15168 réponses à ce sujet

[Td1984]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dave666 wrote...
This is not meant as an attack on you guys, but one thing thats got me curious. You obviously like Miranda's character and thats fine, if we all liked the same things the world would be boring indeed, but my question is how did you get past the whole 'Miranda wanting to put a control chip in Shep' thing? Sure she changes a bit during ME:2 but a character that wants to do something like that to you? I just can't see her changing that much. Just curious, not meant to be insulting and I hope that comes across.

I think the control chip was never meant to take permanant control of Shepard's actions. After all, they wanted his personality intact, that's what the whole project was about. The control chip was meant to be a failsafe, for instance in case Shepard wakes up and goes berserk with all his enhanced capabilities after finding out he's in a Cerberus station, or in case his mind broke down and he went berserk for no reason at all. Sure that's not nice, and it raises the question of what *else* they would have done after using the control chip had proven necessary, but it is a failsafe I can see myself implementing in a similar situation. I have no problems with it. 

And btw, the fact that Shepard is the potential victim changes nothing. If I can see myself using it as a failsafe, I can also accept that others use it as a failsafe on me. Don't take me wrong - the whole idea that I might be conditioned into a behaviour by something someone put into my head feels terrible. But first, it didn't happen, and second, it is a reasonable measure. In fact, I applaud Miranda for thinking of it. The technology was completely new, there was no way to tell what would happen.

Tbh, it wasn't something I thought about too long after Miranda said it. Then again, I came in to the game planning to romance her anyway as I'm a fan of Yvonne's (and indirectly know her). Also, I think Ieldra's explanation of the whole thing is probably right on the money. It would have been nothing more than a failsafe and after the first couple of missions, she starts to feel confident in your abilities and you still being you, which would've made use of the chip unnecessary. It was likely just in case something went wrong and you got out of control post-surgery as nothing like the Lazarus Project had ever been attempted before.

[jtav]

It's impossible to say how I would have reacted because I missed that dialogue the first time through and I already decided that I liked her. I'm very strongly deontological in my ethics, and taking away a person's free will and ability to act as a moral agent is one of those things that I view as intrinsically immoral, along with implanting a device specifically designed to kill them should they prove too much to handle. The circumstances simply don't matter. It's the act itself that determines its moral character, not the consequences. She intrigues me as a character, and I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for her, but I want her real life version far away from me.

[naledgeborn]

If Paul Grayson had a control chip in his brain Retribution wouldn't have happened. Granted it was Cerberus who went looking for him in the first place, but lots of damage could have been averted. I imagine that's what Miranda meant with control chip. Also ask Mordin about TIM's counter measure with the Cerberus crew should any of them get caught. Cyanide capsules implanted in the molar is not fun.

[Blarty]

The 'Control Chip' line was meant to be a very polarising comment for the games community.... and polarise it did. Some people appear to take great offence, and others are able to look at the situation more objectively. Would Mordin be treated with more distrust as character if his role in the Genophage was introduced earlier in the game?

[jtav]

New chapter of Portrait is up. Reviews are always appreciated.

[MisterJB]

jtav wrote...
 The circumstances simply don't matter. It's the act itself that determines its moral character, not the consequences.

Killing is wrong, rigth? What about killing to protect yourself or your family, is it still wrong?
Putting a control chip in the brain of a young woman to make her your slave is monstruous. Putting a control chip in the brain of a serial killer to stop him from commiting another murder without having to kill him is reasonable.
Circumstances matter.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 mai 2011 - 07:18 .

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...

jtav wrote...
The circumstances simply don't matter. It's the act itself that determines its moral character, not the consequences.

Killing is wrong, rigth? What about killing to protect yourself or your family, is it still wrong?
Putting a control chip in the brain of a young woman to make her your slave is monstruous. Putting a control chip in the brain of a serial killer to stop him from commiting another murder without having to kill him is reasonable.
Circumstances matter.

+1

I was about to respond, but you beat me to it. I can understand if someone gives a bigger weight to the act itself than I do, but to say that consequences don't matter makes you a Principles Zealot - one who would let the world burn for the sake of a principle. And jtav, I didn't expect you to be that extreme.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2011 - 07:53 .

[jtav]

There are certain acts that are allowable under limited circumstances, usually under the principle of double effect. You're ultimate intention isn't murder; it's defense. Hence, why you'll be charged with murder if you chase the person down and shoot them. And then you have a class of actions--sexual assault, for instance--that are intrinsically immoral. They cannot be done under any circumstances, for any reason. It's my view that the chip falls under that category.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
There are certain acts that are allowable under limited circumstances, usually under the principle of double effect. You're ultimate intention isn't murder; it's defense. Hence, why you'll be charged with murder if you chase the person down and shoot them. And then you have a class of actions--sexual assault, for instance--that are intrinsically immoral. They cannot be done under any circumstances, for any reason. It's my view that the chip falls under that category.

So you would really let the galaxy fall to the Reapers before implanting someone with a control chip?

[Vertigo_1]

Blarty wrote...
That is a very real possibility, but also there's the issue of the Eden Prime Beacon and the effects it had on Shepard's mind. Indoctrination in ME1 and ME2 is very specific to humans and probably the human psyche... if the Beacon altered that by implanting some 'Prothean ' gubbins (technical term) then perhaps Shepard is essentially invisible to whatever causes indoctrination

Prothean beacons were a means to communicate between planets and or systems as Vigil stated in ME1...

Also didn't mean to derail the current topic *reads with interest*

[MisterJB]

jtav wrote...

There are certain acts that are allowable under limited circumstances, usually under the principle of double effect. You're ultimate intention isn't murder; it's defense. Hence, why you'll be charged with murder if you chase the person down and shoot them. And then you have a class of actions--sexual assault, for instance--that are intrinsically immoral. They cannot be done under any circumstances, for any reason. It's my view that the chip falls under that category.

You said that circunstances don't matter, that the act itself determines its moral character.
I killed. True, I did it with the intention of protecting my family but the act itself was that of taking a life, which is morally wrong.
However, if the act of killing can be excused if my ultimate intention wasn't murder but defense, why can't the act of implanting a serial killer with a control chip receive the same courtesy if, ultimately, it saves not only the lifes of would be victims, but also the life of the killer himself and my ultimate intention is not to brainwash a person but rather to protect innocent people from this killer and the killer from himself?

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 mai 2011 - 08:30 .

[jtav]

I apologize very sincerely for my poor initial phrasing. You're most certainly not a murderer.

The control chip is different. Miranda is actively intending for Shepard's will to be subverted or for him to die. It's not a side effect. It's the point of the device. As for the serial killer, why are we not incarcerating him?

ETA: A thousand pardons for the initial skipped word! Truly. Anything I can do to make it up to you.

Modifié par jtav, 17 mai 2011 - 08:55 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
As for the serial killer, why are we not incarcerating him?

Why should we, if the control chip removes that need?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2011 - 08:52 .

[MisterJB]

The control chip is different. Miranda is actively intending for Shepard's will to be subverted or for him to die. It's not a side effect. It's the point of the device.

Shepard is leading a mission to save the Human race, his inability to do so could cost billions of lives. I'd say installing a device that would allow Miranda to prevent mistakes that could lead to those deaths is a reasonable precaution.
Turns out it wasn't needed.

As for the serial killer, why are we not incarcerating him?

It costs resources. The quarians don't have prisons, for example. Also, what Ieldra said.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 mai 2011 - 08:51 .

[Blarty]

Remember also, that technically, Shepard is dead, Cerberus bringing him back to life probably crosses so many lines in the first place, that Cerberus is likely to be frowned at, and muttered under the breath at, at galactic dinner parties for some time to come..... I believe implanting a control chip is the least of your worries, when you've performed necromancy......

(you can take that last bit as a joke)

[Ieldra]

Blarty wrote...
Remember also, that technically, Shepard is dead, Cerberus bringing him back to life probably crosses so many lines in the first place, that Cerberus is likely to be frowned at, and muttered under the breath at, at galactic dinner parties for some time to come..... I believe implanting a control chip is the least of your worries, when you've performed necromancy......

(you can take that last bit as a joke)

Which lines does bringing someone back to life cross? Morally I mean?

[jtav]

"Goes against God" I suppose.

Lazarus makes me uneasy on a gut leve, but I get around it by telling myself Shepard's soul wasn't separated from his body and/or God allowed it. At bottom, Lazarus is no different from restarting someone's heart.

[MisterJB]

Wonders never cease. I didn't take you for a religious person, jtav.

Myself, I don't see any problem with bringing Shepard back to life. Ressurecting him just to send him on a suicide mission is another story, tough.

Anyway, Chuck's ending made me very hopeful regarding an epilogue where Shepard and Miranda take over Cerberus.

[xelander]

jtav wrote...

"Goes against God" I suppose.

Lazarus makes me uneasy on a gut leve, but I get around it by telling myself Shepard's soul wasn't separated from his body and/or God allowed it. At bottom, Lazarus is no different from restarting someone's heart.

OT: On the chance that you are Christian - given that humanity is created in God's image and likeness, what is your stance on the existence of other corporeal sapient (you know, soul, intellect and all) races?

In any case, it's entirely in character for Miranda to argue for a control chip implant - she's more than a little "end justifies the means" person and she likes cleanly conceived and executed plans. Later in her characterization we see that the latter is also part of the way she deals with the world - she keeps everybody at arm's length where they act more or less within ceratin parameters and thus cannot hurt her. It's not something to approve of, but it's not a deal breaker for me. Besides, everybody makes mistakes, and given the reveal of her background later on, I wouldn't hold that one against her.

Lazarus is indeed a tough cookie (can this idiom be used for a situation as well as a person?), especially for people who believe in souls, but given that this is all sci-fi, I think some suspense of disbelief is warranted. It would be in all cases jarring, though, if the circumstances surrounding Shepard's death weren't conducive to the success of the project, i.e. if it could be repeatable under general circumstances. Too bad the writers don't go more into that in ME2. I have the faintest of hopes that this will be touched upon in ME3, where Shep's using Prothean beacons left and right, getting resurrected with a lot of synthethic parts in him and spending 2 days unconscious in the immediate proximity of a Reaper artifact must surely play a role.


OT: On the subject of immoral actions - what if you have to choose between two evils? Perhaps Miranda sees the chip as a lesser one.

[Ryzaki]

I have a small issue with the chip though. Part of Shepard's drive is his/her strength of will. Without that he/she is just another soldier (albeit a very skilled soldier).

What good is taking that away to Miranda's cause? How much would the control chip start affecting Shepard's decisions which would later affect how useful he/she was against the Reapers? Heck I even had a plotbunny where Shepard started feeling more and more depressed because of being controlled by the chip and hit the point where he stopped fighting. I was gonna have him end up indoctrinated and becoming Saren 2.0. 

I believe that's why TIM said no. Without self will Shepard isn't really all that special.
Not to mention I have a feeling Shepard would've started resisting the chip which would've done far more damage than Shepard simply going on his/her own.(Because Shepard has a tendancy to break things that try to control him/her)

And of course is my personal belief that said control chip would've weakened Shepard's ability to resist control from other various sources that would've been stronger than said chip

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 mai 2011 - 12:08 .

[Blarty]

I think it's not necessarily a moralistic standpoint that I'm looking at this from. Cerberus rebuilt, literally, Shepard, although he is 'the man he once was'. There was no guarantee that it would work, or whether on Shepard regaining consciousness, his psyche could take it, or even if he would have memories, etc. Realistically, Cerberus did what they had to, to rescue Shepard, pouring billions into the project in the process. I think some people might have a hard time getting their heads around actually being able to bring someone back from the dead.

But in the end it doesn't really matter as it works as a character/plot foil for rebuilding your character nothing more.... They could have just had Shepard being found dazed and confused with complete memory loss, with The Lazarus project being about the resurfacing of those memories.... But it wouldn't have had the same impact now would it?

And I think the control chip comment, is just Miranda trying the Ice Queen on Shepard, as much as anything else, but I find a lot of people have severe hang ups over that comment, when as I said, the fact that they resurrected a decaying husk of a corpse seems to go by pretty much unnoticed.

Although I have to give credit to Bioware..... In an RPG where a player expects to have total control, to have another character suggest they should be controlled via some kind of implant is very stealth-fourth-wall.

[PMC65]

Dave666 wrote...

This is not meant as an attack on you guys, but one thing thats got me curious. You obviously like Miranda's character and thats fine, if we all liked the same things the world would be boring indeed, but my question is how did you get past the whole 'Miranda wanting to put a control chip in Shep' thing? Sure she changes a bit during ME:2 but a character that wants to do something like that to you? I just can't see her changing that much. Just curious, not meant to be insulting and I hope that comes across.

I appreciated her honesty to start ... may not have liked the "control chip" thing  but at least she was forthright about what she considered doing. It was also her way, in my opinion, of letting Shep know that she didn't trust him. Honesty can be a b1t*h sometimes!

[PMC65]

jtav wrote...

"Goes against God" I suppose.

Lazarus makes me uneasy on a gut leve, but I get around it by telling myself Shepard's soul wasn't separated from his body and/or God allowed it. At bottom, Lazarus is no different from restarting someone's heart.

And Lazarus was dead for four days when Jesus raised him.

In both the old & new testaments of the Bible there were stories of people being raised from the dead. But I don't think that Cerberus was involved.  

[aeetos21]

I had this whole eight paragraph response written out, slamming the whole control chip is better than prisons argument and... you people honestly believe that treating a person like a labrador retriever will help rehabilitate them? They don't have the IQ of your pet dog. If you think of them as animals then stop beating around the bush and just say so and do what you do to a dog that attacks a person, kill them. Otherwise you're taking away all free will, all trust, and any hope for redemption or rehabilitation. There's more justice in beating that rapist or serial killer senseless and shooting them in the head than a "control chip." And bad people will always figure out a way to do bad things either through their own means or by getting others to do it for them. At least prisons keep that sort of manipulation to a minimal by keeping the criminals away from the general unsuspecting populace.

As for Mass Effect and Shepard... I cant even. Not right now, I know all too well what it's like to lose that sort of free will and I'd rather die than live a life like that. Anyone would, even you people - trust me on that.

Modifié par aeetos21, 18 mai 2011 - 03:15 .

[PMC65]

aeetos21 wrote...

I had this whole eight paragraph response written out, slamming the whole control chip is better than prisons argument and... you people honestly believe that treating a person like a labrador retriever will help rehabilitate them? They don't have the IQ of your pet dog. If you think of them as animals then stop beating around the bush and just say so and do what you do to a dog that attacks a person, kill them. Otherwise you're taking away all free will, all trust, and any hope for redemption or rehabilitation. There's more justice in beating that rapist or serial killer senseless and shooting them in the head than a "control chip." And bad people will always figure out a way to do bad things either through their own means or by getting others to do it for them. At least prisons keep that sort of manipulation to a minimal by keeping the criminals away from the general unsuspecting populace.

As for Mass Effect and Shepard... I cant even. Not right now, I know all too well what it's like to lose that sort of free will and I'd rather die than live a life like that. Anyone would, even you people - trust me on that.

You know, I 'd like to get wound up over the whole "control chip" thing ... except after fighting reapers, rachni, husks, clones of an asari, losing two years, beacon zapped, etc. etc. ... Just not rating high enough on his "worry over" list.  

If the mass effect world was real and I was in Shepard's shoes? I'm not sure I would even want to be brought back ... Scratch that, I wouldn't want to come back. And after my first round with a Scion I would never be seen again.