3618 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

@Ausstig,

I have already explained my personal reasoning for destroying the base, and while I agree with Saphra that a lot of people are relying on BioWare to save the 'good guys', my decision was based on logic and current estimates of risk vs reward. Go read through the beginning of the thread if you care about the details.

[Barquiel]

Ausstig wrote...

So people who blew up the base, how do you plan to fight the reapers? Do you have a better option?
OR is it just................
I don't know blind faith that the game will give you something? what?

Paragon Shepard doesn't return empty-handed. EDI has already datamined the base's computers and got information from it.

[RocketManSR2]

That place was an abomination. The only thing that place was good at was killing humans and feeding their remains to a reaper larvae. Good riddance. How many other species suffered and died in that awful place? Besides, I do believe EDI came through again for us. It was worth noting that Joker walked all the way down to the cargo hold to give that datapad to Shepard. It must have been vital information that Joker trusted no one else with.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 30 juillet 2011 - 09:54 .

[Seboist]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

So people who blew up the base, how do you plan to fight the reapers? Do you have a better option?
OR is it just................
I don't know blind faith that the game will give you something? what?

They know Bioware will come along and save them.

If that ends up being the case, I hope not.

Oh, it WILL be the case. The outcomes of the sacrifice/save the council showed us that Bioware has their holy paladin paragons covered 100%.

[SandTrout]

Seboist wrote...

Oh, it WILL be the case. The outcomes of the sacrifice/save the council showed us that Bioware has their holy paladin paragons covered 100%.

To be fair, Seboist, this is at least partially for PR purposes. They don't want certain lawyers sueing them with claims that they justify murder and genocide.

[Seboist]

SandTrout wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Oh, it WILL be the case. The outcomes of the sacrifice/save the council showed us that Bioware has their holy paladin paragons covered 100%.

To be fair, Seboist, this is at least partially for PR purposes. They don't want certain lawyers sueing them with claims that they justify murder and genocide.

Nintendo never faced any trouble over Samus Aran's multiple counts of genocide. :happy:

Modifié par Seboist, 30 juillet 2011 - 10:09 .

[SandTrout]

Seboist wrote..
NIntendo never faced any trouble over Samus Aran's multiple counts of genocide. :happy:

I never said that the accusation was logical or particularly consistant, and the player of Metroid is never granted a choice over their overal actions.

I could see a lawyer or lawmaker taking the fact that the functionally superior choice involves murder and genocide and misconstruing it to place legal restrictions on the industry.

Thank you SCOTUS for shooting down California's assinine law, BTW.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Medhia Nox wrote...

I just don't see where everyone instantly thinks:

Wow, this thing's sole purpose is for storing species and making coolatta's out of the stored species.

There must be uber-win weapon schematics on here!!

What?[/quote]

It was used to build a reaper dude.
There's more in it then sjtu human milkshake machine.

Or do you think the reaper skelton, engines, and other bits built itself out of nothing?
[/quote]

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I don't think it is anything that dramatic, SandTrout.

What, specifically, are you commenting on?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

both decision are blind faith.period.

Actually keeping the base is blind faith in something good/useful could come from it and blind faith in TIM's willingness to use whatever discovered(if anything) will be used for the greater good and not only his ends.

Blowing up the base is lack of faith in the same.

Eh? Wrong conclusion Doc.

Keeeping the base is trusting in something you know it's likely to happen.

There is a high chance the base will turn out SOMETIHNG usefull, because it's full of technology.

There is a high chance TIM will play ball, because it's also in his best interst to do so (and humanitties). And if he doesn't and does the research only for himself, than that research data will still exist and you can take it by force.
Hence, regardless if you trust TIM or not, if you keep the base, any data gained from it will be there for Shep/Alliance to take.


Blowing the base is trusting that something new will come up, which is compeltely blind faith, as you have absolultely nothing to base it upon. Exactly on what does one base this hope on?




And lastly, one must gauge the threat presented by Cerberus accurately.

(1+1) + 4 = 3 +4 = 7

"1+1" is gauing the Cerberus threat. If you get that wrong, evne if the 3+4 part is correct, the entire calculation still ends up wrong.

So while starting with the assumption that Cerberus is super-dangerous and therefore determining teh base should be destroyed does make sense, coming to the assumption trough a flawed conclusion/logic still makes the final argument flawed.

Cerberus quite simply isn't a big enough threat.

EDIT:
got to ask this - for you that blew the base up..how many of you saved the Rachnii queen? And how do you justify that decision in comparison, given that the Reachnii are a bigger possible threat than Cerberus?

[SandTrout]

@Saphra Deden,

An actual lawsuit may be a little melodrama on my part, but I think that there are serious PR concerns, especially considering the notorious Fox reaction to blue alien sex.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

@Saphra Deden,

An actual lawsuit may be a little melodrama on my part, but I think that there are serious PR concerns, especially considering the notorious Fox reaction to blue alien sex.

If anything Fox just increased Mass Effect's notoriety, making people more curious to buy it. There's no such thing as bad publicity, they say.

Eh..can't agree on that.

The Fox thing wokred because it peaked peoples interest.
Publicity can also lower interest.

It depends. I know  I've seen publicity stunts and commercials that really turned me OFF the product...forever.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 juillet 2011 - 11:51 .

[Phaedon]

Pride Demon wrote...

Neither choice is morally superior to the other, since there is not a fixed universal definition of what is moral, so one could argue each of the sides is the moral one...
Neither choice is tactically superior to the other, since both choices address a part of the problem leaving another one hanging dangerously in the wind...

In the end, I merely take the choice I think my current Shep, with his/her morals, would take...

No, yes and no.

No, because I believe that there is a clear tactical advantage by destroying the base. I have demonestrated how and why.

Yes, because keeping or saving the base will be a moral double edged sword at all times. If you keep it, you are doing the moral thing for trying to save your life and the life of others, and you are doing the immoral thing by giving it to a criminal organization with some hints as to wanting to use it against aliens.

Destroying the base is moral because you are saving a lot of lives that way (Hint: Cerberus is hunted by several groups, and has anti-alien tendencies, they are much more likely to use it than surrender), but immoral because you are throwing away a potential weapon.

That is of course, in the case that you Shepard is in a state of ignorance (which secures the moral neutrality) as to the actual usefulness (or lack thereof) of the base.

No, because personal morals have nothing to do with justifying an action as moral or immoral. All of us have goals and way of living our lifes, but the actual rule for what is moral or not is normative ethics. Calling all dogs "cats" instead of "dogs", doesn't really matter if it is right or not, in your opinion, because everyone else is calling them dogs.

In short, the relative morality argument doesn't really work. Because there is no point in it. An action is considered as moral or not, based on normative ethics and/or deontological codes. There are many rules to which you can adapt your morals, but restricting the evaluation of an action to a single person basically contradicts the point of evaluating something.

[Pride Demon]

Phaedon wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Neither choice is morally superior to the other, since there is not a fixed universal definition of what is moral, so one could argue each of the sides is the moral one...
Neither choice is tactically superior to the other, since both choices address a part of the problem leaving another one hanging dangerously in the wind...

In the end, I merely take the choice I think my current Shep, with his/her morals, would take...

No, because personal morals have nothing to do with justifying an action as moral or immoral. All of us have goals and way of living our lifes, but the actual rule for what is moral or not is normative ethics. Calling all dogs "cats" instead of "dogs", doesn't really matter if it is right or not, in your opinion, because everyone else is calling them dogs.

In short, the relative morality argument doesn't really work. Because there is no point in it. An action is considered as moral or not, based on normative ethics and/or deontological codes. There are many rules to which you can adapt your morals, but restricting the evaluation of an action to a single person basically contradicts the point of evaluating something.

From what I know Etics and Morals aren't the same thing...
Morals are a totally personal belief of what is good and evil... Etics are an outside regulation introduced to codify whats considered acceptable in a determined area..
Basically morals are personal, etics are social and in some cases etics superceed morals, in other the opposite is true...

An example: a lawyer defending a murdered, that knows he is guilty, will be morally compelled to avoid defending him, but his work's etics demand that he still defend him in the best possible way, even risking having him pardoned, because such a course of action is deemed necessary by society to assure a party is judged correctly and deemed innocent unless proved otherwise beyond resonable doubt...

To call D&D in the example... Lawful/Chaotic represents a etical POV, Good/Evil a moral POV...

That's just my opinon anyway, and i agree with the rest of the post, i still hadn't read you original post when I posted mine...

[Lumikki]

Actually morality is connected to ethics.

"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc."

Your example about ethics wasn't right, it's not ethics what makes lawyer to defent murder, it's corrupt society rules what makes him to do it. Lawyer who has high moral would NEVER defend murders, when knowing it. Defense lawyers do it because it's they duty for society as job or because money.

Modifié par Lumikki, 30 juillet 2011 - 12:34 .

[Phaedon]

Pride Demon wrote...

From what I know Etics and Morals aren't the same thing...
Morals are a totally personal belief of what is good and evil... Etics are an outside regulation introduced to codify whats considered acceptable in a determined area..
Basically morals are personal, etics are social and in some cases etics superceed morals, in other the opposite is true...

Sort of. I wouldn't go as far as define ethics and morals, but yes, you can have your unique way of living your life and setting goals, follow various philosophies, but there is only one general rule in every society.

An example: a lawyer defending a murdered, that knows he is guilty, will be morally compelled to avoid defending him, but his work's etics demand that he still defend him in the best possible way, even risking having him pardoned, because such a course of action is deemed necessary by society to assure a party is judged correctly and deemed innocent unless proved otherwise beyond resonable doubt...

Not really.
A lawyer who makes a guilty party considered as innocent by the jury is unethical. The point is that lawyers are there to protect your rights, no matter how guilty you are or not. It's perfectly ethical to protect the personal rights of someone who is guilty.

To call D&D in the example... Lawful/Chaotic represents a etical POV, Good/Evil a moral POV...

That's just my opinon anyway, and i agree with the rest of the post, i still hadn't read you original post when I posted mine...

Actually, no, I disagree. That's where the seperation between law and justice begins.

Law is often the representantion of normative ethics, but because it is pre-made it can not apply to all situations well. Sometimes not following the law is the moral thing to do.

Having the society teach you a code about how to do things may sound silly, but the normative ethics of most modern societies are based on our own collective empathy, due to which we don't want to see ourselves or a third party get hurt. 

If your goal is only personal gain and don't care if people die or get hurt while you are accomplishing your goal, I can't see how you can live a healthy life in an organized society.

Modifié par Phaedon, 30 juillet 2011 - 12:53 .

[Phaedon]

Lumikki wrote...

Actually morality is connected to ethics.

"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc."

Your example about ethics wasn't right, it's not ethics what makes lawyer to defent murder, it's corrupt society rules what makes him to do it. Lawyer who has high moral would NEVER defend murders, when knowing it. Defense lawyers do it because it's they duty for society as job or because money.

As I said, lawyers should protect the rights of a murderer, it is unethical to do otherwise. Sure, there are a lot of greedy idiots who allow a criminal go free by manipulating the jury, but that's not necessarily the general rule. You can't have much of a fair trial without a lawyer.

Let's not go ahead and try to define ethics and other concepts. It doesn't need to be complicated, everyone has their own rules of how they live, sometimes taken from a philosophical position on morality (idealism, utilitarianism, machiavellianism, etc), but the general rule which defines actions based on their morality is the product of the collective morality of society, normative ethics.

[Pride Demon]

Lumikki wrote...

Actually morality is connected to ethics.

"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc."

Your example about ethics wasn't right, it's not ethics what makes lawyer to defent murder, it's corrupt society rules what makes him to do it. Lawyer who has high moral would NEVER defend murders, when knowing it. Defense lawyers do it because it's they duty for society as job or because money.

Maybe I explained myself wrongly...
I meant to say that morals and ethics are different in the way they are enforced on the individual...
Morals are strictly personal and enforced by one's "conscience", ethics are instead a form of "morals" introduced by an outside entity (be that a nation, a union of professionals, a philosophy or something else)...
In states where death penalty is legal, death penalty is thus considered ethical (since the laws of that nation endorse it in some cases), that doesn't mean each and every citizen of said nation considers death penalty to be morally acceptable...

For a more clear idea of what I meant look here...
Like I said it's just my opinion... So peace...

[Rahmiel]

Personally, I don't see a difference between keeping the base, or destroying it. Most of the arguments in here seem to boil down to "I like blue!" "Well I like red!"

Just curious though, but a major theme in this entire series has been developing along paths not laid out by the Reapers. If one kept the base to learn Reaper tech, wouldn't that be progressing along the path of the Reapers?

As others have pointed out, there are good reasons and in game justification of keeping or destroying the Reaper base. I do not think it's right for anyone to say this is the "right" decision. I think it boils down to "I like blue" and someone else saying "well you're wrong, because I like red!" Is either choice wrong? I fail to see how you can tell someone they're wrong for liking blue and vice versa.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The path laid out by the Reapers is MASS RELAYS.

If races become dependent on them for FTL, then the reapers can close the network down and isolate the races.

Us looking into Sovereigns remains and the base is NOT what they had planned or wanted.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 juillet 2011 - 01:29 .

[Skorpion_hrv]

What if this was the other way around? e.g. Shepard was working for the Council all along and they asked him/her to keep the base (lets say that STG ships were already on the way to secure the base). TIM realizes this in the last minute, contacts Shephard and tells him/her that he/she should destroy the base. EDI would do the datamining and that way any useful information would remain only in human hands.
No doubt the ''basedestroyers'' would then be ''basesaviors'' and vice versa, giving the same, but with reversed roles, rationale.