5087 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I am already that somebody.  I'm willing to kill the Reapers to stop them.  In fact, I'm going to have to kill the Reapers to stop them.  Genocide is genocide, it doesn't matter how you go about it.  Refusal is committing genocide on a much grander scale than Destroy, although you do get to rationalize it by saying:  At least somebody else is doing the killing, I just allowed them to do it.  Dead Reapers = win.  Harvested galaxy = loss, and I didn't set out to lose.  I lose a lot, because I have a hard time getting past the Reaper laser, since it rips cruisers in half.  If I'm going past that point, I have a clear goal that is going to drive me there, and that is the destruction of the Reapers.  What were Garrus' numbers?  5 million dead the first day?  So yes, I would sacrifice a couple hundred million to save trillions of people.

So you believe that killing an enemy who is actively attacking you is morally equivalent to stabbing a friend in the back?

If you say "killing the Reapers is genocide. Killing the Geth is genocide, thus they are morally the same," you're being pointlessly reductionist and almost deliberately obtuse. Just being willing to kill the Reapers doesn't make you similar to the catalyst. Being willing to genocide an innocent race who trusts you does.

If you see no moral difference between killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you and killing an ally who trusts you, then we probably cannot have a sane conversation, because your moral code is utterly incomprehensible to me.

What I see is genocide.  What I see from refusing to take an action when I have the option to stop the complete genocide of all technologically advanced life is genocide on a grander scale.  What you're telling me is that it's better to let the Reapers kill everyone, thereby insuring that SC gets his way, the galaxy is harvested, and the cycle continues, than to kill, or potentially kill the Geth and EDI.  I understand that you can rationalize this genocide by saying "the Reapers did it", but since we've been playing three games looking for a way to stop them, and you've gotten yourself to the SC, your only viable option, is to play right into SC's hands?

I'm fighting a war.  In the course of fighting that war, people are going to die.  The idea is to minimize the casualties as much as possible.  You cannot prevent them, the other side isn't going to just stop, unless you stop them.  Genocide in self defence is still genocide, and frankly, I can live with knowing that the Reapers are all dead.  It's a good thing that Refusal kills you, because then you'd have to live with knowing you allowed the deaths of everyone you've ever met because you wanted to stick to some kind of principle.  Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters.  The silence is your answer.  I set out from Earth with the intention of getting help to stop the Reapers, not to appease them and let them continue on.  You're comfortable with that, and that's fine, my Brutal Renegade, and Paragon Shepards weren't.  My Self Righteous Paragon Shepard might be, as might a Self Righteous Renegade, depending on whatever motivations I come up with if I ever do that, as I think that one would be pretty hard.

However, to thine own self be true.  If you are ok with watching the harvest of all technologically advanced life in the galaxy to preserve the Geth, go for it.  I'm not going to judge you for allowing me to die when you could have stopped it.  Just so long as you realize that, in doing so, you have doomed the Geth to being harvested.  Either way, their oil is on your hands.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

robertthebard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I am already that somebody.  I'm willing to kill the Reapers to stop them.  In fact, I'm going to have to kill the Reapers to stop them.  Genocide is genocide, it doesn't matter how you go about it.  Refusal is committing genocide on a much grander scale than Destroy, although you do get to rationalize it by saying:  At least somebody else is doing the killing, I just allowed them to do it.  Dead Reapers = win.  Harvested galaxy = loss, and I didn't set out to lose.  I lose a lot, because I have a hard time getting past the Reaper laser, since it rips cruisers in half.  If I'm going past that point, I have a clear goal that is going to drive me there, and that is the destruction of the Reapers.  What were Garrus' numbers?  5 million dead the first day?  So yes, I would sacrifice a couple hundred million to save trillions of people.

So you believe that killing an enemy who is actively attacking you is morally equivalent to stabbing a friend in the back?

If you say "killing the Reapers is genocide. Killing the Geth is genocide, thus they are morally the same," you're being pointlessly reductionist and almost deliberately obtuse. Just being willing to kill the Reapers doesn't make you similar to the catalyst. Being willing to genocide an innocent race who trusts you does.

If you see no moral difference between killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you and killing an ally who trusts you, then we probably cannot have a sane conversation, because your moral code is utterly incomprehensible to me.

What I see is genocide.  What I see from refusing to take an action when I have the option to stop the complete genocide of all technologically advanced life is genocide on a grander scale.  What you're telling me is that it's better to let the Reapers kill everyone, thereby insuring that SC gets his way, the galaxy is harvested, and the cycle continues, than to kill, or potentially kill the Geth and EDI.  I understand that you can rationalize this genocide by saying "the Reapers did it", but since we've been playing three games looking for a way to stop them, and you've gotten yourself to the SC, your only viable option, is to play right into SC's hands?

I'm fighting a war.  In the course of fighting that war, people are going to die.  The idea is to minimize the casualties as much as possible.  You cannot prevent them, the other side isn't going to just stop, unless you stop them.  Genocide in self defence is still genocide, and frankly, I can live with knowing that the Reapers are all dead.  It's a good thing that Refusal kills you, because then you'd have to live with knowing you allowed the deaths of everyone you've ever met because you wanted to stick to some kind of principle.  Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters.  The silence is your answer.  I set out from Earth with the intention of getting help to stop the Reapers, not to appease them and let them continue on.  You're comfortable with that, and that's fine, my Brutal Renegade, and Paragon Shepards weren't.  My Self Righteous Paragon Shepard might be, as might a Self Righteous Renegade, depending on whatever motivations I come up with if I ever do that, as I think that one would be pretty hard.

However, to thine own self be true.  If you are ok with watching the harvest of all technologically advanced life in the galaxy to preserve the Geth, go for it.  I'm not going to judge you for allowing me to die when you could have stopped it.  Just so long as you realize that, in doing so, you have doomed the Geth to being harvested.  Either way, their oil is on your hands.

I have no idea why you imagine I think it's preferable to let the harvest continue. Perhaps you're arguing not with me, but with some kind of man, perhaps one who is made from straw?

You aren't killing a few million to save a few trillion; if you tell yourself that, you are lying to yourself. If your Shepard believes that destroy is the only way to save the trillions who would die if the reaping proceeds, he is explicitly wrong (as proven by the other endings where everyone lives happily ever after), and Shepard commits genocide merely because he does not understand any other possible solution... exactly why the catalyst has been committing all these genocides for years. Once again, your Shepard is embodying the Catalyst's philosophy and decision making. Your Shepard has exactly the same personality as the Catalyst.

Destroy isn't "killing billions to save trillions," it's "killing an entire race because I think the other options where everyone lives are troubling in other ways, so in this case I prefer genocide." Which is understandable, because the other choices are problematic, yes.

If that is your decision... that, when given three ways to save people, you believe that genociding a persecuted race who trusts you is less bad than becoming Space Big Brother or turning everyone green and psychic, then I understand. Both Space Big Brother and Strange Powers are scary and morally troubling in other ways.

But to phrase the quandary as if picking red was the only way to save lives is morally dishonest.  You aren't committing genocide because it's the only way to save the rest, you're committing genocide because you personally find genocide less troublesome than Space Big Brother or Transhumanism.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 01:54 .

[Bill Casey]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I am already that somebody.  I'm willing to kill the Reapers to stop them.  In fact, I'm going to have to kill the Reapers to stop them.  Genocide is genocide, it doesn't matter how you go about it.  Refusal is committing genocide on a much grander scale than Destroy, although you do get to rationalize it by saying:  At least somebody else is doing the killing, I just allowed them to do it.  Dead Reapers = win.  Harvested galaxy = loss, and I didn't set out to lose.  I lose a lot, because I have a hard time getting past the Reaper laser, since it rips cruisers in half.  If I'm going past that point, I have a clear goal that is going to drive me there, and that is the destruction of the Reapers.  What were Garrus' numbers?  5 million dead the first day?  So yes, I would sacrifice a couple hundred million to save trillions of people.

So you believe that killing an enemy who is actively attacking you is morally equivalent to stabbing a friend in the back?

If you say "killing the Reapers is genocide. Killing the Geth is genocide, thus they are morally the same," you're being pointlessly reductionist and almost deliberately obtuse. Just being willing to kill the Reapers doesn't make you similar to the catalyst. Being willing to genocide an innocent race who trusts you does.

If you see no moral difference between killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you and killing an ally who trusts you, then we probably cannot have a sane conversation, because your moral code is utterly incomprehensible to me.

Also, you aren't killing a few million to save a few trillion; if you tell yourself that, you are lying to yourself. If your Shepard believes that destroy is the only way to save the trillions who would die if the reaping proceeds, he is explicitly wrong (as proven by the other endings where everyone lives happily ever after), and Shepard commits genocide merely because he is stupid... again, exactly what the Catalyst is doing.

Destroy isn't "killing billions to save trillions," it's "killing an entire race because I think the other options where everyone lives are troubling in other ways, so in this case I prefer genocide." Which is understandable, because the other choices are problematic, yes.

If that is your decision... that, when given three ways to save people, you believe that genociding a persecuted race who trusts you is less bad than becoming Space Big Brother or turning everyone green and psychic, then I understand. Both Space Big Brother and Strange Powers are scary and morally troubling in other ways.

But to phrase the quandary as if picking red was the only way to save lives is morally dishonest.  You aren't committing genocide because it's the only way to save the rest, you're committing genocide because you personally find genocide less troublesome than Space Big Brother or Transhumanism.

Synthesis kills everyone...
You can make the argument that Control doesn't kill everyone, but you're being dishonest when you portray Synthesis as not killing everyone...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 août 2012 - 01:56 .

[robertthebard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I am already that somebody.  I'm willing to kill the Reapers to stop them.  In fact, I'm going to have to kill the Reapers to stop them.  Genocide is genocide, it doesn't matter how you go about it.  Refusal is committing genocide on a much grander scale than Destroy, although you do get to rationalize it by saying:  At least somebody else is doing the killing, I just allowed them to do it.  Dead Reapers = win.  Harvested galaxy = loss, and I didn't set out to lose.  I lose a lot, because I have a hard time getting past the Reaper laser, since it rips cruisers in half.  If I'm going past that point, I have a clear goal that is going to drive me there, and that is the destruction of the Reapers.  What were Garrus' numbers?  5 million dead the first day?  So yes, I would sacrifice a couple hundred million to save trillions of people.

So you believe that killing an enemy who is actively attacking you is morally equivalent to stabbing a friend in the back?

If you say "killing the Reapers is genocide. Killing the Geth is genocide, thus they are morally the same," you're being pointlessly reductionist and almost deliberately obtuse. Just being willing to kill the Reapers doesn't make you similar to the catalyst. Being willing to genocide an innocent race who trusts you does.

If you see no moral difference between killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you and killing an ally who trusts you, then we probably cannot have a sane conversation, because your moral code is utterly incomprehensible to me.

What I see is genocide.  What I see from refusing to take an action when I have the option to stop the complete genocide of all technologically advanced life is genocide on a grander scale.  What you're telling me is that it's better to let the Reapers kill everyone, thereby insuring that SC gets his way, the galaxy is harvested, and the cycle continues, than to kill, or potentially kill the Geth and EDI.  I understand that you can rationalize this genocide by saying "the Reapers did it", but since we've been playing three games looking for a way to stop them, and you've gotten yourself to the SC, your only viable option, is to play right into SC's hands?

I'm fighting a war.  In the course of fighting that war, people are going to die.  The idea is to minimize the casualties as much as possible.  You cannot prevent them, the other side isn't going to just stop, unless you stop them.  Genocide in self defence is still genocide, and frankly, I can live with knowing that the Reapers are all dead.  It's a good thing that Refusal kills you, because then you'd have to live with knowing you allowed the deaths of everyone you've ever met because you wanted to stick to some kind of principle.  Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters.  The silence is your answer.  I set out from Earth with the intention of getting help to stop the Reapers, not to appease them and let them continue on.  You're comfortable with that, and that's fine, my Brutal Renegade, and Paragon Shepards weren't.  My Self Righteous Paragon Shepard might be, as might a Self Righteous Renegade, depending on whatever motivations I come up with if I ever do that, as I think that one would be pretty hard.

However, to thine own self be true.  If you are ok with watching the harvest of all technologically advanced life in the galaxy to preserve the Geth, go for it.  I'm not going to judge you for allowing me to die when you could have stopped it.  Just so long as you realize that, in doing so, you have doomed the Geth to being harvested.  Either way, their oil is on your hands.

I have no idea why you imagine I think it's preferable to let the harvest continue. Perhaps you're arguing not with me, but with some kind of man, perhaps one who is made from straw?

You aren't killing a few million to save a few trillion; if you tell yourself that, you are lying to yourself. If your Shepard believes that destroy is the only way to save the trillions who would die if the reaping proceeds, he is explicitly wrong (as proven by the other endings where everyone lives happily ever after), and Shepard commits genocide merely because he is stupid... again, exactly what the Catalyst is doing.

Destroy isn't "killing billions to save trillions," it's "killing an entire race because I think the other options where everyone lives are troubling in other ways, so in this case I prefer genocide." Which is understandable, because the other choices are problematic, yes.

If that is your decision... that, when given three ways to save people, you believe that genociding a persecuted race who trusts you is less bad than becoming Space Big Brother or turning everyone green and psychic, then I understand. Both Space Big Brother and Strange Powers are scary and morally troubling in other ways.

But to phrase the quandary as if picking red was the only way to save lives is morally dishonest.  You aren't committing genocide because it's the only way to save the rest, you're committing genocide because you personally find genocide less troublesome than Space Big Brother or Transhumanism.

...and I stated that much in a previous post to this exchange.  I do believe that, as Jack points out on the Collector ship, she'd rather be dead than a Collector.  Synthesis and Control were taken off the table, by me, as being worse than either other option.  This leaves me with two, letting everyone die, or killing the Geth, if I saved them, and EDI.  As I said, I don't have any problem playing it out as a Paragon, and choosing Destroy, because it's better than standing in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and saying "I did it my way", which is a lie, since I really just did it the Reaper's way.  So yes, I see Destroy as the lesser of the evils I'm willing to consider.  I already said as much, in more words, and probably not as clearly as I could have.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Bill Casey wrote...
Synthesis kills everyone...
You can make the argument that Control works out, but you're being dishonest when you portray Synthesis as not killing everyone...

Here is what we know about synthesis: 

It allows people to share their thoughts.
It gives them green markings on their skin and eyes.
It allows humans and machines to understand each other better.
It incorporates some cybernetics into humans, something that has already happened to Shepard and the vast majority of the crew.

You can imagine that it does anything else you like, but that doens't make what you imagine true.

[Bill Casey]

It's a utopian puppet show...
Everyone is dead...

[CulturalGeekGirl]

robertthebard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
But to phrase the quandary as if picking red was the only way to save lives is morally dishonest.  You aren't committing genocide because it's the only way to save the rest, you're committing genocide because you personally find genocide less troublesome than Space Big Brother or Transhumanism.

...and I stated that much in a previous post to this exchange.  I do believe that, as Jack points out on the Collector ship, she'd rather be dead than a Collector.  Synthesis and Control were taken off the table, by me, as being worse than either other option.  This leaves me with two, letting everyone die, or killing the Geth, if I saved them, and EDI.  As I said, I don't have any problem playing it out as a Paragon, and choosing Destroy, because it's better than standing in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and saying "I did it my way", which is a lie, since I really just did it the Reaper's way.  So yes, I see Destroy as the lesser of the evils I'm willing to consider.  I already said as much, in more words, and probably not as clearly as I could have.

Jack says she's rather be dead than be a collector, but Shepard doesn't say she'd rather be dead than kept alive by cybernetics. Tali doesn't say she'd rather die than have a Geth living in her suit.

You are voluntarily choosing to believe that Synthesis is something other than what the text indicates it is. There is no indication anywhere in the endings that synthesis has any resemblance to being a collector or a husk or being indoctrinated... if you choose to believe that, you are engaging in fanfiction to make the endings make more sense to you.

And that's part of the point of this thread: to morally justify any of the endings, you have to deliberately misunderstand how the other two endings work. You have to think with your gut rather than your head. You have to convince yourself that what the writers are trying to convey with the synthesis and control endings is a lie. You have to deliberately misinterpret huge stretches of exposition and closure, because they so inherently contradict other swaths of content in the game.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 02:09 .

[Bill Casey]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

You are voluntarily choosing to believe that Synthesis is something other than what it is. There is no indication anywhere in the endings that synthesis has any resemblance to being a collector or a husk or being indoctrinated... if you choose to believe that, you are engaging in fanfiction to make the endings make more sense to you.

And that's part of the point of this thread: to morally justify any of the endings, you have to deliberately misunderstand how the other two endings work. You have to think with your gut rather than your head. You have to convince yourself that what the writers are trying to convey with the synthesis and control endings is a lie. You have to deliberately misinterpret huge stretches of exposition and closure, because they so inherently contradict other swaths of content in the game.

Bull****...

[CheeseWithMold]

Awesome professor, and he brings up the point that many other people have tried to, but failed.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

You can imagine whatever you want to imagine, but there is absolutely nothing in the slides after Synthesis to indicate that it is anything other than a magic wave that gives everyone superpowers. It might as well be a care-bear-stare!

Now, you might believe that the Care Bears are a force for evil, brainwashing their victims and destroying entire societies with their evil "stare," but that doesn't make it true. I can believe that everything after Thessia takes place in Shepard's head after she ate some bad shrimp, but that doesn't make me right.

According to all the evidence we have, all three endings turn out happy for everyone (except for red, which trades Edi and the Geth's survival and happiness for a chance for Shepard to live). If you want to make up a different story that is your right. You have the right to fanfiction and headcanon, but you have to be honest about which conclusions are explicitly endorsed by the text, and it's blatantly obvious that the intent of the ending was to portray all the endings other than refuse as inherently positive.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 02:16 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Made Nightwing what does your lit. professor say about the Indoctrination Theory? What is his opinion on that?

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

You are voluntarily choosing to believe that Synthesis is something other than what it is. There is no indication anywhere in the endings that synthesis has any resemblance to being a collector or a husk or being indoctrinated... if you choose to believe that, you are engaging in fanfiction to make the endings make more sense to you.

And that's part of the point of this thread: to morally justify any of the endings, you have to deliberately misunderstand how the other two endings work. You have to think with your gut rather than your head. You have to convince yourself that what the writers are trying to convey with the synthesis and control endings is a lie. You have to deliberately misinterpret huge stretches of exposition and closure, because they so inherently contradict other swaths of content in the game.

Bull****...

No, she's right actually.

[Urdnot Amenark]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I am already that somebody.  I'm willing to kill the Reapers to stop them.  In fact, I'm going to have to kill the Reapers to stop them.  Genocide is genocide, it doesn't matter how you go about it.  Refusal is committing genocide on a much grander scale than Destroy, although you do get to rationalize it by saying:  At least somebody else is doing the killing, I just allowed them to do it.  Dead Reapers = win.  Harvested galaxy = loss, and I didn't set out to lose.  I lose a lot, because I have a hard time getting past the Reaper laser, since it rips cruisers in half.  If I'm going past that point, I have a clear goal that is going to drive me there, and that is the destruction of the Reapers.  What were Garrus' numbers?  5 million dead the first day?  So yes, I would sacrifice a couple hundred million to save trillions of people.

So you believe that killing an enemy who is actively attacking you is morally equivalent to stabbing a friend in the back?

If you say "killing the Reapers is genocide. Killing the Geth is genocide, thus they are morally the same," you're being pointlessly reductionist and almost deliberately obtuse. Just being willing to kill the Reapers doesn't make you similar to the catalyst. Being willing to genocide an innocent race who trusts you does.

If you see no moral difference between killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you and killing an ally who trusts you, then we probably cannot have a sane conversation, because your moral code is utterly incomprehensible to me.

What I see is genocide.  What I see from refusing to take an action when I have the option to stop the complete genocide of all technologically advanced life is genocide on a grander scale.  What you're telling me is that it's better to let the Reapers kill everyone, thereby insuring that SC gets his way, the galaxy is harvested, and the cycle continues, than to kill, or potentially kill the Geth and EDI.  I understand that you can rationalize this genocide by saying "the Reapers did it", but since we've been playing three games looking for a way to stop them, and you've gotten yourself to the SC, your only viable option, is to play right into SC's hands?

I'm fighting a war.  In the course of fighting that war, people are going to die.  The idea is to minimize the casualties as much as possible.  You cannot prevent them, the other side isn't going to just stop, unless you stop them.  Genocide in self defence is still genocide, and frankly, I can live with knowing that the Reapers are all dead.  It's a good thing that Refusal kills you, because then you'd have to live with knowing you allowed the deaths of everyone you've ever met because you wanted to stick to some kind of principle.  Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters.  The silence is your answer.  I set out from Earth with the intention of getting help to stop the Reapers, not to appease them and let them continue on.  You're comfortable with that, and that's fine, my Brutal Renegade, and Paragon Shepards weren't.  My Self Righteous Paragon Shepard might be, as might a Self Righteous Renegade, depending on whatever motivations I come up with if I ever do that, as I think that one would be pretty hard.

However, to thine own self be true.  If you are ok with watching the harvest of all technologically advanced life in the galaxy to preserve the Geth, go for it.  I'm not going to judge you for allowing me to die when you could have stopped it.  Just so long as you realize that, in doing so, you have doomed the Geth to being harvested.  Either way, their oil is on your hands.

I have no idea why you imagine I think it's preferable to let the harvest continue. Perhaps you're arguing not with me, but with some kind of man, perhaps one who is made from straw?

You aren't killing a few million to save a few trillion; if you tell yourself that, you are lying to yourself. If your Shepard believes that destroy is the only way to save the trillions who would die if the reaping proceeds, he is explicitly wrong (as proven by the other endings where everyone lives happily ever after), and Shepard commits genocide merely because he does not understand any other possible solution... exactly why the catalyst has been committing all these genocides for years. Once again, your Shepard is embodying the Catalyst's philosophy and decision making. Your Shepard has exactly the same personality as the Catalyst.

Destroy isn't "killing billions to save trillions," it's "killing an entire race because I think the other options where everyone lives are troubling in other ways, so in this case I prefer genocide." Which is understandable, because the other choices are problematic, yes.

If that is your decision... that, when given three ways to save people, you believe that genociding a persecuted race who trusts you is less bad than becoming Space Big Brother or turning everyone green and psychic, then I understand. Both Space Big Brother and Strange Powers are scary and morally troubling in other ways.

But to phrase the quandary as if picking red was the only way to save lives is morally dishonest.  You aren't committing genocide because it's the only way to save the rest, you're committing genocide because you personally find genocide less troublesome than Space Big Brother or Transhumanism.

This depends on whether you consider Geth to be living beings. If they aren't alive to you, then they might as well be nothing more than talking toaster ovens and eliminating them isn't seen as much of a moral sacrifice so much as a utilitarian one. In this case it wouldn't be considered genocide.  

[robertthebard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
But to phrase the quandary as if picking red was the only way to save lives is morally dishonest.  You aren't committing genocide because it's the only way to save the rest, you're committing genocide because you personally find genocide less troublesome than Space Big Brother or Transhumanism.

...and I stated that much in a previous post to this exchange.  I do believe that, as Jack points out on the Collector ship, she'd rather be dead than a Collector.  Synthesis and Control were taken off the table, by me, as being worse than either other option.  This leaves me with two, letting everyone die, or killing the Geth, if I saved them, and EDI.  As I said, I don't have any problem playing it out as a Paragon, and choosing Destroy, because it's better than standing in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and saying "I did it my way", which is a lie, since I really just did it the Reaper's way.  So yes, I see Destroy as the lesser of the evils I'm willing to consider.  I already said as much, in more words, and probably not as clearly as I could have.

Jack says she's rather be dead than be a collector, but Shepard doesn't say she'd rather be dead than kept alive by cybernetics. Tali doesn't say she'd rather die than have a Geth living in her suit.

You are voluntarily choosing to believe that Synthesis is something other than what it is. There is no indication anywhere in the endings that synthesis has any resemblance to being a collector or a husk or being indoctrinated... if you choose to believe that, you are engaging in fanfiction to make the endings make more sense to you.

And that's part of the point of this thread: to morally justify any of the endings, you have to deliberately misunderstand how the other two endings work. You have to think with your gut rather than your head. You have to convince yourself that what the writers are trying to convey with the synthesis and control endings is a lie. You have to deliberately misinterpret huge stretches of exposition and closure, because they so inherently contradict other swaths of content in the game.

This is what I said on the previous page:

robertthebard said...
Synthesis isn't something I'd consider, although I think it's more because I don't know how I'd feel about altering everybody on a genetic(?) level. I'd feel like I was playing God with it, and I'm not into that.

Control is bad, because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Paragon Shepard, I have seen this at work with TIM recently, and I'm not willing to become him.

I don't seem to be misinterpreting anything about the endings as presented to come to my conclusion.  Hell, I might be ok for a millenia, but might still succumb to absolute power to destroy something I didn't like, just because I could, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of Synthesis, and here's the kicker, for precisely why you think I'm wrong, it's doing exactly what SC wants.  Of course, there's the whole altering everybody at the genetic level thing too, but...

I rolled these Shepards, and I played them according to how I felt they would behave, and when I finally got my paragon past the Reaper laser, I chose Destroy.  I'm not exactly sure, now, why I feel like I should have to justify that.  It is, when it came up, the option that ticked with that Shepard.  Most of mine don't get past the laser strike running to the beam, hence that line in my sig.  I do find it funny that you accuse me of following the SC's logic, and then suggest that SC's preferred ending is somehow superior though.

[Bill Casey]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

You can imagine whatever you want to imagine, but there is absolutely nothing in the slides after Synthesis to indicate that it is anything other than a magic wave that gives everyone superpowers. It might as well be a care-bear-stare!

Now, you might believe that the Care Bears are a force for evil, brainwashing their victims and destroying entire societies with their evil "stare," but that doesn't make it true. I can believe that everything after Thessia takes place in Shepard's head after she ate some bad shrimp, but that doesn't make me right.

According to all the evidence we have, all three endings turn out happy for everyone (except for red, which trades Edi and the Geth's survival and happiness for a chance for Shepard to live). If you want to make up a different story that is your right. You have the right to fanfiction and headcanon, but you have to be honest about which conclusions are explicitly endorsed by the text, and it's blatantly obvious that the intent of the ending was to portray all the endings other than refuse as inherently positive.

If you want to go by batantly obvious intent, then the ending is Shepard fighting indoctrination...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 août 2012 - 02:19 .

[Oxspit]

Flayed Man of A-Ton wrote...

<snippage>

You've had some good discussions. If you've discovered the meaning of life, congratulations, but that doesn't vindicate all of the denialist dwelling seen on this board. So much of the discussion here attempts to analyze or complain about an ending that no longer deserves either treatment.

<snippage>

So. Much. Sympathy. For this statement right now....

[Oxspit]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Made Nightwing what does your lit. professor say about the Indoctrination Theory? What is his opinion on that?

Yeah, I'd be interested to hear that, too, actually.....

[CulturalGeekGirl]

robertthebard wrote...
I don't seem to be misinterpreting anything about the endings as presented to come to my conclusion.  Hell, I might be ok for a millenia, but might still succumb to absolute power to destroy something I didn't like, just because I could, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of Synthesis, and here's the kicker, for precisely why you think I'm wrong, it's doing exactly what SC wants.  Of course, there's the whole altering everybody at the genetic level thing too, but...

I rolled these Shepards, and I played them according to how I felt they would behave, and when I finally got my paragon past the Reaper laser, I chose Destroy.  I'm not exactly sure, now, why I feel like I should have to justify that.  It is, when it came up, the option that ticked with that Shepard.  Most of mine don't get past the laser strike running to the beam, hence that line in my sig.  I do find it funny that you accuse me of following the SC's logic, and then suggest that SC's preferred ending is somehow superior though.

Pardon me... I've been involved in this thread for its entire lifespan, so there are some things I have previously iterated that may not be clear now.

Firstly, I believe that all the endings are terrible and stupid, including refuse. They are simply terrible and stupid in different ways.

Secondly, I believe there are three factors that influence the moral nature of each decision. I'll list them, in order of importance to me, from least important to most important:

1. What does the Catalyst think of this choice?
2. What must Shepard believe to make this choice?
3. What is the result of this choice?

Based on those criteria, the only downside for Synthesis is in category 1. The Catalyst likes the idea. I don't want to do anything he likes, but I believe what he thinks is the least important part of this equation.

Look at it this way: you are making a choice between eating a sandwich, eating a kitten, and eating a baby.  You'd obviously choose to eat the sandwich. 

Now imagine that the Robot Devil is there, and he's saying he's in favor of sandwich eating. Should that change the decision you make? I don't think it should. What the Robot Devil thinks only matters if you can't make the moral decision on your own, based on your own values.

To choose Synthesis, all Shepard has to believe is that "making everyone more like the Geth and EDI is better than committing genocide." I agree with that statement, so question 2 doesn't have a bad answer. And Question 3's answer is "everyone but Shepard lives happily ever after."

Now, let's examine Control. Again, the main problem comes from Criterion 1: the Catalyst likes it. There is also some difficulty in Criterion 2, since it requires Shepard to believe "Others may go mad will power, but I won't."  Criterion 3 seems pretty OK too, though with Renegade there is some implication of potential future menace.

Finally, let's examine Destroy.  Destroy's only area of strength is C1: the Catalyst doesn't like it. However, C2 requires Shepard to believe one of the following things that I consider pretty bad: "It is OK to commit genocide on a peaceful ally if it will achieve a win-state I find preferable," "Beings who are different from me have less value or no value," or Shepard can simply be wrong, and erroneously believe "the other two options are traps, this is the only one that won't result in everyone dying." So you have to chose to have your Shepard either embrace the Catalyst's philosophy, disregard the person-hood/value of an entire class of beings, or simply have so much tunnel vision that he can't even process that there's any option other than Genocide. Finally, this ending has the worst C3, if you base it exclusively on information we are explicitly delivered in cutscenes and ending slides.

How you rank the criteria is up to you.

If you think that C1 is the most important, make your decision based on that - but in that case, you are explicitly saying that it's more important to spite one person than to achieve a result that is favorable to everyone. You're basically saying "my need to disagree with a jerk is more important than an entire race's need to survive." 

As a last exercise, let's look at Refuse. I dislike refuse because of how I rank the criteria, which is, in part, because I factor in the actual result of my actions as portrayed by the narrative. If you explicitly decide not to factor in the actual result because Shepard wouldn't know the result, then Refuse is absolutely, positively the best. You're both 1. doing the thing the Catalyst hates the most and 2. believing in the power of cooperation and the human spirit. The only problem with Refuse is C3, but as someone who values C3, I can't consider it good.

To better understand your point of view, I'd like to ask what you think of my criteria, and how you rank them.

Note that I understand the desire to believe that Synthesis results in negative consequences, but I also think that such a belief is utterly unsupported by the text of the endings, especially in light of the "clarification" provided by the EC.

If you are making a decision based on your belief that Synthesis is bad, you are making a decision based on headcanon that directly contradicts the reality explicitly established by the ending, because the ending is poorly conceived.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 02:54 .

[SHARXTREME]

Again, the "needs of the many" is completely misinterpreted.
It is a decision of individual(or small group of individuals) to sacrifice THEMSELVES for the benefit(need) of larger group of people.
Since it is used mostly in Star Trek I will use that examples:
-Spock sacrifices himself to save Enterprise(correct, that's that)
-Picard rams the Enterprise into Romulan flagship to save Earth(correct)
-some General sacrifices a battalion to save 5 battalions(sort of analogue, soldiers swore an oath to give their life for the country and to obey orders)
-Legion sacrificing himself for Geth(correct)


Now to what is absolutely NOT the "needs of the many":
-Shepard sacrificing himself in Control
-Picard surrendering to Borg, becoming Locutus of Borg to save Federation(if his crew didn't save him the Borg would assimilate everybody with the knowledge Picard provided. This is similar to Control)
-Shepard sacrificing others without their previous or present consent in destroy
-Catalyst and Shepard "sacrificing" everybody for their own goals in Synthesis

In this particular ending situation, Shepard, TIM, Saren, Reapers and Catalyst are operating under "needs of one" or "needs of the idea".
The Many play side role. Whole galaxy is filled with red-shirts.
You see, if Catalyst asked Shepard to kill not just Geth, but also Krogans, Humans, Asari, etc. let's say 49%, 59%, 69%, 79%, 89%. 99% of the advanced species, it would still be the same and some people would find excuses even for that.

Basic mistake in misinterpretation of "needs of the many.." is in numbers.
People are not numbers. So it doesn't work both ways. Just, as I said, as self-sacrifice.
Even if some General orders you to sacrifice yourself, or your squad, company, etc. It is YOUR decision if you'll do it. If the situation(greater good) requires that AND if there's no other way you CAN do it for "the needs of the many".
But it is your decision, your sacred RIGHT as a sentient, intelligent being to choose, and you must in both cases be ready to live/die with the consequences from purely individual standpoint.

That is where I think that you mostly miss the target @robertthebard. You sound like(when you're describing Paragon) you're role playing as the general of the galaxy, but Shepard is not written that way.
You somehow mix-up rights for self-determination OF OTHERS with self-righteousness of the individual that is making decisions.

In this thread in particular most of people don't bother with results.
The question that is mostly raised here is the question of the very situation BEFORE the decision is made.(so you don't know what will happen, you just know who your Shepard was until that point, and you know what Catalyst tells you)
Questions are : Why trust Catalyst, why abandon Shepard's convictions and actions, and why choose something(reasons why).
One cannot make argument out of results, because you don't know the results when you're making the decision.
So refuse option is not mass genocide, you're not killing anyone, you don't know that Catalyst will turn-off the Crucible.
This is a major point. If Catalyst can turn-off the Crucible it is logical to conclude that he prefers to keep it ON. For what purpose? and why the hell he would let you to choose destroy?(because you're validating everything that he is about. Synthetics-organics war. Destroy is the core problem of Catalyst. Assumption that synthetics will kill all organics, so he kills those organics that can make those synthetics that will kill all organics, so he just kills that organics. Periodically. (what the hell BioWare)
Refuse is just Shepard's inaction faced with situation that is impossible to resolve with logic and knowledge that Shepard has.
"needs of the many.." don't apply here. "Rights of the many" would be more accurate.

So, what are the rights of the Geth?

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 08 août 2012 - 03:17 .

[SHARXTREME]

@CulturalGeekGirl

Why would you value C3 above others if you can't know the results?
In Refuse in particular you cannot know the results. But when you choose it you learn a very important thing. What Catalyst really thinks about all options. Mask drops there when you refuse that little holo-kids logic.

I don't care about ending movies at all. They are all "wonderful, happy and comforting" for that particular Shepard. Choices(lack of) is what I'm interested in, and you presented a good 5th choice with catalyst removal and possibly a Reapers guerrilla war as a result.

[Oxspit]

SHARXTREME wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl

Why would you value C3 above others if you can't know the results?
In Refuse in particular you cannot know the results. But when you choose it you learn a very important thing. What Catalyst really thinks about all options. Mask drops there when you refuse that little holo-kids logic.

I don't care about ending movies at all. They are all "wonderful, happy and comforting" for that particular Shepard. Choices(lack of) is what I'm interested in, and you presented a good 5th choice with catalyst removal and possibly a Reapers guerrilla war as a result.

I think what you get out of that type of ending is better than a reaper guerilla war. What you get is that, rather than having x thousand messianically genocidal gods with a common purpose to wipe you out, you have x thousand individuals with no real dog in any common fight at all.

What happens next is actually completely up in the air.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Reorte wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The other two endings? you wouldn't know because I'd need you to believe.

Sounds like Tinkerbell to me. I suppose that fits in with space magic.

Now that I'm back from my round of golf.... yes, the other two endings would be the Control and Synthesis. Magic. Horribly revolting. No one can control the reapers silly. Synthesis as described doesn't work. It can't. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Destroy would be seem horribly revolting the first time like it is now but you'd wake up from a nightmare if you picked it, but the second time things would be different -- no synthesis, no control, crucible would fire and destroy and be specific, and would be the war crime. But the whole thing would need to have been done with more attention paid to convincing the player on the first playthrough to become indoctrinated.

However if you didn't pick destroy, you as the player would be indoctrinated. I would need the player to believe, you understand? Of course the forums would have been alive with hate until the secret was figured out.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SHARXTREME wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl

Why would you value C3 above others if you can't know the results?
In Refuse in particular you cannot know the results. But when you choose it you learn a very important thing. What Catalyst really thinks about all options. Mask drops there when you refuse that little holo-kids logic.

I don't care about ending movies at all. They are all "wonderful, happy and comforting" for that particular Shepard. Choices(lack of) is what I'm interested in, and you presented a good 5th choice with catalyst removal and possibly a Reapers guerrilla war as a result.

I had to think long and hard about whether I would value C3, and I completely respect anyone who decides to disregard it.

It is very difficult for me to put into words why I decided to consider the results of the decisions. I think there are two factors.

Factor one: I always kind of assume that Shepard is intelligent.

It relates to how closely the result Shepard expects correlates with the result he achieves. The more perceptive, intelligent, and deductive Shepard is, the more closely what he believes the result will be would correlate with the result.

If you play a Shepard who is completely unable to predict the results of his own actions, then you're basically playing an idiot. Imagine a Shepard who sent Zaeed into the vents to solve a tech issue. Imagine a Shepard who didn't realize Wrex would get mad at him if he sabotaged the genophage.  Imagine a Shepard who thought he could survive sleeping with an Ardat Yakshi. I'm not saying that Shepard should be completely prescient, but generally Shepard seems to have some basic clue about how his actions will affect the future of the galaxy, and is acting on those clues.

Factor Two:

If you don't consider the consequences at the end, it's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion about the end, because someone can just say "Well, my Shepard believed that all 3 other options would lead to galaxywide extinction." There are reasons within the narrative prior to the ending for Shepard to believe that Destroy, Control, Synthesis, and Refuse would all be disasterous, and there are reasons within the narrative prior to the ending for Shepard to believe that any one (or all) of them would turn out perfectly OK.

As for the central idea of IT (you're put in a situation where X out of Y choices are a trap. Can you pick the one valid one?) I can write an Indoctrination theory philosophical justification where any of the three choices is the obviously philosophically correct one that frees you from indoctrination.

"Throughout the games, we've learned that only through understanding each other and working together can we achieve peace. The Green beam is symbolic of working together and rejecting intolerance, and only through rejecting intolerance can we defeat the Reapers. Green breaks indoctrination." 

"Throughout the games, we've seen people deciding to selflessly sacrifice themselves for the good of others. In Control, Shepard can sacrifice himself and then pilot all the Reapers into the sun, thus dying to save many. Only by embracing the theme of sacrifice and rejecting selfishness can one break indoctrination."

"Throughout the games, we've seen people trying to kill the Reapers. In Destroy, Shepard decides to kill the Reapers, thus rejecting them and embracing the idea that the ultimate goal was defeating enemies at all cost. By realizing this, Shepard can break indoctrination."

"Throughout the games, we've seen people determined to live their own lives rather than embrace the ideals of the Reapers. Whenever someone is indoctrinated, they become more open to moral compromise more willing to argue that the ends justify the means. By rejecting this philosophy that is core to indoctrination and picking refuse, Shepard can break indoctrination."

If you had presented me with these four choices and said "three of them are a trap," I would have easily gone to Refuse as the non-trap if I had no other data... though as shown above, a valid argument can be made that any of the four choices could symbolically represent rejecting the Reaper's premise.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 04:54 .

[robertthebard]

SHARXTREME wrote...

Again, the "needs of the many" is completely misinterpreted.
It is a decision of individual(or small group of individuals) to sacrifice THEMSELVES for the benefit(need) of larger group of people.
Since it is used mostly in Star Trek I will use that examples:
-Spock sacrifices himself to save Enterprise(correct, that's that)
-Picard rams the Enterprise into Romulan flagship to save Earth(correct)
-some General sacrifices a battalion to save 5 battalions(sort of analogue, soldiers swore an oath to give their life for the country and to obey orders)
-Legion sacrificing himself for Geth(correct)


Now to what is absolutely NOT the "needs of the many":
-Shepard sacrificing himself in Control
-Picard surrendering to Borg, becoming Locutus of Borg to save Federation(if his crew didn't save him the Borg would assimilate everybody with the knowledge Picard provided. This is similar to Control)
-Shepard sacrificing others without their previous or present consent in destroy
-Catalyst and Shepard "sacrificing" everybody for their own goals in Synthesis

In this particular ending situation, Shepard, TIM, Saren, Reapers and Catalyst are operating under "needs of one" or "needs of the idea".
The Many play side role. Whole galaxy is filled with red-shirts.
You see, if Catalyst asked Shepard to kill not just Geth, but also Krogans, Humans, Asari, etc. let's say 49%, 59%, 69%, 79%, 89%. 99% of the advanced species, it would still be the same and some people would find excuses even for that.

Basic mistake in misinterpretation of "needs of the many.." is in numbers.
People are not numbers. So it doesn't work both ways. Just, as I said, as self-sacrifice.
Even if some General orders you to sacrifice yourself, or your squad, company, etc. It is YOUR decision if you'll do it. If the situation(greater good) requires that AND if there's no other way you CAN do it for "the needs of the many".
But it is your decision, your sacred RIGHT as a sentient, intelligent being to choose, and you must in both cases be ready to live/die with the consequences from purely individual standpoint.

That is where I think that you mostly miss the target @robertthebard. You sound like(when you're describing Paragon) you're role playing as the general of the galaxy, but Shepard is not written that way.
You somehow mix-up rights for self-determination OF OTHERS with self-righteousness of the individual that is making decisions.

He does ask you, or allow you to do that, it's called Refusal. The problem people have connecting with this, as I said, is scope. They can't wrap their heads around the idea that it can go beyond a small sample size. It's too bad that everybody looks at Star Trek's reference, even though that scene is probably one of my favorites. This scenario is covered in a dialog between Garrus and Shepard, however.  It's why I would choose one over the other, of endings that I would choose, when I allow myself to get that far, so far, anyway.  Maybe a Sole Survivor Renegade Shep could choose Control.  My Brutal Renegade chose Destroy, and we've discussed why, previously.  When that General gives that order, that's exactly what they are considering.  What's more important, these lives here, or those lives there?

I am making this decision like I'm the general of the galaxy because, for all intents and purposes, I am.  From Day 1 of ME 1, the responsibility of dealing with this menace has been on my head.  It is all good to look at the choices in hindsight, and get all philosophical, but when I'm in game, at SC, if I can get there, I'm a soldier.  I can't get myself to believe in Synthesis, or Control, as I see the latter as a trap, and the former as an abomination.  I am making my choice as if I'm in charge because everybody that I've talked to about it for the entire series believes that if I can't do it, it can't be done.  They put me in charge, in all but rank, even if I'm playing Brutal Renegade.  You can have this discussion with Liara on the way to the Citadel for the first time.

In this thread in particular most of people don't bother with results.
The question that is mostly raised here is the question of the very situation BEFORE the decision is made.(so you don't know what will happen, you just know who your Shepard was until that point, and you know what Catalyst tells you)
Questions are : Why trust Catalyst, why abandon Shepard's convictions and actions, and why choose something(reasons why).
One cannot make argument out of results, because you don't know the results when you're making the decision.
So refuse option is not mass genocide, you're not killing anyone, you don't know that Catalyst will turn-off the Crucible.
This is a major point. If Catalyst can turn-off the Crucible it is logical to conclude that he prefers to keep it ON. For what purpose? and why the hell he would let you to choose destroy?(because you're validating everything that he is about. Synthetics-organics war. Destroy is the core problem of Catalyst. Assumption that synthetics will kill all organics, so he kills those organics that can make those synthetics that will kill all organics, so he just kills that organics. Periodically. (what the hell BioWare)
Refuse is just Shepard's inaction faced with situation that is impossible to resolve with logic and knowledge that Shepard has.
"needs of the many.." don't apply here. "Rights of the many" would be more accurate.

So, what are the rights of the Geth?

This is exactly how I make my decision.  I'm not thinking about the pretty slide show, I'm role playing what my Shepard of the moment would do.  It's the only way I can make myself play through "zombie with a pistol" mode.  I consider the carnage I witnessed on Palaven, even if I didn't see it directly, but just from space, or maybe because it's so bad I can see it from space?  I consider the carnage I witnessed on Thessia, first hand.  I consider what I saw of Earth in the opening cutscene, including duct boy, although I do wax philosophical here, as it's not the boy, so much as all the people that are going to die while I, a soldier, am off playing politician to stop the Reapers, instead of being in the trenches, doing, as Garrus says in 2, what I do best.  If, as it's laid out, Shepard is the only hope, and everybody, including the Geth, have placed their full faith in me, which, if I can save them they do, then the only thing that I have to believe to make my choice, where this comes into play at all, which I believe it would as a Paragon Shep, is that everyone that has pledged to follow me into hell meant it, because, at this point, I'm in hell, and forced to decide the fate of the entire galaxy.

I will not play God, so Control and to a large extent Synthesis are off the table.  At this point, the "I really thought the Crucible would work differently than it does, and this is what turns me off most about the endings" comes in, but I built the Crucible, granted, not physically, but without the resources that I sent, it wouldn't get done, to destroy the Reapers.  This is what I believed it would do, although how was a question, and a valid one.  Being a soldier, and being entrusted with the fate of the galaxy, why would I choose to do nothing and let everyone die?  I see a lot of "Why would anyone believe the SC", and yet, I see a lot of "he says it will kill the Geth and EDI".  Am I supposed to believe that everything but that is a lie?  Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that, given it will destroy SC, that it would say anything if it thought you'd be adverse to destroying more than you bargained for?  Of course, in hindsight, we do know it's telling the truth, but, at that time, w/out metagaming, we don't.  In so far as we know, this could be the only lie it's telling us.

None of the choices are good, this is why I dislike playing to them.  This is why I'd like to see the Ultimate Refusal Ending, where you can export at the beam in London.  This is my preferred ending since, as I have laid out before, I can't see my personal armor being better than a cruiser's armor, or even a shuttle's.  However, given that that option doesn't exist, and that the only way to get some of the achievements is that I have to actually finish the game, I choose according to what my soldier would do at that point.  The 2 finishes I have, the Brutal Renegade, and a Paragon, with no particular bent, both saw Destroy as the lesser of the evils.  Brutal's was, of course, extremely selfishly motivated, and with the EMS I had at the time, resulted in her death as well, no breathe scene.  Paragon Shep chose it because it was everybody, or not.  This was the first game where I had achieved peace between the Geth/Quarians, and it was sad, but it was that, or everybody dies.  Needs of the many.  The many needed the Reapers destroyed, and that's what they got.  I could have chosen the needs of the One, selfishly choosing to rewrite the entire galaxy to assuage my own conscience, but that wasn't how that Shepard got there.  Ultimately, I may do one that does, but it wasn't any of the ones that got there so far.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

robertthebard wrote...

I will not play God, so Control and to a large extent Synthesis are off the table.  At this point, the "I really thought the Crucible would work differently than it does, and this is what turns me off most about the endings" comes in, but I built the Crucible, granted, not physically, but without the resources that I sent, it wouldn't get done, to destroy the Reapers.  This is what I believed it would do, although how was a question, and a valid one.  Being a soldier, and being entrusted with the fate of the galaxy, why would I choose to do nothing and let everyone die?  I see a lot of "Why would anyone believe the SC", and yet, I see a lot of "he says it will kill the Geth and EDI".  Am I supposed to believe that everything but that is a lie?  Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that, given it will destroy SC, that it would say anything if it thought you'd be adverse to destroying more than you bargained for?  Of course, in hindsight, we do know it's telling the truth, but, at that time, w/out metagaming, we don't.  In so far as we know, this could be the only lie it's telling us.

I don't understand this argument at all, and I never have.

Why is controlling a bunch of spacehships and piloting them all into the sun "playing god," while hitting a button that destroys all those spaceships and also destroys a bunch of other races and murders your friend not "playing god." What is your definition of 'playing god'? Because based on what you say here, it seems to only include whatever you conveniently find unpleasant.

As for disbelieving the Catalyst... If you don't believe that the Red beam will kill synthetics, why on god's green earth would you believe it will kill Reapers? The only reason you have to believe either of those things is that the Catalyst tells you. Both statements are equally ridiculous and nonsensical: why would shooting a random tube kill the Reapers?

if you choose to disbelieve that it will kill the Geth but choose to believe that it will kill the Reapers, you are being completely illogical. You're picking what to believe and disbelieve based on absolutely nothing but whim and fancy. You might as well be claiming that you believed the red beam would give everyone ice cream sundaes. I could equally validly claim I thought the Catalyst was using reverse psychology in order to trick me into not using the green beam.

Heck, the ONLY decision that makes sense if you decide to disbelieve the catalyst is to try to destroy him by shooting him... making "shoot-in-the-face Refuse" the only choice that even remotely approaches rationality. There's no downside to shooting the holo in the face, if you are actually trying to incorporate being suspicious of the Starkid and completely unaware of the true consequences into your decision-making.

Once you decide that your Shepard believed some things and disbelieved other things based on nothing but gut instinct, you are portraying your Shepard as a superstitious, illogical xenophobe who committed genocide simply because it was the only choice he thought he was capable of understanding... (though if he made that decision while thinking it wouldn't kill the Geth, it turns out he was incapable of understanding anything at all.)

If that's the kind of person you believe Commander Shepard was, then I can understand why Destroy makes sense.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 09:55 .