91 réponses à ce sujet

[Raven4030]

Regarding the Reapers, we have to first evaluate WHY they do these cycles, I'll put forward my own theory in a moment but I doubt it's because they need to eat. You might chalk this up to simple arrogance, but I doubt Sovereign would have said 'we are beyond your comprehension' if the reason for the extinction cycle was 'we're hungry'. But maybe it's bias because I think my theory is right, but anyway here is why I think the Reapers do what they do (warning, long post ahead):

Put simply, it's not 'reproduction' per se but evolution. The Reapers are constructs, they do not evolve naturally on their own. They do not mutate, they do not change, they are static and unless they modify themselves they will always be the same, and that is unacceptable because they realize no matter how good you are, you can always be better (and the periodic dead Reaper, however rare, is proof positive that every once in a great while a species does manage to surpass them). Now, given the vast resources required to construct a Reaper, and given the relative scarcity of Reapers (the Reaper armada measuring in maybe hundreds of ships compared to the billions - trillions of organics), it is natural that they'd be hesitant to guess that something would improve them only to have it result in a catastrophic failure. Furthermore, they can't possibly know what will facilitate improvement because it is rare that a species even kills ONE of them, so there is no struggle, as Mordin puts it: "Can't carry load so invent wheel, can't catch food so invent spear." There are no limitations, so there is no necessity, so no invention, no growth.

So, we bring in organics: organics are tempered in environments that challenge them and force them to grow or die. They keep building and building to overcome limitations, but at <x> level of technology any organic species will become 'extinction-proof'. They spread so far and technology is so advanced that no matter what calamity befalls them they will no longer become extinct, the struggle for survival on a species level ends. Once galactic civilization reaches this level of being 'extinction proof', the Reapers invade. By making sure the Citadel is the seat of government and power the Reapers can instantly gain access to the best source of information on that species available. They immediately begin pouring over research data to figure out what that species did that was NEW, what was different from all the other species that came before? Now, they can't just adapt any old technology, afterall the new technology must fit within the existing technological framework of the Reapers, so they make sure this tech is based on eezo and mass effect fields so that if the species does come up with something superior the Reapers can adapt it to themselves.

If a species is selected for 'ascension,' it probably has to meet certain criteria. Most probably this criteria is based on how threatening that species is, whether or not they are a threat the Reapers must take seriously. This explains their interest in humanity and particularly Shephard: they killed their vanguard, Shephard himself has caused them an unprecedented level of irritation by not only stopping them from activating the citadel relay but then destroying the Alpha Relay, their only evaluation is that, to quote Legion: "Your (Shephard's) code is superior." I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Reapers intended to have Shephard's mind implanted into the human reaper somehow so that his abilities can then be transferred to the new Reaper and lated disseminated into the species as a whole, improving them in a way no other species ever has before. If the species does not put up much resistance and is not a threat, they are simply used to adapt any new technologies they might have developed that are useful, useless new tech is destroyed so as not to give the next generation of organics ideas, and the cycle begins anew.

So, as far as evaluating all that as good or evil? Well, it's a matter of perspective, WE think it's evil because we're the victims, we're screwed. But how do the Reapers view it? It is likely they view us as bacteria in a petri dish, simple organisms that only exist because they allow it and will die because they demand it ('disinfecting' the galaxy after the experiment as it were). So, if you look at it that way: is it evil to cultivate bacteria in a petri dish and then disinfect that dish for the sole purpose of discovering ways to improve the human race? Because as far as the Reapers are concerned that's all they're doing. You might cry "but we're sentient, we can do calculus!' But the Reapers have existed for billions of years, our entire existance is just a flicker in time to them. In their eyes we don't last long enough and don't develop enough to be considered "sentient".

I can't judge them as evil because they want to improve themselves in the best way possible, however, that is irrelevant, as either we survive or they do. The only reason I am interested in this is because if the Reapers are just evil, then the whole story to me seems stupid and boring. But if it boils down to two groups being on a collision course where only one can survive and evolve because that is the way fate orchastrated it, it becomes far more interesting because the conflict becomes more tragic. I mean, in general Bioware does a good job writing, but my dislike of generic good vs. evil is a matter of personal taste rather than an attempt at objective criticism.

Oh, and if people are wondering why Sovereign couldn't explain all of the above to Shephard as the reason for doing this: I only came to that conclusion by thinking about it for a month and a half, and I only had that free time because I can't find work where I am and I'm off school for the summer so I have nothing else to keep my brain busy, and even then I can only just barely wrap my mind around it so I doubt Shephard would have been able to fully grasp the whys and hows of all this before remembering that no matter what he still has to stop Sovereign, especially with guns and explosions going off around him and the day to day running of the ship (oh, and the two years of being a well-done slab of meat).

[General User]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
I'm not sure that continuing one's species is evil, even at the expense of other ones.  It's what every species is designed to do.  How can it be evil to eat?

We can easily reverse the argument.  By not allowing the hungry beings to eat them, the food beings are causing a species with members capable of calculus to starve to death.  Are they then evil?  We end up in a universe where evil becomes meaningless as a label, since its applied to everybody.

Not at all! We come back to the concept of abomination. Any thinking being that MUST destroy other thinking beings in order to continue its own existence would be evil by its very nature.

I guess we're about to get into deontology vs utiliarianism.

I'm a Divine Will guy myself.  As discussing RW religion or theology is generally frowned upon on these forums please feel free to PM me.

Modifié par General User, 18 juin 2011 - 02:04 .

[Ship.wreck_]

General User wrote...
Not at all! We come back to the concept of abomination. Any thinking being that MUST destroy other thinking beings in order to continue its own existence would be evil by its very nature.

By this logic all sentient carnivores and omnivores are evil, yourself included. Unless you're a vegetarian, in which case your food tastes horrible and you're probably malnurished, and by any realistic definition you're still not any less evil than us meat eaters...

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I believe the point General was trying to make was any specie that completely destroys other specie as a part of its life cycle is an abomination which I tend to agree with.

If a company decides to completly destroy a forest because they want to make a profit and end up making entire specie's go extinct is also evil.

@raven 1) The Reapers clearly don't want to put Shepard's mind in a Reaper because Harbinger had the Collectors kill him... so there goes that idea.

2) If the bactira in the petri dish started to talk to us and asked us not to destroy them guess what I beat the majority of people wouldn't just say "oh well' and then destroy them anyway we wouldn't do that because we on average are not souless monsters.

3) Like I said before 99% of evil people don't see themselves as evil and they think what they do is for the best but that doesn't not make them evil. I'm sure every dictator that has ever killed millions of people in his head believed he had a just reason for doing so but guess what? They were evil all the same.

[Raven4030]

1) I dunno, the Collectors sure seemed keen on retrieving Shephard's corpse and Harbinger frequently states to leave the body intact. There is certainly something about him they want.

2) I dunno, there are numerous times when 'please don't destroy us' in human history has been met with 'screw you' by invaders who we paint as, not heroes, but not as soulless villains either. I doubt we'd be any more merciful to bacteria just because they started talking (well, maybe spare them because bacteria is talking and we want to find out why before we destroy them anyway).

3) I agree, people do usually see themselves as good. It ultimately depends on how you define good and evil though. I honestly do not consider the struggle for survival or evolution as evil though, as the reality is humanity has had to wipe out several species (and I'm not talking about the dodo either) in order to achieve dominance because when you get right down to it that is one of the many, many ways species evolve. It's hard for me to see Reapers as evil for taking that to the next level, if that's what they're actually doing, just because I happen to be of the species that stands to be wiped out to facilitate the evolution of another this time around.

[Ship.wreck_]

Raven4030 wrote...
3) I agree, people do usually see themselves as good. It ultimately depends on how you define good and evil though. I honestly do not consider the struggle for survival or evolution as evil though, as the reality is humanity has had to wipe out several species (and I'm not talking about the dodo either) in order to achieve dominance because when you get right down to it that is one of the many, many ways species evolve. It's hard for me to see Reapers as evil for taking that to the next level, if that's what they're actually doing, just because I happen to be of the species that stands to be wiped out to facilitate the evolution of another this time around.

That's not how evolution works. You don't wipe out a species so that you can evolve. Evolution is completely unconsious and un-controlled. A gene just happens to mutate, and that mutated gene just happens to give you some advantage, and with that advantage you just happen to survive better. That doesn't cause other species to die out, a LACK of evolution on their part does, they fail to adapt to the environment and die. They just happen to die all on their own, and you just happen to live all on your own. That's not anything even remotely similar to choosing to extinct another species.

We didn't decide to extinct some other species in order to cause ourselves to evolve into humans, like I said, that's just not how evolution works.

EDIT

Also I didn't read your whole theory but I did notice a fatal flaw right at the begining of it.
In Shepard's conversation with Sovereign in ME it's pretty clear that the Reapers actually look DOWN on us for being the result of organic evolution. In convo's with Sovereign and Harbinger it's clear that Reapers consider themselves superior to us in every way.

Therefore it makes no sense that they would ever choose to incorporate any traits from us into them. And considering that they seem to consider the evolution of organic life quite below them it doesn't make sense that they would ever acknowledge any kind of reliance on the phenomenon of organic evolution, even if there was one.

Also they seem to consider themselves the pinacle of existence. You can't choose to get any better when you already think you're the best there ever could be. And you don't need to get any better when you know that you're better than any other species out there and you keep wiping out all other species just to make sure no one else ever gets as good as you.

Modifié par Ship.wreck , 18 juin 2011 - 03:11 .

[vanslyke85]

Seboist wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Kai Leng is pretty evil.

False, he's a good human patriot.

so then hitler wasn't evil cause he was a good german **** patriot...

kai leng is evil, saren is evil, donovon hock is evil

[CaptainZaysh]

@Shipwreck: Raven is explaining how evolution might be emulated in a species that didn't mutate.

@Raven: Best. Post. Ever. Thanks for a new insight into possible Reaper motives.

[Raven4030]

Ship.wreck wrote...

Raven4030 wrote...
3) I agree, people do usually see themselves as good. It ultimately depends on how you define good and evil though. I honestly do not consider the struggle for survival or evolution as evil though, as the reality is humanity has had to wipe out several species (and I'm not talking about the dodo either) in order to achieve dominance because when you get right down to it that is one of the many, many ways species evolve. It's hard for me to see Reapers as evil for taking that to the next level, if that's what they're actually doing, just because I happen to be of the species that stands to be wiped out to facilitate the evolution of another this time around.

That's not how evolution works. You don't wipe out a species so that you can evolve. Evolution is completely unconsious and un-controlled. A gene just happens to mutate, and that mutated gene just happens to give you some advantage, and with that advantage you just happen to survive better. That doesn't cause other species to die out, a LACK of evolution on their part does, they fail to adapt to the environment and die. They just happen to die all on their own, and you just happen to live all on your own. That's not anything even remotely similar to choosing to extinct another species.

We didn't decide to extinct some other species in order to cause ourselves to evolve into humans, like I said, that's just not how evolution works.

It's one of the ways it can happen. Granted there are many ways, almost all of them do not require one species wiping out the other. But when two separate species are competing over a supply of resources that can only support one, one species will inevitably wipe out the other. Well, alright, this is more accurately termed 'natural selection', but it is still a form of most desireable changes over time winning out over less desirable changes. Granted in this case it's not a concious choice, but the reality is that conscious or no humanity got to where it was by climbing on top of the corpses of everything that we deemed 'unworthy' or 'less than human (which, incidentally, tended to include other members of ****** sapien but that is getting off track)'. Sometimes we completely eradicated species, other times we greatly reduced the population of that species, still other times we simply made that species far more terrifying (or far less terrifying).

My ultimate point here is this:
If an entire species can be classified as evil or an abomination because it survives on the destruction of other species, then humanity is evil or an abomination because we climbed to where we are over piles and piles of corpses, some of those piles containing the last of entire species. Whether you find this evil, the result of ignorance, or abhorant, the fact remains that however indirectly you benefit from this destruction.

Note, I'm not trying to be some vegan hippie saying to stop eating meat or all of that, I'm just saying if you're going to base your definition of a species being evil on whether it survives and grows through destruction, then you have to acknowledge humanity as being evil. If you're willing to do that, then I'm willing to accept your definition of the Reapers being evil.

[Raven4030]

EDIT

Therefore it makes no sense that they would ever choose to incorporate any traits from us into them. And considering that they seem to consider the evolution of organic life quite below them it doesn't make sense that they would ever acknowledge any kind of reliance on the phenomenon of organic evolution, even if there was one.

Traits like our genetic makeup or our likeness?

EDIT: Uh-oh, we found a plot hole

Modifié par Raven4030, 18 juin 2011 - 03:24 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Raven's post is the way I would have explained my position, if I had an extra 15 or 20 IQ points. All further enquiries to him, please.

[scotty062295]

One can't argue that destruction of life is evil while being part of a species that thrives off not only killing and devouring a good portion of the species on its planet, but also thrives off creating different factions, forming different preferences in skin color, ideology, etc. And killing each other over it.

Nearly all life revolves around destroying life and reusing the energy, whether it be eating plants or meat, and returning it to the environment, and eventually dieing and having your energy returned to whence you came from.

Yes the Reapers' form of reproduction requires a much larger amount of sacrifice, genocide even, but I'm willing to bet that if humanities' continued existence required us to also commit a taboo, such as cannibalism, or the sacrifice of 10% of our population every other century, we would do it, because thats a key point of life: the fight for continued existence and survival.

[Moiaussi]

The question regarding the Reapers is whether their method of reproduction is actually neccessary. It seems unlikely, especially since they convert people to smoothies. Exactly why would bioengineered tissue not function as a viable alternative?

[Ship.wreck_]

Raven4030 wrote...
It's one of the ways it can happen. Granted there are many ways, almost all of them do not require one species wiping out the other. But when two separate species are competing over a supply of resources that can only support one, one species will inevitably wipe out the other. Well, alright, this is more accurately termed 'natural selection', but it is still a form of most desireable changes over time winning out over less desirable changes. Granted in this case it's not a concious choice, but the reality is that conscious or no humanity got to where it was by climbing on top of the corpses of everything that we deemed 'unworthy' or 'less than human (which, incidentally, tended to include other members of ****** sapien but that is getting off track)'. Sometimes we completely eradicated species, other times we greatly reduced the population of that species, still other times we simply made that species far more terrifying (or far less terrifying).

My ultimate point here is this:
If an entire species can be classified as evil or an abomination because it survives on the destruction of other species, then humanity is evil or an abomination because we climbed to where we are over piles and piles of corpses, some of those piles containing the last of entire species. Whether you find this evil, the result of ignorance, or abhorant, the fact remains that however indirectly you benefit from this destruction.

Note, I'm not trying to be some vegan hippie saying to stop eating meat or all of that, I'm just saying if you're going to base your definition of a species being evil on whether it survives and grows through destruction, then you have to acknowledge humanity as being evil. If you're willing to do that, then I'm willing to accept your definition of the Reapers being evil.

Of course humans are evil. But we have individuality, so many of us are not evil at the same time that many of us are evil. And we are evil or not based on our individual actions, not on the fact that our ancestors managed to survive.

As far as the evolution of species in general: competing for resources and winning does not constitute a joint species wide conscious decision to genocide the competition. If you eat the only food for miles and leave, then someone else comes along to find no food and starve, you didn't murder that guy, you didn't even know he'd be there or need food, you didn't even know he existed. Just a random turn of events that resulted in you living and him... well, not. The fact that many species have died out in competition with humans does not reflect in any way shape or form on the morality of the human species. The Reapers on the other hand know they're killing us, and are consciously choosing to do so.
And they don't even NEED to kill us to survive. Sure MAYBE they need to harvest a species here and there to survive (not confirmed), but even if that's the case, it still doesn't constitute a need to complety eradicate the species being harvested, let alone all of the dozens or hundreds of species NOT being harvested that they wipe out anyway. Therefore: evil.

[Ship.wreck_]

Moiaussi wrote...

The question regarding the Reapers is whether their method of reproduction is actually neccessary. It seems unlikely, especially since they convert people to smoothies. Exactly why would bioengineered tissue not function as a viable alternative?

As I mentioned before even if they DID NEED to harvest a species that still doesn't mean they need to extinct the species, and most of the species they extinct don't even get harvested. So anyway you try to cut it they're evil.

But that's a good point, even we can genetically engineer pretty much anything we want for example: Miranda, she's supposedly made from scratch by us! And Reapers supposedly have vastly superior intelligence and technology, no reason they couldn't just make any thing they need themselves. Hell the could smoothy one person, to get the right recipie and then mass produce human smoothy without ever needing to kill a second human. Unless of course....

THEY'RE EVIL.

[Moiaussi]

Ship.wreck wrote...

Of course humans are evil.

Some humans are. All humans have the capacity to be. That doesn't mean humans generally are evil.

[Ship.wreck_]

Moiaussi wrote...

Ship.wreck wrote...

Of course humans are evil.

Some humans are. All humans have the capacity to be. That doesn't mean humans generally are evil.

Read the whole post dude, that's exactly what I said.

[Lapis Lazuli]

Raven4030 wrote...


My ultimate point here is this:
If an entire species can be classified as evil or an abomination because it survives on the destruction of other species, then humanity is evil or an abomination because we climbed to where we are over piles and piles of corpses, some of those piles containing the last of entire species. Whether you find this evil, the result of ignorance, or abhorant, the fact remains that however indirectly you benefit from this destruction.

Note, I'm not trying to be some vegan hippie saying to stop eating meat or all of that, I'm just saying if you're going to base your definition of a species being evil on whether it survives and grows through destruction, then you have to acknowledge humanity as being evil. If you're willing to do that, then I'm willing to accept your definition of the Reapers being evil.

I totally disagree with the premise that indirectly benefiting from evil makes you evil. Only by doing evil are you evil. Therefore all reapers are evil.

[SandTrout]

Ship.wreck wrote...
Of course humans are evil. But we have individuality, so many of us are not evil at the same time that many of us are evil. And we are evil or not based on our individual actions, not on the fact that our ancestors managed to survive.

As far as the evolution of species in general: competing for resources and winning does not constitute a joint species wide conscious decision to genocide the competition. If you eat the only food for miles and leave, then someone else comes along to find no food and starve, you didn't murder that guy, you didn't even know he'd be there or need food, you didn't even know he existed. Just a random turn of events that resulted in you living and him... well, not. The fact that many species have died out in competition with humans does not reflect in any way shape or form on the morality of the human species. The Reapers on the other hand know they're killing us, and are consciously choosing to do so.
And they don't even NEED to kill us to survive. Sure MAYBE they need to harvest a species here and there to survive (not confirmed), but even if that's the case, it still doesn't constitute a need to complety eradicate the species being harvested, let alone all of the dozens or hundreds of species NOT being harvested that they wipe out anyway. Therefore: evil.

If you truly believe this, then you should be working toward the destruction of the Human species based on the fact that we are evil. This is a deeply flawed and self-destructive view of good and evil.

You also forget that, as a species, we have made several conscious actions to commit genocide in order to ensure our own survival. Smallpox was a blight on the world until scientists and doctors made the conscious decision to start mass immunizations of the human population, resulting in the functional extinction of the smallpox bacteria (Only a few samples remain in laboratories for scientific purposes). It was a matter of Smallpox or Humans, and we made the only possible correct decision, Humans.

It was not a matter of weather it is good or evil to wipe out one species in order to ensure the survival of your own, it was simply a matter of of survival, and if Humans ever abandon the principal of survival, we will no longer exist, resulting in our own self-inflicted genocide because of a philosophy that refuses to acknowledge the reality that the only natural law of behavior is survival. If you think that you can operate outside the law of survival, reality will very quickly remove you from life.

Modifié par SandTrout, 19 juin 2011 - 12:04 .

[Lapis Lazuli]

I think everybody seems to be forgetting Sovereign's speech on Virmire.

Sovereign: "We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. It exists because we allow it and it will end because we demand it."
party member's response: "They are harvesting us"
Shepard's question as prompted by party member's comment: "What do you want from us? Slaves? Resources?"
Sovereign: "My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation. Independent. Free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence."

According to Sovereign they are NOT DEPENDENT. Needing resources to survive is DEPENDENCE. Destruction in order to survive is DEPENDENCE. According to Sovereign, the purpose for reaping has no analogy in human experience. These analogies in this thread do not apply. These moral justifications for reaping in this thread do not apply. And if you think Sovereign is lying, so be it. If that's the case then he is hiding his dependence and portraying himself as UNSTOPPABLE EVIL instead.

Modifié par Lapis Lazuli, 18 juin 2011 - 11:07 .

[Raven4030]

I'm assuming he is lying about there being no analogy in human experience, because if there isn't then Bioware will never be able to explain why the Reapers are doing this and I'm assuming they won't leave us hanging as to their purpose.

Also: they sure do seem dependent on organic life for reproduction at the very least. Man, that human-reaper seriously screwed up Sovereign's little speech on Virmire. It went from being this big ominous reveal to Sovereign just being stupid.

[Mabari Owns High Dragon]

The only problem I see here is the Reapers aren't being forced to do this to reproduce or survive, they're doing this because they can. Some people they just wipe out, others they use to form themselves, they steal the conscious of that civilization specifically because that civilization was almost powerful enough to destroy them, or in Shepherds case, kill them. The only reason they could want to create a new reaper is to taking advantage of the knowledge of that particular species. The Reapers CHOOSE to kill all these people, they CHOOSE to create more of themselves. They could easily mind their own business as a peaceful group, but as of now I see no reason these species were a threat to them, and as such, there is no justification for all those lives. Regardless of what the Reapers believe, they are destroying another civilization. That defines Evil to me.

Modifié par Mabari Owns High Dragon, 18 juin 2011 - 11:42 .

[Senior Cinco]

My Shep is truly evil. At least as evil as the game will allow. Screw everything in existence. If the opt to side with the Reapers presents itself, then so be it. After which screw them too.

[Lapis Lazuli]

Raven4030 wrote...

I'm assuming he is lying about there being no analogy in human experience, because if there isn't then Bioware will never be able to explain why the Reapers are doing this and I'm assuming they won't leave us hanging as to their purpose.

Also: they sure do seem dependent on organic life for reproduction at the very least. Man, that human-reaper seriously screwed up Sovereign's little speech on Virmire. It went from being this big ominous reveal to Sovereign just being stupid.

Even if there is an analogy, I wouldn't assume its as simple as what's being proposed on this thread. That would be totally anticlimactic. And I would assume at the very least, that they can exist without reaping. Soveriign could've said "you are a disease that must be wiped out" or something of that order. But he didn't.

[SandTrout]

For me, the definition is destruction without creation. The Reapers destroy a civilization in order to produce something greater than that civilization: the Reaper Avatar of the civilization. They wipe out some races that are not worthy of being made into to a Reaper so that the galaxy can be left open to allow the opportunity for another species to earn that privilege. From their perspective, they destroy something that is flawed in order to allow the creation of something perfect. Therefor, they do not necessarily fall under my definition of evil.

Their methods are abhorrent to me, and their goals are counter and mutually exclusive to my own, so I will fight them because I wish to survive, I do not fight them because they wish to create.