66 réponses à ce sujet

[Smeelia]

Raven4030 wrote...

Regarding the whole Rachni Queen debate, you can throw around all these philosophical concepts all you like...

The most RATIONAL choice...

Your philosophy is essential in forming the basis of what you value in life and what your goals would be.  Being rational is merely a way of figuring out what course of action would best serve your goals and carrying out that action without allowing emotions to come into the equation.  If you believe that life (particularly diversity of life) is of value then it's not in your rational interests to commit genocide.

Philosophy is quite important in any decision, unfortunately there's no way to be "right" about your philosophy because no judgement system exists that can measure this.  That's why killing the Rachni Queen is neither right nor wrong, it depends on the beliefs of the individual.

Getting back to making a "rational" decision, you're assuming that the Queen would be "irrational" (and, indeed, somewhat crazy).  The Queen may well want revenge against her captors but there's no reason to think it'd be directed against humanity (or the galaxy) as a whole, especially since it was a human that rescued her and clearly indicated they weren't involved.  She also has pretty much had her revenge since almost everyone involved in the project was killed.  It wouldn't be in the Queen's interests to become hostile since she'd be putting the survival of her species at risk and it'll take some time to rebuild before she could even consider a war (which would by then be far separated from the event of her release).  The fact that she remembers the destruction of her species is information that shows attacking the entire galaxy was a mistake, to become such a major threat she'd have to repeat that mistake.

Sometimes, two different people can make a rational decision and arrive at different conclusions.  There isn't always a "right" way and a "wrong" way.

KevShep wrote...

I get what your saying! She sould have used something else other then dog becuase the dog cant think like a human can...that was the confusing part.

That's a fair point actually.  She could have said "you and a human stranger" and that you'd rather be the one that survives (rather than sick them on the bear, since they wouldn't listen to your orders).  I think that might have actually been more confusing though and the original analogy gets the general point across.

Modifié par Smeelia, 23 juin 2011 - 11:27 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I'd be pro-human...but humanity in ME is soooooooooo boring.

[Raven4030]

Smeelia wrote...

Your philosophy is essential in forming the basis of what you value in life and what your goals would be.  Being rational is merely a way of figuring out what course of action would best serve your goals and carrying out that action without allowing emotions to come into the equation.  If you believe that life (particularly diversity of life) is of value then it's not in your rational interests to commit genocide.

Philosophy is quite important in any decision, unfortunately there's no way to be "right" about your philosophy because no judgement system exists that can measure this.  That's why killing the Rachni Queen is neither right nor wrong, it depends on the beliefs of the individual.

Actually, when it comes to deciding the most rational course of action there is: It's called game theory, it's very big in political science and explains alot of why politicians make the decisions we do. It boils down to organizing probable scenarios, organizing the payoffs for each of those scenarios, and going for the option that gives you the optimal payoff after factoring in the probability that exists for 'unknown' variables. Don't confuse 'rational' and 'ethical', while not mutually exclusive concepts they are not synonomys. You can make irrational, but ethical decisions and you can make rational, but unethical decisions. In the context of Mass Effect: this is why the spectres exist, so that they can make the rational, but unethical decisions without the council losing face.

Getting back to making a "rational" decision, you're assuming that the Queen would be "irrational" (and, indeed, somewhat crazy).  The Queen may well want revenge against her captors but there's no reason to think it'd be directed against humanity (or the galaxy) as a whole, especially since it was a human that rescued her and clearly indicated they weren't involved.  She also has pretty much had her revenge since almost everyone involved in the project was killed.  It wouldn't be in the Queen's interests to become hostile since she'd be putting the survival of her species at risk and it'll take some time to rebuild before she could even consider a war (which would by then be far separated from the event of her release).  The fact that she remembers the destruction of her species is information that shows attacking the entire galaxy was a mistake, to become such a major threat she'd have to repeat that mistake.

Knowing that the galaxy wiped out her species the first time she has no reason to believe they wouldn't want to do the same again. This is why later one when she contacts you she is in hiding: she knows that the moment her presence is revealed there will be an armada knocking down her door to finish the job Shephard couldn't do. And again: her first experiences in the world involved being the victim of cruel experiments at the hands of a human research company staffed by a multi-racial team. Given the communication difficulties, if released her best choice would be to build a massive war machine and launch a pre-emptive strike. She could send a possessed Asari emissary, but given how she was treated by galactic civilization this would just tip them off and cause them to prepare making it less likely that she'd win in a war. It is the reason why civil wars tend to be so brutal: neither side has reason to believe they'd be treated fairly if they disarm and neither side believes the other won't strike again once their strength is regained.

Now, there is room for trust... over repeated interactions. HOWEVER, this is a single interaction, Shephard knows nothing about the Rachni save that their species was nearly wiped out 2000 years ago, this one was the subject of cruel experiences, and has the capacity to build up a massive war machine over generations. The fact that this may be 100 years from now is not relevant.

When you get right down to it, when deciding to release there are only two possibilities: The queen is lying or telling the truth. Again, in an ideal world she'd be telling the truth and you would release her as that would yield a positive payoff. But the only one who can know the intent of the Rachni queen is the Rachni queen herself, and if she intends at any point in the future to make war on galactic civilization, however futile that might be, it'll result in a negative payoff for your side. Now, her best course of action would be to make peace and have the galaxy make peace as well, but again we have a serious lack of trust between both parties. Killing her however, simply results in a payoff of zero for your side: given you have no way of knowing whether she'll be friend or foe, you don't technically lose anything, but you don't really gain. Since your payoff of releasing a warlike queen is negative, the ONLY time a rational person should release her is if there is zero chance of her lying (which, as I've shown, there is a greater than zero chance of her lying).

Again, do not confuse 'rational' with 'ethical'. If you want to argue philosophy and morality we'll be here all year, but when you get right down to it there is only ever one rational choice for any party. In this case, there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer.

Now, given that this is still just a game, you would admittedly believe the Rachni Queen is telling the truth because releasing her gives paragon points. But if we're talking from a strict roleplaying perspective, the most rational choice is still to burn her. To reiterate: this is about the most RATIONAL choice, this is NOT about the most moral or ethical choice or even the choice the one has a moral obligation to make. One could make the argument that since she is the last of her species then what is most rational is not relevant: to wipe out a species is an unforgivable crime for any reason, but again to argue from moral standpoint would leave us here all year.

KevShep wrote...

I get what your saying! She sould have used something else other then dog becuase the dog cant think like a human can...that was the confusing part.

That's a fair point actually.  She could have said "you and a human stranger" and that you'd rather be the one that survives (rather than sick them on the bear, since they wouldn't listen to your orders).  I think that might have actually been more confusing though and the original analogy gets the general point across.

I'm guessing that given this game is rated 'M' for mature, the writers assumed you were adults and have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of the analogy.

[Smeelia]

Raven4030 wrote...

Actually, when it comes to deciding the most rational course of action there is: It's called game theory, it's very big in political science and explains alot of why politicians make the decisions we do. It boils down to organizing probable scenarios, organizing the payoffs for each of those scenarios, and going for the option that gives you the optimal payoff after factoring in the probability that exists for 'unknown' variables. Don't confuse 'rational' and 'ethical', while not mutually exclusive concepts they are not synonomys. You can make irrational, but ethical decisions and you can make rational, but unethical decisions. In the context of Mass Effect: this is why the spectres exist, so that they can make the rational, but unethical decisions without the council losing face.

Ultimately it still comes down to your goals and beliefs and there's no "right" or "wrong" about those.  Someone who wants to be the best at Tennis and someone who wants to be the ruler of the galaxy would make rational decisions differently, that doesn't mean that either of them are "wrong".

Raven4030 wrote...

Knowing that the galaxy wiped out her species the first time she has no reason to believe they wouldn't want to do the same again.

If Shepard releases her it does show that at least some are willing to give her a chance.  The circumstances of the war were quite specific and involved the Rachni making all out attacks with no negotiation, by not making all out attacks the Queen would produce a different set of circumstances.

Raven4030 wrote...

This is why later one when she contacts you she is in hiding: she knows that the moment her presence is revealed there will be an armada knocking down her door to finish the job Shephard couldn't do. And again: her first experiences in the world involved being the victim of cruel experiments at the hands of a human research company staffed by a multi-racial team. Given the communication difficulties, if released her best choice would be to build a massive war machine and launch a pre-emptive strike.

Debatable, building a decent foundation for her civilisation in secret and slowly joining galactic society would be a viable option.  As the Rachni grow stronger, the cost of eliminating them also grows so the other races would be less willing to attack and negotiation would be much easier.

Raven4030 wrote...

Now, there is room for trust... over repeated interactions. HOWEVER, this is a single interaction, Shephard knows nothing about the Rachni save that their species was nearly wiped out 2000 years ago, this one was the subject of cruel experiences, and has the capacity to build up a massive war machine over generations. The fact that this may be 100 years from now is not relevant.

It's entirely relevant, releasing her now gives her race a chance at existence and doesn't kill anyone.  The fact that one day she may become a threat is only arguably a justification for eliminating her and would depend heavily on your beliefs and expectations (there's no solid "right" answer for everyone).  There's a pretty good chance that she wont be a major threat (certainly not for a long time) and there are plenty of opportunities for other circumstances and events to influence the course of the Rachni civilisation.  As a result, killing her now is a simple option but not necessarily the best one (especially if you believe in the right to life and are against genocide where avoidable).

Raven4030 wrote...

When you get right down to it, when deciding to release there are only two possibilities: The queen is lying or telling the truth. Again, in an ideal world she'd be telling the truth and you would release her as that would yield a positive payoff. But the only one who can know the intent of the Rachni queen is the Rachni queen herself, and if she intends at any point in the future to make war on galactic civilization, however futile that might be, it'll result in a negative payoff for your side. Now, her best course of action would be to make peace and have the galaxy make peace as well, but again we have a serious lack of trust between both parties. Killing her however, simply results in a payoff of zero for your side: given you have no way of knowing whether she'll be friend or foe, you don't technically lose anything, but you don't really gain. Since your payoff of releasing a warlike queen is negative, the ONLY time a rational person should release her is if there is zero chance of her lying (which, as I've shown, there is a greater than zero chance of her lying).

Potential positive benefits also have value and risks must be weighed.  The rational course isn't always to take a risk of zero.  Whether the Queen is telling the truth or not may not even be important, circumstances will occur that may change her mind one way or the other.  As I've mentioned, there are also reasons to believe that she wont do something stupid, destructive and suicidal (the fact that she's asking to be saved shows she's at least concerned about her welfare).

Killing her results in a 100% chance of her being dead and a roughly 100% chance of committing genocide.  Even setting ethics aside, these results may be undesireable for some.

Raven4030 wrote...

Again, do not confuse 'rational' with 'ethical'. If you want to argue philosophy and morality we'll be here all year, but when you get right down to it there is only ever one rational choice for any party. In this case, there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer.

I don't want to argue philosophy or morality, as I said there's no "right" or "wrong".  In this case, there isn't a "right" and "wrong" answer for everyone, what is rational for you is not rational for everyone (regardless of ethics).  There may be an answer that is "right" for you but that doesn't mean it is "right" for everyone.

Raven4030 wrote...

Now, given that this is still just a game, you would admittedly believe the Rachni Queen is telling the truth because releasing her gives paragon points.

Paragon points don't automatically indicate a correct decision (though they generally do work out) but they do tend to indicate a decision is made on principle.  You could argue that this is an indication that Shepard (of the available characters as written) believes the rational decision is to kill the Queen and the ethical decision is to save her.  This still doesn't mean that Shepard's view is the only possible one.  As you say though, most people don't worry too much about pre-determined character tendencies and limiting moralities and prefer to role-play their own way.

[Raven4030]

Once more: Rationality is seperate and distinct from ethics, philosophy, or morality. It is simply based on asking yourself 'which course of action will yield the best possible payoff for myself/the people I represent' and taking that course of action.

You release the queen, the ONLY scenario that would result in the Rachni integrating peacefully with galactic civilization is as follows:

1) She (or the leadership that replaces her) accepts the near extermination of her entire species as necessary evils and subsequent experimentation as the actions of a few misguided men and not as representative of the galactic community as a whole which she has zero experience with.

2) She (or the leadership that replaces her) remains undiscovered by military authorities who would attack her out of fear until such time as she is able to make formal diplomatic contact with the civilian leadership of said military authorities.

3) Whatever defense forces are amassed by the Rachni for protection are recognized by the galactic community at the time they are revealed as being purely defensive in nature and not the precursor to a war waged by the entirety of her species thousands of years ago.

4) At the time of opening dialogue, the ruling authorities at the time (in this case the Citadel Council) are willing to recognize the right of the Rachni to live and there is no breakdown as a result of lingering animosity over the Rachni wars.

If any of the above four do not occur, the ONLY outcome is war. This is a very narrow range of possibilities compared to just killing the Rachni Queen where there are zero possibilities known at the time of making the decision (unless you've already done Virmire) of it coming back to bite you. That's really what makes Renegades different from Paragons: the Renegade takes the option that has the lowest risk:reward ratio regardless of the cost while Paragons take the option that has the lowest cost regardless of risk:reward ratio.

[Smeelia]

Raven4030 wrote...

Once more: Rationality is seperate and distinct from ethics, philosophy, or morality. It is simply based on asking yourself 'which course of action will yield the best possible payoff for myself/the people I represent' and taking that course of action.

Exactly and what is "best" is up for debate (who you represent may also be relevant).

Raven4030 wrote...

You release the queen, the ONLY scenario that would result in the Rachni integrating peacefully with galactic civilization is as follows:

It's not as simple as that and any one of your points failing to occur doesn't guarantee war either.  There are many possibilities and factors, you dismiss the ones that don't appeal to you personally but others may disagree.

There's also the fact that killing the Queen guarantees the potential benefits of releasing her wont occur.  There are plusses and minuses for both sides and it's quite possible to come to a rational decision in favour of either option depending on how you measure the facts.

I wont argue about whose measurements are the best because my point is that there's no one definitive "correct" answer.

[Raven4030]

And my point is that when making a decision there is always a "correct" answer, or more accurate to say "optimal" response. Admittedly determining what is optimal and what is sub-optimal is incredibly difficult and requires alot of thought and analysis. While I defend my conclusions I recognize they could be falsified by somebody who is smarter or put more thought into it. If you want to argue that there is not enough information to determine an optimal course of action, then I can accept that, but based on the information we do have for reasons listed above I think the optimal course of action is to kill in this case. Now, whether that pans out or not remains to be seen, much as we try life is unpredictable.

[Cypher0020]

I can't be pro-human at all...I guess I'm a wholehearted galactic unionist....no one race can be dominate, especially humanity

we're what? 30 years into being part of the galaxy as whole? When races like the krogans and asari have been in power for thousands of years? The protheans before that even....

I think humans would be foolish to try and be dominate...plus....probably zero of the other races would follow us anyway...

[Smeelia]

Raven4030 wrote...

And my point is that when making a decision there is always a "correct" answer, or more accurate to say "optimal" response.

On an individual basis, perhaps.  My point is that we're not all the same person and thus there's no one all-encompassing answer for everyone (because each would have a different definition of the "optimal" outcome).

I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with your assessment, just that suggesting it's the "most" rational one is wrong.  You could say I'm being picky but you did emphasise your point that it was the "most" rational answer.

Perhaps you always meant simply that it was the one that seemed most rational to you personally and I misunderstood (in which case, I don't think there's any disagreement).

Modifié par Smeelia, 23 juin 2011 - 04:41 .

[SandTrout]

I can't be pro-human at all...I guess I'm a wholehearted galactic unionist....no one race can be dominate, especially humanity

we're what? 30 years into being part of the galaxy as whole? When races like the krogans and asari have been in power for thousands of years? The protheans before that even....

I think humans would be foolish to try and be dominate...plus....probably zero of the other races would follow us anyway...

This stance, while not intentionally so, is inherently anti-human, and if accepted on a wide basis, would result in our enslavement/extinction. Every species must attempt to gain dominance in their environment, or else their survival is at the mercy of other species, most of which are all too willing to sacrifice our species for the sake of their own.

Weather you seek dominance through political (like the Asari), military (like the Turians and Salarians), or economic (like the Volus), is completely besides the point; all are forms of dominance in order to ensure their own species continued survival. Even accepting a temporary subservient role can serve this end by allowing ones species to grow without direct conflict with other species.

Also, other species are willing to submit to Human domination of the council after the Battle of the Citadel if you allow the Council to die, though some are more competitive against us than others(IE: The Turian arms race). This is partially by virtue of the Alliance having saved the battle, and partially by virtue of the Alliance having the largest intact fleet after the casualties taken by the citadel fleets. Essentially, we established military dominance by being the last ones standing after the BotC, though we were already arguably competitive in that field compared to the established powers.

Alternatively, by saving the Council, we establish widespread support with a demonstration of Humanity's good will towards the galactic community, in spite of loosing ground in the field of military dominance. Essentially, we traded some of our military strength for political strength.

Your "galactic unionist" philosophy states that we should submit to species with seniority, regardless of their intentions or merit in leading. If we allowed that, we should just give our colony worlds to the Krogan or Hanar, and allow the Council to leave us on the front line of the Geth war without support because we must 'earn our place', or some such non-sense. This would greatly undermine our species survivability by limiting our population and resource base. Expecting the Council to make decisions about our fate without holding some kind of leverage over them is just asking to get marginalized.

[KevShep]

Raven4030 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

I get what your saying! She sould have used something else other then dog becuase the dog cant think like a human can...that was the confusing part.

That's a fair point actually.  She could have said "you and a human stranger" and that you'd rather be the one that survives (rather than sick them on the bear, since they wouldn't listen to your orders).  I think that might have actually been more confusing though and the original analogy gets the general point across.

I'm guessing that given this game is rated 'M' for mature, the writers assumed you were adults and have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of the analogy.

Iam guessing your parents let you use the internet assuming your adult enough to talk to people without being rude. Your the one that not acting "M"ature if your talking rude to some one who has done nothing to you. are you sure you should be playing M rated games? Your not an adult Iam assuming!

Modifié par KevShep, 24 juin 2011 - 10:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Adult or not, he certainly delivered his point more smoothly than you.

[TheRevanchist]

Buuuurrrrrrnnnnnnn!!!11!!!!1!1!1!111!!!

[lovgreno]

I must say that many of the so called pro human choices seems a bit too much to be just stubborn isolationism to me.

[Dean_the_Young]

Some, I suppose, but I'd say they were more about stubborn distinction. It's not particularly isolationist to not want foreign languages taught in school.

The opposite of assimilation isn't isolation, but distinction. Much of Council policy is Assimilationist, by design and intent, and cultural colonization is one of those very real occurances in the existence of civilizations.

[KevShep]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Adult or not, he certainly delivered his point more smoothly than you.

That was not the point genius! Point or no everyone that is in this forum needs to maintain politeness(there is no reason not to be). We are all gamers and we all love Mass Effect why are we being like this to other fans(including you)?????????????????????? If you cant be nice to people who share the same passion then you dont need to be here at ALL period!

Modifié par KevShep, 26 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[Lapis Lazuli]

Asari Commando wrote...

Missouri Tigers wrote...

completely alienate aliens

lol @ aliens being alienated.

Yeah, they're pretty much alienated any time they are surrounded by humans. What I'm against is organizing organizations and incarcerating prisoners.