82210 réponses à ce sujet

[Omega4RelayResident]

Listen I am sorry I have never been a person who made a decision on what my heart told me to do and been wrong as of yet in my life.

My heart has served me well so far. Logic can too be a double edged sword... all it needs is one tiny important detail to be overlooked and it can backfire in your face.

Edit: There we go.

 

Modifié par Omega4RelayResident, 18 septembre 2011 - 02:35 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I could explain the reasoning behind the line in general terms if anyone wants. It might require some slight Godwinning. Still interested?

Yep.

[Omega4RelayResident]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
I could explain the reasoning behind the line in general terms if anyone wants. It might require some slight Godwinning. Still interested?

Yep.

Go for it

[Ieldra]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...
Listen I am sorry I have never been a person who made a decision on what my heart told me to do and been wrong as of yet in my life.

My heart has served me well so far. Logic can too be a double edged sword... all it needs is one tiny important detail to be overlooked and it can backfire in your face.

Have you ever been asked to make a decision that affects a whole country? Our moral compass is an excellent guideline for social interaction on a small scale. That's what we have evolved to deal with. When things get so big that we can't graps their effects intuitively, then it's not so good. As I said, whole books have been written about the disasters that can result from making large-scale decisions based on moral intuitions.

Of course logic can also backfire. But then it's an honest mistake, not blindly trusting your intuitions to apply on a scale they aren't made for.

Edit:
Player's perception of Cerberus as the primary evil is an excellent example of this effect. People tend to feel more strongly about Cerberus because it's humans doing things to humans, which is where our moral intuitions apply.  People feel quite less strongly about the Reapers, though beyond any doubt they are the greater evil and do much worse things than Cerberus has ever done. Because their intentions pass the scale of human intuition, they are more likely to be felt like natural disaster.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 septembre 2011 - 02:41 .

[nitefyre410]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...

I love how Idealist became a dirty word recently. LOL

I love the Shep end line to TIM: "...I wont let fear compromise who I am" Why did this become a negative thing? I miss the days when people adored chivalry and always doing the right thing. Its true that good intentions MAY not have a good end... but that is not always the case.

 


Becauae people  confuse Idealist with dreamer and naive fool and they are really not related at all.  


I'm a firm believer in the doing the right thing but the right is not always "lawful good" - Sometimes so bodies need to buried  and some truths are not meant to be known because people  as whole are just no ready to deal with truths.  Honestly   an  organization like Cerberus needs to exist  - to go places and do things the  Alliance can't - problem is TIM is not the man to lead this organize  - he has done more harm than good. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 18 septembre 2011 - 02:47 .

[Omega4RelayResident]

I honestly want the game to end well even for the Cerberus cheerleaders... if when the game comes out and all you guys get is a note in the game box "Sorry but since you supported a terrorist organization we decided to tell you that in your game the Reapers won, but thanks for the $$"

I would be livid for you guys. I dont want the CB to have negative effects for anyone... just different effects is all I am saying.

[jtav]

We have a situation analogous to the use of medical data obtained from concentration camp experiments. There was and is a belief by some that the use of that data was a betrayal of the victims. The arguments as I understand them:

*It's morally wrong always and everywhere to profit from the suffering of others. The ends do not justify the means
*Using the data (base) confers a legitimacy to the scientists/Collectors they don't deserve.
*Censoring the data/destroying the base discourages anyone from replicating the experiments.

Do I think Miranda would make these arguments? Not particularly. But they are real arguments that I find somewhat persuasive in their RL context.

[Xilizhra]

Player's perception of Cerberus as the primary evil is an excellent example of this effect. People tend to feel more strongly about Cerberus because it's humans doing things to humans, which is where our moral intuitions apply. People feel quite less strongly about the Reapers, though beyond any doubt they are the greater evil and do much worse things than Cerberus has ever done. Because their intentions pass the scale of human intuition, they are more likely to be felt like natural disaster.

I'm not sure if they operate on a scale of morality on which "evil" could be accurately applied.

I do believe that the "betrayal" line was ill-written, but I don't believe the sentiment behind it was inaccurate or out of character.

[Ieldra]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...
I honestly want the game to end well even for the Cerberus cheerleaders... if when the game comes out and all you guys get is a note in the game box "Sorry but since you supported a terrorist organization we decided to tell you that in your game the Reapers won, but thanks for the $$"

I would be livid for you guys. I dont want the CB to have negative effects for anyone... just different effects is all I am saying.

I have posted a few scenarios about this. My most favorite pair of outcomes is dynamism/conflict vs. stability/peace. Basically, Paragon decisions maintain more of the status quo and better diplomatic relations, which results in more stability and a mostly peaceful galaxy. On the other hand, some might call it stagnation, and the old Council's restrictions on exploration and reseach are in full force. Taking the big Renegade decisions results in a more dynamic galaxy with a renewed drive for exploration and research (including research into Reaper technology), but there is considerable mistrust between the species and factions and diplomatic relations are strained, last but not least because of the fear that someone will use indoctrination as a weapon. 

[Arijharn]

I think that's actually pretty valid, we owe the existence of defibrillators to certain experiments performed in those dark times, we owe the existence of the hyppocratic (can't spell atm :S) oath to them as well.

How many lives has the science of defibrillator's saved? I recently(ish) completed my first aid certificate (again, I had one more than a couple of years out of date) and I can tell you if someone has a heart attack then statistically speaking if they don't get access to one within 10 minutes, they are going to have a much greater chance of dying (I'm not sure if it's exponential, I honestly can't remember).

This is a pretty staggering fact imo. I can tell you I was pretty much floored by it, because I was always of the thought that CPR would be able to have a good chance otherwise (and the effect to heart attack victims seems to be pretty minor from what I recall).

Defibrillator's are so essential now to doctors that hospitals can go out and buy belt-equipped ones (wouldn't be out of place on Batman's utility belt) for something like $30,000 (I think that was USD).

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Player's perception of Cerberus as the primary evil is an excellent example of this effect. People tend to feel more strongly about Cerberus because it's humans doing things to humans, which is where our moral intuitions apply. People feel quite less strongly about the Reapers, though beyond any doubt they are the greater evil and do much worse things than Cerberus has ever done. Because their intentions pass the scale of human intuition, they are more likely to be felt like natural disaster.

I'm not sure if they operate on a scale of morality on which "evil" could be accurately applied.

Exactly that's the problem, right? In spite of their actions being intentional and doing a great deal more damage to intelligent beings than all the evil in known history, people don't feel as strongly about them because they're not human and beyond the scale of our morality. The necessity of stopping them, however, is much greater than the necessity of stopping Cerberus, and since their actions are intelligent and intentional, there is no reason not to judge them on a moral scale - we don't usually see a mere values dissonance ("organics are like ants") as enough to refrain from making such a judgment.

Thus can our moral intuitions mislead us.

I do believe that the "betrayal" line was ill-written, but I don't believe the sentiment behind it was inaccurate or out of character.

How would you have phrased it?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:25 .

[horvagab]

So, I just skipped to the end of this, and wanted to share some insights I recently reached when waxing philosophically about the Mass Effect characters.

Disclaimer: I have only played through Mass Effect 1 and 2 once, on my bro's XBox, which he took with himself when he moved out, so that save is somewhat lost. Thankfully I bought a new laptop last Christmas, and have been working towards a similar save since then. I'm playing a male soldier, currently in ME1, romancing Ashley, in ME2 will romance MIranda. My only romance in the game was Miranda, for a very simple reason: I'm a Chuck fan, so Yvonne was definitely on the top of my list.

So, onto my conclusions about Miranda's character. These are probably not new, and am sorry if I'm repeating them, but I did not want to go through all 553 pages right now. Please excuse my laziness.

Now the meaty part finally:

Miranda is often perceived as a perfect little princess, whose major problem is "being perfect", and her detractors often accuse her of being spoilt, and that her problem pales in comparison to others'. I'm not going to argue yes or no, but I think Miri's issues are of a different nature. She has father issues. Yes, what an original conclusion, I know . But here comes the important part:

Her problem is not being perfect. It's why she's perfect: because of her father, whom she despises. I think she believes she still lives in her father's shadow. All her achievements are because of her abilities and her training, both of which come from her father, she doesn't think she achieved anything on her own.

She was probably outmaneuvered ir outmanipulated by the Illusive Man, and that's why she's loyal to him as a second-in-command. By being inferior to someone, she feels human, and she can prove that her father was wrong, that she is not perfect.

And that's where Shepard comes in. Miri probably believed him or her to be a remarkable person, but with an overrated reputation that no real person can match. She was wrong. And now think about that, think about Shepard's possible backgrounds, her origins are relatively mundane in all cases, yet the war events show him or her to be exceptional. Miri was engineered and trained to be perfect, yet she is overshadowed someone who literally saved the universe and showed the galaxy what humanity can do. Miri thought of Shepard as a symbol, an icon, as she mentioned in the ME2 intro. Problem is, Shepard lived up to his/her reputation and status as a symbol. Miri is inferior to Shep, and that's why she feels comfortable with him/her, she feels normal next to Shep.

So, that's my idea, sorry if I overthought the whole thing.

[Ieldra]

Miranda feels comfortable with Shepard because she is inferior? I say that statement will rouse considerable ire here.

I think she trusts Shepard because he has proven himself to be capable and worthy of trust. if you select the right options he even says she should take pride in her accomplishments.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:29 .

[Xilizhra]

Exactly that's the problem, right? In spite of their actions being intentional and doing a great deal more damage to intelligent beings than all the evil in known history, people don't feel as strongly about them because they're not human and beyond the scale of our morality. The necessity of stopping them, however, is much greater than the necessity of stopping Cerberus, and since their actions are intelligent and intentional, there is no reason not to judge them on a moral scale - we don't usually see a mere values dissonance ("organics are like ants") as enough to refrain from making such a judgment.

Actually, I don't think we know that their actions are intentional; it's possible that they're operating under programming. It's also possible that they're misguidedly trying to save certain organics from some approaching cosmic doom. Etc. Of course, they need to be stopped more than Cerberus, though thankfully Cerberus has made it so we no longer need to worry about the distinction.

How would you have phrased it?

The trouble is that it sort of has to be vague so as to fit numerous ideas as to why Shepard would destroy the base, but I think "Everything from this base going to Cerberus? I'm not sure..." would do.

Miranda feels comfortable with Shepard because she is inferior? I say that statement will rouse considerable ire here.

Doesn't Miranda actually acknowledge that with the "fire" lines?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:29 .

[flemm]

Good discussion here, everyone, re: CB, I appreciate everyone's thoughts, even if I don't agree or am ambivalent.

Modifié par flemm, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:30 .

[jtav]

I know how I'd have phrased it:

"After everything I've seen, I don't know if I'd trust Cerberus with this."

I'd also have her a required party member on the Derelict Reaper, have her hear voices, and be genuinely shaken by her brush with indoctrination.

[flemm]

jtav wrote...

I know how I'd have phrased it:

"After everything I've seen, I don't know if I'd trust Cerberus with this."

Ok, but I think that's very, very close to the comment as phrased in the game, when you take into account that it is more natural for Miranda to include herself as part of Cerberus, rather than referring to it as an outside entity.

Referencing "Cerberus" in that context would tend to suggest that she is no longer a part of it, which isn't true yet. (The non-Cerberus characters refer to the organisation that way.)

Modifié par flemm, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:35 .

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

How would you have phrased it?

The trouble is that it sort of has to be vague so as to fit numerous ideas as to why Shepard would destroy the base, but I think "Everything from this base going to Cerberus? I'm not sure..." would do.

That would've been perfectly acceptable. It would put the actual problem where it belongs: not the base itself, but the fact that it will used by Cerberus for very likely horrific experiments. Hmph. Not for the first time I resent the lack of a third option (keep the base, but send a copy of the Reaper IFF to the Council and/or the Alliance).

@flemm:
Your objection could've been taken care of if you substitute "Cerberus" with "The Illusive Man", which would indicate that Miranda still supports Cerberus' proposed ideals of human advancement but has come to think TIM doesn't represent them any more.

Miranda feels comfortable with Shepard because she is inferior? I say that statement will rouse considerable ire here.

Doesn't Miranda actually acknowledge that with the "fire" lines?

She acknowledges she's not the inspired leader Shepard is. Being less competent in one particular talent doesn't make you inferior.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:36 .

[Xilizhra]

That would've been perfectly acceptable. It would put the actual problem where it belongs: not the base itself, but the fact that it will used by Cerberus for very likely horrific experiments. Hmph. Not for the first time I resent the lack of a third option (keep the base, but send a copy of the Reaper IFF to the Council and/or the Alliance).

Cerberus would probably change the codes or something.
Also for another reason against keeping the base... the possibility of TIM getting a good look at everything and deciding to join forces with the Reapers to bring about human ascension.

She acknowledges she's not the inspired leader Shepard is. Being less competent in one particular talent doesn't make you inferior.

Inferior in one talent, anyway.

[Ieldra]

The implication was "inferior as a person", which Miranda certainly isn't.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@flemm:
Your objection could've been taken care of if you substitute "Cerberus" with "The Illusive Man", which would indicate that Miranda still supports Cerberus' proposed ideals of human advancement but has come to think TIM doesn't represent them any more.

Possibly, but the goal, when writing dialogue like that, is not really to eliminate all ambiguity. What you describe above (Miranda still supports the ideal of human advancement, but no longer trusts TIM to appropriately pursue those goals) is likely, imo, to be exactly what Miranda's motivations are, when we hear more about them in ME3.

That interpretation is 100% compatible with what she says at the CB, although the lines are ambiguous enough to also support other interpretations.

Ieldra2 wrote...

The implication was "inferior as a person", which Miranda certainly isn't.

True, and there's no reason to assume that Miranda's assessment is even accurate, objectively speaking. She has a certain degree of self-doubt. That's all that comment really suggests.

Modifié par flemm, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:47 .

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The implication was "inferior as a person", which Miranda certainly isn't.

How do you even measure that?
I do think Miranda feels more equal around Shepard, though.

[jtav]

All you would have to do really is change "using anything from this base" to "if the base is misused."

My objection is only that her line is a categorical statement when she'd previously been portrayed as a consequentialist. The chip is relevent here, very much so. She uses two very different kinds of moral reasoning.

Modifié par jtav, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:53 .

[spirosz]

jtav wrote...

All you would have to do really is change "using anything from this base" to "if the base is misused."

I agree, that little change means a lot to the whole scenario.

[flemm]

spiros9110 wrote...

jtav wrote...

All you would have to do really is change "using anything from this base" to "if the base is misused."

I agree, that little change means a lot to the whole scenario.

I think we can add that the only person/organisation that is likely to use the base is also likely to misuse it (in this specific context).

Modifié par flemm, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:55 .