reproductive capabilities of an entire species. You can argue that it was a necessary act, you can't argue that it was a moral one. 

[NineInchNall]

Faldarian2 wrote...

You don't use Kant as an example if you want to claim having a higher sense of morality. Kant's representation would say that since the idea behind the genophage was to save lives, it was therefore a good one. Anyone with any sense of morals or ethics would ask how the Krogan felt about that.

Actually, I wasn't using Kant as an example of a functioning system of morals - I find the Categorical Imperative to be a joke.  I was using Kant as an example of moral theory in which actions per se do not have moral value.

And no, in the case of bioweapons, it does not make them less evil.
Bioweapons aren't a neutral object of no use other than that chosen by
their wielder, they exist for the sole purpose that they were designed
for and have no function outside of that purpose.

The fact that a thing has a singular purpose has no bearing on the morality of its use.  A neural shock in Mass Effect 1 has no purpose other than to cause debilitating pain to a living creature.  Using it is not an evil act.

Modifié par NineInchNall, 03 février 2010 - 03:31 .

[finnithe]

I didn't think the Paragon/Renegade system had problems, there just wasn't enough punishment for either action. A person playing as a Pure Paragon didn't have to be afraid of any ethical conflicts because there was always a way out either way. Something like Rebekah's kid. It would have been morbid, but perhaps it would have been a lesson if her kid had died. You should have to make sacrifices to uphold your code.

[asaiasai]

I think the system has been changed a bit from ME in that it is now possible to get paragon and renegade points from the same answer. Sometimes you get more points one way for an answer but by giving both types of points Bioware in a simplistic way acknowledge that there is never a truly right or wrong answer but give the nod to the shades of gray.



Asai

[Jarys]

asaiasai wrote...

I think the system has been changed a bit from ME in that it is now possible to get paragon and renegade points from the same answer. Sometimes you get more points one way for an answer but by giving both types of points Bioware in a simplistic way acknowledge that there is never a truly right or wrong answer but give the nod to the shades of gray.

Asai

I'm fairly sure that you can't, there are always a minimum of 2 replies. Sometimes its a neutral and a para or neutral and rene, but always those two. There are sometimes 3-4 wheels where you may pick different replies and get a mixture of para and renegade, but no option gives both.

[GenericPlayer2]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I too find the paragon/renegade system to be troublesome.



In Mordin's sidequest, like the OP mentioned, arguing against the Genophage is paragon. But in Tali's sidequest, condemning her to exile based upon a lie is the Paragon path.



Garrus' Sidequest is the one I had the most problem with. Harkin does not attempt to engage you in conversation, he simply sets an army of mercs and mechs on you and does everything in his power to kill you. That's without even knowing what you want. When you finally get to him, the paragon action is to stop Garrus from shooting him in the leg? To not let him kill someone who betrayed him and his team, and helped get them killed?



I prefer the DA system of choices and consequences. The one place in ME2 where that is implemented is when you follow the paragon path with Veetor and Reegar. That allows you to 'have your cake and eat it too' at the end of the Tali trial. I haven't actually tried the renegade path with those two Qurians, but I am assuming they both die and your rally at the trial fails. Because the timing between the 3 events is spaced out, its a difficult theory to test. Anyone try that?

[Happykola]

Except that not all of Bioware's morality systems are meant to be
carbon clones. Kotor is not Dragon Age, Dragon Age is not Jade Empire,
and Jade Empire is not Mass Effect. Dragon Age is much closer to the
classic good and evil.

agreed, for the most part. There are places in dragon age where you can perform good actions and paragon esque characters have a bad reaction to them (for instance alistairs reaction to you sacrificing isolde to save her kid).


Paragon: any action that refuses to sacrifice human beings as pawns to some 'greater good'.

in me1 shepard sacrifices human beings in order to save the council, this is a paragon option.

Renegade: any action that believes that the individual is expendable at the expense of the group.

when shepard blows up the weyrloc speaker it's a renegade action. but it has nothing to do with individuals or consequantialism or sacrifice for the greater good.

clearly then, these definitions of paragon and renegade are inadequate. The first one is simply a refutation of the second, definining paragon as any action that is not a renegade action is as nonsensical as defining baked beans as any food that is not green beans.

Unfortunately your counter to why the genophage is the correct option is quite lacking.

i deliberately did not justify that claim because you said you didn't want to talk about ethics.


When you slip into the ends justify the means, you go down a
slippery slope that eventually leads you to no longer needing a
justification for what you've done. It's the classic tale of Darth
Vader from Star Wars, Arthas from Warcraft III. The hero falls is a
very common cycle.

again, if you want to talk about ethics fine i will rebut that. But if you don't then don't make ethical claims.


The game rewards you for being consistent and dedication to your loyalty.

and this is one of my main beefs, why should i be rewarded for mindlessley sticking to an arbitrarily set side of he wheel. If i want to get the best rewards then morality in dialogue is reduced to scrolling up and clicking over and over again. If i do want to exercise some moral judgement and try to do good then i'm forced to take a hit in attributes, it is a risible state of affairs when a morality system punishes you for being good or for atempting to make moral choices that aren't based on arbitrary blue red up and down.


You talked about sacrificing krogans for the greater good? Well, in
game you may have to sacrifice your 'paragon bonus' for the greater
good too.

very possibly, but again i don't see why i should have to sacrifice morality points to do the right thing.


Because that's just how the system works.

i am aware of this and that's why i made the post. In my country there is a hereditary monarchy, it's how the system works but that doesn't stop me speaking out against it. The fact that things happen to be the way they are is a never a reason not to try to change them.


Paragon is essentially a Paladin, a Paragon character considers the
ramifications of the law first and foremost, the law states that
genocide and biological weapons are bad, the Paragon does not decide
what is or isn't right, he decides what is or isn't within the
boundaries of the law.

which article of citadel law? It seems unlikely to me that the council outlawed bioweapons since it was them that deployed the greatest bioweapon in the history of the galaxy.



A Renegade, on the other hand, completely ignores the law and does
things based on his own accord. A renegade will always choose the
options that are most efficient regardless of the legal ramifications.

in some cases this is true but there are also places where renegade just runs around inflicting mindless suffering, such as when he throws that merc out of the window in thane's quest.

Paragon/Renegade is not an ethics choice, but a legal choice.

this si clearly not the case, there is no legal question involved in blowing up the tank under the weyrloc speaker. If it fits under any category it should be sub-unit tactics and yet it's given a renegade sticker.

The fact that we are all discussing about it shows how good the system is.

so by criticising it i affirm its quality? i think not.

Kant's representation would say that since the idea behind the genophage was to save lives, it was therefore a good one.

i think it's more likely that kant would say that if everyone unleashed bioweapons on each other there would be no one left to unleash bioweapons therefore it fails the universalization test and is wrong. not that i think we should give kant any weight in determining good and evil.

And no, in the case of bioweapons, it does not make them less evil.
Bioweapons aren't a neutral object of no use other than that chosen by
their wielder, they exist for the sole purpose that they were designed
for and have no function outside of that purpose.

you really cannot ascribe moral agency to inanimate objects.

In context with Mass Effect, the bioweapon in question was designed for
the sole purpose of retarding the reproductive capabilities of an
entire species. You can argue that it was a necessary act, you can't
argue that it was a moral one.

it depends on your definition of moral, it certainly was an act that achieved the greatest good of the greatest number.

Modifié par Happykola, 03 février 2010 - 10:38 .

[Erakleitos]

frankssama wrote...

The fact that we are all discussing about it shows how good the system is.

+1

[Erakleitos]

One of the many reasons why this game is beautiful is that you can't define paragon as absolute good (which doesn't exists) and renegade as absolute evil (which doesn't exists aswell). Things are complicated, like in real life.

True evil or true good exists only in fascism and religion.

Modifié par Erakleitos, 03 février 2010 - 10:35 .

[ryujio85]

Get over it. So what if you are a mix of Paragon and Renegade that is just a closer reflection of real life and your actual character. Being 100% paragon would mean being a preacher boy who only kills in self defense live a little and let it go.

[Happykola]

Erakleitos wrote...

One of the many reasons why this game is beautiful is that you can't define paragon as absolute good (which doesn't exists) and renegade as absolute evil (which doesn't exists aswell). Things are complicated, like in real life.

True evil or true good exists only in fascism and religion.

this is such absolute nonsense i don't even know where to begin. If the good doesn't exist how do you justify any moral action, how do you differentiate between moral and immoral actions. How can you punish or praise someone for doing good or evil if you don't even know what those things are.

true good exists only in religion? are you serious? I can't imagine a scenario where this isn't a troll but i'll list some examples of evil in religious scripture anyway just in case. In the old testament of the bible slavery, human sacrifice, genocide and pedophilic rape are all mandated by god and in some cases performed by him. In the new testament vicarious redemption, original sin  and disgusting misogyny are all mandated by god. In the ko'ran god says that a woman is literally the property of her father or husband, the idea that it is the duty of the faithfull to convert or kill as many unbelievers as possible is also pushed.