91 réponses à ce sujet

[Erakleitos]

Personified true good i meant. Moral is an abstract concept you know that?

[Happykola]

Personified true good i meant. Moral is an abstract concept you know that?

just because it's metaphysical doesn't mean it's undefinable.

[RandomPot322]

Happykola wrote...

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.

Just a thought. He didn't say evil wasn't in the bible. You're just misrepresenting his statement. Something a troll does. (not calling you a troll, just saying it's behavoir a troll does)

AND you said this earlier, the game rewards a consistant moral philosophy, the blue options are pretty consistant being nice to people, red options are pretty consistant being mean to people.
Now note, the game actually allows you to be about 25% Renegade and still be 100% paragon. And to point out further you can't claim arbitrary when they are consistantly the same kind of feel behind each of the "up or down" clicks. Some may feel out of place, but a consistant pattern is "Act Nice" up top "Act Mean" down below.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

[quote]Happykola wrote...
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. [/quote]

Perhaps I should make my meaning since you seem to enjoy making this more difficult than it needs to be. Someone who is a paragon takes the higher path. You think higher in the sense of 'good', but more noble.

Whether or not you think the genophage is the right thing to do, it can never be accepted as noble, that is a discernable difference. Perhaps instead of 'human beings' I should have said intelligent life form to include hanar, krogan, etc. But at the same time, the error in your judgement can be seen in that you did not 'sacrifice' humans.

Following a paragon path, someone 'may die'. This is war after all, but paragons do not intentionally use human beings as pawns. In ME, they also believe in equal rights for all, alien or otherwise, and following a code of honor.

Following a rengade path, necessitates that someone die, often by your hand, to achieve these goals. Now you might argue the genophage doesn't follow this pattern? Renegades have no code of honor or conduct that they are loyal to. They do whatever they must to get the job done, shown by how they use highly debated bioweapons.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Does everything have to be broken down 'exactly'? This goes to another difference in renegade/paragon. Paragons are much more prone to diplomacy when possible. Renegades are closer to the approach 'violence solves everything'.

[quote]
clearly then, these definitions of paragon and renegade are inade
quate. 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. [/quote]

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Then you should not have foolishly begun your statement with 'I'm sorry, but this *is* the correct option'. Or did you think you would not be met with a rebuke? You should have actually complied with what you attempt to claim.

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

Same to the above, you decided to goad into an ethical discussion.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

And this is where your argument falls apart. You talk about sacrificing morality points. This isn't kotor, yet again. Paragon isn't meant to be good, renegade isn't meant to be evil, even if they do bear some vague similarities to the two. Is the system perfect? No. But at the same time you wouldn't be happy unless the genophage was considered a paragon action, which it is not.

You seem to be complaining about your desire to min/max interfering with your desire to play your character's morality. This is an issue that you must deal with in any rpg however. It's not a broken mechanic, they are often designed that way. Be grateful that getting paragon points doesn't lose renegade and vice versa.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Cute, except your changes seem to involve tailoring the game to suit one individual's needs. Can the system be improved? Yes. Are you making it out to be a bigger issue than it is? Most certainly.

Edit: So why don't you try presenting a definition of paragon/renegade that you actually find acceptable? I'm curious to see what you actually think the two are.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 03 février 2010 - 01:08 .

[RandomPot322]

Hey, weren't you going to give me examples on how Idealism V. Cynicism is incorrect?

[Gocad]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help but think that the game seems to be biased towards going paragon. A lot of the renegade choices presented in the game come across like Shepard is either acting dumb or asking to be punished (either right away or sometime later)

[Happykola]

 But at the same time you wouldn't be happy unless the genophage was considered a paragon action, which it is not.

i think this demonstrates how badly you've misunderstood me, i don't want the genophage to be a paragon option i want to be rewarded for doing the right thing (or atleast not considered a renegade for it) without having to mindlessly stick to an arbitrarly set list of blue and red integers.


Cute, except your changes seem to involve tailoring the game to suit one individual's needs.

again i don't think i suggested any changes to the game unless saying i thought the da morality system was better is suggesting a change.

Edit: So why don't you try presenting a definition of paragon/renegade that you actually find acceptable?

i have no desire to attempt to define the two, i'm sure the dictionary definitions of paragon and renegade would'nt fit with all the actions that the paragon/renegade shepard performs, indeed it may be the case that the two may not be definable because of contradictory actions. Either way the onus is hardly upon me to clarify the system i'm criticising when those who defend it can't


Are you making it out to be a bigger issue than it is?

i hardly think that writing a forum post constitutes making it a big issue, maybe i should have clarified that i think mass effect 2 is an exceptionally good game. The fact that i think one aspect of it could have been done better hardly stops me from admiring the amazing job that bioware did on mass effect 2.

Does everything have to be broken down 'exactly'?

i'm not entirely sure what you mean by this i do think that if you provide a definition of something and it doesn't fit the empirical evidence then it is an incorrect definition. I also think that we should strive to find the fullest explanation possible for everything. That may be an unsatisfactory answer but i'm afraid i don't fully understand the question.

Then you should not have foolishly begun your statement with 'I'm
sorry, but this *is* the correct option'. Or did you think you would
not be met with a rebuke?

suprisingly enough yes i did think that, mainly because you said in no uncertain terms that you did not want to engage in an ethical discussion, if assuming on those grounds that you did not want to get into an ethical discussion was foolish i apologize.



Whether or not you think the genophage is the right thing to do, it can never be accepted as noble





noble

1. having honourable qualities; having moral eminence and freedom from anything petty mean or dubious in conduct and character

source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noble

deploying the genophage fits all these paramaters so it can and should be considered noble



Perhaps instead of 'human beings' I should have said intelligent life
form to include hanar, krogan, etc. But at the same time, the error in
your judgement can be seen in that you did not 'sacrifice' humans.

again, not entirely sure what this means if you're claiming that you did not sacrifice humans that is just demonstrably false.

Following a rengade path, necessitates that someone die, often by your
hand, to achieve these goals. Now you might argue the genophage doesn't
follow this pattern? Renegades have no code of honor or conduct that
they are loyal to. They do whatever they must to get the job done,
shown by how they use highly debated bioweapons.

so you're saying renegade is a moral code whereby the renegade necessarily either kills someone or allows someone to die and does whatever necessary to get the job done. This is spurious in the extreme and far too vague to be considered a definition, when i did my first palythrough of the suicide mission legion died in my pursuit of th mission, it was hardly my choice but apparently that makes me a renegade. as for ahving no code of conduct surely "they do whatever they must to ge the job done" is a code of conduct, if a slightly less rigid than usual one. A good example of this is bruce lee's "way of having no way".


Following a paragon path, someone 'may die'. This is war after all, but
paragons do not intentionally use human beings as pawns. In ME, they
also believe in equal rights for all, alien or otherwise, and following
a code of honor.

so a paragon is someone who doesn't use human beings as pawns? it may well be the case that paragons do not use human beings as pawns but that is hardly an adequate definition. Blowing up the tank under the weyrlod speaker in no way used human beings as pawns but it was a renegade option.

Modifié par Happykola, 03 février 2010 - 05:29 .

[fogofeternity]

ElBiggus wrote...

I struggled trying to work out which conversational gambits were paragon or renegade, but it turns out to be rather idiotically simple -- the top of the wheel is paragon, the bottom is renegade, and the middle is bland nothingness, with blue and red being supercharged versions...

I always thought this was the biggest weakness in the whole system. I love the idea of trying to play your way through as a Paragon or Renegade, but surely that's a far more rewarding task if it's not already set that top of wheel = paragon, and bottom = renegade. Far better to have to think about it without such an obvious guide (and sometimes get it wrong). Sure, at times there'll be options that are very obviously good/bad, and others where any option could potentially be paragon/renegade (e.g. the discussion about the genophage).

Given that from ME1 onwards, the conversation wheel was interesting enough that it wasn't always obvious which was good bad, it kinda pissed me off when I finally flicked through the manual and discovered there was a simple system to follow for paragon/renegade. I wish I'd never found out.

[Happykola]

RandomPot322 wrote...

Hey, weren't you going to give me examples on how Idealism V. Cynicism is incorrect?

sorry i clean forgot, so i suppose what we're looking for is an example of a renegade action that is not cynical and a paragon action that is not idealistic.

cynic (plural cynics)

   1. A person who believes that all people are motivated by selfishness.
   2. A person whose outlook is scornfully negative.

there are plenty of examples for this, indeed the one i was talking about in my original post would do as well as any, in order to believe deploying the genophage is the right thing to do it is not necessary to posses either of these properties and yet it is a renegade option.


idealist (plural idealists)

   1. (philosophy) One who adheres to idealism.
   2. Someone whose conduct stems from idealism rather than from practicality.
   3. An unrealistic or impractical visionary.


this one is slightly more difficult since we can't be sure of shepards motives so it is difficult to know what his/her conduct stems from. it's probably safe to say however that getting thane krios' son community service for attempted murder is an action that falls otuside these parameters.

source:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idealist

Modifié par Happykola, 03 février 2010 - 05:38 .

[huntrrz]

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...

Look, where it stands the council cannot do jack **** if the Reapers invade (remember Sovereign?). So being able to get them on your side is good and all, but still useless. Everyone is coming into this decision knowing that Bioware will make a way to defeat the Reapers without letting TIM have the base. But honestly, if you were in that situation, would you destroy the only chance the galaxy may have in fighting back against the Reapers because of your disgust with Cerberus? If you can honestly say "yes" to that question then you are either stupid or idealistically misguided to a fault.

I destroyed the base, but not "because of my disgust".  I don't trust TIM's motives, but beyond that I don't trust his JUDGEMENT.  The loss of the entire Reaper study team tought him NOTHING.

Keeping the base was too big a risk.  Every piece of Reaper tech brings with it the threat of indoctrination.

[huntrrz]

NineInchNall wrote...

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

Ah, yes!

I think the one decision that 'concerned' me most was the Geth heretics.  It wasn't the choice I made, which I am comfortable with, it was HOW the choice would be registered by the game/game universe.

I destroyed the heretics, and I think that got recorded as a Renegade / "Pragmatic" decision.  The dialog shows that Shepard thinks the risk of them reverting is too great and he has "to end this".

But the real reason I made that decision was (in my mind) Paragon / "Idealistic".  As Shepard said EARLIER, "I wouldn't brainwash an organic, I can't see treating the Geth any differently'.  Killing someone is less of a crime than removing their free will and keeping them alive as a tool for your own purposes.

I suspect that Shepard will be called to task for this decision either way in ME3, I'm just worried that the game won't allow me to reflect the real reasoning behind it.

[RandomPot322]

Happykola wrote...

RandomPot322 wrote...

Hey, weren't you going to give me examples on how Idealism V. Cynicism is incorrect?

sorry i clean forgot, so i suppose what we're looking for is an example of a renegade action that is not cynical and a paragon action that is not idealistic.

cynic (plural cynics)

   1. A person who believes that all people are motivated by selfishness.
   2. A person whose outlook is scornfully negative.

there are plenty of examples for this, indeed the one i was talking about in my original post would do as well as any, in order to believe deploying the genophage is the right thing to do it is not necessary to posses either of these properties and yet it is a renegade option.


idealist (plural idealists)

   1. (philosophy) One who adheres to idealism.
   2. Someone whose conduct stems from idealism rather than from practicality.
   3. An unrealistic or impractical visionary.


this one is slightly more difficult since we can't be sure of shepards motives so it is difficult to know what his/her conduct stems from. it's probably safe to say however that getting thane krios' son community service for attempted murder is an action that falls otuside these parameters.

source:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idealist

Well, why is releasing Genophage right to a Renegade? Cause Krogran are dangerous, so A negative outlook being that Krogan's can't change? They would just continue on their destructive path. That's Cynical.

Idealistic for Thane's kid: how is getting someone out of serious jail time because you feel sorry for him. You believe he's better than that, and with proper guidance, presumably by his father. That is Idealistic.

[RandomPot322]

Happykola wrote...


Edit: So why don't you try presenting a definition of paragon/renegade that you actually find acceptable?

i have no desire to attempt to define the two, i'm sure the dictionary definitions of paragon and renegade would'nt fit with all the actions that the paragon/renegade shepard performs, indeed it may be the case that the two may not be definable because of contradictory actions. Either way the onus is hardly upon me to clarify the system i'm criticising when those who defend it can't

So you want us to define it, but you lack any real definition yourself of it?
So how can you complain about it? How can you know complain about a system being wrong if you can't define what that system should be?

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Myrmedus wrote...

This is why I don't care if my action is perceived by the game as paragon or renegade, I do what I have to. I had 100% Paragon by the end but guess what my end-game choices were? Save the Collector Base, stick with TIM - those are about as Renegade as you can get but from a war perspective they're necessary...the only thing I'm concerned about now is that smile on TIM's face at the end :/

You were being shortsighted and failed to think of what could happen after the war.

Human supramacism coming up!

[i7206]

I'm not going to say that the system forces you down one path, but it strongly encourages you to do so. By sticking with one side of the wheel, you open up more dialogue options down the track. This is not the way it should be.



All dialogue options should be open for every character, and the reward/result of your choices should solely be the consequences of the action, not some increase on a graph in the pause menu.



Because if the game encourages you to have a pre-determined action towards every decision, that's hardly roleplaying at all.

[Eretikas]

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...
But honestly, if you were in that situation, would you destroy the only chance
the galaxy may have in fighting back against the Reapers because of your
disgust with Cerberus? If you can honestly say "yes" to that question
then you are either stupid or idealistically misguided to a fault.

I agree with you. I've played all game as Paragon, but made two saves:

a) Paragon - destroyed collector’s knowledge and screwed my relationships
with Cerberus.
Renegade - Saved knowledge and kept Cerberus as ally.

1. Knowledge is just confirmed information about The Universe. Morality doesn’t
apply to knowledge; doesn't matter by whom or how it was collected. For example,
you can throw a space hamster from a tall building in order to calculate g-force
but it doesn’t make 9.8 m/s2 result (new knowledge) evil.

2. Illusive man was right; this knowledge could be turned
against Reapers (know your enemy). And you can’t waste a chance like that in the face of complete annihilation.
All who were murdered by collectors to acquire this knowledge would not die in vain.

3. Cerberus is no better than some other races with its sins
(like Krogans or Salarians). All of them want to rule the Galaxy. Cerberus
could make very strong ally against Reapers if you take them on board. If Illusive
Man works for Reapers then I guess he has all advanced technology already (no big
advantage for him). But if this knowledge was made public to all friendly aliens
first then it could be very helpful in understanding your enemy and saving
lives.

P.S.: Of course there was a scene at the end which sugested that Shepard took knowledge anyway (but lied about its destruction to Cerberus)

Modifié par Eretikas, 03 février 2010 - 09:42 .