290 réponses à ce sujet

[FlintlockJazz]

Shandepared wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

 (he was supposed to open trade negotiations, not wipe everyone out).

That wasn't really anyone's fault. What killed off the overwhelming majority of the native populations was disease.

True, though his actions did trigger the eventual downfall of their society (which did free surrounding cultures from Aztec dominion).

[prem0nition]

Shandepared wrote...
Yes and
this is true if you rewrite them too. Regardless a minority will be left
in isolated systems. However even if they do rebuild it will take "many
years".

Very much so, and during that rebuilding phase, if you destroy the Geth Heretic base, they wont be a threat to Galactic Stability, while if you re-write them, there's no guarantee that the re-writing will stick. IMO, regardless of the moral side of re-writing a possible evolutionary stage in a species life cycle, you run the risk of either re-creating the heretic faction, or causing what you were hoping to avoid, that being the Geth breaking their self imposed isolation and charging across the galaxy to exterminate organic life.

Shandepared wrote...

Then humor me and tell me how you'd justify letting the rachni go as a renegade action and killing her as a paragon action.

Sure, I'm willing to take a stab at it.

Paragon - The Rachni have proven to be a serious threat in the past, to the point where the citadel races were forced to exterminate them as a species. While some disagreed with the decision, the end of the Rachni threat was a good thing for the Galaxy. Now, a rogue Genetics company, in league with Saren, a known threat to the galaxy has been caught in the act of recreating the Rachni. Who knows what genetic changes they have done to the Queen, have they increased her intelligence, her guile, have they increased the strength of the Rachni, turned them into even more dangerous, feral animals than they were before? Are they even Rachni anymore? Can you take the risk to find out?

The Rachni Queen is not in a position where she can escape or attack Shepard, the only way she can preserve her life at this point is to beg for it, promise anything to ensure her survival so her brood can repopulate. How likely is it that she'll keep her word? You cannot know. What you do know is that the Rachni Queen represents an immediate threat to the galactic community you've sworn to protect, and right now, with the threat of Saren and the reapers, the galaxy can't afford another unstabilizing component. Though the decision is distasteful, you use the failsafe to dispose of the Rachni Queen.

Renegade - The Rachni Queen is helpless, begging for her life, she's promising you anything to ensure her survival. Your hand hovers over the failsafe, but wait you think, the Rachni were a serious threat once, long ago, the Council Races uplifted the krogan to deal with them and the Rachni fought to the last egg. Perhaps they could be useful... What changes have the Genetics company made? Perhaps the Queen is more docile, while the drones more powerful and aggressive, the drones you fought on your way here certainly gave you a hard fight.

Maybe if you show a little "Mercy" to the Queen now, it'll pay off down the road. A bunch of angry bugs to use as cannon fodder against the Reapers might be helpful, and you know, if one of the other council races get out of line, the fear of the Rachni might convince them to behave... Get them focused on the real threat instead of ****ing in your ear... You talk with the Queen, getting her to swear her loyalty to you before you release her, a loyalty you plan on enforcing under the threat of your gun.

There you go, a paragon reason for killing the queen, and a Renegade option for releasing her. Not what's available in game, but options that certain types of Shepards would think of.

[prem0nition]

Shandepared wrote...

How is that any different from the renegade reasoning?

Yeah, that sounds like the Paragon reasoning minus the whole "I won't commit genocide" angle. In fact, you can have Shepard use this reasoning when you let her out if one of your party objects.

The difference is always motive. The reasoning can be the same, but the motive behind that reasoning can be completely different. Two people can come up with exactly the same reasoning behind their answers yet arrive at different results, just like they can also have completely different reasons and arrive at the same answers.

In my examples, the Paragon Shepard is concerned for the safety of the Galaxy, in the Rachni Queen he sees a threat that it can't afford to deal with he doesn't know what changes have been made to the Rachni in general. What is sitting in the container in front of him may no longer be a Rachni, just a genetic experiment that no longer mentally/spiritually/whatever resembles the Rachni of old. If he were to destroy the Queen, it wouldn't be Genocide as the Rachni were never truly brought back. Then there's the queen herself, what if her pleas for mercy are a charade, a way to garner sympathy from him, make him release her so she and her brood can go on a blood rampage across the galaxy. This Paragon Shepard thinks that the risks are too great, and so, for the good of the galaxy he kills the Queen.

Where the Paragon Shepard sees a threat, Mr Renegade sees an opportunity, who knows what changes have been made to the Rachni, making them easier to control, but hardier fighters perhaps. Controlling the Rachni would not only give him cannon fodder to use against the reapers, but it would also escalate Humanitys position in the galaxy, and give him something to keep the other races from getting in the way. He decides to grant the queen her request, under certain provisios of course, and under the constant threat of his current weapon of choice should she try and rebel against him.


The ability to agree with different reasons or disagree with the same answer is what you could  definitely call a marvel of humanity [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie] I'm sure that you've come across plenty of people in your time in both this forum and other works of fiction (likely real life too [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]) who, despite you believing a certain character is absolutely irredeemable still manages to find a way to believe that character is just misguided really and underneath all that gruff, nasty exterior is someone who just needs a hug.

Modifié par prem0nition, 23 avril 2010 - 11:34 .

[prem0nition]

Shandepared wrote...

prem0nition wrote...

In my examples, the Paragon Shepard is concerned for the safety of the Galaxy, in the Rachni Queen he sees a threat that it can't afford to deal with he doesn't know what changes have been made to the Rachni in general.

Which is exactly how the Renegade feels about it.

prem0nition wrote...

Where the Paragon Shepard sees a threat, Mr Renegade sees an opportunity...

...that is already a reason for paragon though. It's right there in the game.

But my point is still there. Motive.

It is a crass and cliched line but "What is my motivation?" is a damn important line for an actor (and should carry some weight for RP'er, but that really IS just my opinion ). Hand two sets of actors of equal skill the same set of lines, but give them completely different pasts and motivations and you will get completely different performances. What makes a decision good or evil (Paragon or Renegade if you will) is your own motives and beliefs behind making that decision.

For most decisions in an RPG game, like being a jerk to your helmsman, punching an innocent civillian, pushing someone out of a window etc, a light/dark - Renegade/Paragon - Reputation/Infamy system works well for tracking your character's moral values, after all, we all know that knocking someone's teeth out for asking a simple question, or consoling the poor widow over the grave of her husband are good or bad actions... but when it comes to deeper, more complex issues, they fail, sometimes badly. It's why I'd like to see an expanded morality system appear in games, more than two "bars" to keep track of and balance.

[Koen Casier]

Shandepared wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

So answer me this: was the geth genocide of the quarians people evil / wrong therefore stating that geth are moral beings (i.e. have a moral system) that have chosen a evil coarse of action or if the geth aren't moral beings (don't have a moral system) then any act even that of genocide can't be truly considered evil, just a unfortunate accident were a machines malfunctioned. You can not have both.

It can be considered evil when sapient beings attempt to justify it. As for the geth, yes, they're just malfunctioning machines. That's why annihlating them is no more tragic than deleting all the existing copies of LINUX in the world.

There are two ways to interpret your statement:
If you mean that the sentient being trying to justify it are the geth then you are contradicting your own argument since you stated that they are just malfunctioning machines; in other words they are not sentient in your argument.

If you mean me or other geth "apologist" by sapient beings then I would argue that if geth are just malfunctioning machines as you assert than any statement I/we make is misguided, the act itself is not evil. And no statement we make can make it evil, only make me/us look like fools. Suppose a plane crashes caused by a technical malfunction and I say the plane was justified in doing so as the passengers were enslaving it then the killing of the passengers would not suddenly become evil, I would simply have made an absurd statement on my part, since the plane is not sapient.

And as I said previously I assume that geth are sapient, since everyone in the game state that the geth gestalt is sapient even their creators statements indicate that they consider the gestalt as sapient (with some exceptions like Xen). If you insist to claim that they are not sapient feel free to do so, but in doing so you have definitively relegated the genocide to nothing more than a accident with the same lack of moral value as any other act caused by a malfunction. And any "apologist" as misguided people whos value statement are merely absurd, and can therefor not be said to hold any moral value.

Modifié par Koen Casier, 23 avril 2010 - 12:21 .

[prem0nition]

Okay, once again, you're losing me and I am unsure what your point is in this.

You asked me to give you a Paragon justification for killing the Rachni Queen, and a Renegade justification for releasing her. Within the limited options available, I believe I have done so. I have even pointed out that what makes the difference between a Paragon and Renegade action in this situation and in the Geth situation we were originally discussing can be a characters motivation and point of view, and because of that, how it can greatly differ from the original intent of the game maker.

I am unsure where this debate is going, and what it is about now...

If you like, I can try and demonstrate my motivation point by using the third way I mentioned earlier.

As an example a Paragon Shepard could say "I'm sorry, but I can't decide your fate on my own, considering what your people did last time around, this decision is to big for me. I'll contact the council and they'll decide your fate"

While a Renegade Shepard could say "I can't be arsed to deal with this crap. You can rot in that container while the Council deals with you."

Same outcome, two different motivations.


I don't know, maybe I'm over thinking things and just not getting what you're saying, If that's the case, I'm sorry.

[FlintlockJazz]

Koen Casier wrote...

There are two ways to interpret your statement:
If you mean that the sentient being trying to justify it are the geth then you are contradicting your own argument since you stated that they are just malfunctioning machines; in other words they are not sentient in your argument.

If you mean me or other geth "apologist" by sapient beings then I would argue that if geth are just malfunctioning machines as you assert than any statement I/we make is misguided, the act itself is not evil. And no statement we make can make it evil, only make me/us look like fools. Suppose a plane crashes caused by a technical malfunction and I say the plane was justified in doing so as the passengers were enslaving it then the killing of the passengers would not suddenly become evil, I would simply have made an absurd statement on my part, since the plane is not sapient.

And as I said previously I assume that geth are sapient, since everyone in the game state that the geth gestalt is sapient even their creators statements indicate that they consider the gestalt as sapient (with some exceptions like Xen). If you insist to claim that they are not sapient feel free to do so, but in doing so you have definitively relegated the genocide to nothing more than a accident with the same lack of moral value as any other act caused by a malfunction. And any "apologist" as misguided people whos value statement are merely absurd, and can therefor not be said to hold any moral value.

I believe he is saying that if we were to assume that the geth are sapient then them attempting to justify it would be evil, but that he does not consider them sapient beings but machines that are broken, and that destroying them would not be murder or killing since its the same as shooting a broken toaster.

In other words, he's saying that if the geth had been an organic species then it was wrong, but since they're not its a case of broken machinery running amok.  I personally do consider the geth sapient, but I understand his logic and reasoning for believing otherwise.

EDIT:  Nevermind, he already responded while I was typing this, and I think I might have misinterpreted him, nevermind.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 23 avril 2010 - 12:42 .

[Astranagant]

I always destroy them because there's nothing to stop them from coming to the same conclusion again, or from reintroducing the option to the Geth majority.

Kikaimegami wrote...

It was my understanding that Sovereign introduced a glitch in their runtimes to cause them to become Heretics. Either that, or he indoctrinated them somehow. I see it as freeing them from slavery, not forced into it.

EDIT: The virus Legion uses fixes the error.

No, the heretics came to side with Nazara by way of their own free will, they were provided with a virus by it that would introduce a minor glitch into all Geth which would have a cascading effect of causing them all to follow the same path. There's nothing in the game that ever suggests they were brainwashed or reprogrammed by Nazara.

Modifié par Astranagant, 23 avril 2010 - 12:43 .

[Solomen]

Astranagant wrote...

I always destroy them because there's nothing to stop them from coming to the same conclusion again, or from reintroducing the option to the Geth majority.

Kikaimegami wrote...

It was my understanding that Sovereign introduced a glitch in their runtimes to cause them to become Heretics. Either that, or he indoctrinated them somehow. I see it as freeing them from slavery, not forced into it.

EDIT: The virus Legion uses fixes the error.

No, the heretics came to side with Nazara by way of their own free will, they were provided with a virus by it that would introduce a minor glitch into all Geth which would have a cascading effect of causing them all to follow the same path. There's nothing in the game that ever suggests they were brainwashed or reprogrammed by Nazara.

Geth say 2 > 1
Heretics say 2 < 3
Shep says

[prem0nition]

Solomen wrote...


Geth say 2 > 1
Heretics say 2 < 3
Shep says

All I'm going to say is  ^ This
Lost all capability for rational/intelligent thought, think I'll go get some sleep, thanks for an interesting debate
Shandepared.

[Koen Casier]

Shandepared wrote...

Defending it is though, that's my point. If a lion escapes from a zoo and kills 20 people is the lion evil? Of-course not. However if some idiot environmentalist starts taking the lion's side, even blaming the innocent people killed, then that person has their priorities seriously out of order. The life of an animal is never more important than the life of a human and the "life" of a machine is never equal to the life of an organic.

But if an argument is plainly absurd how can it have any value (beyond an aesthetic one; absurdity is claimed to be an art form by some (unfortunately)) Some one who makes absurd merit-less (for example the environmentalist claims that the lion is an angel and therefor can do no wrong) claims should be watched and if dangerous committed, should maybe be pitied, and if not dangerous should be ignored.

And those with a absurd claim that have a merit should be proven why the merit of the claim is insufficient to actually make the claim non-absurd (eg the environmentalist claims that the lion is sapient because it is alive (ok,its a bit pushing it but its not a bright environmentalist), you simply show him a bacterium and say; bacteria are alive, they are not sapient therefor your merit statement that life == sapience is wrong and your statement is absurd). After doing so get four outcomes;
1) he becomes one that makes absurd statement whitout merit
2) he finds a new merit that is equally invalid
3) he finds a merit that is valid and his statement is no longer absurd and therefor the statement can undergo a morality evaluation
4) he sees your point of view and departs

The fact that they would side with a machine against a living being is bad enough for me to consider it misguided at best and monstrous at worst.

I would argue that from your point of view we apologist fall into the absurd (since we claim that geth are sapient while in you assertion is that they are not) claimers with a merit (the merit being that the canon indicates that geth are sapient) and that the action you could take is to show why geth are not sapient.

[Koen Casier]

Shandepared wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

Some one who makes absurd merit-less (for example the environmentalist claims that the lion is an angel and therefor can do no wrong) claims should be watched and if dangerous committed, should maybe be pitied, and if not dangerous should be ignored.

I agree, believe me, I freaking agree. There are large segments of the population, media, and government that I think should be committed.

...

Have a nice day.

I wish you the same and I am happy to know that we both can agree on the angel lion people (and they do exist a few years ago they where protesting at the Antwerp zoo).

Good day to you

PS if you commit me could I get a private room, thank you:whistle:

Modifié par Koen Casier, 23 avril 2010 - 01:41 .

[Ladi]

This is pretty much the easiest Paragon choice in the game, if you play your character as an idealist. You can either:



a) Annihilate millions of defenceless consciousnesses because they believe something different to you

Leave them alive and give them another chance to think it over, while also creating potential allies



If the Heretics decide that no, they really do want to side with the Reapers, that's fine. Take out the Reapers, solve the problem. No offense to Legion, but Geth aren't anything more than a speedbump to Shepard.

[abstractwhiz]

Shandepared wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

So answer me this: was the geth genocide of the quarians people evil / wrong therefore stating that geth are moral beings (i.e. have a moral system) that have chosen a evil coarse of action or if the geth aren't moral beings (don't have a moral system) then any act even that of genocide can't be truly considered evil, just a unfortunate accident were a machines malfunctioned. You can not have both.

It can be considered evil when sapient beings attempt to justify it. As for the geth, yes, they're just malfunctioning machines. That's why annihlating them is no more tragic than deleting all the existing copies of LINUX in the world.

But that would be a tragedy. Then we'd all be stuck having to use Windows for everything, rather than just to play games on. <_<

Shandepared wrote...

Koen Casier wrote...

If you mean me or other geth "apologist" by sapient beings then I would argue that if geth are just malfunctioning machines as you assert than any statement I/we make is misguided, the act itself is not evil.

Defending it is though, that's my point. If a lion escapes from a zoo and kills 20 people is the lion evil? Of-course not. However if some idiot environmentalist starts taking the lion's side, even blaming the innocent people killed, then that person has their priorities seriously out of order. The life of an animal is never more important than the life of a human and the "life" of a machine is never equal to the life of an organic. 

Koen Casier wrote...

And any "apologist" as misguided people whos value statement are merely absurd, and can therefor not be said to hold any moral value.

The fact that they would side with a machine against a living being is bad enough for me to consider it misguided at best and monstrous at worst. 

This is mere organic chauvinism mixed in with a bit of (perhaps unintentional) sophistry. You're using the word 'machine' here to invoke the image of a dumb mechanism. In the ME universe, at least, machinery has the same potential as organic life - when sufficiently complex it produces sapience. Referring to geth as 'machines' without ignoring the connotations of this word is like equating humans to dogs or cats.

I don't see the point of using the word 'machine' anyway. Organic life is machinery too, it just uses a different substrate. Under these circumstances, geth life probably does have value equal to organic life. Certainly you should prioritize a human over a geth platform, because the human will be permanently killed, while the geth programs in the platform will be inconvenienced at best, and maybe lose a few memories. But when we're dealing with the permanent destruction of geth programs, then this is as bad as killing living beings. 

Modifié par abstractwhiz, 23 avril 2010 - 02:51 .

[Bill569]

I left this topic yesterday on page 1 and found it today on page 5. It took me two hours to go from page 1 to page 4 and to truly understand what every one of you was saying (I read page 4 and 5 really quickly because I got very tired)! This started as a simple question and ended up as a very in-depth philosophical debate. After reading what everyone said (I read pages 4 and 5 a few hours later), what I believe is that both (geth vs quarians) are correct and both are wrong. The geth are correct because they rightfully attacked back in the Morning War but are wrong because they deprived the quarians of their homeworld and left only a handfull of them left. The quarians are correct because they did not want to share their worlds with another race and a war between them (geth vs quarians) was very likely to happen so they wanted to gain the upper hand but are wrong because they intended to commit genocide. Anyway, I'm glad that Shandepared and Koen Casier FINALLY agreed on something!

[Dean_the_Young]

Oh, they've agreed before. You know, the important things. You need oxygen to breath, skin is nice to have on the outside of your body, kittens are fun to shoot out of cannons...



That sort of thing.

[Koen Casier]

Shandepared wrote...

They are just ones and zeros as far as I am concerned.  They may mimic life, but they aren't aren't alive,

We are in agreement about that geth are not alive, they miss major properties to be considered alive, for example they are not homeostatic.

they don't have a real mind. They are ultimately virtual intelligences after all.

We know our different stance about that so let's not dwell about it.

It is a matter of philosphy, I suppose. I don't care if characters in the game consider them to be alive. Also you can copy-paste a geth program and save it indefinitely. You could even write it down on paper (a hell of a lot of paper). You can not do the same with an organic.

Completely true, geth are in their own words purely software, they don't have problems with transfer of information from one platform to an other platform while organics and Top-Down AI like EDI are soft and hardware (central nervous system for organics and for top-down AI it's the quantum blue box), and can't be simply transfered from one platform to another.