296 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

WilliamDracul88 wrote...

"and having to erradicate all sentient life of a planet populated by billions, including, I INSIST, childs, babys, elders, non-combatants, and then letting THE FASTER OF THEM to run away" are totally the same thing.

Sorry pal, but if tomorrow the machines rebel in London, I would be there fighting for humankind, which is you, and me, and every other poster.

How many of those deaths were the Quarians responsible for? We know there were dissenters.
What were the Geth supposed to do? Turtle and let the Quarians bomb them to dust?

All the Geth ever wanted was to self-determinate, the moment the Quarians stopped shooting at them, the Geth were eager to welcome them back.
It's not mine or the Geth's fault that you assume the worst even though the Quarians have been provably belligerent.

[SpiffsGhost]

anlk92 wrote...



I'm not defending the other two choices. None of the choices are morally gray, they're flat out unethical and wrong.

Then why argue against synthesis so strongly? The ethics of our generation, here and now, indeed conflict with all of the choices, but the scale of this issue is so beyond that. We are a galaxy on the brink of annihilation, and the best way to break the cycle and propel life into a better future is to remove the central reason, the propellant, for the cyclic extinction in the first place.

- Spiff

Modifié par SpiffsGhost, 08 avril 2012 - 09:07 .

[The Angry One]

Pottumuusi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

made to pay for their crimes

That sure sounds a lot like vengeance.

You know what? Call it what you like. By your logic, our society of laws is a society of vengeance.

[jengelb1]

SpiffsGhost wrote...

anlk92 wrote...



I'm not defending the other two choices. None of the choices are morally gray, they're flat out unethical and wrong.

Then why argue against synthesis so strongly? The ethics of our generation, here and now, indeed conflict with all of the choices, but the scale of this issue is so beyond that. We are a galaxy on the brink of annihilation, and the best way to break the cycle and propel life into a better future is to remove the central reason, the propellant, for the cyclic extinction in the first place.

- Spiff

The "reason" for the cycle is the Catalyst and its Reapers. They still exist post-synthesis.

They are a solution to a problem that they created. The answer to a question that they asked.

Modifié par jengelb1, 08 avril 2012 - 09:10 .

[GBJ13]

The Synthesis ending seems morally worse the more I think about. I have not seen these in the thread. (apologies if I missed them).

First, why does it need a human sacrifice? That part just seemed bizarre. From a literary
perspective, I get the idea that Shepherd needs to die to allow paradise to occur, completing his arc as a Christ-like figure. However, I'm not sure why Shepherd has to leap into the beam. Couldn't they have just taken a tissue sample? Like the thing has the power to spread genetic material all over the known universe, but it requires I get vaporized to do so? Weird.
Second, why do I get to use my genes for this? Like I get that Shpeherd is pretty awesome, but like... why should everybody get crazy Shepherd-star child modified genes?

[Orthodox Infidel]

EvilMind wrote...

According to Kid, destroy option 100% will lead to life extinction in the future, why its not morally difficult for majority to pick it? We dont know if Kid is lying, its 50/50 and if you're wrong - you're responsible for the death of whole galaxy

Organic life still exists. Therefore, all organic life has never been wiped out. It is impossible to assign any probability to an event which has never taken place, unless it's a trivial, highly structured event like the likelyhood of winning a game of chance. The brat is completely incorrect to state that all organic life will be certainly wiped out.

[Pottumuusi]

The Angry One wrote...


You know what? Call it what you like. By your logic, our society of laws is a society of vengeance.

No, not as long as the sentences we give serve some sort of purpose, such as making sure that murderers can't murder people because they are in prison. But it has nothing to do with "making them pay for their crimes".

Modifié par Pottumuusi, 08 avril 2012 - 09:10 .

[Thalorin1919]

I liked that there was moral implications with every choice, it didn't make the decision easy.

Control the Reapers may seem like the best first as EVERYONE lives, there is no forced synthesis, but can you trust Shepard to maintain a constant state of personality where he won't grow corrupt and turn the Reapers around back on the galaxy?

Or with Synthesis with the forced combination of synthetic and organic DNA on the galaxy - granted it may be the best as there will be no more conflict, but is it morally right for Shepard to do this?

And with the destroy - you rid the Reapers forever, but races like the Geth are killed off, and the future may still be riddled with war between Organics and Synthetics.

Hopefully more of the variation of each choice is shown in the extended cut - something to show what happens with the choice you make.

[Geth_Huntha]

The Angry One wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

made to pay for their crimes

That sure sounds a lot like vengeance.

You know what? Call it what you like. By your logic, our society of laws is a society of vengeance.

Actually, I think you're both right. Justice is a means of vengence by holding criminals accountable for their crimes.

[firebladec]

The Angry One wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

made to pay for their crimes

That sure sounds a lot like vengeance.

You know what? Call it what you like. By your logic, our society of laws is a society of vengeance.

it is vengence when the action goes beyond acting as a deterent or to protecting society from something, deterents wouldnt work against the reapers, protection maybe, but not if there isnt an alternative that doesnt require it.

[EvilMind]

SpiffsGhost wrote...

anlk92 wrote...



I'm not defending the other two choices. None of the choices are morally gray, they're flat out unethical and wrong.

Then why argue against synthesis so strongly? The ethics of our generation, here and now, indeed conflict with all of the choices, but the scale of this issue is so beyond that. We are a galaxy on the brink of annihilation, and the best way to break the cycle and propel life into a better future is to remove the central reason, the propellant, for the cyclic extinction in the first place.

- Spiff

^This

[jengelb1]

Thalorin1919 wrote...

I liked that there was moral implications with every choice, it didn't make the decision easy.

Control the Reapers may seem like the best first as EVERYONE lives, there is no forced synthesis, but can you trust Shepard to maintain a constant state of personality where he won't grow corrupt and turn the Reapers around back on the galaxy?

Or with Synthesis with the forced combination of synthetic and organic DNA on the galaxy - granted it may be the best as there will be no more conflict, but is it morally right for Shepard to do this?

And with the destroy - you rid the Reapers forever, but races like the Geth are killed off, and the future may still be riddled with war between Organics and Synthetics.

Hopefully more of the variation of each choice is shown in the extended cut - something to show what happens with the choice you make.

Regarding control:

Personally speaking, I don't need to control the reapers for all that long. Just long enough to send every stinking one of the metal motherf******rs into the nearest star.

[kimuji]

You sure can see the synthesis as a forced evolution but this is more than that. Keep in mind the purpose of that synthesis, the catalyst doesn't really say it is a way to "improve" organics and synthetics. He says it is a mean to prevent genocides, his reasoning is that if you supress the differences, species won't fight each other to extinction. It means differences = issue. Which is pretty... shady at best.

The other issue with that ending that nobody has a precise idea of what and how this synthesis is even possible. But... it is an acceptable ending if there's an alternative (unfortunately red and bue aren't good alternatives). That's what should provide the DLC.

Modifié par kimuji, 08 avril 2012 - 09:15 .

[The Angry One]

Pottumuusi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


You know what? Call it what you like. By your logic, our society of laws is a society of vengeance.

No, not as long as the sentences we give serve some sort of purpose, such as making sure that murderers can't murder people because they are in prison. But it has nothing to do with "making them pay for their crimes".

Merely because you are no longer able to commit a crime doesn't mean you should be free from punishment.
That is a breakdown of basic morality.

And like has been said, the Reapers in synthesis are neither incapable of continuing to torture and murder nor have they acknowledged that they were wrong.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But even if the starkid is telling the truth about the inevitability of synthetics defeating organics and taking over the galaxy with the Destroy option, shouldn't organics have the free will and self-determination to choose their own path, and not have a path forced upon them?

I think the 50,000 yrs is pretty arbitrary anyway. It depended upon when their sentinel determined when galactic civilization reached a particular point of development. Sometimes that might have been longer, maybe 200,000 yrs., sometimes less than 50,000 yrs. So no one knows exactly how many cycles. No one even knows exactly how sentient the reapers were. Since they don't seem capable of giving a straight answer to anything other than "you cannot comprehend" indicates that they probably aren't all that sentient and limited by their programming. Toys for the starkid.

If you choose Synthesis, Joker and EDI's iChildren have the Apple logo on them. A union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both. The weaknesses of neither.

I don't say evolution is bad. I just believe in free will and self-determination. So that makes Shepard the serpent tempting eve with the apple of knowledge. But instead of tempting, Shepard makes the decision. It is time for organics to go our own way beyond the parameters set by the stargodchild. We have outgrown it. We need to go our own way. If that way leads to our own destruction then so be it. Destroy is the big middle finger to the stargod.

The galaxy runs on a cycle of extinction. It always has and always will. That cycle is not dependent up level of civilization. It is survival of the fittest. Natural selection will take care of that.

[Geth_Huntha]

jengelb1 wrote...

Thalorin1919 wrote...

I liked that there was moral implications with every choice, it didn't make the decision easy.

Control the Reapers may seem like the best first as EVERYONE lives, there is no forced synthesis, but can you trust Shepard to maintain a constant state of personality where he won't grow corrupt and turn the Reapers around back on the galaxy?

Or with Synthesis with the forced combination of synthetic and organic DNA on the galaxy - granted it may be the best as there will be no more conflict, but is it morally right for Shepard to do this?

And with the destroy - you rid the Reapers forever, but races like the Geth are killed off, and the future may still be riddled with war between Organics and Synthetics.

Hopefully more of the variation of each choice is shown in the extended cut - something to show what happens with the choice you make.

Regarding control:

Personally speaking, I don't need to control the reapers for all that long. Just long enough to send every stinking one of the metal motherf******rs into the nearest star.

Ha, that's pretty much my head-canon

[SpiffsGhost]

jengelb1 wrote...

SpiffsGhost wrote...

anlk92 wrote...



I'm not defending the other two choices. None of the choices are morally gray, they're flat out unethical and wrong.

Then why argue against synthesis so strongly? The ethics of our generation, here and now, indeed conflict with all of the choices, but the scale of this issue is so beyond that. We are a galaxy on the brink of annihilation, and the best way to break the cycle and propel life into a better future is to remove the central reason, the propellant, for the cyclic extinction in the first place.

- Spiff

The "reason" for the cycle is the Catalyst and its Reapers. They still exist post-synthesis. 

The Catalyst does no exist post-synthesis. The citadel is destroyed (and the catalyst is the citadel).

But you must have missed the whole conversation with the catalyst where he says the reason for the cycle is to save organic life from being destroyed by the synthetic life they create. That reason is removed with synthesis.

There is no reason to produce "pure synthetics" as so many people seem to think will happen. Not sure why people even bring this up. Artificial intelligences will no longer be needed to perform the tasks that life after synthesis can easily now perform.

- Spiff

[The Angry One]

firebladec wrote...

it is vengence when the action goes beyond acting as a deterent or to protecting society from something, deterents wouldnt work against the reapers, protection maybe, but not if there isnt an alternative that doesnt require it.

So they should be let off, after all the pain and suffering that they enjoyed causing simply because hybrids are not on their list of viable targets?
That's appalling.

[anlk92]

SpiffsGhost wrote...

Then why argue against synthesis so strongly? The ethics of our generation, here and now, indeed conflict with all of the choices, but the scale of this issue is so beyond that. We are a galaxy on the brink of annihilation, and the best way to break the cycle and propel life into a better future is to remove the central reason, the propellant, for the cyclic extinction in the first place.

- Spiff

Well synthesis does not have any objective advantages to it. Destroy at least makes sure that the Reaper threat is gone. If you believe Shepard can hold it together, he can find a way to get rid of them completely in the control ending too. But in synthesis you do that change to life without any clear advantages, you're just hoping that the Reapers will now leave you alone forever. What you're doing is basically agreeing to Reapers' terms and doing what they told you to do so that they will hopefully stop their cycle.

Edit: Well here's the gist of what I'm trying to say: if all three choices lead you to doing something horrible, at least make sure that the threat which forced you into these actions, is gone for good.

Modifié par anlk92, 08 avril 2012 - 09:17 .

[wright1978]

SpiffsGhost wrote...

The Catalyst does no exist post-synthesis. The citadel is destroyed (and the catalyst is the citadel).

But you must have missed the whole conversation with the catalyst where he says the reason for the cycle is to save organic life from being destroyed by the synthetic life they create. That reason is removed with synthesis.

There is no reason to produce "pure synthetics" as so many people seem to think will happen. Not sure why people even bring this up. Artificial intelligences will no longer be needed to perform the tasks that life after synthesis can easily now perform.

- Spiff

Why won't someone decide to create an AI? Will they have their inteeligence/creativity butchered to stop it? That's the only way to stop free willed creatures from creating something.

[DJBare]

Just to put this out there, the Reapers get exactly what they want in synthesis,
"All organic and synthetics are merged"; the population of the galaxy are now Reapers.

[WilliamDracul88]

The Angry One wrote...

WilliamDracul88 wrote...

"and having to erradicate all sentient life of a planet populated by billions, including, I INSIST, childs, babys, elders, non-combatants, and then letting THE FASTER OF THEM to run away" are totally the same thing.

Sorry pal, but if tomorrow the machines rebel in London, I would be there fighting for humankind, which is you, and me, and every other poster.

How many of those deaths were the Quarians responsible for? We know there were dissenters.
What were the Geth supposed to do? Turtle and let the Quarians bomb them to dust?

All the Geth ever wanted was to self-determinate, the moment the Quarians stopped shooting at them, the Geth were eager to welcome them back.
It's not mine or the Geth's fault that you assume the worst even though the Quarians have been provably belligerent.

How about destroy their military capabilities, including ships and war dedicated factories, round the civilians, and held them imprisioned but alive, just to later expell them to another (habitable) planet? One of their colonies, for example.
Or, how about just LEAVE? The geth proved capable of destroying the Quarian defenses, they build their own destroyers. Why just not make your own spaceships and leave the planet?

Kill the ones who are attacking you, but spare the ones who aren't. I think that:
a) Defeating their military and subduing the survivors (an unarmed civilian, or armed with light arms, is not a match for a geth combat plataform... at all).
Defeating their military and then leave to another planet/space rock/asteroid belt/whatever (they don't need a garden planet).

Are better options that:
c) Kill everything that moves until they get the message and get the hell out.

Don't you agree is more... humane? Less genocidal, I could say?

But hey, they made a mistake, and they repent! So... let's do as nothing happened?

<_<

[Pottumuusi]

The Angry One wrote...


Merely because you are no longer able to commit a crime doesn't mean you should be free from punishment.
That is a breakdown of basic morality.

You are describing vengeance.

Vengeance serves no purpose in my eyes. Nothing can be gained from it. It wont fix anything.
The only thing it will do is extinguish your bloodlust, and that isn't very moral in my opinion either.

[jengelb1]

SpiffsGhost wrote...

jengelb1 wrote...

SpiffsGhost wrote...

anlk92 wrote...



I'm not defending the other two choices. None of the choices are morally gray, they're flat out unethical and wrong.

Then why argue against synthesis so strongly? The ethics of our generation, here and now, indeed conflict with all of the choices, but the scale of this issue is so beyond that. We are a galaxy on the brink of annihilation, and the best way to break the cycle and propel life into a better future is to remove the central reason, the propellant, for the cyclic extinction in the first place.

- Spiff

The "reason" for the cycle is the Catalyst and its Reapers. They still exist post-synthesis. 

The Catalyst does no exist post-synthesis. The citadel is destroyed (and the catalyst is the citadel).

But you must have missed the whole conversation with the catalyst where he says the reason for the cycle is to save organic life from being destroyed by the synthetic life they create. That reason is removed with synthesis.

There is no reason to produce "pure synthetics" as so many people seem to think will happen. Not sure why people even bring this up. Artificial intelligences will no longer be needed to perform the tasks that life after synthesis can easily now perform.

- Spiff

I missed nothing. I know what it said.

I simply treat its claims with the same respect as I treat those of 9/11 truthers. Not a damn bit. 

It's a bats**t crazy AI. Its flat out psychotic. In a way, its kind of innovative to have the big villian basically amount to a paranoid schizophrenic machine.

If only we had loaded the crucible with Thorazine...

Modifié par jengelb1, 08 avril 2012 - 09:22 .

[The Angry One]

WilliamDracul88 wrote...

How about destroy their military capabilities, including ships and war dedicated factories, round the civilians, and held them imprisioned but alive, just to later expell them to another (habitable) planet? One of their colonies, for example.
Or, how about just LEAVE? The geth proved capable of destroying the Quarian defenses, they build their own destroyers. Why just not make your own spaceships and leave the planet?

Hey, newsflash. The Geth were not military machines, and were only starting to grasp full intelligence.
They simply didn't have the knowhow to do anything other than retaliate with full force against the Quarians and hope they would stop.

Kill the ones who are attacking you, but spare the ones who aren't. I think that:
a) Defeating their military and subduing the survivors (an unarmed civilian, or armed with light arms, is not a match for a geth combat plataform... at all).
Defeating their military and then leave to another planet/space rock/asteroid belt/whatever (they don't need a garden planet).

Are better options that:
c) Kill everything that moves until they get the message and get the hell out.

Don't you agree is more... humane? Less genocidal, I could say?

But hey, they made a mistake, and they repent! So... let's do as nothing happened?

<_<

YET AGAIN YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT QUARIANS WERE KILLING QUARIANS.

QUARIANS WERE KILLING QUARIANS.

QUARIANS WERE KILLING QUARIANS.

Comprende yet?