55528 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

LOL. Maybe in LoTR it wouldn't make sense but in Mass Effect definately. Even more so considering that the current ending is not at the real end of the game. Also, friend betrayal is what is caused by indoctrination, isn't it?

Ok, I'm convinced that you're not yanking my chain and instead just missed my point, so I'll explain:

No narrative that spans multiple works can get away with having a beloved, meaningful, supportive pillar become a traitor at the very end of the story without offering proper vindication or closure for that character. Thats why I said what did in my earlier post, that it makes sense that BW would get that vindication out of the way with the "Anderson" scene in Shepard's head, which is a very fitting closure for Anderson's character and the role he plays as Shepard's pillar of support throughout the narrative. So, since we know that vindication and closure is already preestablished for him, they can safely indoctrinate him and do whatever they want in the EC, as long as it's tasteful.

Does that make sense?

[HellishFiend]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Hey guys. not sure how many of you actually remember me, but it's been hectic at work hence the lack of, well, anything from me. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do, but it's good to see some familiar faces.

Keep up the good work. Hopefully the payout is worth the speculation.

Yep, I remember of course.  Before you start catching up, check this out!

The Sounds of Possession

[FellishBeast]

HellishFiend wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I think what you all trying to say is that the second mention of Anderson being born in London is a hidden message. The real Anderson is still there and tries to communicate with Shepard but the indoctrination doesn't allow him to speak straight so he has to resort to speaking figuratively.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I do think that second mention is rather fishy. Like Manhattan's Chinatown fishy.

Basically what paxxton is saying is that we feel that it means something. And I agree with that. The possibilities are quite numerous. To start off, if we assume it means something, it could be the good part of Anderson trying to reach out, or a slip up of some kind from the new, Reaper doomsday device version of Anderson. From there, it completely branches out into a tree of different scenarios. And we have little evidence to use with which to narrow it down. The only thing we'd be able to do is list out all the possibilities. We'd never be able to single one out as the most likely. 

I actually want to make a list. Pretty pretty pleeeeease. We're not speculating anything important right now anyways.

[KevShep]

DrTsoni wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Continuing playthrough, just reached second dream. Turned off the music and raised the volume and now I must say...

...those oily shadows are obnoxiously loud (duh, I turned up the volume). Near the end when they gather together around the boy they sound decidedly mechanical. But we know this already.

I noticed that when Liara talks to her father, the writers made a point to remind us of Benezia's description of what it's like to be indoctrinated: hitting on the glass while watching your body act against your will. Very similar to players punching the television sets during the sequence with the Starchild. Yeah, so we think those ten minutes were bad? Imagine Benezia's point of view...

Anyhow, I had a thought. Someone mentioned that Indoctrination may involve nanid(t)es. As I was playing the Tuchanka mission I was once again confronted with the question of what that Reaper destroyer was doing at the Shroud. They stated that the Reapers were using the shroud to poison the atmosphere of the planet, but the question is: poison it with what? If indoctrination can occur through nanotech spores, then it seems to me that the Shroud is a perfect mechanism for rapidly dispensing such spores across the planet.

Very good point. I thought it was a different kind of indoctrination (the difference between being TIM/Saren and a husk) but it's possible that would work the same way. Considering how resiliant the Krogan are, it could take them longer to get indoctrinated and there's several theories floating around about the squadies being indoctrinated, too. There are several opportunities but this makes so much sense, it's actually worrisome.

Also, for some reason the way you worded this post made me giggle

No, indoctrination can not happen with spores. Its a process that is done through the limbic system. The reapers CANT control your thoughts they can only give you suggestions and the more you listen to there suggestions the harder it is to ignore because there will starts to look more and more correct.

The only way they can control your thoughts is with "Direct Control" (like saren had..."implants"). If they are using direct control then they are no longer useing the indoctrination process because indoctrination is about manipulation without direct control.

[HellishFiend]

FellishBeast wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I think what you all trying to say is that the second mention of Anderson being born in London is a hidden message. The real Anderson is still there and tries to communicate with Shepard but the indoctrination doesn't allow him to speak straight so he has to resort to speaking figuratively.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I do think that second mention is rather fishy. Like Manhattan's Chinatown fishy.

Basically what paxxton is saying is that we feel that it means something. And I agree with that. The possibilities are quite numerous. To start off, if we assume it means something, it could be the good part of Anderson trying to reach out, or a slip up of some kind from the new, Reaper doomsday device version of Anderson. From there, it completely branches out into a tree of different scenarios. And we have little evidence to use with which to narrow it down. The only thing we'd be able to do is list out all the possibilities. We'd never be able to single one out as the most likely. 

I actually want to make a list. Pretty pretty pleeeeease. We're not speculating anything important right now anyways.

Sure, shoot! The "we need to make a new topic for it" bit was just a playful overstatement. 

[BleedingUranium]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

LOL. Maybe in LoTR it wouldn't make sense but in Mass Effect definately. Even more so considering that the current ending is not at the real end of the game. Also, friend betrayal is what is caused by indoctrination, isn't it?

Ok, I'm convinced that you're not yanking my chain and instead just missed my point, so I'll explain:

No narrative that spans multiple works can get away with having a beloved, meaningful, supportive pillar become a traitor at the very end of the story without offering proper vindication or closure for that character. Thats why I said what did in my earlier post, that it makes sense that BW would get that vindication out of the way with the "Anderson" scene in Shepard's head, which is a very fitting closure for Anderson's character and the role he plays as Shepard's pillar of support throughout the narrative. So, since we know that vindication and closure is already preestablished for him, they can safely indoctrinate him and do whatever they want in the EC, as long as it's tasteful.

Does that make sense?

Which is exactly why I think it's very likely. There's some good in game evidence, but the story sets up the possibility sooo well, that's what has convinced me.

[BatmanTurian]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Hey guys. not sure how many of you actually remember me, but it's been hectic at work hence the lack of, well, anything from me. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do, but it's good to see some familiar faces.

Keep up the good work. Hopefully the payout is worth the speculation.

of course we remember you!

[HellishFiend]

BleedingUranium wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

LOL. Maybe in LoTR it wouldn't make sense but in Mass Effect definately. Even more so considering that the current ending is not at the real end of the game. Also, friend betrayal is what is caused by indoctrination, isn't it?

Ok, I'm convinced that you're not yanking my chain and instead just missed my point, so I'll explain:

No narrative that spans multiple works can get away with having a beloved, meaningful, supportive pillar become a traitor at the very end of the story without offering proper vindication or closure for that character. Thats why I said what did in my earlier post, that it makes sense that BW would get that vindication out of the way with the "Anderson" scene in Shepard's head, which is a very fitting closure for Anderson's character and the role he plays as Shepard's pillar of support throughout the narrative. So, since we know that vindication and closure is already preestablished for him, they can safely indoctrinate him and do whatever they want in the EC, as long as it's tasteful.

Does that make sense?

Which is exactly why I think it's very likely. There's some good in game evidence, but the story sets up the possibility sooo well, that's what has convinced me.

Agreed.

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

LOL. Maybe in LoTR it wouldn't make sense but in Mass Effect definately. Even more so considering that the current ending is not at the real end of the game. Also, friend betrayal is what is caused by indoctrination, isn't it?

Ok, I'm convinced that you're not yanking my chain and instead just missed my point, so I'll explain:

No narrative that spans multiple works can get away with having a beloved, meaningful, supportive pillar become a traitor at the very end of the story without offering proper vindication or closure for that character. Thats why I said what did in my earlier post, that it makes sense that BW would get that vindication out of the way with the "Anderson" scene in Shepard's head, which is a very fitting closure for Anderson's character and the role he plays as Shepard's pillar of support throughout the narrative. So, since we know that vindication and closure is already preestablished for him, they can safely indoctrinate him and do whatever they want in the EC, as long as it's tasteful.

Does that make sense?

Yes. But being indoctrinated and acting against Shepard doesn't make Anderson a traitor. He wouldn't be responsible  because he wouldn't control himself. He'd be changed mentally. This is the "elegance" of indoctrination. Good people do evil things while still remaining good.

The closure and vindication can come later when Shepard helps Anderson break free of indoctrination. But your idea also works well.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 juin 2012 - 03:11 .

[BatmanTurian]

KevShep wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Continuing playthrough, just reached second dream. Turned off the music and raised the volume and now I must say...

...those oily shadows are obnoxiously loud (duh, I turned up the volume). Near the end when they gather together around the boy they sound decidedly mechanical. But we know this already.

I noticed that when Liara talks to her father, the writers made a point to remind us of Benezia's description of what it's like to be indoctrinated: hitting on the glass while watching your body act against your will. Very similar to players punching the television sets during the sequence with the Starchild. Yeah, so we think those ten minutes were bad? Imagine Benezia's point of view...

Anyhow, I had a thought. Someone mentioned that Indoctrination may involve nanid(t)es. As I was playing the Tuchanka mission I was once again confronted with the question of what that Reaper destroyer was doing at the Shroud. They stated that the Reapers were using the shroud to poison the atmosphere of the planet, but the question is: poison it with what? If indoctrination can occur through nanotech spores, then it seems to me that the Shroud is a perfect mechanism for rapidly dispensing such spores across the planet.

Very good point. I thought it was a different kind of indoctrination (the difference between being TIM/Saren and a husk) but it's possible that would work the same way. Considering how resiliant the Krogan are, it could take them longer to get indoctrinated and there's several theories floating around about the squadies being indoctrinated, too. There are several opportunities but this makes so much sense, it's actually worrisome.

Also, for some reason the way you worded this post made me giggle

No, indoctrination can not happen with spores. Its a process that is done through the limbic system. The reapers CANT control your thoughts they can only give you suggestions and the more you listen to there suggestions the harder it is to ignore because there will starts to look more and more correct.

The only way they can control your thoughts is with "Direct Control" (like saren had..."implants"). If they are using direct control then they are no longer useing the indoctrination process because indoctrination is about manipulation without direct control.

Actually, nanites are what they use to turn organics into slurpees and they're also used in dragon's teeth and other artifacts to turn organics into husks. So a nanite indoctrination/huskification process does exist.

[prettz]

question
is the Derelict Reaper aware or is it the equivalent of brain dead?

[BatmanTurian]

prettz wrote...

question
is the Derelict Reaper aware or is it the equivalent of brain dead?

I think it's more like... brain-damaged and in a coma but not brain dead.

[paxxton]

prettz wrote...

question
is the Derelict Reaper aware or is it the equivalent of brain dead?

It may be something lika paralysis.

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

Yes. But being indoctrinated and acting against Shepard doesn't make Anderson a traitor. He wouldn't be responsible  because he wouldn't conntrol himself. He'd be changed mentally. This is the "elegance" of indoctrination. Good people do evil things while still remaining good.

The closure and vindication can come later when Shepard helps Anderson break free of indoctrination. But your idea also works well.

http://i0.kym-cdn.co...55/594/yesitis2

Didnt we just have the emotions dont mix well with logic conversation earlier today? <_< I seem to remember we did. 

Just because it "makes sense" that Anderson's character could be used that way doesnt mean it wont ****** the audience off. Just because you can rationalize it doesnt make it good storytelling. Remember, storytelling is a form of entertainment, and you ruin that entertainment with garbage like building up a character like Anderson's only to collapse him in on himself at the very end when the audience is expecting the climax and closure. That's suicide, and analogous to the outcry over the literal interpretation of ME3 as it stands now. You may not quite understand the role that Anderson truly plays in the narrative if you think that sort of thing would fly. It might work for other archetypes of character, but not Anderson. 

Keep in mind I'm operating under the assumption that Anderson would not be able to break indoctrination, because I dont think we have any reason to assume that he would, without drawing conclusions that cant be supported. 

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Yes. But being indoctrinated and acting against Shepard doesn't make Anderson a traitor. He wouldn't be responsible  because he wouldn't conntrol himself. He'd be changed mentally. This is the "elegance" of indoctrination. Good people do evil things while still remaining good.

The closure and vindication can come later when Shepard helps Anderson break free of indoctrination. But your idea also works well.

http://i0.kym-cdn.co...55/594/yesitis2

Didnt we just have the emotions dont mix well with logic conversation earlier today? <_< I seem to remember we did. 

Just because it "makes sense" that Anderson's character could be used that way doesnt mean it wont ****** the audience off. Just because you can rationalize it doesnt make it good storytelling. Remember, storytelling is a form of entertainment, and you ruin that entertainment with garbage like building up a character like Anderson's only to collapse him in on himself at the very end when the audience is expecting the climax and closure. That's suicide, and analogous to the outcry over the literal interpretation of ME3 as it stands now. You may not quite understand the role that Anderson truly plays in the narrative if you think that sort of thing would fly. It might work for other archetypes of character, but not Anderson. 

Keep in mind I'm operating under the assumption that Anderson would not be able to break indoctrination, because I dont think we have any reason to assume that he would, without drawing conclusions that cant be supported. 

If he's been around Coats for a signifigant time or around people Coats also indoctrinated, then the Anderson we knew is already dead. If you think about it, the second we found the infrasonic signature coming off Coats is the moment we should have known that Anderson was already gone. If you think it would ****** of the players... think how much it would ****** off Shepard (providing Shep doesn't become indoctrinated).

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 19 juin 2012 - 03:17 .

[KevShep]

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Continuing playthrough, just reached second dream. Turned off the music and raised the volume and now I must say...

...those oily shadows are obnoxiously loud (duh, I turned up the volume). Near the end when they gather together around the boy they sound decidedly mechanical. But we know this already.

I noticed that when Liara talks to her father, the writers made a point to remind us of Benezia's description of what it's like to be indoctrinated: hitting on the glass while watching your body act against your will. Very similar to players punching the television sets during the sequence with the Starchild. Yeah, so we think those ten minutes were bad? Imagine Benezia's point of view...

Anyhow, I had a thought. Someone mentioned that Indoctrination may involve nanid(t)es. As I was playing the Tuchanka mission I was once again confronted with the question of what that Reaper destroyer was doing at the Shroud. They stated that the Reapers were using the shroud to poison the atmosphere of the planet, but the question is: poison it with what? If indoctrination can occur through nanotech spores, then it seems to me that the Shroud is a perfect mechanism for rapidly dispensing such spores across the planet.

Very good point. I thought it was a different kind of indoctrination (the difference between being TIM/Saren and a husk) but it's possible that would work the same way. Considering how resiliant the Krogan are, it could take them longer to get indoctrinated and there's several theories floating around about the squadies being indoctrinated, too. There are several opportunities but this makes so much sense, it's actually worrisome.

Also, for some reason the way you worded this post made me giggle

No, indoctrination can not happen with spores. Its a process that is done through the limbic system. The reapers CANT control your thoughts they can only give you suggestions and the more you listen to there suggestions the harder it is to ignore because there will starts to look more and more correct.

The only way they can control your thoughts is with "Direct Control" (like saren had..."implants"). If they are using direct control then they are no longer useing the indoctrination process because indoctrination is about manipulation without direct control.

Actually, nanites are what they use to turn organics into slurpees and they're also used in dragon's teeth and other artifacts to turn organics into husks. So a nanite indoctrination/huskification process does exist.

No the husks by dragons teeth is NOT indoctrination. Its just plain husks.

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

If he's been around Coats for a signifigant time or around people Coats also indoctrinated, then the Anderson we knew is already dead. If you think about it, the second we found the infrasonic signiture coming off Coats is the moment we should have known that Anderson was already gone. If you think it would ****** of the players... think how much it would ****** off Shepard (providing Shep doesn't become indoctrinated).

Yes, but this entire conversation is based around the point that Anderson's character needs vindication and closure in order to turncoat at the very end of the story.  paxxton seems to be saying that he doesnt think that vindication and closure is necessary in order to use his character that way because it would make sense in the lore.  That's narrative suicide. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 19 juin 2012 - 03:18 .

[BatmanTurian]

KevShep wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Continuing playthrough, just reached second dream. Turned off the music and raised the volume and now I must say...

...those oily shadows are obnoxiously loud (duh, I turned up the volume). Near the end when they gather together around the boy they sound decidedly mechanical. But we know this already.

I noticed that when Liara talks to her father, the writers made a point to remind us of Benezia's description of what it's like to be indoctrinated: hitting on the glass while watching your body act against your will. Very similar to players punching the television sets during the sequence with the Starchild. Yeah, so we think those ten minutes were bad? Imagine Benezia's point of view...

Anyhow, I had a thought. Someone mentioned that Indoctrination may involve nanid(t)es. As I was playing the Tuchanka mission I was once again confronted with the question of what that Reaper destroyer was doing at the Shroud. They stated that the Reapers were using the shroud to poison the atmosphere of the planet, but the question is: poison it with what? If indoctrination can occur through nanotech spores, then it seems to me that the Shroud is a perfect mechanism for rapidly dispensing such spores across the planet.

Very good point. I thought it was a different kind of indoctrination (the difference between being TIM/Saren and a husk) but it's possible that would work the same way. Considering how resiliant the Krogan are, it could take them longer to get indoctrinated and there's several theories floating around about the squadies being indoctrinated, too. There are several opportunities but this makes so much sense, it's actually worrisome.

Also, for some reason the way you worded this post made me giggle

No, indoctrination can not happen with spores. Its a process that is done through the limbic system. The reapers CANT control your thoughts they can only give you suggestions and the more you listen to there suggestions the harder it is to ignore because there will starts to look more and more correct.

The only way they can control your thoughts is with "Direct Control" (like saren had..."implants"). If they are using direct control then they are no longer useing the indoctrination process because indoctrination is about manipulation without direct control.

Actually, nanites are what they use to turn organics into slurpees and they're also used in dragon's teeth and other artifacts to turn organics into husks. So a nanite indoctrination/huskification process does exist.

No the husks by dragons teeth is NOT indoctrination. Its just plain husks.

How are they not indoctrinated if they are being controlled by the Reapers? Husks are the eventuality of EVERY indoctrination.

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Yes. But being indoctrinated and acting against Shepard doesn't make Anderson a traitor. He wouldn't be responsible  because he wouldn't control himself. He'd be changed mentally. This is the "elegance" of indoctrination. Good people do evil things while still remaining good.

The closure and vindication can come later when Shepard helps Anderson break free of indoctrination. But your idea also works well.

Didnt we just have the emotions dont mix well with logic conversation earlier today? <_< I seem to remember we did. 

Just because it "makes sense" that Anderson's character could be used that way doesnt mean it wont ****** the audience off. Just because you can rationalize it doesnt make it good storytelling. Remember, storytelling is a form of entertainment, and you ruin that entertainment with garbage like building up a character like Anderson's only to collapse him in on himself at the very end when the audience is expecting the climax and closure. That's suicide, and analogous to the outcry over the literal interpretation of ME3 as it stands now. You may not quite understand the role that Anderson truly plays in the narrative if you think that sort of thing would fly. It might work for other archetypes of character, but not Anderson. 

Keep in mind I'm operating under the assumption that Anderson would not be able to break indoctrination, because I dont think we have any reason to assume that he would, without drawing conclusions that cant be supported. 

Yes, it would be unpleasant but natural given what indoctrination is. I understand that Anderson in ME series represents "good" but still I can think of this "good" being polluted by "evil" because Anderson is only human. I want ME storytelling to present plausible situations given the lore and Reapers destroying (literally and figuratively) everything is definately something that can happen in that Universe.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 juin 2012 - 03:20 .

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

No the husks by dragons teeth is NOT indoctrination. Its just plain husks.

How are they not indoctrinated if they are being controlled by the Reapers? Husks are the eventuality of EVERY indoctrination.

BT, KevShep is right on this one. By chance, have you read the books? They explore this topic in greater detail compared to the information presented by the games.

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

If he's been around Coats for a signifigant time or around people Coats also indoctrinated, then the Anderson we knew is already dead. If you think about it, the second we found the infrasonic signiture coming off Coats is the moment we should have known that Anderson was already gone. If you think it would ****** of the players... think how much it would ****** off Shepard (providing Shep doesn't become indoctrinated).

Yes, but this entire conversation is based around the point that Anderson's character needs vindication and closure in order to turncoat at the very end of the story.  paxxton seems to be saying that he doesnt think that vindication and closure is necessary in order to use his character that way because it would make sense in the lore.  That's narrative suicide. 

I agree with you. Anderson should attempt to break free again at Shepard's bidding through renegade or paragon but instead of shooting himself, he should hand the gun to Shep and have Shep do it. He's the kind of person who would want a friend to do it instead of cowardly doing it himself like Saren. I think that moment, with Shep in tears having to shoot his mentor while Anderson is still lucid, would be very powerful.

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

Yes, it would be unpleasant but natural given what indoctrination is. I understand that Anderson in ME series represents "good" but still I can think of this "good" being polluted by "evil" because Anderson is only human. I want ME storytelling to present plausible situations given the lore and Reapers destroying (literally and figuratively) everything is definately something that can happen in that Universe.

Well, that may be your opinion, but no respectable author would ever do that, I assure you. Vindication and closure. Necessary for Anderson's archetype. End of story. 

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

No the husks by dragons teeth is NOT indoctrination. Its just plain husks.

How are they not indoctrinated if they are being controlled by the Reapers? Husks are the eventuality of EVERY indoctrination.

BT, KevShep is right on this one. By chance, have you read the books? They explore this topic in greater detail compared to the information presented by the games.

I always understood that focused, fast indoctrination produced husks. That was my understanding. but if you guys are right then my bad.

[KevShep]

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Continuing playthrough, just reached second dream. Turned off the music and raised the volume and now I must say...

...those oily shadows are obnoxiously loud (duh, I turned up the volume). Near the end when they gather together around the boy they sound decidedly mechanical. But we know this already.

I noticed that when Liara talks to her father, the writers made a point to remind us of Benezia's description of what it's like to be indoctrinated: hitting on the glass while watching your body act against your will. Very similar to players punching the television sets during the sequence with the Starchild. Yeah, so we think those ten minutes were bad? Imagine Benezia's point of view...

Anyhow, I had a thought. Someone mentioned that Indoctrination may involve nanid(t)es. As I was playing the Tuchanka mission I was once again confronted with the question of what that Reaper destroyer was doing at the Shroud. They stated that the Reapers were using the shroud to poison the atmosphere of the planet, but the question is: poison it with what? If indoctrination can occur through nanotech spores, then it seems to me that the Shroud is a perfect mechanism for rapidly dispensing such spores across the planet.

Very good point. I thought it was a different kind of indoctrination (the difference between being TIM/Saren and a husk) but it's possible that would work the same way. Considering how resiliant the Krogan are, it could take them longer to get indoctrinated and there's several theories floating around about the squadies being indoctrinated, too. There are several opportunities but this makes so much sense, it's actually worrisome.

Also, for some reason the way you worded this post made me giggle

No, indoctrination can not happen with spores. Its a process that is done through the limbic system. The reapers CANT control your thoughts they can only give you suggestions and the more you listen to there suggestions the harder it is to ignore because there will starts to look more and more correct.

The only way they can control your thoughts is with "Direct Control" (like saren had..."implants"). If they are using direct control then they are no longer useing the indoctrination process because indoctrination is about manipulation without direct control.

Actually, nanites are what they use to turn organics into slurpees and they're also used in dragon's teeth and other artifacts to turn organics into husks. So a nanite indoctrination/huskification process does exist.

No the husks by dragons teeth is NOT indoctrination. Its just plain husks.

How are they not indoctrinated if they are being controlled by the Reapers? Husks are the eventuality of EVERY indoctrination.

Husks as more then one meaning. The indoctrinated husks (like the ones on vermire) are in the final stage of functioning and they are nothing but gibbering animals that will stand there and die of starvation. These "husks" are not synthetic at all.

Indoctrination is manipulation through the limbic system. If direct control is used the the process of indoctrination is no longer used on the subject. In the derelict reaper in ME2 the people there were indoctrinated and then they put themselves on dragons teeth. Notice that they were not indoctrinated on dragons teeth as they were still alive. THEN...they were put on dragons teeth.

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Yes, it would be unpleasant but natural given what indoctrination is. I understand that Anderson in ME series represents "good" but still I can think of this "good" being polluted by "evil" because Anderson is only human. I want ME storytelling to present plausible situations given the lore and Reapers destroying (literally and figuratively) everything is definately something that can happen in that Universe.

Well, that may be your opinion, but no respectable author would ever do that, I assure you. Vindication and closure. Necessary for Anderson's archetype. End of story. 

I agree. But indoctrination is not preventing him from receiving closure and vindication afterwards. Think what could happen if ME was real and you'll understand why it makes sense.