43796 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Maviarab wrote...
But we digress....just becasue Miri loves her sister, and may love us, doesnt mean she not capable of the worst attrocities when it suits her....

I can agree with that in principle. I also happen to think that everyone is basically capable of anything, depending on circumstances - so that doesn't say much.
But the question is valid: how far would Miranda go? And for which ends? Are there things she wouldn't do for her own ends? I think there are, for instance see her reaction to Pragia - I'd say she would not do deliberate physical harm to children. 

I think Miranda may have done some really bad things in the course of her work for Cerberus. But that doesn't mean she has no morals. It just means that she thinks some ends, particularly those of Cerberus, justify those means. And anyway it's all speculation. We don't know what she's done for Cerberus, maybe it's nothing more than a bit of social engineering to get information and other covert spywork. She's a scientist and spy first, after all.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 avril 2010 - 04:42 .

[firecleaner]

Maviarab wrote...
I mean seriously, most people dont even know who actually won WWII...

OT: The Soviet Union if your talking about the European front....

I think Miranda is willing to get her hands dirty if she deems it necessary to meet a certain goal.

Edit: I just dont know how dirty

Modifié par firecleaner, 09 avril 2010 - 04:49 .

[Jediknight120]

firecleaner wrote...

Maviarab wrote...
I mean seriously, most people dont even know who actually won WWII...

OT: The Soviet Union if your talking about the European front....

I think Miranda is willing to get her hands dirty if she deems it necessary to meet a certain goal.

Oooh, WWII talk!

In a way, Hitler won it for the Allies. First when he made the stupid decision to terrorbomb London instead of hit military targets, which just strengthened England's resolve and allowed them to hold out, and then when he pulled a Napoleon and invaded Russia in winter. Oh, and the Japanese contributed to this by hitting Pearl Harbor like they did, pissing us off and missing our carriers (which resulted in the US Navy being able to decimate the Japanse carrier force at Midway).

Good morning thread.

Modifié par Jediknight120, 09 avril 2010 - 04:51 .

[Valmy]

Maviarab wrote...

Like everything in life....maybe stop reading/looking at biased versions of things? You ever read the accounts of his personal secretary?

If I stopped reading biased versions of things I would have nothing to read.

I bet you would fall over at how she portrays him....you ever seen Der Untergang? While a lot of it is conjecture, also a lot of factual elements in that film, and it was made by the Germans, no hollywood biased gloss....might change your views a little....I mean seriously, most people dont even know who actually won WWII...because they look at the easy to find facts, and listen to the gossip etc...similar thing.

I highly doubt that.  I read new information about history all the time.  I saw Der Untergang, great film. 

Modifié par Valmy, 09 avril 2010 - 04:58 .

[Caihn]

Someone capable of the worst atrocities to achieve a goal, would not betray Cerberus and would not follow Shepard in Paragon ending. 

[Ieldra]

Yannkee wrote...
Someone capable of the worst atrocities to achieve a goal, would not betray Cerberus and would not follow Shepard in Paragon ending. 

One has nothing to do with the other. It's not a moral decision, but a question of whether or not the risks of dealing with Reaper technology outweigh the possible gains.

Ah...and Paragon does not equal "good".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 avril 2010 - 04:59 .

[Valmy]

Ieldra2 wrote...
One has nothing to do with the other. It's not a moral decision, but a question of whether or not the risks of dealing with Reaper technology outweigh the possible gains.

That is complete conjecture.  That is not what she says when she makes the decision. She SAYS she does it because of the horror of seeing the place.  She never says anything about risk analysis.

[Valmy]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Ah...and Paragon does not equal "good".

What does equal "good"?

[Jebel Krong]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Normally, I will try to do things on the first playthrough as I normally would, but then subsequent playthroughs are done in "what-if" scenario sorts of things just o keep it interesting. The only problem I have with keeping it as a "would I do this in real life" approach is that it is an RPG and it's not supposed to be like real life. Shepard is a Spectre and as such, he is not bound by laws. If you had the ability to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted; your decisions might not actually be the same as they would be in real-life. Likewise, Shepard is a soldier and is very accustomed to being shot at a large portion of the time. Most soldiers that have experienced war will tell you that it completely changes them as a person. This may seem like an extreme way of looking at things, but let me give you an example:

*snip*

Though, back to the topic,  I think the reason people are obsessed with one or the other is the advantages behind having maxed out in one or the other. For instance, you need a very high Renegade or Paragon just to activate some of the options that will keep your party members loyal when there is a fight amongst one another. If BioWare didn't include benefits to maxing out one or the other, like Bethesda does in Fallout 3, people wouldn't be so obsessed with filling one or the other.

agreed, i tend to play me if i was in that position, though (spectre, N7 etc.) and base my decisions accordingly, so it's not just 'me' making those decisions - and i tend to end up quite renegade and some paragon as a result. i never had a problem with any influencing decision though, except being able to choose morinth, and that's only a matter of waiting long enough...

i agree with Ieldra in that anyone is capable of anything given the right circumstances, but we haven't been shown enough to judge just how far miranda would go - it's obvious even she didn't know about pragia, for example, but that doesn't change her character nor her feelings for shepard in any way.

[DarkSeraphym]

Jebel Krong wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Normally, I will try to do things on the first playthrough as I normally would, but then subsequent playthroughs are done in "what-if" scenario sorts of things just o keep it interesting. The only problem I have with keeping it as a "would I do this in real life" approach is that it is an RPG and it's not supposed to be like real life. Shepard is a Spectre and as such, he is not bound by laws. If you had the ability to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted; your decisions might not actually be the same as they would be in real-life. Likewise, Shepard is a soldier and is very accustomed to being shot at a large portion of the time. Most soldiers that have experienced war will tell you that it completely changes them as a person. This may seem like an extreme way of looking at things, but let me give you an example:

*snip*

Though, back to the topic,  I think the reason people are obsessed with one or the other is the advantages behind having maxed out in one or the other. For instance, you need a very high Renegade or Paragon just to activate some of the options that will keep your party members loyal when there is a fight amongst one another. If BioWare didn't include benefits to maxing out one or the other, like Bethesda does in Fallout 3, people wouldn't be so obsessed with filling one or the other.

agreed, i tend to play me if i was in that position, though (spectre, N7 etc.) and base my decisions accordingly, so it's not just 'me' making those decisions - and i tend to end up quite renegade and some paragon as a result. i never had a problem with any influencing decision though, except being able to choose morinth, and that's only a matter of waiting long enough...

i agree with Ieldra in that anyone is capable of anything given the right circumstances, but we haven't been shown enough to judge just how far miranda would go - it's obvious even she didn't know about pragia, for example, but that doesn't change her character nor her feelings for shepard in any way.

I, likewise, concur.

Let's not delve down too far morality on the behalf of Miranda because Ieldra is indeed correct when they mentioned that anyone is capable of anything. Morality is not absolute, it never has been. If Morality was absolute, those who study ethics would have no job left. The moment a situation resorts away from morality and turns, instead, to prudentiality; then morals have a habit of flying out the window and leaving the person with making a decision based exclusively upon what needs to be done in that decision. It is anyones guess really as to how far she would go.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 09 avril 2010 - 05:21 .

[Karstedt]

Maviarab wrote...
I mean seriously, most people dont even know who actually won WWII.

Umm... the Jews won right? Or was it Italy?

I think ignorance of WWII is probably a result of where you are. Some countries have terrible education and highly value ingorance.

[Valmy]

DarkSeraphym wrote...
instead, to prudentiality; then morals have a habit of flying out the window and leaving the person with making a decision based exclusive upon what needs to be done in that decision. It is anyones guess really as to how far she would go.

Well it depends on the person. Again if everybody acted entirely out of prudentiality then those who study ethics would also be out of a job. The opposite of there not being absolute morals is not no morals at all. It is not an either/or thing. Miranda felt it was moral to leave the people on that Cerberus station to die because they had all agreed to that if the mission was at stake beforehand. Would she do the same if that was not the case? We do not know. But clearly her personal morality, that everybody on the team put the good of the mission before everything else, came into play.

Modifié par Valmy, 09 avril 2010 - 05:21 .

[Valmy]

Karstedt wrote...

Maviarab wrote...
I mean seriously, most people dont even know who actually won WWII.

Umm... the Jews won right? Or was it Italy?

I think ignorance of WWII is probably a result of where you are. Some countries have terrible education and highly value ingorance.

I think he is getting at the fact that popular history does not do a very good job at letting people know that once the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad the eventual loser of the war was no longer in doubt (though IMHO once the Americans entered the war AND the Germans failed to take Moscow in the winter of '42 it was a forgone conclusion as the chances of an Axis victory were never very high to begin with).

Alot of people think if D-Day and the battle of Normandy had failed the Germans would have won, and for good reason because it is presented as a decisive battle.

[Caihn]

Valmy wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
One has nothing to do with the other. It's not a moral decision, but a question of whether or not the risks of dealing with Reaper technology outweigh the possible gains.

That is complete conjecture.  That is not what she says when she makes the decision. She SAYS she does it because of the horror of seeing the place.  She never says anything about risk analysis.

I agree.
And for me it's a moral decision. Maybe Miranda thinks also of the risks but we don't know.
I hope we'll have a complete answer in ME3.

Modifié par Yannkee, 09 avril 2010 - 05:26 .

[Valmy]

Maviarab wrote...

To me, all the time she spent with Shep she saw another way of doing things, and I believe she see's Shep as a stonger person than TIM in many ways....so I dont see it that she took a rsk in resigning, Shep (as a love interest or not) is a better and safer option.

Again what she SAYS is that she is doing it because of the horror of the Collector Base.  You have the burden of proving she is not doing it for the reason she says.

[DarthReavus]

Valmy wrote...

Karstedt wrote...

Maviarab wrote...
I mean seriously, most people dont even know who actually won WWII.

Umm... the Jews won right? Or was it Italy?

I think ignorance of WWII is probably a result of where you are. Some countries have terrible education and highly value ingorance.

I think he is getting at the fact that popular history does not do a very good job at letting people know that once the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad the eventual loser of the war was no longer in doubt (though IMHO once the Americans entered the war AND the Germans failed to take Moscow in the winter of '42 it was a forgone conclusion as the chances of an Axis victory were never very high to begin with).

Alot of people think if D-Day and the battle of Normandy had failed the Germans would have won, and for good reason because it is presented as a decisive battle.

For me the Second World War was not won by any single action or any single nation, it was the efforts of all of the Allied Nations that won the war, even though Hollywood would try and have the world believe otherwise....

[MassAffected]

Valmy I agree with Ieldra, Paragon =/= good because good is a point of view. Anyway what did I miss?

[DarkSeraphym]

Valmy wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...
instead, to prudentiality; then morals have a habit of flying out the window and leaving the person with making a decision based exclusive upon what needs to be done in that decision. It is anyones guess really as to how far she would go.

Well it depends on the person. Again if everybody acted entirely out of prudentiality then those who study ethics would also be out of a job. The opposite of there not being absolute morals is not no morals at all. It is not an either/or thing. Miranda felt it was moral to leave the people on that Cerberus station to die because they had all agreed to that if the mission was at stake beforehand. Would she do the same if that was not the case? We do not know. But clearly her personal morality, that everybody on the team put the good of the mission before everything else, came into play.

Of course not, nothing is ever just black-and-white. However, prudence and morality are not polar opposites either. The two have entirely different meanings and can run right over one another, making a choice prudential and moral at the sametime. Your example for your argument is a great example of such. It was prudential for them not to jeopardize the mission and as such, she decided that it was the moral thing to do at the sametime.

My argument was not meant to pull in a debate on ethics. What I had meant to do was establish that Miranda is not a "cheap" character that thinks about the world exclusively in black-and-white, which is what I have been gathering from the stuff I've been reading through some of the posts on this thread. Their arguments are either "she is a cold, heartless, *****" or "she's sweet and innocent". What I don't quite understand is why she has to be stuck into either polarity when the character as a whole is far more complex than that.

Aside from that, her views change depending on how your character is affiliated, which is another point in favor of Ielda's argument. I usually play Renegade when I play through Mass Effect and because of her abilities, I always take her with me as a party member. Not once did I ever hear so much as a peep out of her when I rig the Collector Base with a radioactive charge, the only time I heard anything out of her was at the end of the game where I heard from everyone short of Legion that the decision may carry risks. That isn't really all that much substance though considering the fact that characters like Garrus will also say it may not have been the best idea, yet if you rig the base to explode Garrus will say that the base should be preserved.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 09 avril 2010 - 05:36 .

[Valmy]

DarthReavus wrote...
For me the Second World War was not won by any single action or any single nation, it was the efforts of all of the Allied Nations that won the war, even though Hollywood would try and have the world believe otherwise....

Yep, the course of WWII is quite complex as it is a huge war.

Not nearly as complex as WWI.  Explaining that one to somebody is a nightmare.

Man I could so talk about this for pages and pages but it is probably best we stop this conversation now

[Valmy]

MassAffected wrote...

Valmy I agree with Ieldra, Paragon =/= good because good is a point of view. Anyway what did I miss?

Well I guess I found it hard to discuss whether or not being a Paragon was good since I was not clear what Ieldra meant by good in the first place.

[DarthReavus]

Valmy wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...
For me the Second World War was not won by any single action or any single nation, it was the efforts of all of the Allied Nations that won the war, even though Hollywood would try and have the world believe otherwise....

Yep, the course of WWII is quite complex as it is a huge war.

Not nearly as complex as WWI.  Explaining that one to somebody is a nightmare.

Man I could so talk about this for pages and pages but it is probably best we stop this conversation now

Yeah, if you ask an average person on the street how the First World War started they'll probably tell you it's because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, without actually knowing his name of course.  They'd fail to take into account the arms race of the preceding twenty years on a comparable scale to the nuclear arms race of the 1950s as well the previous 50 years of rivalry and sabre-rattling going on in Europe.

It is a ridiculously complicated subject indeed.

[firecleaner]

DarthReavus wrote...
even though Hollywood would try and have the world believe the good ol' Yanks saved your asses....

:P:P Joking.....


Hopefully we get a clarification on this, Miranda seems to have a fault she seems to lack the ablility to think for herself.