3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Grim Intent]

SandTrout wrote...

Grim Intent wrote...

I don't even know why there are 100 plus pages of debate on this seemingly obvious topic. According to Bioware, the Good (or correct, if you view it as such) moral choice is destroying the base since it nets you a ton of Paragon points, and the Renegade or bad moral choice it to keep it as it gives you a similar amount of renegade points.

Incorrect. Shepard's 'allignment' is always 'good' because he is always working to save the galaxy at great personal risk. Paragon and Renegade are not good and evil, they are idealistic and cynical. I forget specifically who said this, but it was from BioWare.

What is there to debate, really? If you haven't already figured it out, Cerberus isn't exactly an organization of good morals based on their track record so it makes sense that the Illusive Man was using you to further his own agenda, as many morally unjust people do. Just because the Illusive Man doesn't work for the Reapers doesn't make him a good person, and even that remains to be seen.

Weather or not TIM is a good person is irrelevant. A greedy, selfish person can still be a tool toward a moral end, or at least toward mitigating a greater evil. Also, Cerberus is not portrayed as an overtly morally 'black' organization. They are actually fall more under Well Intentioned Extremist.

We don't know whether or not Cerberus are working for the Reapers, but we do know they are the enemy so I can't justify giving advanced technology to someone with a shady past and VERY questionable motives regardless of the benefits that could be attained. Hence, surrendering the base being considered a Renegade action. I'm just stating facts based on what I know.

 At the time of the decision, no one knew that Cerberus was going to turn against us, and they had spent the entirety of ME2 aiding you against them. The morality of a decision cannot be decided by information that wasn't available at the time that the decision was made. You can't tell Ted Bundy's mother that she was immoral for not aborting him because he was responsible for a string of murders.

Finally, someone with some sort of intelligible opinion. I understand your views but I still have to disagree. Firstly, if it turns out that Paragon is in fact supposed to represent Idealistic and Renegade Cynical (which you have no real proof of), is that really any better than an immoral choice? I don't see how that being the case would change it's morality. It's wrong because you're taking a risk of endangering lives with the very obvious possibility of gaining absolutely nothing. Realistically, keeping the base wouldn't yield any real results in the short time before the imminent reaper invasion. You can't argue that it's a calculated risk because it's clearly not. Assuming there were blueprints on how to make a reaper, which likely there are not it would take some time to fully understand the technology and make any real use of it given realistic standards. It would take at least a year or more even with the top scientists and brightest minds and that is really stretching it.

To your second and third point on it not being clear if Cerberus is a morally "black" organization and such I also completely disagree. In Mass Effect every encounter detailed gross immoral behavior and even Jacob admits you won't find an organization with a more checkered past. Shepard even goes as far as to illicitly state that he fully expects Cerberus to betray him at some point. If you didn't expect that by the end of the game you clearly weren't paying attention. The Alliance even goes as far as to label them as Terrorists, as does the council (assuming you kept them alive), so I don't know how the eventual betrayal could've been anymore transparent and obvious honestly.

I don't believe it moral to agree that the end justifies the means at all. That is a very immoral statement to me.
TIM exemplifies that statement to me and I don't think that he really cares about anyone but himself, so yeah I guess he is cynical but also very immoral. Do you really think that handing over advanced technology to a person like that is a smart decision?

[SandTrout]

Grim Intent wrote...

Finally, someone with some sort of intelligible opinion. I understand your views but I still have to disagree. Firstly, if it turns out that Paragon is in fact supposed to represent Idealistic and Renegade Cynical (which you have no real proof of), is that really any better than an immoral choice? I don't see how that being the case would change it's morality. It's wrong because you're taking a risk of endangering lives with the very obvious possibility of gaining absolutely nothing. Realistically, keeping the base wouldn't yield any real results in the short time before the imminent reaper invasion. You can't argue that it's a calculated risk because it's clearly not. Assuming there were blueprints on how to make a reaper, which likely there are not it would take some time to fully understand the technology and make any real use of it given realistic standards. It would take at least a year or more even with the top scientists and brightest minds and that is really stretching it.

Someone being cynical is not the same as someone being immoral, it is related to their expectations regarding an unknown. The cynic acknowledges that for good to occur, there is a price to be paid, while the idealist is unwilling to pay certain costs that are counter to their ideals. An action is only ever moral in the available context and is predicated on a moral premise, the premise is saving lives. I understand, and agree with your conclusion that keeping the base is a greater threat than potential asset. The base keepers, however, are still trying to save lives, though through a method that comes with a cost that they are aware of and accept. You, however, claimed that an action is clearly 'bad' or immoral because it was Renegade. It is this premise that I do not accept, especially since we have not seen the end results of about 99%(hyperbole) of our decisions from ME1 and ME2.

To your second and third point on it not being clear if Cerberus is a morally "black" organization and such I also completely disagree. In Mass Effect every encounter detailed gross immoral behavior and even Jacob admits you won't find an organization with a more checkered past. Shepard even goes as far as to illicitly state that he fully expects Cerberus to betray him at some point. If you didn't expect that by the end of the game you clearly weren't paying attention. The Alliance even goes as far as to label them as Terrorists, as does the council (assuming you kept them alive), so I don't know how the eventual betrayal could've been anymore transparent and obvious honestly.

Again, I agree that Cerberus are dangerous and, yes, I fully expected them to betray me at some point, but my expectation was that it would after the war, and that durring the war, that TIM would be an ally more or less congruent with the Soviet Union durring WW2. My moral math concluded that if we survived long enough that Cerberus is considered a major problem, things are looking up.

I don't believe it moral to agree that the end justifies the means at all. That is a very immoral statement to me.
TIM exemplifies that statement to me and I don't think that he really cares about anyone but himself, so yeah I guess he is cynical but also very immoral. Do you really think that handing over advanced technology to a person like that is a smart decision?

If the ends never justify the means, then you should not shoot a man that is beating a child to death, declare war in order to prevent genocide, or do anything else in the defense of others. Killing, in general, is a bad thing, I think we can agree, but in a given context, killing can be considered moral because the alternative is worse. Weather or not the ends justify the means is entirely dependent on both the ends and the means involved. Some ends are great enough to justify horrific means, while other ends don't justify shoplifting.

In general terms, I do not consider giving TIM the base a desirable outcome because his moral math between justifiable means to particular ends typically favor the means more heavily than my own, but if I didn't consider the threat of indoctrination from the base and its equipment to be as credible as I do, then I would have turned it over to TIM because as bad as he is, I believed that he would fight the Reapers.

If my home was about to be overrun by zombies, I would give a gun to a known murderer and KKK member because there exists a greater threat to both of us than each other, and we can both be expected to do the correct thing in that situation (kill zombies).

[SandTrout]

wiggles89 wrote...

I don't believe it moral to agree that the end justifies the means at all. That is a very immoral statement to me.

So you think that all consequentialists are immoral?

He just hasn't considered the implications of that statement thuroughly.

[TobyHasEyes]

SandTrout wrote...

wiggles89 wrote...

I don't believe it moral to agree that the end justifies the means at all. That is a very immoral statement to me.

So you think that all consequentialists are immoral?

He just hasn't considered the implications of that statement thuroughly.

 No they just clearly have a different moral view

 I would regard myself as consequentialist, but you can't claim that those who disagree are simply confused or wrong

[SandTrout]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 No they just clearly have a different moral view

 I would regard myself as consequentialist, but you can't claim that those who disagree are simply confused or wrong

What he stated goes beyond simply differentiating between a consequentialist or not. He stated that anyone who uses the expression 'The ends justify the means' is inherently immoral. While few people overtly invoke this trope, I cannot think of a single person who does not practice it. If someone were so constrained, they would be completely incapable of any sort of action, including continuing their own survival. In order to survive, you must take from some other organism, weather it is a plan or an animal. Even if you drink only water, you are consuming water that other organism might need. Simply by breathing, you are consuming oxygen that other organisms want to use.

Everything you do is a means to an end, and most of the means, if considered without the context of their ends, can be taken as immoral, however slightly.

[ddv.rsa]

BlueMagitek wrote...
Throwing away something because it "might" be a threat is a poor decision.

By that logic I assuming you kept the genophage cure, spared the Rachni queen and rewrote the Heretics? 

[ddv.rsa]

Grim Intent wrote...

It's wrong because you're taking a risk of endangering lives with the very obvious possibility of gaining absolutely nothing. Realistically, keeping the base wouldn't yield any real results in the short time before the imminent reaper invasion. You can't argue that it's a calculated risk because it's clearly not.

Couldn't the same be said for curing the Krogan and sparing the Rachni queen?

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 25 septembre 2011 - 11:09 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

SandTrout wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 No they just clearly have a different moral view

 I would regard myself as consequentialist, but you can't claim that those who disagree are simply confused or wrong

What he stated goes beyond simply differentiating between a consequentialist or not. He stated that anyone who uses the expression 'The ends justify the means' is inherently immoral. While few people overtly invoke this trope, I cannot think of a single person who does not practice it. If someone were so constrained, they would be completely incapable of any sort of action, including continuing their own survival. In order to survive, you must take from some other organism, weather it is a plan or an animal. Even if you drink only water, you are consuming water that other organism might need. Simply by breathing, you are consuming oxygen that other organisms want to use.

Everything you do is a means to an end, and most of the means, if considered without the context of their ends, can be taken as immoral, however slightly.

That's always been the problem for me though.
Which ends justify which means.

In universe I'm willing to consider any option that will make the battle easier (I try to avoid meta-gaming but it always creeps in).

Example: To me sparing the Rachni is an acceptable risk, Just like saving the Genophage data, and rewriting the Heretics.
I can even occasionally (When I manage to avoid metagaming almost entirely) justify saving the base. Though I must admit I bear a strong bias against Cerberus.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Grim Intent wrote...

It's wrong because you're taking a risk of endangering lives with the very obvious possibility of gaining absolutely nothing. Realistically, keeping the base wouldn't yield any real results in the short time before the imminent reaper invasion. You can't argue that it's a calculated risk because it's clearly not.

Couldn't the same be said for curing the Krogan and sparing Rachni queen?

Technically that same reasoning could be used for just about any decision Shep makes.

[ddv.rsa]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...


In universe I'm willing to consider any option that will make the battle easier (I try to avoid meta-gaming but it always creeps in).

Example: To me sparing the Rachni is an acceptable risk, Just like saving the Genophage data, and rewriting the Heretics.
I can even occasionally (When I manage to avoid metagaming almost entirely) justify saving the base. Though I must admit I bear a strong bias against Cerberus.

Here's what I don't get: how does curing the Genophage help against the Reapers?

The Krogan have no navy of their own, and in the few months between ME2 and ME3 have no time to build one (supposing they were even allowed to). This makes them useless against the Reapers themselves. At best, they're cannon fodder against husks and the indoctrinated. I don't see how this will win the war or even make any appreciable difference at the strategic level.

On the other hand, it virtually guarantees war if the Reapers are defeated. The Council races will be battered and greatly weakened, while the Krogan will be experiencing a population explosion. Combined with their warlike culture and hatred of aliens, you've got a recipe for disaster.

For now they might be making progress under Wrex, but his reforms would become uneccessary if the genophage were cured. Why keep listening to him? I think Wrex himself understands this, and that is why he turns down Maelon.

[Azbeszt]

U mad, bioware?

Modifié par Azbeszt, 25 septembre 2011 - 11:39 .

[Valdrane78]

I am seeing a lot of "the means justify the ends" people in here, and well that depends on what means you are using to get the results you need. Do you kill 1 innocent person to save 10, 100 people from a mass murderer. If you do you become what you are fighting against, a murderer.

However, in terms of the Collector base, this is where things start getting into the grey area of morality. The collector base was a place where great atrocities were commited, is it right to destroy it soley on principle even though it may prove useful int he future, or do you keep it and give it to a man you know to be morally ambiguous who controls a group who are known to commit atrocites as great as those perpetrated on said base.

The point is, both decisions are morally ambiguous at best, and there is no right answer, you either go paragon and destroy the base on principle, or you go renegade and give it to Cerberus who you know will keep it for themselves. What was missing was the third option, the neutral option. Keep the base and give the coordinates to the Council and the Alliance.

[ddv.rsa]

Valdrane78 wrote...

The point is, both decisions are morally ambiguous at best, and there is no right answer, you either go paragon and destroy the base on principle, or you go renegade and give it to Cerberus who you know will keep it for themselves. What was missing was the third option, the neutral option. Keep the base and give the coordinates to the Council and the Alliance.

It also depends on what you think of Cerberus. Lots of people hate them, but personally I think "the advancement and preservation of humanity" is a worthy cause. Most of the things they've done so far have been neccessary, if brutal (eg Pragia, Overlord).

I didn't mind handing the CB over to TIM, since I largely agree with the principles guiding Cerberus.

[Kaiser Shepard]

My precious DoD! Ain't this a sight for sore eyes!

I agree that it is a worthy cause, I just can't agree with the means to reach it; sacrificing others for a goal that isn't their own. From Akuze to Overlord, their means would be totally acceptable if they took it upon themselves to take the hit.

[Seboist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

My precious DoD! Ain't this a sight for sore eyes!

I agree that it is a worthy cause, I just can't agree with the means to reach it; sacrificing others for a goal that isn't their own. From Akuze to Overlord, their means would be totally acceptable if they took it upon themselves to take the hit.

We know next to nothing about Akuze and Overlord originally had nothing to do with David.

[Seboist]

ddv.rsa wrote...

It also depends on what you think of Cerberus. Lots of people hate them, but personally I think "the advancement and preservation of humanity" is a worthy cause. Most of the things they've done so far have been neccessary, if brutal (eg Pragia, Overlord).

I didn't mind handing the CB over to TIM, since I largely agree with the principles guiding Cerberus.

I had a far easier time keeping the CB than keeping David in Overlord, in fact after hearing out TIM it was actually one of the easiest decisions I've made.

[Grim Intent]

Okay, regarding the whole end justifies the means thing i think you missed the point i was trying to convey when i said that it was immoral. when I say I believe the statement is immoral i'm referring to the liberal use of the ideology by Cerberus and The Illusive Man. The atrocities they've committed in the past were plain wrong. Maybe I should've said the ends don't ALWAYS justify the means but I thought it was implied. Yes, I understand there are times where using that line of thinking could be completely within moral bounds but for me that's not very often. It was late and I was tired of debating so I cut my response a little short but if you don't think the Illusive Man a terrible person watch the new brief interview with his voice actor Martin Sheen. He says and I quote "He's such a horrible man". So there you go. TIM's persona is meant to be portrayed as a villain as I thought was obvious. He used you to further his own selfish goals and if you were to surrender the base to him... Well, I guess only time will tell the implications of said actions. All I know is I believe I made the right decision in destroying it.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Seboist wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

My precious DoD! Ain't this a sight for sore eyes!

I agree that it is a worthy cause, I just can't agree with the means to reach it; sacrificing others for a goal that isn't their own. From Akuze to Overlord, their means would be totally acceptable if they took it upon themselves to take the hit.

We know next to nothing about Akuze and Overlord originally had nothing to do with David.

We know those marines didn't ask for what they got, nor did David, honorable as Overlord's initial intentions might have been.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 25 septembre 2011 - 01:22 .

[BlueMagitek]

ddv.rsa wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...
Throwing away something because it "might" be a threat is a poor decision.

By that logic I assuming you kept the genophage cure, spared the Rachni queen and rewrote the Heretics? 

Yes, yes  & no.

As any human knows, heretics must face the holy justice of exterminatus.

[Grim Intent]

lol exterminatus. just saying that word makes me laugh.

But seriously though, for those of you that think you made the right decision in keeping the base here's proof that you sided with the enemy. In this developer walkthrough you hear straight from Bioware that Cerberus are working for the Reapers. It's around the 3:00 mark I believe but there you go. Now I know I made the right decision based on my own sound logic.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Grim Intent, 25 septembre 2011 - 02:38 .

[GodWood]

Grim Intent wrote...
But seriously though, for those of you that think you made the right decision in keeping the base here's proof that you sided with the enemy. In this developer walkthrough you hear straight from Bioware that Cerberus are working for the Reapers. It's around the 3:00 mark I believe but there you go. Now I know I made the right decision based on my own sound logic.

www.youtube.com/watch 

Lolno

[Grim Intent]

GodWood wrote...

Grim Intent wrote...
But seriously though, for those of you that think you made the right decision in keeping the base here's proof that you sided with the enemy. In this developer walkthrough you hear straight from Bioware that Cerberus are working for the Reapers. It's around the 3:00 mark I believe but there you go. Now I know I made the right decision based on my own sound logic.

www.youtube.com/watch 

Lolno

No you refuse to watch the video? Or no that wasn't Casey Hudson stating that The Reapers are working with Cerberus and that The Illusive Man is behind Cerberus' actions? Cause uh, it's not up for debate bud. It was said from a reliable source. If you won't take someone straight from Bioware's word for it you're delusional. Now I see that the title of the thread seems fitting...

Modifié par Grim Intent, 25 septembre 2011 - 02:55 .

[BlueMagitek]

In the same breath he says you need to discover why that is. And considering it happens regardless of the CB's status, that does not mean giving them the base is the incorrect choice. ~_^