644 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

Let Han'Gerrel handle the geth for you and you won't have any guilt on your head. Headcanon that Shepard punched him again for it if it makes you feel better.

Modifié par Mr. Big Pimpin, 11 avril 2012 - 06:33 .

[Kulthar Drax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.

And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.

But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

Yes, because they are leaving you with absolutely no choice in this matter, and they have already genocided so many species beyond count over a timespan of unknown length. You are forced to choose one of three methods to stopping them, and I do not personally believe that "control" is effective enough (How can anyone even be certain that you can control them? Are you going to take starchild's spiel as evidence, given you know he's a Reaper construct himself? Yeah, like they'd totally be telling the truth with your options). And synthesis is a pile of space magic ****, so that leaves destroying the Reapers as the only option. They are not going to give you any other choice, they're hellbent on your destruction and that of everyone else in the galaxy.

Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 11 avril 2012 - 06:35 .

[CronoDragoon]

Zine2 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

There are multiple definitions of sacrifice. The one involving a choice is only one definition. That doesn't mean it isn't genocide, but just cherry-picking one definition of a word isn't fair.

Wrong. That's semantic wordplay. If you're saying "sacrifice" can be unwilling, then your definition of sacrifice is actually no different from murder or genocide.

I have absolutely no need to play around with words. Why use "sacrifice" when it has other implications, when what is actually truly being committed is "murder" and "genocide"?

Using the word "sacrifice" is nothing more than an attempt to muddle the issue. It's semantic wordplay. It's lying to people about the reality of the situation.

It's not semantic wordplay to point out that sacrifice has multiple meanings. When people offered virgins to the gods, it was both a sacrifice AND murder. You are saying it is one or the other, which is factually incorrect. I am not saying that calling something a sacrifice makes it better, but in this case the destruction of the geth IS a sacrifice, whether it is genocide or not.

[Zine2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

That's a complicated issue, comparable to the issue of whether or not one should impose the Death Penalty.

On one side you can argue that the needs of public safety requie the extermination of the Reapers. They have shown no evidence of being able to respect other life. They have committed enough war crimes to justify the highest punishment on them.

And there are precedents on wiping out an entire people because they can't get it through their heads that genocide is not cool. Assyria no longer exists as a nation because their neighbors got tired of their perpetual campaigns of genocide and wiped them out.

However, on the other side of the coin there is always the possibility of forgiveness and redemption. That perhaps the Reapers could be made to see the light and cease their genocidal ways. I mentioned in another thread the story of Star Control 2 - which features a genocidal enemy (the Ur Quan) who are revealed to have a tragic back story, and who are eventually forgiven and become part of the alliance.

If an option exists to redeem the Reapers individually, I might take that one depending on the context.

[Elyiia]

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.

And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.

But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

I think the genocide of the Reapers is justified based on the fact that they are trying to process us. If they weren't then it would not be. It would also not be right if it was only part of the Reapers trying to process us.

No is not genocide. Its sacrifice because it is for the greater good. If shepard went to the citadel
with the intent to kill the geth then it would have been genocide.

It's genocide, Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the Reapers. This is the very definition of genocide.

Stop twisting words. No, Shepard destroys the reapers and in the process it destroys the Geth. If Shepard main
intent was to kill the geth then it is genocide.

It's not twisting words, Shepard is told destroy will kill the Geth aswell, if he chooses destroy then it is a deliberate act. It might be for the greater good but it is deliberate.

[M0keys]

Genocide is simply the act of clearing an entire set of genetics from the macro-scale gene pool. It qualifies.

[eddieoctane]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.

And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.

But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

If the Reapers are under the control of the Catalyst, they don't have the same level of intelligence as us we or the Geth do. They are not independent individuals must supercomputing murder-squids being directed by a xenphobic god-child. They seem more like glorified UAVs given how the starchild presents them. So I wouldn't consider it genocide.

If the Reapers were infact "each a nation, independent", then it would become more of a grey area. When someone lunges at you with a knife, its self defense to shoot him. Most religions on Earth would grant you that right. If each member of a species keeps coming at you with a knife, despite them having ample opportunity to leave, is it you committing genocide or is it them committing a mass suicide by cop?

[Riion]

Poshible wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not

I'm not sure the Geth do not value different things. Legion refers to itself in the first person (which he never does) by the end of the sequence on Rannoch. It also demonstrates the ability to have compassion and empathy when he says "Keelah Se'lai" to Tali.

It seems to me that last bit of uncertainty of how sentient the Geth were disappears at the end of Rannoch.

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

I'm not sure Legion would have a definable gender, in our sense of the word. 
Killing the Reapers may be technically the same as killing the Geth, but morals and ethics are such iffy things, unless you're Immanuel Kant. 

[M0keys]

Zine2 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

That's a complicated issue, comparable to the issue of whether or not one should impose the Death Penalty.

On one side you can argue that the needs of public safety requie the extermination of the Reapers. They have shown no evidence of being able to respect other life. They have committed enough war crimes to justify the highest punishment on them.

And there are precedents on wiping out an entire people because they can't get it through their heads that genocide is not cool. Assyria no longer exists as a nation because their neighbors got tired of their perpetual campaigns of genocide and wiped them out.

However, on the other side of the coin there is always the possibility of forgiveness and redemption. That perhaps the Reapers could be made to see the light and cease their genocidal ways. I mentioned in another thread the story of Star Control 2 - which features a genocidal enemy (the Ur Quan) who are revealed to have a tragic back story, and who are eventually forgiven and become part of the alliance.

If an option exists to redeem the Reapers individually, I might take that one depending on the context.

I might have as well, but I'm fairly sure the themes of the series stated quite plainly that they are not life as we understand it at all, and are basically pre-programmed to murder/assimilate everyone you know and care about, and then some.

A redemption side-quest would've probably been a little silly.

[Helishorn]

shepard1038 wrote...

No is not genocide. Its sacrifice because it is for the greater good. If shepard went to the citadel with the intent to kill the geth then it would have been genocide.

Really thin line there. Some could say that what happend during the Holocost was for the greater good as well. Hitler beleived it. So was it the sacrifice of the Jewish people for the greater good or was it genocide? Is it about intent or action? Or can it be both?

Its really right up there with any other ethical question. Stealing is
wrong. So if your child needs medicine you cannot afford to live is it
ok for you to steal the money to save their life?

Modifié par Helishorn, 11 avril 2012 - 06:39 .

[Kulthar Drax]

shepard1038 wrote...

We are not biological machines. Yes all life has a right to exist but you can hold the Geth the same as and
organic. The geth first were a machine race then they became sentient, but organics are people's the day they are born. Being sentient is not the same as being a people.

I sincerely hope you aren't in any position of authority when we finally creat AI's "Hey AI, yeah you're clearly sentient and intelligent, but nope sorry, you're not a person and neither are your buddy AI's!".

And yes, we are biological machines. This has been clearly proven to be the case. Our entire genetic structure is one big, self replicating, self adjusting program. Think of a genetic disposition to having a heart attack like a computer being inherently buggy and unstable and prone to crashing from fatal exception errors

I am not religious and I do not believe in souls, but were they to exist, then I should think that the moment you ask "does this one have a soul?" is the moment where you answer "yes".

[Zine2]

CronoDragoon wrote...


It's not semantic wordplay to point out that sacrifice has multiple meanings. When people offered virgins to the gods, it was both a sacrifice AND murder. You are saying it is one or the other, which is factually incorrect. I am not saying that calling something a sacrifice makes it better, but in this case the destruction of the geth IS a sacrifice, whether it is genocide or not.

I am not denying sacrifice has multiple meanings. But throwing a girl down a volcano is simply murder. Calling it "sacrifice" is simply an attempt at positive spin.

In short, I am instead pointing out that using a word with multiple meanings - instead of the word that has NO ambiguity - is simply an exercise in spin. It does not change the fact that people were murdered.

"We didn't murder her! We just threw her down the volcano to appease our Gods that we can't see! So she was actually a sacrifice!"

Modifié par Zine2, 11 avril 2012 - 06:40 .

[Grasich]

Poshible wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not

I'm not sure the Geth do not value different things. Legion refers to itself in the first person (which he never does) by the end of the sequence on Rannoch. It also demonstrates the ability to have compassion and empathy when he says "Keelah Se'lai" to Tali.

It seems to me that last bit of uncertainty of how sentient the Geth were disappears at the end of Rannoch.

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

Legion doesn't have a gender, so saying "himself" wouldn't make any sense.

The Reapers are most definitely alive, they are "each a nation". The Geth, however, are not trying to slaughter everyone, they are merely trying to survive and improve their race (as well as helping the other races). The Reapers are trying to, well, REAP everyone. That's a little... evil.

My issues with the ending choices stem from the fact that:

1. We really don't understand Control or Synthesis (don't start trying to explain them, there is zero canon explanation on how they work).

2. Control was hammered into our heads as being what the indoctrinated forces in each cycle want. So... why would Shep even consider it?

3. Synthesis, aside from being morally horrendous and absurd, is basically what the Reapers themselves are, and, at least in my opinion, is basically the same as giving up.

So the only choice that we understand and that isn't giving in to the Reapers means we have to annihilate an entire race.

[Allan Schumacher]

Zine2 wrote...

Wrong. That's semantic wordplay. If you're saying "sacrifice" can be unwilling, then your definition of sacrifice is actually no different from murder or genocide.

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

I have absolutely no need to play around with words. Why use "sacrifice" when it has other implications, when what is actually truly being committed is "murder" and "genocide"?

Because refusing to acknowledge the term sacrifice implies that Shepard pays nothing for making the decision.  It means that when choosing destroy, Shepard equivalently goes "Whatever" to the Geth.  As far as I'm concerned, that is wrong.

Using the word "sacrifice" is nothing more than an attempt to muddle the issue. It's semantic wordplay. It's lying to people about the reality of the situation.

It really more seems like you're refusing to allow the usage of the word because you feel people are using it as a scape goat and your perception of the event should be applied to others.  Especially when I have not found a single definition that actually supports your rigid definition of the term sacrifice.  In fact, when presented with one that didn't have it, you were casually dismissive of it.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

Helishorn wrote...

Its really right up there with any other ethical question. Stealing is wrong. So if your child needs medicine you cannot afford to live is it ok for you to steal the money to save their life?

That's why you live in a country with proper health care.

[Helishorn]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

Helishorn wrote...

Its really right up there with any other ethical question. Stealing is wrong. So if your child needs medicine you cannot afford to live is it ok for you to steal the money to save their life?

That's why you live in a country with proper health care.

Yeh proper health care in the US is a joke at the moment. Obama is trying the the fear mongers are fighting it tooth and nail. Anyway..not to bring up politics in a nice civil debate about the ideas of genocide in a game or anything...

Modifié par Helishorn, 11 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.

And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.

But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

I think the genocide of the Reapers is justified based on the fact that they are trying to process us. If they weren't then it would not be. It would also not be right if it was only part of the Reapers trying to process us.

No is not genocide. Its sacrifice because it is for the greater good. If shepard went to the citadel
with the intent to kill the geth then it would have been genocide.

It's genocide, Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the Reapers. This is the very definition of genocide.

Stop twisting words. No, Shepard destroys the reapers and in the process it destroys the Geth. If Shepard main
intent was to kill the geth then it is genocide.

It's not twisting words, Shepard is told destroy will kill the Geth aswell, if he chooses destroy then it is a deliberate act. It might be for the greater good but it is deliberate.

Yes, because you were saying that Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the
reapers. Making it sound that Shepard's intent was to kil the geth, when the guardian says that destroy will kill the
reapers but it will destroy the geth in the process. You don't think that the geth being fighting wtih you at the end
to destroy the reapers, when they know that they could die.

[M0keys]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Wrong. That's semantic wordplay. If you're saying "sacrifice" can be unwilling, then your definition of sacrifice is actually no different from murder or genocide.

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

I'd say it was alright if you talked to him about it, and he knowingly agreed to let you kill him to save everyone else.

If the man holding a city hostage with a nuke said, "Look, kill your best friend or I'm killing EVERYONE," and then you just waltzed up to your best friend "Hey, Allan, what's the situ-" *BAM*

I'd give you a medal for saving a city. And then I'd put you on trial for 1st degree murder.

But don't take that personally. I'm sure you wouldn't actually just kill your best friend. You'd use your mind to try and figure a way out of it (or you'd freak out like most people, possibly including me.)

Modifié par M0keys, 11 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Poshible wrote...

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

I had actually originally written "he," but then I realized Legion has no sexual classification.  I don't think that that is a requirement for whether or not something is sentient though.  I also believe the Reapers are sentient.  Well, the Catalyst muddied that up...

[Elyiia]

You can't compare murder to genocide. Genocide doesn't have to have a negative reason behind it, it is simply the deliberate act of wiping out a part or a whole of a group. You can commit genocide for a good reason. Arrival can be used as an example of this.

Murder on the other hand requires malicious afterthought.

Yes, because you were saying that Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the
reapers. Making it sound that Shepard's intent was to kil the geth, when the guardian says that destroy will kill the
reapers but it will destroy the geth in the process. You don't think that the geth being fighting wtih you at the end
to destroy the reapers, when they know that they could die.

It might not have been his intent, but by deliberately choosing destroy, he commited genocide against the Geth because he knew it was going to happen. It does not matter whether the Geth accepted it or not.

Modifié par Elyiia, 11 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[Slash1667]

Poshible wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

The Irish Man wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.

What he said.

Synthetics aren't naturally organic beings. Your killing off robots that have enough written code in them to make their own decisions.

Yeah, that's pretty much what Hitler said.
Synthetics are people, deal with it.

Hitler liked to call it eugenics. Also was not destroying machines. Those were organics. Geth were built. Like my computer I am sitting in front of and...I liked Legion too, doesn't make it harder on me to decide to eliminate them to rid the galaxy of Reapers. Because they are not people...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/people

You do realize that 4 of those 5 definitions goes against your agruement right? Going ot the definition of Person reavels a self-conscious or rational being. So 4 definitions of People would include Geth.

[shodiswe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Technically Shepherd doesn't have the "right" to make any of the final decisions. He/she's not given any information about what he/she's doing and we have no idea what the reprecussions will be for ANY of the three choices other than the relays being destroyed. Basically it's a "leap of faith" moment that decides the future for the entire galaxy. The only logical decission to make in a situation like this is none but we weren't allowed that choice <_<

Just to make sure I'm understanding here, you feel the issue is that Shepard shouldn't make the choice because he doesn't know what the reprecussions of his choice will be?  Can you elaborate a bit on that?

First of all the choices and guarantees are given by the Catalyst, which just hapens to be the head reaper, the reaper king god or supremecommander, whatever makes sense for the reapers as the big guy in charge.
We know that pretty much every cycle for millions of years have involved trickery, indoctrination instigating civilwars through missinformation, missleading and corrupting organics and in somecases maybe synthetics like the geth into doing their dirty work for them.
How can anyone belive they are getting straight honest advice from a being that's beein lying cheating and immoral for millions of years and justifies it by saying it's superior and organics have no say in what they do to them.

The catalyst makes all massmurderers genocidal leaders and psychopaths from all of human history and pre history look humble and harmless by comparison. Are you helping the catalyst get free from the crusible by doing what hes asking you to? or are you simply shorting out the sabotage the protheans did to the citadel that made the catalyst loose control of it's "body"?
Or are you helping the catalyst create the perfect husks all over the galaxy to speed up the cycle? Is there an off switch in those green nanitestrands that the reapers can use? maybe they leave earth and move the citade because they have already won? Everyone is infected all they have to do is replace the the citadel and restore order, no more fighting or reaper killing from the wilkyway residents.

The only reason Shepard has to actualy try one of the options given would be the dreaded thoguht that the allied forces can kill the reapers in the sol system or the reinforcements they can bring in from the rest of the galaxy.. So what he's got is not a coice but a pick you poison gamble hoping for the best. Maybe it gives more of a chance to take the gamble than knowing you will 100% get wiped out otherwise.
after the game ends you can't be 100% sure about anything, the destroy option does seem to kill the reapers so that's as good a pick as anything. But yet again that's after the fact. If someone more tryust worthy, like edi could have contacted shepard and said it seems possible even if the designs are beyond her knowledge or processingpower to determine. Also if I speculate some more Shepard did survive the destroy option if you had enough warassets, maybe the geth would survive if they had advanced enugh to fool the reaper deathswitch.

I think most people who got a problem with the catalyst think the conversation and trust given feels wrong given the nature of the catalyst, Harbinger is just a pawn pulling the gun but the catalyst is the one that ordered the cycles and extinctions. The Hitler equivalent of the reapers, also the fact that it's taking child form hints at it's ceceptive nature, it takes a non threatening form that is as far away from the truth as possible to make it easier to pacify Shepard and break his/her spirit. Who's supposed to trust something as deceptive as that? It just reaks Trojanhorse trap.

[Rodia Driftwood]

Yes, yes.. I concur.. *stokes his 2 ft loong wise-looking beard*

The meaning of "Value" is very subjective in this case. The value that synthetics give to an object of great importance to their existence or functioning is no different than the value we give to money or our baby blankets.

When Shepard went to the Geth Consensus, Legion showed him memories of the Geth when they were still with their Creators. You have to ask why they would still keep these memories. In my humble opinion, they were treasured moments in Geth/Quarian history that they understand.

The concept of "value" is objective. Organics perceive the simple notion of "value" to be an "Organic virtue" that only Organics posses.

Up/ Why, I realize that I was giving feedback to a post that is 2 pages back in the thread. 

Modifié par Rodia Driftwood, 11 avril 2012 - 06:47 .

[Allan Schumacher]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Since they are trying to genocide you, I consider an act of self-defense equal to the severity of the attack, and therefore justifiable.

I agree.  And given the nature of the Reapers, I see no fault with exercising their genocide.  Especially within the context of the game.

[Slash1667]

M0keys wrote...

TerraNomad wrote...

the key word is sentient. Not Organic or Synthetic. It's pretty much cannon in the Mass Effect story that the Geth are a sentient lifeform and therefore it does constitute genocide. That being said, this arguement is pointless. Given the stakes (the entire galaxy), the loss of a single race to secure the end to the war seems like an acceptable loss.

I believe that if you're Shepard, the hero of the galaxy and possibly a paragon, genocide unmakes you as the galaxy's guardian angel because now the blood is on your hands. When the chips were down, you lost your courage and sacrificed others in your stead.

At best, it makes you like The Operative from Serenity. Willing to murder countless innocents as long as you got your "perfect world" in the end. Complex, but most certainly still evil.

Cookie for Firefly reference:D