136 réponses à ce sujet

[D.I.Y_Death]

Been reading, came accross some silly genocide argument and someone making comparisons, using Starchild and Hitler. While I totally disagree with that it did get me thinking:

If there was 1 "evil" human that The Catalyst resembled who would it be?

Pol Pot, who revolutionized Cambodia, enacting his dream of a feudal system by killing the educated populus of his Country, esseintially starting a new cycle.

Now if we look at Starchild's actions what has it been doing? Erradicating all intelligent/sentient life in the Galaxy, resetting the cycle back to square 1.

Is it just me or did Bioware base The Catalyst off of the most vile, evil, worthless human to ever walk our planet?
Gawd I hate Starchild now BURN IN HELL EVIL MACHINE, lol.

[JBONE27]

Good spot. Though, I'm not sure that Pol Pot is the most, but he's definitely in the top 3... he may be the most.

[Tehzim]

Well I'll give you credit for picking a less popular genocidal maniac. Hitler is SO last gen. ::grabs Starbucks Cup and adjusts Beret::

[D.I.Y_Death]

I'd consider Stalin to be on par with Pol Pot even though STalin's idealology wasn't so broken it was stupid, he was just absurdly oppressive on a massive scale. Other than that I can't think of anyone who comes close to being as bad as Pol Pot. Please don't say Hitler, the guy was a racist somewhat genocidal maniac but without the genocide he'd probably be a German war hero since you know...he ended the German economic collapse, is responsible for leaps and strides in medical technology and even built the world's first anti-matter generator.

A bit off topic but it's related. I want your oponions on this too guys! But please, keep it civil or I report. If you find yourself getting anygry just walk away, thanks in advance.

[JBONE27]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

I'd consider Stalin to be on par with Pol Pot even though STalin's idealology wasn't so broken it was stupid, he was just absurdly oppressive on a massive scale. Other than that I can't think of anyone who comes close to being as bad as Pol Pot. Please don't say Hitler, the guy was a racist somewhat genocidal maniac but without the genocide he'd probably be a German war hero since you know...he ended the German economic collapse, is responsible for leaps and strides in medical technology and even built the world's first anti-matter generator.

A bit off topic but it's related. I want your oponions on this too guys! But please, keep it civil or I report. If you find yourself getting anygry just walk away, thanks in advance.

I was going to say Thomas De Torquematta.  He was the archetect of the Inquestion, and unlike Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, he didn't kill them efficiantly, he delighted in torturing them to death for being accused of being Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, gay, etc.

[D.I.Y_Death]

JBONE27 wrote...

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

I'd consider Stalin to be on par with Pol Pot even though STalin's idealology wasn't so broken it was stupid, he was just absurdly oppressive on a massive scale. Other than that I can't think of anyone who comes close to being as bad as Pol Pot. Please don't say Hitler, the guy was a racist somewhat genocidal maniac but without the genocide he'd probably be a German war hero since you know...he ended the German economic collapse, is responsible for leaps and strides in medical technology and even built the world's first anti-matter generator.

A bit off topic but it's related. I want your oponions on this too guys! But please, keep it civil or I report. If you find yourself getting anygry just walk away, thanks in advance.

I was going to say Thomas De Torquematta.  He was the archetect of the Inquestion, and unlike Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, he didn't kill them efficiantly, he delighted in torturing them to death for being accused of being Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, gay, etc.

That's right up there with Elizabeth Bathory type-evil. Wow.

[MalevoIence]

Dunno how they can say a hive mind of machines programmed to repeat a process every 50000 yrs is considered evil. It's like Thane, he's been programmed to be a cold killer, don't consider him evil, or Samara programmed to kill whom she deems wicked, evil police trying to enforce the law on her. Reapers aren't evil, they're just sentient machines, not really any different from either Samara, Thane, or Legion. So, if it is possible to reprogram them, then Im certian it's theoretically possible. Another reason why think the indoc theory is bullcrap. Genocide of all synthetic life shows organics and synthetics can't coexist, proving the starchild's point. Just like reprogramming the heretics is a Paragon choice, reprogramming the Reapers is the same sort of choice, opposed to complete destruction of a people.

[Farbautisonn]

Pol pot is actually a pretty good bid. He was trying to build his "workers/proletariate paradise" by eradicating everyone who wasnt a worker/proletarian. Insane and absurd logic sure, it was popular enough to let him get a following.


What bothers me about the catalyst is that he is presented some sort of "god", that has the ability to force you into doing his bidding. He takes the shape of a human child to present himself as the least threateningly possible entity, and yet every single action he proposes for Shep is the equivalentof mass genocide.

The reapers are a  tool for this entity. They do what they are supposed to and nothing more. But for the supposed omnipotence and omniscience of this "god" his tools stll employ "rayguns" and mass effect propelled projectiles. if one observes the kardashev scale, it just seems as if they arent that advanced... and thusly that reflects on their makers. The reapers do not evolve. Like crocodiles or sharks they have adapted themselves to the environment to the point where they are the evolutionary top. So they are stagnant. 37 million years would have caused a biological civilisation (if one survived and thrived that long) to be extremely high on the kardashev scale. If not a hypothetical type four or even beyond, then certainly a type 3 civilization.

The reason why the "civilisation level" of the reapers becomes interesting is because people say that because Clarkes third law has been invoked, spacemagic is ok. However I dont see the reapers as going much beyond a type one civilization. They aren't that advanced. And their implementation of their project certainly isnt beyond a type one civilization. If I didnt know any better Id say that some advanced HAL2000 created by a biological race who ascended to a greater state of existance forgot about their tool, and that HAL2000 now commands the biomechanical version of Vogons. Spacehal got pissed that his creators abandoned him and tries to take it out on ever biological race. For all of this "spacehals" supposed omniscience his logic is so flawed it hurts, and he seems to be impotent without his reaper tools. A type three civillization would employ tech that was so advanced it would be indistinguishable from the forces of nature as we know them and would furthermore be so far beyond our comprehension it would likely try to teach goldfish theorhetical physics. Any desire or wish of a type 3 civilisation would likely manifest itself just by sheer thought. If they so desired, they could "wish" the reapers away. They could also "wish" for synthetics to act a certain way, thusly never becomming a problem.

That leads me to believe that spacekid here is nothing more than a petty machine dictator, revelling in his own power, causing destruction for the sake of destruction, but has the perverse desire to repeat this holocaust ad nauseam, which causes him to leave biological life alone on some planets, so he can wipe it out when it comes of age. He has no curiosity, no wish to expand his "empire" beyond this galaxy, and indeed seems totally uninterested in what other galaxies and indeed the universe has to offer. He lacks the very essential curiosity that would propel biological races into going beyond their planets, and beyond their galaxy. And the vastness of the universe means that a biological race could stay curious forever, The curiosity which in my opinion is the "divine trait" of humanity/biological races escapes him completely. He just does the same over and over and over again and has been doing it apparenlty for 37 million years. And yet he does it because its his "job". Which makes him a Vogon too.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 03 avril 2012 - 09:18 .

[Achire]

Let's not demean Pol Pot (well, his memory) by comparing the Star Child to him.

[DigitalAvatar]

JBONE27 wrote...

I was going to say Thomas De Torquematta.  He was the archetect of the Inquestion, and unlike Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, he didn't kill them efficiantly, he delighted in torturing them to death for being accused of being Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, gay, etc.

I didn't expect that.

[VolusvsReaper]

Comparing people who led the slaughtering of millions to a fictionalized video game character is pretty sick fyi.

[blunznsepp]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Comparing people who led the slaughtering of millions to a fictionalized video game character is pretty sick fyi.

^this +1

[Lotion Soronarr]

Farbautisonn wrote...

The reapers are a  tool for this entity. They do what they are supposed to and nothing more. But for the supposed omnipotence and omniscience of this "god" his tools stll employ "rayguns" and mass effect propelled projectiles. if one observes the kardashev scale, it just seems as if they arent that advanced... and thusly that reflects on their makers. The reapers do not evolve. Like crocodiles or sharks they have adapted themselves to the environment to the point where they are the evolutionary top. So they are stagnant. 37 million years would have caused a biological civilisation (if one survived and thrived that long) to be extremely high on the kardashev scale. If not a hypothetical type four or even beyond, then certainly a type 3 civilization.

That is of cours, assuming the kadashev scale has any actual truth to it.
It assumes humans would be able to completely harness and control any object or force in the universe.

[Farbautisonn]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That is of cours, assuming the kadashev scale has any actual truth to it.
It assumes humans would be able to completely harness and control any object or force in the universe.

-Given sufficient time, I dont see the problem. 2k years ago the cosmos was magic and deity made. In two k years who knows what the world will look like. 50K years at the currently almost exponentially increasingly technological development? I really dont think any of us has sufficiant imagination to picture that.

[D.I.Y_Death]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Comparing people who led the slaughtering of millions to a fictionalized video game character is pretty sick fyi.

I don't see how if you think about this logically. Starchild and Pol Pot had pretty much the same plan. Hence the comparison. Only reason why a person could think this is sick is some skewed sense of morality that doesn't even apply to the situation.

[The Razman]

Same method, different intention.

Pol Pot just wanted to impose his own political/social dynamic on a group of people. It wasn't that everyone in the country would die if he didn't, it's just he thought it would be "better". The Starchild is doing it because otherwise, he argues everyone will die. That's what makes the morality of it deliciously complex.

[AkiKishi]

Complex ? hahahaha

[Farbautisonn]

The Razman wrote...

Same method, different intention.

Pol Pot just wanted to impose his own political/social dynamic on a group of people. It wasn't that everyone in the country would die if he didn't, it's just he thought it would be "better". The Starchild is doing it because otherwise, he argues everyone will die. That's what makes the morality of it deliciously complex.

-Only problem is we only have starchilds word for it. So if we choose not to belive him, which we have very little reason to, there is no moral complexity. We are being pidgeonholed into making morally and ethically obscene choises, because a hologram says so. The starchild is imposing his own "political/social" dynamics on the galaxy simply because he thinks this is the "better way".

There is no complexity to this. He is making Shephard an accomplice to his mass holocaust. And we have no way to turn him down or verify his claims. Its a dictate.

[The Razman]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Complex ? hahahaha

Ok. I'll bite.

Suppose for just a minute that the Starchild's assertion that given enough technological progression galactic civilisation will invent synthetics that will destroy all life in the galaxy is irrefutable. It's a given; if species become advanced enough, it will happen and we'll all be destroyed.

You can't try and stop the synthetics once they're created, because you both may not be able to match their power by that point, and even if you destroy them the technology to create them has been invented so they'll just come back almost immediately. Now, just for a second, take it as irrefutable that the only surefire 100% certain way of stopping the synthetics rising is to prevent their invention in the first place. Which the cycle system of the Reapers does.

Do you kill some to save everyone?

[ArthurBDD]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Comparing people who led the slaughtering of millions to a fictionalized video game character is pretty sick fyi.

Well, to be fair, we are talking about the reasons a fictionalised video game character offers for slaughtering billions of people. In those circumstances I don't think it is entirely unfair to point at all the people who in the past have decided that it was necessary to kill people on that scale and say "You know what? If your plan prompts you to act like these guys, something's gone very very wrong".

Sure, the Catalyst's logic seemed sound, but only if you accept the axioms it puts forward. Hitler's agenda seemed like a good idea if you agreed with him that Jews and other desirables would invariably corrupt any society they were a part of. Likewise, the Starchild's agenda makes sense only if you already agree that a) a technological singularity is inevitable and a technological singularity would be a bad thing.

This is one of the big problems with the ending: there's no scope for your Shepard to say "Sorry, pal, but you're basing this argument on assumptions I just plain don't agree with".

[Arkitekt]

Pol Pot wasn't exactly ascending the intellectuals to a higher state of being, now was he?

/Thread

[Farbautisonn]

The Razman wrote...

Ok. I'll bite.

Suppose for just a minute that the Starchild's assertion that given enough technological progression galactic civilisation will invent synthetics that will destroy all life in the galaxy is irrefutable. It's a given; if species become advanced enough, it will happen and we'll all be destroyed.

You can't try and stop the synthetics once they're created, because you both may not be able to match their power by that point, and even if you destroy them the technology to create them has been invented so they'll just come back almost immediately. Now, just for a second, take it as irrefutable that the only surefire 100% certain way of stopping the synthetics rising is to prevent their invention in the first place. Which the cycle system of the Reapers does.

Do you kill some to save everyone?

First of all thats an awfull lot of supposition. Second we allready have insetting empirical evidence to the fact that this might not at all be a given as we are able to create a (tentative?) peace between the Geth and the quarians. Thirdly  the logic of saving someone by killing them or turning them into paste for a machine-organic hybrid is a violation of any and all moralities and ethics and is inheritly illogical. 

So no. There is no complexity. Only obscenity.

[AkiKishi]

The Razman wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Complex ? hahahaha

Ok. I'll bite.

Suppose for just a minute that the Starchild's assertion that given enough technological progression galactic civilisation will invent synthetics that will destroy all life in the galaxy is irrefutable. It's a given; if species become advanced enough, it will happen and we'll all be destroyed.

You can't try and stop the synthetics once they're created, because you both may not be able to match their power by that point, and even if you destroy them the technology to create them has been invented so they'll just come back almost immediately. Now, just for a second, take it as irrefutable that the only surefire 100% certain way of stopping the synthetics rising is to prevent their invention in the first place. Which the cycle system of the Reapers does.

Do you kill some to save everyone?

It's childrens logic.

We have every reason to believe that Iran will become a problem in the future. We don't nuke Iran just in case.

[The Razman]

Farbautisonn wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Same method, different intention.

Pol Pot just wanted to impose his own political/social dynamic on a group of people. It wasn't that everyone in the country would die if he didn't, it's just he thought it would be "better". The Starchild is doing it because otherwise, he argues everyone will die. That's what makes the morality of it deliciously complex.

-Only problem is we only have starchilds word for it. So if we choose not to belive him, which we have very little reason to, there is no moral complexity. We are being pidgeonholed into making morally and ethically obscene choises, because a hologram says so. The starchild is imposing his own "political/social" dynamics on the galaxy simply because he thinks this is the "better way".

There is no complexity to this. He is making Shephard an accomplice to his mass holocaust. And we have no way to turn him down or verify his claims. Its a dictate.

If you choose not to believe him, then you've pretty much screwed yourself over for everything that you've been working for the entire game. Meeting the Catalyst is what you wanted. You fought Kai Leng and the Illusive Man and all of that stuff so you could activate the Crucible and hope that it did something that could stop the Reapers.

What you want is to come all that way and then say "On second thoughts ... even though stopping the Reapers is the only thing that matters to me, I don't believe you when you're telling me you're giving me a way, and I'd rather let civilisation die". And while Sheperd letting humanity and galactic civilisation die because he wants to be a dick at the final moment would make an amusing easter egg ... it's not really a practical option, is it?

You don't have to like the Starchild's reasons for doing what it did. The Starchild is offering you options to end the cycle, which is what you want. That you don't like them is very much a "I want to have an omelette, but I don't want to break these eggs" situation.

[The Razman]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Complex ? hahahaha

Ok. I'll bite.

Suppose for just a minute that the Starchild's assertion that given enough technological progression galactic civilisation will invent synthetics that will destroy all life in the galaxy is irrefutable. It's a given; if species become advanced enough, it will happen and we'll all be destroyed.

You can't try and stop the synthetics once they're created, because you both may not be able to match their power by that point, and even if you destroy them the technology to create them has been invented so they'll just come back almost immediately. Now, just for a second, take it as irrefutable that the only surefire 100% certain way of stopping the synthetics rising is to prevent their invention in the first place. Which the cycle system of the Reapers does.

Do you kill some to save everyone?

It's childrens logic.

We have every reason to believe that Iran will become a problem in the future. We don't nuke Iran just in case.

I asked you to take the Starchild's assertion that it will 100% happen as irrefutable. That is what the Starchild believes, for whatever reason.

Not the same analogy as what's going on in Mass Effect 3, but if you knew Iran would 100% become a problem in the future, would you nuke it?