Too many people have this idea in their head that Paragon=Good and Renegade=Evil. That is simply not true. They are both good, its just paragon is more compassionate and renegade is more ruthless. They're both saving the galaxy and neither of them kill innocents.
Paragon/ Renegade
Débuté par
HAL4294
, mars 11 2010 01:24
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 02:01
Kekse2k
-
- Members
- 106 messages
That's not entirely accurate. A renegade is more willing to kill innocents. When discussing Saren's relationship with Captain Anderson, Saren staged the factory explosion, which killed many many people, to get the job done. Sure, he got the job done, but he took the quickest (and most ruthless) route. Paragon Shepard says killing innocents doesn't stop wars, it starts them. Renegade Shepard says that was a smart move, to which Captain Anderson says only if there was absolutely no alternative. Saren didn't look for an alternative.
It's difficult to classify Paragon = Good and Renegade = Evil; that would be too simple. I think it's more accurate to say that a Paragon will more willingly follow and respect established customs, whereas a Renegade will more willingly break them.
It's difficult to classify Paragon = Good and Renegade = Evil; that would be too simple. I think it's more accurate to say that a Paragon will more willingly follow and respect established customs, whereas a Renegade will more willingly break them.
#3
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 03:58
Zaxares
-
- Members
- 2 097 messages
I usually look at it as:
Paragon - End never justifies the means.
Renegade - End DOES justify the means.
Both sides want to achieve the same goal; mission accomplished, but a Paragon, as Garrus' father put it so eloquently, will do it right, or never do it at all. A Renegade does whatever it takes to get the job done, no matter how merciless or reprehensible the solution might seem.
However, there's several places in the game where the P/R scale does fall back on the old Good/Evil dichotomy, as well as the 'polite/jackass' options.
Paragon - End never justifies the means.
Renegade - End DOES justify the means.
Both sides want to achieve the same goal; mission accomplished, but a Paragon, as Garrus' father put it so eloquently, will do it right, or never do it at all. A Renegade does whatever it takes to get the job done, no matter how merciless or reprehensible the solution might seem.
However, there's several places in the game where the P/R scale does fall back on the old Good/Evil dichotomy, as well as the 'polite/jackass' options.
#4
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 05:22
Fiery Phoenix
-
- Members
- 18 968 messages
To the OP, try talking to Garrus more often while onboard the Normandy.
#5
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 12:03
HAL4294
-
- Members
- 64 messages
Its important to remember that Saren was not renegade, but a monster. He tortured people and killed hundreds of innocents. A renegade shepard is willing to make sacrifices when need be and uses violence and intimidation over negotiation and charm to complete the mission. Thats why intimidate is intimidate and not "shoot the **** out of the place" You also never actually kill innocents. You may be willing to let them die to stop a terrorist, but you wont kill them.
Modifié par HAL4294, 11 mars 2010 - 12:04 .
#6
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 12:23
Kekse2k
-
- Members
- 106 messages
The fact that renegade Shepard was agreeing with Saren's method at the time cannot be discounted, either. Also, as a note, when I said "more willing to kill innocents," I didn't mean walk straight up to a pedestrian and shoot them. But, when you hold the fate of a life in your hands and their death comes to pass in pursuit of a terrorist, that's killing them. A renegade Shepard is more willing to accept that this was a necessary sacrifice, whereas a paragon Shepard is more willing to accept that this isn't.
E.G. When Garrus is upset over a past event, the one where Saleon had hostages on a shuttle, and shooting down the shuttle would have ended up with the death of hostages and those caught within the debris of the crashed shuttle, paragon Shepard says the risk was not worth it, whereas renegade Shepard says otherwise.
Garrus eventually comes to say (if you pursue the paragon persuasions on him) that if the people he is protecting cannot trust him, then maybe he doesn't deserve to be protecting them. I have never done a renegade character (it's difficult xD) but I would imagine a renegade Shepard would disregard the opinions of those who do not know the stakes, like a parent forcing a child to eat broccoli. It's not pleasant, but is a child capable of comprehending the consequences of an unhealthy diet?
In the end, it all pretty much comes down to your point of view. I should also say that it is easier to condemn a renegade as "evil" in a video game because there are no significant consequences (not yet, at least) of being a paragon--you somehow always get a happy ending. So, why choose a renegade option, an option that is harmful to others, if being a paragon gets the job done just as well?
This was somewhat displayed in KoTOR II, in an instance where giving money to a beggar resulted in a lecture from your mentor. She pointed out that, by giving the beggar money, he was at risk of being harmed by other beggars who desired what he was freely given. It is when circumstances like that are revealed that you can more appreciate a renegade's choice to, for example, refuse to give charity. That sort of insight is lacking in Mass Effect.
E.G. When Garrus is upset over a past event, the one where Saleon had hostages on a shuttle, and shooting down the shuttle would have ended up with the death of hostages and those caught within the debris of the crashed shuttle, paragon Shepard says the risk was not worth it, whereas renegade Shepard says otherwise.
Garrus eventually comes to say (if you pursue the paragon persuasions on him) that if the people he is protecting cannot trust him, then maybe he doesn't deserve to be protecting them. I have never done a renegade character (it's difficult xD) but I would imagine a renegade Shepard would disregard the opinions of those who do not know the stakes, like a parent forcing a child to eat broccoli. It's not pleasant, but is a child capable of comprehending the consequences of an unhealthy diet?
In the end, it all pretty much comes down to your point of view. I should also say that it is easier to condemn a renegade as "evil" in a video game because there are no significant consequences (not yet, at least) of being a paragon--you somehow always get a happy ending. So, why choose a renegade option, an option that is harmful to others, if being a paragon gets the job done just as well?
This was somewhat displayed in KoTOR II, in an instance where giving money to a beggar resulted in a lecture from your mentor. She pointed out that, by giving the beggar money, he was at risk of being harmed by other beggars who desired what he was freely given. It is when circumstances like that are revealed that you can more appreciate a renegade's choice to, for example, refuse to give charity. That sort of insight is lacking in Mass Effect.
Modifié par Kekse2k, 11 mars 2010 - 12:27 .
#7
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 01:45
Fiery Phoenix
-
- Members
- 18 968 messages
^ Very well put. I envy you in that post!
#8
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 08:04
HAL4294
-
- Members
- 64 messages
If you do a renegade character, Shepard says that shooting down Saleon may kill a dozen or so innocents, but if he escapes he'll put far more thru far worse. And the main difference between renegade and the dark side is selfishness- a dark sided character slaughters innocents for money and power, while a renegade character may kill a few to save thousands. Consider the bomb dropped on Hiroshima- it was not done for power but to save lives- even if that means sacrificing others. Thats why renegade shepard's common answer is "the galaxy is at stake, sacrifices have to be made!" Not "Here's an oppurtunity to kill more people!", which by the way is how Saren did things. Renegades put the galaxy first, a sith puts themself first.
#9
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 08:11
KotOREffecT
-
- Members
- 946 messages
Some people seem to think both paragon and Renegade is straight up always the beloved good guy hero no matter what.... What about slaughtering an entire race of species like the Rachni? Yea?...
Doesn't seem so riding off into a sunset on a unicorn Renegade now does it?
Shep could do that because he maybe thought the Rachni might be to much trouble in the long run, so he took the ends justify the means route, and a at times sadistic one at that. So yes, a Renegade can at times appear to be evil. Yea both want to get the job done, but in very different ways at times.
Doesn't seem so riding off into a sunset on a unicorn Renegade now does it?
Shep could do that because he maybe thought the Rachni might be to much trouble in the long run, so he took the ends justify the means route, and a at times sadistic one at that. So yes, a Renegade can at times appear to be evil. Yea both want to get the job done, but in very different ways at times.
#10
Posté 11 mars 2010 - 09:01
HAL4294
-
- Members
- 64 messages
In many ways I admire the renegade characyer more than the paragon. A paragon can't stomach doing what has to be done and he often puts his idealism before the safest way to do things. A renegade character understands that sacrifices have to be made.
Modifié par HAL4294, 11 mars 2010 - 10:00 .
#11
Posté 12 mars 2010 - 12:50
Bigdoser
-
- Members
- 2 575 messages
Awesome post.Kekse2k wrote...
The fact that renegade Shepard was agreeing with Saren's method at the time cannot be discounted, either. Also, as a note, when I said "more willing to kill innocents," I didn't mean walk straight up to a pedestrian and shoot them. But, when you hold the fate of a life in your hands and their death comes to pass in pursuit of a terrorist, that's killing them. A renegade Shepard is more willing to accept that this was a necessary sacrifice, whereas a paragon Shepard is more willing to accept that this isn't.
E.G. When Garrus is upset over a past event, the one where Saleon had hostages on a shuttle, and shooting down the shuttle would have ended up with the death of hostages and those caught within the debris of the crashed shuttle, paragon Shepard says the risk was not worth it, whereas renegade Shepard says otherwise.
Garrus eventually comes to say (if you pursue the paragon persuasions on him) that if the people he is protecting cannot trust him, then maybe he doesn't deserve to be protecting them. I have never done a renegade character (it's difficult xD) but I would imagine a renegade Shepard would disregard the opinions of those who do not know the stakes, like a parent forcing a child to eat broccoli. It's not pleasant, but is a child capable of comprehending the consequences of an unhealthy diet?
In the end, it all pretty much comes down to your point of view. I should also say that it is easier to condemn a renegade as "evil" in a video game because there are no significant consequences (not yet, at least) of being a paragon--you somehow always get a happy ending. So, why choose a renegade option, an option that is harmful to others, if being a paragon gets the job done just as well?
This was somewhat displayed in KoTOR II, in an instance where giving money to a beggar resulted in a lecture from your mentor. She pointed out that, by giving the beggar money, he was at risk of being harmed by other beggars who desired what he was freely given. It is when circumstances like that are revealed that you can more appreciate a renegade's choice to, for example, refuse to give charity. That sort of insight is lacking in Mass Effect.
#12
Posté 12 mars 2010 - 02:24
Kekse2k
-
- Members
- 106 messages
First of all, I was not comparing renegades to the Sith. Kreia, the mentor of whom I spoke earlier, was both Jedi and Sith, ultimately, she hated both sides of the spectrum. Onwards...
A paragon Shepard doesn't disqualify the fact that some sacrifices have to be made. I have already mentioned the conversation with Captain Anderson about Saren's actions. Shepard states that he/she understands that sacrifices have to be made, but only if there is no other way. In Mass Effect, there is *always* an alternative to the renegade choice, so why be a renegade in the first place? That is why it is difficult, for me, at least, to sympathize with the renegade paths *in this game*. If put to reality, the lines become blurred as there is no fallback if a renegade option is put forth. You don't know for certain whether or not it can be done otherwise.
The only instance I can recall in the Mass Effect series where I felt the foolishness of a paragon was in Mass Effect II, where Shepard allows a murderer to go free because they asked to be given a chance, that this was not the life they wanted. Later on, you discover that she is bloodthirsty and that you have been fooled. Sure, now the authorities are after her and they will eventually catch her, but if things like this occurred more often, the renegade path of "no second chances" would definitely be more acceptable.
I would like to ask this: What is the limit, then, for a renegade, when it comes to "getting the job done"? If Shepard comes out saving 51% of the galaxy, is that acceptable? The majority has been saved, the threat dispatched. Would it be worth it? Like I said, this is all subjective. Personally, I prefer the paragon Shepard. KotOREffecT makes a very good point about the Rachni. Extermination, and ultimately genocide, of the species would have been safe. Treachery is what makes paragons look like fools--we can't have a naive leader. But, and this is my opinion, what gives anyone the right to decide the value of life, or lack of it? Can they be chalked up to mere numbers? It's difficult to phrase exactly what I mean by these questions. I suppose I'll go with an analogy, then. A renegade Shepard reminds me of a human shepherd leading a flock of sheep. A paragon Shepard reminds me of a sheep leading a flock of sheep. Hah...wow...that makes less sense the more I think about it. Best not to think about it too hard, I suppose.
A paragon Shepard doesn't disqualify the fact that some sacrifices have to be made. I have already mentioned the conversation with Captain Anderson about Saren's actions. Shepard states that he/she understands that sacrifices have to be made, but only if there is no other way. In Mass Effect, there is *always* an alternative to the renegade choice, so why be a renegade in the first place? That is why it is difficult, for me, at least, to sympathize with the renegade paths *in this game*. If put to reality, the lines become blurred as there is no fallback if a renegade option is put forth. You don't know for certain whether or not it can be done otherwise.
The only instance I can recall in the Mass Effect series where I felt the foolishness of a paragon was in Mass Effect II, where Shepard allows a murderer to go free because they asked to be given a chance, that this was not the life they wanted. Later on, you discover that she is bloodthirsty and that you have been fooled. Sure, now the authorities are after her and they will eventually catch her, but if things like this occurred more often, the renegade path of "no second chances" would definitely be more acceptable.
I would like to ask this: What is the limit, then, for a renegade, when it comes to "getting the job done"? If Shepard comes out saving 51% of the galaxy, is that acceptable? The majority has been saved, the threat dispatched. Would it be worth it? Like I said, this is all subjective. Personally, I prefer the paragon Shepard. KotOREffecT makes a very good point about the Rachni. Extermination, and ultimately genocide, of the species would have been safe. Treachery is what makes paragons look like fools--we can't have a naive leader. But, and this is my opinion, what gives anyone the right to decide the value of life, or lack of it? Can they be chalked up to mere numbers? It's difficult to phrase exactly what I mean by these questions. I suppose I'll go with an analogy, then. A renegade Shepard reminds me of a human shepherd leading a flock of sheep. A paragon Shepard reminds me of a sheep leading a flock of sheep. Hah...wow...that makes less sense the more I think about it. Best not to think about it too hard, I suppose.
Modifié par Kekse2k, 12 mars 2010 - 02:34 .
#13
Posté 13 mars 2010 - 12:28
Zaxares
-
- Members
- 2 097 messages
One thing that really annoyed me about the Renegade choice for the Rachni Queen was that even though you might have very good reasonings for killing the Queen (the risks are too high, she might just have been lying to you), Shepard's behavior and words to the Queen are just that of a total jackass.
Of course, there's no 'good' way to tell somebody that you're going to execute them, but still!
Of course, there's no 'good' way to tell somebody that you're going to execute them, but still!
#14
Posté 14 mars 2010 - 10:33
Phaelducan
-
- Members
- 960 messages
I think Paragon vs. Renegade decision-making often just boils down to flavor and fitting into an RP mold.
I think it's pretty clear that in choosing many of the Renegade options in both ME1 and 2, Shephard is going out of his way to be a jerk. Same thing with Paragon and being a goody-goody.
Nothing wrong with either, but I think both tend to stretch the limits of believability at times.
In looking at the point of view of a career military man tasked with the big picture item of saving the galaxy... you'd think Shephard would consider context and the overall greater good more often.
The Rachni is a good example of this... because rather than looking at it from the Paragon point of view of "it's wrong to commit genocide... again..." or the Renegade view of "they are too dangerous, kill it" I found it would be more believable to look at from a practical point of view. The Rachni could potentially be lethal allies in the fight against the Reapers. If there was even a small chance that the Queen was telling the truth, then purely as a strategic point Shephard would have to at least consider letting her live (not saying would... just consider).
Same thing with Wrex. Being a jerk notwithstanding... wouldn't A) Having a Krogan Battlemaster with potential clan leadership in his future on your side... alive... be a worthy tactical advantage and
At least making the effort to salvage the data from Saren's Genophage cure on the off-chance that it could be duplicated if the Galaxy needed the Krogan for the Reaper invasion.
Those are good examples to me of forced Roleplaying archetypes that aren't realistic. I can't imagine why Shephard would choose willingly to kill Wrex (gameplay mechanics aside, as I realize that you need charm/intimidate or did his sidequest) if there was a way to at least look for the research on the genophage cure.
Feros was even worse... as seriously you can't be bothered to load a different grenade type to at least TRY to save the colonists? Sure it might not work and they might not live anyway, but come on, it's minimal effort to at least give it a shot.
In fact, the only really solid, difficult choice for me at least was regarding the Council. It is a difficult question whether or not the Alliance Fleet or the Citadel Fleet, depending on your choices, is a bigger boon for the Reaper invasion.
These should be two paths for the same goal, just different stylistically.
I think it's pretty clear that in choosing many of the Renegade options in both ME1 and 2, Shephard is going out of his way to be a jerk. Same thing with Paragon and being a goody-goody.
Nothing wrong with either, but I think both tend to stretch the limits of believability at times.
In looking at the point of view of a career military man tasked with the big picture item of saving the galaxy... you'd think Shephard would consider context and the overall greater good more often.
The Rachni is a good example of this... because rather than looking at it from the Paragon point of view of "it's wrong to commit genocide... again..." or the Renegade view of "they are too dangerous, kill it" I found it would be more believable to look at from a practical point of view. The Rachni could potentially be lethal allies in the fight against the Reapers. If there was even a small chance that the Queen was telling the truth, then purely as a strategic point Shephard would have to at least consider letting her live (not saying would... just consider).
Same thing with Wrex. Being a jerk notwithstanding... wouldn't A) Having a Krogan Battlemaster with potential clan leadership in his future on your side... alive... be a worthy tactical advantage and
At least making the effort to salvage the data from Saren's Genophage cure on the off-chance that it could be duplicated if the Galaxy needed the Krogan for the Reaper invasion.Those are good examples to me of forced Roleplaying archetypes that aren't realistic. I can't imagine why Shephard would choose willingly to kill Wrex (gameplay mechanics aside, as I realize that you need charm/intimidate or did his sidequest) if there was a way to at least look for the research on the genophage cure.
Feros was even worse... as seriously you can't be bothered to load a different grenade type to at least TRY to save the colonists? Sure it might not work and they might not live anyway, but come on, it's minimal effort to at least give it a shot.
In fact, the only really solid, difficult choice for me at least was regarding the Council. It is a difficult question whether or not the Alliance Fleet or the Citadel Fleet, depending on your choices, is a bigger boon for the Reaper invasion.
These should be two paths for the same goal, just different stylistically.
#16
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 09:34
HAL4294
-
- Members
- 64 messages
Some of the most heinous renegade choices are a) killing chorban when he'd surrendered, disregarding negotiation and killing the biotics who kidnapped burns, c) killing the feros colonists, d) killing shiala, and e) letting anoleis and parasini kill each other.
f) all those times shepard let criminals go for credits
Answers: a) Shepard offers him a chance to surrender, but he doesn't back down, so why should he get a second chance b/c his plan backfired?
if you start negotiating and give the terrorists what they want for minimal bloodshed, your promoting more kidnapping. That would cause more deaths and should be avoided, even if the current hostage dies
c) release nerve gas? not a good idea when there's a galaxy to save. Plus, i dont have time to pick my targets in a close quarters fire fight, ill get killed and sovereign destroys the galaxy!
d) first, she joined saren, then she joined the thorian, then she betrayed the thorian, there's alot of blood on her hands and Zhu's Hope is too fragile for that cycle to be allowed to continue.
e) its not like a knew he was gonna shoot her! i have to get to peak 15 and anoleis is the most powerful man on Noveria, albeit with a checkered past. Telling him he's in danger might pressure him into helping me fight benezia!
f) those were victimless crimes and that money could be very useful in saving the galaxy. whats the harm in letting a smuggler go free?
disregarding negotiation and killing the biotics who kidnapped burns, c) killing the feros colonists, d) killing shiala, and e) letting anoleis and parasini kill each other.f) all those times shepard let criminals go for credits
Answers: a) Shepard offers him a chance to surrender, but he doesn't back down, so why should he get a second chance b/c his plan backfired?
if you start negotiating and give the terrorists what they want for minimal bloodshed, your promoting more kidnapping. That would cause more deaths and should be avoided, even if the current hostage diesc) release nerve gas? not a good idea when there's a galaxy to save. Plus, i dont have time to pick my targets in a close quarters fire fight, ill get killed and sovereign destroys the galaxy!
d) first, she joined saren, then she joined the thorian, then she betrayed the thorian, there's alot of blood on her hands and Zhu's Hope is too fragile for that cycle to be allowed to continue.
e) its not like a knew he was gonna shoot her! i have to get to peak 15 and anoleis is the most powerful man on Noveria, albeit with a checkered past. Telling him he's in danger might pressure him into helping me fight benezia!
f) those were victimless crimes and that money could be very useful in saving the galaxy. whats the harm in letting a smuggler go free?
Modifié par HAL4294, 22 mars 2010 - 09:35 .
