16 réponses à ce sujet

[DoomMech]

I certainly don't think so.

Okay for the uninformed, a Complete Monster is, as defined by TV  Tropes, "The most depraved of all characters; a villain utterly lacking in
redeeming features. Trying to put a value on the evilness of a Complete
Monster is like calculating the credit score of Bill Gates: it's a moot
point. Likewise, trying to find a drop of goodness in them is like
trying to find a specific grain of sand on every beach in the world:
it's impossible."


Now, for Archer to qualify for this label, he would have to have a complete and utter disregard for the lives of others, zero remorse, compassion, or will to act on either. He would have to be portrayed as so irredeemably evil, that the mere act of being near him gives you renegade points, but he's not.

Archer is not a monster. Yes, he hooked his brother up to an AI network that scrambled his brain, but he had no way of knowing what would be the outcome. Granted that is just as good a reason not to do the experiment, but he was pressured by TIM to use whatever means nessessary. He feels actual remorse for what he's done, and the purpose of Overlord was to stop a potential war with the geth, a noble (if futile post-Legion recruitment) goal meant to save lives.

It irks me that Shepard, regardless of alignment, acts the same towards Archer after discovering the fate of David. Shep always pimp-slaps Archer and calls him a bastard.
--------------------
Edit: Looking back at above, I guess I should elaborate a bit:
I don't feel Archer is complete monster, I just don't know why exactly I think he isn't. Usually I can tell if a villain is owed an asskicking right from the get go, but Archer makes me confused.

On the one hand: Horrible experiments peformed on David for the sake of SCIENCE.
On the other: Controlling the geth to prevent cataclysmic war. 

And Another thing: What about Malleon? Dude performed biological experiments on live sapients to undo the genophage, a measure meant to stop the krogan from overrunning the galaxy, not to mention the torture and executions that went on at his lab.
   

Modifié par DoomMech, 21 août 2011 - 07:22 .

[FemShep 4 President]

DoomMech wrote...

It irks me that Shepard, regardless of alignment, acts the same towards Archer after discovering the fate of David. Shep always pimp-slaps Archer and calls him a bastard.
   

It irked me too.

My canon renegon Shep wanted to blow his face off.

Is he a monster - no? No one is really a monster. He is a normal human being who has lost his grip on morality. But he shows little remorse for his actions, as he still wants to continue the experiments on his brother.

Maybe you could charitably call him a pragmatist, but it takes a certain kind of individual to experiment on their own autistic brother. So, whether you choose to allow the experiments to continue or not, Archer is still a 'bastard'.

[wizardryforever]

DoomMech wrote...

I certainly don't think so.

Okay for the uninformed, a Complete Monster is, as defined by TV  Tropes, "The most depraved of all characters; a villain utterly lacking in
redeeming features. Trying to put a value on the evilness of a Complete
Monster is like calculating the credit score of Bill Gates: it's a moot
point. Likewise, trying to find a drop of goodness in them is like
trying to find a specific grain of sand on every beach in the world:
it's impossible."


Now, for Archer to qualify for this label, he would have to have a complete and utter disregard for the lives of others, zero remorse, compassion, or will to act on either. He would have to be portrayed as so irredeemably evil, that the mere act of being near him gives you renegade points, but he's not.

Archer is not a monster. Yes, he hooked his brother up to an AI network that scrambled his brain, but he had no way of knowing what would be the outcome. Granted that is just as good a reason not to do the experiment, but he was pressured by TIM to use whatever means nessessary. He feels actual remorse for what he's done, and the purpose of Overlord was to stop a potential war with the geth, a noble (if futile post-Legion recruitment) goal meant to save lives.

It irks me that Shepard, regardless of alignment, acts the same towards Archer after discovering the fate of David. Shep always pimp-slaps Archer and calls him a bastard.
   

I gotta disagree with the bolded statement.  As I understand it, (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) autism is characterized by being hypersensitive to stimuli such as sounds.  Now take someone like that, and plug them into a network of thousands of machines all feeding information into his mind simultaneously.  What do you think the result will be?  The best would be the person just hides their consciousness from the stimulus, the worst would be going completely insane.  David did something in between.  He let the VI processes take over most of the time, and he's not directly responsible for what happened in that regard.

Now as someone who had extensive knowledge of both autism and the geth network, Archer had to know that plugging David into the network would not have favorable results.  The point is, he didn't care.  He was worried about his job security and made a rash decision hoping for a miracle.  That doesn't make him a complete monster, but it does make him a horrible human being.  What's even worse is that if David had been plugged into the galaxy-wide geth network, with trillions of minds, the results would have been even more catastrophic.

[Domanese]

It's not a matter of showing remorse for his actions but rather that he showed remorse for the wrong reasons and had the audacity to defend said actions as well. Also in Paragon ending he shows his true colors as a big fat lie in my opinion because he said and I quote "You cannot take him! He's too valuable!" and then tries to shoot Shepard. Hell even before that point Shepard points out that Cerebus would never let David go and all he has to say is that David "would at least be a live lab rat" or "he might regain some of his mind."

The guy does not show remorse for his actions but rather shows remorse that it failed. When I first saw David I was immediately horrified then outright angered at what Dr Archer did to his own autistic brother. The man is beyond redemption or atonement and I am surprised that Shepard didn't shoot Archer for that when the renegade option for Fist is to shoot him saying "Too many people died here Fist. You don't get to walk away." I know the man was a part of Cerebus but it still feels like Dr Archer got off easy.

[Konfined]

Not a complete monster by trope, but he definitely crossed the Moral Event Horizon on multiple levels, so he's not even remotely a sympathetic character.  A man willing to impale his own autistic brother to a machine like that?  There's really no line he wouldn't cross at that point.

Modifié par Konfined, 18 août 2011 - 10:53 .

[100k]

He's a Cerberus idealist like Miranda. His intentions are excellent, but his execution is highly questionable. I do agree that the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many -- so in that sense I agree with Cerberus. But Cerberus simply doesn't hold its personel, even Miranda, in very high security.

It may be true that the Illusive Man didn't know what was going to happen at Teltin, Prometheus Station, Lazarus Station, or even on Akuze...but he personally made sure that he was distant enough from these stations to promote the idea that Cerberus could do whatever it needed. The result of his conscious decision to turn a semi-blind eye to this? Many of his more ambitious ideas end in failure and death.

That's why I don't really support Cerberus.

[Domanese]

@Konfined - I agree but I still believe he fits the mold of Complete Monster because not only does he have the audacity to condemn his brother to that hell but also to make excuses for his actions and justify it. He has shown no honest remorse for what he did to his flesh and blood and even through Daivd's memories shown to Shepard, we find that he views his brother as nothing more then a burden and tries to turn David into an asset when he finds out he can communicate with the geth. In short, he saw his brother as a tool at best and a burden at worst. I find him to fit the Complete Monster label like a glove.

@100k Regarding Miranda, even she has standards in the fact that she may isolate herself from many people but she does sincerely love her sister and did everything she could to protect her from their "father". Hell even when playing the final boss when Illusive Man orders Miranda to stop Shepard from destroying the Collector base she refuses knowing the horrors that went on inside of it and is disgusted by the Illusive Man's reasoning. Dr Archer never shared that quality with Miranda.

But of course... Your Mileage May Vary.

[Onpoint17]

Obviously Cerberus didn't bring Shepard back exactly the way he was in ME1. Shepard felt like he'd been neutered in my opinion. What happened to the hardened renegade character that would tell people they didn't deserve to live and then gun them down in cold blood? Archer was a monster and he deserved to die!

[VoodooMonkey616]

DoomMech wrote...

Archer is not a monster. Yes, he hooked his brother up to an AI network that scrambled his brain, but he had no way of knowing what would be the outcome. Granted that is just as good a reason not to do the experiment, but he was pressured by TIM to use whatever means nessessary. He feels actual remorse for what he's done,
and the purpose of Overlord was to stop a potential war with the geth, a
noble (if futile post-Legion recruitment) goal meant to save lives.
   

I agree that he didn't know what the outcome would be, but he did know it would be a risk. And more than that, the key thing to keep in mind when considering experiments involving human subjects, is informed consent. It was simply impossible for David to agree to take part. Using your own autistic brother for any experiment, is just wrong.

I don't think he  shows any remorse at all for what he's done. He does say that what he did to David was unethical, but then disqualifies that statement by saying he wants to contine experimenting on him. As some people have said earlier, he only shows regret that it failed. And then if you do the paragon interrupt, shows his true colours when he describes his bother as "too valuable".

He may not meet the definition of a monster you have given, but in my book he's a monster.

Modifié par VoodooMonkey616, 20 août 2011 - 02:59 .

[eternalnightmare13]

 Gavin Archer is a sociopath.  My Shepard would've shot him in the daddy bags if given the opportunity.

[DoomMech]

Okay, here's a question for all you posters: what if Overlord worked?
What if everything had gone swimmingly, would you still feel the way you do.

And for the record, archer strikes me as someone who shouts FOR SCIENCE when questioned.

[mredders91]

A scientist with no ethical boundaries seems to be alot of them kind in game

As for him tho hard to say hes doesnt care for the cost so long as the finshed result is worth more long term and is willing to give up everthing and everyone around him (but not himself) to make sure it will work.

Modifié par mredders91, 21 août 2011 - 02:23 .

[Raven4030]

The biggest problem I see here is that you're using the TV Tropes definition of a "Monster". You're not going off of the dictionary, or linguistics or philosophy, you're going off of the definition of a bunch of dudes united by their love of TV. The trope of a complete monster isn't there to be used as a metric for morality, it is there to give the good guys something to kill without worrying the audience over whether or not the bad guys actually need killing. Somebody who accurately fills the definition of a complete monster would be locked away no matter the society, nobody would ever follow them. Even a mercenary would balk at working for a complete monster simply because they can't be sure they'll live to see their paycheck. If Gavin Archer fit the trope, TIM wouldn't have picked him to head the project.

Gavin Archer isn't a complete monster by trope, regardless of his selfish ambition he at least had the presence of mind to pursue his selfish ambition in a way that would be of benefit to all of humanity. However, through the use of any realistic standards he is a monster, he does reach the depths of moral depravity that would make even the most pacifist among us carefully consider their position on capital punishment, and hundreds paid the price for it, nearly trillions.

As far as your question of "what if he succeeded"? Well, we'd reap the benefits without ever knowing the details from a gameplay standpoint. It's kind of hard to call somebody monstrous when all you know is that they somehow made a genocidal machine race utterly passive. Now, if he succeeded and we knew what he did, he'd still be seen as a monster. Would pragmatism have to give way to morality? Probably. Wouldn't make Archer less of a monster though. But if he succeeded the only ones who'd know the details are himself, his immediate team, and David. As they say, the winners write the history books.

[Domanese]

@DoomMech: Not too certain of the specifics of your question but I believe what you are asking is "If David had been able to be controlled by Dr Archer and Cerebus would it make it okay in your eyes to allow it to continue had Shepard still arrived at Project Overlord's base of operations?"

The answer would still be no for me. There are some reasons why I chose this.

First off, David would have still been trying to escape that torture of being the core of that VI program and still begging "Quiet - Please make it stop" Even if it was successful it would have been utterly horrible and would be a considerable risk in the long run if David ever managed to break through whatever safeguards Cerebus had on him. I wouldn't have been able to stomach it nor sleep like that with the potential that David might get loose. So in short the events of Project Overlord could have still happened.

Second, when I first did Project Overlord, it was after I had done Legion's loyalty quest and the crew had not yet been abducted. So I knew better going in that controlling the geth like this was unethical. So taking in what know of the geth into account, that would be enslavement of an entire race if Project Overlord was allowed to continue. To restrain any race like that is horrifying and no better then what the Reapers did to the Collectors.

Third is that I know Cerebus were not having the galaxy's best interests at heart. Sure it might be humanity's best interests but that is all they are concerned with. If Project Overlord continued then that would have meant the geth would be working alongise Cerebus, including Legion. The fact that Cerebus was indoctrined proved my gut feeling was the right move to make and letting the project continue would make the Reapers that much stronger and more difficult to defeat in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Domanese, 21 août 2011 - 02:57 .

[DoomMech]

Domanese wrote...

@DoomMech: Not too certain of the specifics of your question but I believe what you are asking is "If David had been able to be controlled by Dr Archer and Cerebus would it make it okay in your eyes to allow it to continue had Shepard still arrived at Project Overlord's base of operations?"

The answer would still be no for me. There are some reasons why I chose this.

First off, David would have still been trying to escape that torture of being the core of that VI program and still begging "Quiet - Please make it stop" Even if it was successful it would have been utterly horrible and would be a considerable risk in the long run if David ever managed to break through whatever safeguards Cerebus had on him. I wouldn't have been able to stomach it nor sleep like that with the potential that David might get loose. So in short the events of Project Overlord could have still happened.

Second, when I first did Project Overlord, it was after I had done Legion's loyalty quest and the crew had not yet been abducted. So I knew better going in that controlling the geth like this was unethical. So taking in what know of the geth into account, that would be enslavement of an entire race if Project Overlord was allowed to continue. To restrain any race like that is horrifying and no better then what the Reapers did to the Collectors.

Third is that I know Cerebus were not having the galaxy's best interests at heart. Sure it might be humanity's best interests but that is all they are concerned with. If Project Overlord continued then that would have meant the geth would be working alongise Cerebus, including Legion. The fact that Cerebus was indoctrined proved my gut feeling was the right move to make and letting the project continue would make the Reapers that much stronger and more difficult to defeat in Mass Effect 3.

First, we don't know for certain David would still be trying to escape if Overlord worked, because Overlord is so out there, that predicting the results of plugging a guy who speaks math into the neural net would be pure speculation. You're thinking this way because you already know what of Overlord's failure.

Second, at the time of Overlord's conception, the geth were still the dread equivalent of space SKYNET. Sure we find out that most of the geth are harmless unless provoked, but that was after David had already broken free. Also geth are just machines, so applying our morality to them is pointless. Reapers indoctrinating Protheans into Collectors are onething, but stopping a mind hive machine race that worship elder cyborg gods with a sentient computer virus is somthing else entirely.

Third you are using knowledge to justify your reasoning that you didn't have at the time. At the time we didn't know that Cerberus was indoctrinated, and until ME3 comes out and confirms it, whether they've be indoctrinated at all! They could just really, really hate you.

[DoomMech]

mredders91 wrote...

A scientist with no ethical boundaries seems to be alot of them kind in game

As for him tho hard to say hes doesnt care for the cost so long as the finshed result is worth more long term and is willing to give up everthing and everyone around him (but not himself) to make sure it will work.

Gee, sounds alot like Renegade!Shepard!

[Raven4030]

DoomMech wrote...

mredders91 wrote...

A scientist with no ethical boundaries seems to be alot of them kind in game

As for him tho hard to say hes doesnt care for the cost so long as the finshed result is worth more long term and is willing to give up everthing and everyone around him (but not himself) to make sure it will work.

Gee, sounds alot like Renegade!Shepard!

Who is probably seen as a monster and/or usurper by most of the galaxy.